return to Jennifer Freyd home pageCopyright, 1997, Jennifer J. Freyd, jjf@dynamic.uoregon.edu
LIMITED CIRCULATION PERMISSION: The author gives the following limited permission for circulating this essay. It may be circulated in electronic version so long as this copyright and use statement is included and the essay is not modified in any way. No circulation for profit is permitted. I retain all other rights (including non-electronic-medium rights of publication.)
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 1997 07:49:24 -0800
Sender: Psychology of Women Resource List
<POWR-L@URIACC.URI.EDU>
From: Jennifer Freyd
<jjf@DYNAMIC.UOREGON.EDU>
Subject: Re: Forgiveness
To: POWR-L@URIACC.URI.EDU
I appreciate the discussion of forgiveness. A very central aspect of the discussion seems to be (implicitly and explicitly) a semantic analysis of the concept "forgive." I believe this is important because "forgive" seems to be a bundle of different concepts.
Regarding these different semantic components implicit in the concept "forgive" I would like to start by quoting something Sharon Lamb wrote to this list on 10/31:
> Because we talk about sexual abuse so much on this list, let me use >that as an example. I think that we as a community need to have >compassion for perpetrators (as well as victims) to some extent, so >long as we hold them responsible for their crimes. If a VICTIM, >however, has compassion for her perpetrator that doesn't mean she's >forgiven him. And if forgiveness implies a goal of "release from >anger", I'm not sure that one needs to forgive in order to be "released >from anger." I think it is possible to forgive and still be angry as >well as to not forgive and be released from anger.
Sharon Lamb's comments seem important here, as they draw attention to the distinction between "forgive" and "release from anger."
I understand the concept of "forgive" or "forgiveness" to have two primary and somewhat separable components, one to do with with internal emotional reactions toward the perpetrator, and the other to do with a more external/policial aspect of the assignment of responsibility/accountability.
While this list discussion has focussed on the internal emotional component of "forgive" I believe it is very important to keep in mind the more external/political aspect of "forgive." By focussing on internal emotion we may inadvertently fail to focus on external accountability. I worry in particular about implicit minimization of the severity of certain external events.
My worry is that because we are mostly implicitly or explicitly speaking of events that happen in intimate relationships where we have internal emotional needs, we may fail to keep in mind the external/political meaning of those events. While "forgiving" minor injuries may naturally combine and collapse the external and internal components, forgiving major injuries and crimes like sexual assault should not.
I may want to forgive (in all senses) my close friend or partner for hurtful words in the heat of an argument, but I may never want to forgive the perpetrator of sexual violence in the external sense no matter what my internal emotions. Why? Because some actions are of sufficient external severity that external accountability is of utmost importance (in an adult society in which we acknowledge external actions, consequences, and responsibility). In my dictionary (Random House Unabridged, 2e) the internal emotions don't even show up until the 4th of 6 entries for the word "forgive." The first entry is "to grant pardon for or remission of (an offense, dbt, etc.); absolve." The second entry refers to giving up all claims on the account of, the third, to grant pardon. The fourth to "cease to feel resentment," the fifth, to cancel an indebtedness or liability, the sixth and final, to pardon an offender. Dictionary definitions have their limitations in discussions such as this. I refer to this definition because I think in this case it points to a very important thing: that forgiveness is basically about EXTERNAL consequence -- about release for the perpetrator.
When the crime occurs in an intimate relationship we may forgive the perpetrator in an external sense in order to maintain an intimate relationship. Consider the significance: what does it mean to "absolve" or to "pardon"? Does it mean when we forgive a perpetrator of child sexual abuse we act as if the crime didn't happen? That the perpetrator may be with young children alone? In these cases forgive and forget may be dangerously close to one another. (Consider that we are much less likely to worry about the value of "forgiving" a stranger who rapes than an intimate partner who rapes; we are much less likely to worry about the value of "forgiving" burglars who rob our house than our own relatives who molest children. )
Returning to Sharon Lamb's comments, I'd advocate that victims be encouraged to accept and learn from their feelings whatever they are, and importantly to know the difference between internal emotional reaction and external accountability. It is possible that some internal states of negative emotion are hurtful to the victims if they go on for a long time and that in some cases "release" of resentment will be helpful to the victim. (Certainly temporary states of anger are different from chronic resentment that brings images of the perpetrator into the victims life for prolonged periods.)
This recognition of the consequences of internal emotion should not be confused with the external accounability we demand of a perpetrator. If someone I love betrays me in a non-criminal way, in a way that is in my opinion truly forgivable, and I can forgive, then this is probably a good thing, as I believe the humans we love do hurt us and betray