Tagged: “New Ideas”
A Call for Corrections to Truly Engage in Correction for Those Imprisoned
I must admit to being surprised by the reaction of so many administrators of correctional institutions. Here is what I mean. I know of three different groups, with many years of experience in the science of forgiveness, that recently have contacted corrections officials to request research programs to aid imprisoned people, who have been treated unjustly in the past, to learn to forgive so that their resentment can be reduced. With their reduced resentment, those imprisoned who have been beaten down in the past may be less likely to displace that rage onto others. Yet, the three different groups mentioned above have been rejected or at least met with ambivalence when requesting, at no charge to the institution, forgiveness programs for the inmates. This negative reaction has occurred in a country in Western Europe, in an Asian country, and in the United States. In each case, trained personnel outside of the institution would implement the forgiveness programs. Further, trained personnel outside the institution would give the pretest and post-test questionnaires so that only a very limited amount of time would be required by any of the professionals within the institution. Yet, the rejections and ambivalence remain.
It seems, and to me this is a tragedy, that those in charge, who could say yes to such forgiveness programs, just do not see the importance of such rehabilitation. We do have scientific evidence that such forgiveness programs work well in correctional institutions when we are given the chance to implement them. You can read about this success here in an earlier blog on this website:
All is not negative in this case of corrections. We are communicating with researchers in Brazil, Spain, and Israel who are interested in helping the imprisoned or those recently released. The voice of one released and who engaged in a forgiveness program has been captured on film from an international conference in July of 2022. His name is Sylvester Jackson. Take a look at his testimony and then ask yourself: Is it time for corrections administrators to see this new approach and welcome it for the sake of the imprisoned and all who could fall victim to their rage?
It is time.
The Summer of 2024 Now Has Seen Three Published Criticisms of Forgiveness
At least three essays have appeared in the summer of 2024 criticizing the practice of forgiveness. At my website, The Forgiving Life, at Psychology Today, I have two recent essays criticizing two essays critical of forgiveness, one from the New York Times (posted as a blog here at our International Forgiveness Institute) and another one at the Psychology Today website.
Well, another essay critical of forgiveness was published on July 29 this year at the Washington Post. The point of this blog post is to examine the claims of that essay to see if they stand up to scrutiny.
Source: Suzy Hazelwood/Pexels.com
Susan Shapiro has the intriguing title, Eight Times It May Be Healthier Not to Forgive. Let us examine each of the eight issues.
Point 1. If prejudice is involved.
The argument is based on one case study in which a son did not want to forgive his mother for homophobic reactions to him. This one event is used to generalize to all situations in which a person (the forgiver) is upset by harsh judgements from another person, invalidating forgiveness. It is as if forgiving, in this case, would give the message: “Your homophobia is okay.” Yet, this is not true about forgiveness. A person can forgive another because the forgiver sees the other as wrong. The forgiveness is toward the person, not toward the content of the other person’s thinking. Some people would forgive under this circumstance while others would not. We need to be gentle with each of these cases of non-forgiveness and forgiveness because this is the choice of the one who feels unjustly treated. Thus, this issue of an absolute prohibition of forgiveness when the would-be forgiver suspects prejudice is not warranted.
Point 2. When you aren’t ready.
Yes, this is a good point because the decision to forgive belongs to the one who has examined the situation and concludes that there was injustice. If the person is not ready, then this person should not be pressured into forgiveness.
Point 3. When “sorry” is insufficient.
Some people will not forgive until the other person or persons make adequate reparation either by a sincere apology or some other way that seems fair. If the unjustly treated person is doing this to help the offending person to repent and change, then this is a good motive. Yet, the offended person can help the other to change even after forgiving has occurred. In addition, this kind of conditional forgiveness itself may be unhealthy because it gives way too much power to the one(s) who acted badly. In other words, the wronged person may continue to live with unhealthy resentment until the other proclaims three little words: “I am sorry,” which may never occur. Why give that kind of power to anyone? Thus, point 3 does not hold up to scrutiny.
Point 4. If there’s no regret or repairs.
This argument, as in Point 3, treats forgiveness as conditional, dependent on what others do before you are able to forgive. In other words, forgiveness is never your free-will choice, but instead is dependent on how others behave. Thus, Point 4 does not hold up to scrutiny.
Point 5. When conditions aren’t met.
Again, one case study is presented in which a person demanded fairness and, upon receiving it, proceeded to forgive. Yet, what if the fairness never comes, which too often is the case in many people’s lives? This is similar to Points 3 and 4 with the power given to others and so it does not stand up to scrutiny.
Point 6. If personal safety is compromised.
The one case study was of a child who was raped in the home. She was urged, mistakenly by a counselor, to go back into the home to keep the family together. She was raped again. The substantial philosophical error here is the counselor’s confusion of forgiveness and reconciliation. It obviously was dangerous for her to reconcile with a father who is having extreme moral difficulties. Also, the pressure to forgive by the counselor should not have occurred, as discussed in Point 2 above. In equating forgiving and reconciling, Point 6 does not stand up to scrutiny. Some do decide, by free-will choice, to eventually forgive such atrocities, while others do not. A person can forgive and then not reconcile.
Point 7. When forgiving could endanger others.
The one case study here is of a former police officer involved in the January 6 conflicts at the United States Capitol. The former officer was fearful that if he forgave, the defendants might be let out of jail and hurt others. This is another confusion, this time between forgiving and legal pardon. Just because a person forgives from the heart does not mean that this person now wants to open all the jail cell doors. Opening those doors is not the decision of the forgiver anyway. It is the decision of a judge and jury that were not offended or physically hurt in the case. Such confusion of forgiveness and legal pardon means that Point 7 does not stand up to scrutiny.
Point 8. Before you have all the information.
This is one of two points (including Point 2) that is philosophically reasonable. One example given is of a driver very upset with another driver, who stopped her car to save her choking child. Once the other driver learned of this situation, there was nothing to forgive. Why? It is because the mother was not doing wrong even though it temporarily frustrated the one who might have forgiven without this important extra information.
So, in summary, the supposed eight points of unhealthy forgiveness have been reduced to two out of eight. As further clarification, it is not forgiveness itself that is the problem in Points 2 and 8. In Point 2, the problem centers on when a person starts to forgive (or is pressured to forgive), not on forgiveness itself. In Point 8, the problem centers on gathering the right information and not on forgiveness itself. The other points can and should be dismissed because of a lack of understanding of what forgiveness is or what it is not. It is not reconciliation or legal pardon or placing it in the context of conditionality, waiting for apologies or recompense of some kind that may never happen. In conclusion, it can be unhealthy to misunderstand forgiveness while thinking you see it clearly.
In Memoriam: Another Tribute to a Long-Time Board Member and Friend, Sister Mary Ellen Lewis
It was not long ago that I posted a tribute to the late Msgr. John Hebl, who passed away in March of this year. Today, we pay tribute to yet another of our Board Members, Sister Mary Ellen Lewis, who passed away on April 24, 2024. Sr. Mary Ellen was one of our first Board Members. I recall her coming to my office at the university and she humbly asked how she might become involved in the forgiveness work. She had a passion for helping people who have suffered injustices from others. When I suggested that she consider being on our board, she graciously and enthusiastically accepted. I think it was her passion for education, which made a difference in people’s lives, that led her to the original meeting with me so long ago now.
Sister Mary Ellen has a long history of university degrees. For example, she earned a Nursing degree at St. Louis City HospitalSchool of Nursing, becoming a Registered Nurse in 1955. She further received a Bachelorof Science degree from Saint Louis University in 1962. On top of that, she earned a Master’s degree in Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1969 and earned another Master’s degree in Theology through Aquinas Institute of Theology, St. Louis, in 1990.
Her love of learning and her passion for assisting hurting people certainly helped us at our International Forgiveness Institute. She even arranged for funding when we needed it for international conferences. She helped with budget details and always supported new initiatives at our institute, especially those that focused on forgiveness for peace in world conflict zones.
Rest in peace, Sister Mary Ellen. Thank you for serving people all these many years, and for contributing to a better world through your passion for peace through forgiveness education.
Is Forgiveness Overrated? A NY Times Reporter Seems to Think So
This month’s blog comes directly from our post at Psychology Today (July 5, 2024), which was in response to a critical article on forgiveness in the New York Times newspaper. Click on this link to read the post on the Psychology Today website, or scroll down to read the entire text of the article below!
———————————————————–
Image from Pexels.com
Is Forgiveness Overrated? A NY Reporter Seems to Think So
When forgiveness is seen as inappropriate, philosophy is needed to avoid error.
KEY POINTS
- Forgiveness is accused of being “overrated” in a recent New York Times article.
- We use a philosophical lens to examine this indictment against forgiveness when a person is treated unjustly.
- Reasons are given for why the accusations against forgiveness are false.
- In the final analysis, forgiveness is innocent of all charges against it.
According to the Cambridge Dictionary, something is overrated when it is “considered to be better than it really is.” The dictionary gives an example of a person who sees an award-winning movie and decides that it is not so great. In the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, to be overrated is to be valued too highly. Two synonyms for overrated at thesaurus.com are “exaggerated” and “overpriced.” Recently, the New York Times (Caron, 2024) published an article with the intriguing title, “Sometimes, Forgiveness Is Overrated.” The purpose of this post is to philosophically examine the content of that essay in the New York Times to see if the accusation of “overrated” is accurate or…..well….overrated.
Let us examine four points in the essay.
Point 1. What is the difference between forgiveness being overrated and the advice to forgive being so?
Nowhere in the essay is a clear distinction made between forgiveness as overrated and the advice given as overrated. The author states that an encouraging new movement is underway in which writers are “erasing the pressure” to forgive. Let us take an analogy of playing the sport of basketball. If an overbearing coach pressures middle school children to practice and practice to the point of wearing themselves out, is this the fault of basketball itself or the coach’s intemperate advice?
It seems that basketball itself is innocent of all charges because the sport remains what it is regardless of how seriously or nonchalantly the adult leaders take it. This lack of distinction is a crucial point within forgiveness. Is it the fault of forgiveness itself if some people put pressure on others to forgive? It seems that the answer is no because the people so pressuring and forgiveness itself are very different from one another.
Point 2. What is the difference between what forgiveness is in its essence and the degree to which a person can practice it?
In the essay, a mental health professional is confronted by my definition of forgiveness, which, in its very simple form, is to be good to those who are not good to the forgiver. Forgiveness, in its essence, as pointed out in the essay, includes compassion, generosity, and even love toward the offending persons.
Soon after this definition is introduced, we read this from the mental health professional: “Imagine saying that to a trauma survivor.” The statement obviously is a pejorative against the definition. Yet, the philosophical error is this: Neither the writer of the piece nor the mental health commentator is making the vital distinction between what forgiveness is in its essence and what a person can offer at the moment.
Consider the basketball analogy again. The essence of free-throw shooting is to put the ball in the basket. On its highest level, basketball would involve sinking 10 free throws on 10 tries because that is what the sport involves.
Yet, we have to make a distinction between basketball on its highest level and how it is actually performed by middle school students just learning the game. A middle school adolescent might be able to make four out of 10 shots, and that is fine in terms of one’s current actions in basketball.
It would be disingenuous to present to the young person that this is all there is to basketball, the sinking of four out of 10. To be truthful to the adolescent, we can say that the point is to make the shot (all shots) and then be realistic that very few people who play the game reach such perfection. We are showing the student the difference between the essence of the game and the realistic existence (the actual performance) in the game.
It is the same with forgiveness. We do a disservice to those who want to practice forgiveness if we lower the bar of what the essence is, saying that all you have to do is reduce a little anger and, presto, you have forgiven.
Point 3. There is the claim that forgiveness “could even be harmful.”
The point in the essay is that people need time to heal and to feel their emotions. It is as if forgiveness short-circuits a time for anger and mourning. This just is not the case. A part of the forgiveness process that has been in place for about a quarter of a century (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2000) is that the first step in that forgiveness process is to allow a time of catharsis, a time of grieving, a time of confusion and the expression of negative emotions. To cut out that process of examining anger and then to label forgiveness as potentially harmful is to miss an important point that forgiveness is not reductionistic. It does not ignore this initial aspect of exploring emotions and taking the time to do so.
Point 4. Forgiveness is the choice of the one offended.
There is scientific evidence that forgiveness offers both psychological and physical benefits to the forgiver, which the essay admirably references. This does not imply that people must listen to the advice of the scientists. Forgiveness is always the choice of the one treated unfairly. The timeline of forgiving is the choice of the one injured.
Philosophers refer to certain moral virtues as supererogatory. This means that such virtues are not required in societies. Forgiveness is one of these supererogatory virtues (Enright & Fitzgibbons, 2024). It does not have to be offered at all by those who choose not to forgive.
Thus, when one author is cited as stating that there is a “blanket forgiveness industry” insisting that everybody should forgive everything, this is a misunderstanding of the supererogatory nature of forgiveness. The accusation needs to be directed against those who misunderstand the philosophical quality of forgiveness. It is not the fault of forgiveness itself.
In Conclusion
As we examine the four issues above, it becomes rather obvious that it is not forgiveness itself that is overrated but instead is people’s misunderstanding of what forgiveness is and how to go about it for oneself or when thinking that forgiveness may be good for others. The essence of forgiveness is different from what people are usually able to achieve, especially if they have not practiced forgiveness very often. This is fine and should not be a judgement on the one forgiving. People need to be gentle in their advice toward others, as importantly implied in the NY Times essay. Forgiveness as supererogatory is the choice of the forgiver which contradicts a “blanket forgiveness industry” insisting on it. The value of the essay is to raise red flags. The philosophical lesson in this rebuttal is to be sure we raise the right red flags so that we do not falsely accuse forgiveness of being overrated.
References
Caron, C. (2024, June 27). Sometimes, forgiveness is overrated. New York Times.
Enright, R.D. & Fitzgibbons, R. (2000). Helping clients forgive. APA Books.
Enright, R.D. & Fitzgibbons, R. (2024). Forgiveness therapy. APA Books.
Is Forgiveness Something Tied to Western Philosophies/Religions and Therefore Is Not a Worldwide Idea?
I came across the above question, which suggests that forgiveness does not have a universal essence to it. Yet, some years ago, we at the International Forgiveness Institute did a study of forgiveness words in 26 different world cultures. As you will see below, forgiveness is not confined to Western thought.
Here is a list of various cultures and their words for “to forgive” or “I forgive you”:
Image by Pexels.com
Albanian prt falur
Catalan a perdonar
Castilian Para perdonar
Czech Odpoutm
Danish At tilgive
Dutch Te vergeven
English to forgive
Filipino upang patawarin
Finnish Annettakoon se teille anteeksi
French pardonner
German Ich verzeihe Dir
Hungarian n megbocs tok neked
Icelandic afyrirgefa
Irish a logh
Italian A perdonare
Maltese li nahfru
Norwegian Til forlate
Polish Odpuszcza
Portuguese A perdoar
Romanian Pentru a ierta
Spanish Para perdonar
Swahili kusamehe
Swedish Frlta
Turkish BEN size bala
Vietnamese Ti tha th cho bn
Welsh i faddau
26 languages, 26 similar ways to communicate. This, of course, is no proof of the universality of “to forgive” or “I forgive you.” Yet, we put this term and this expression to the test and they were not defeated. At the very least we can conclude that forgiveness has a place in many cultures.
For each term or expression, we translated it from English into the other language. We then back-translated into English and retained the term/expression only if both forms of translation were consistent. The important implication is this: We can be motivated to talk with others about forgiveness and can be quite confident that the other person, from a different culture, has words that mean forgiveness, the same word that we are using.
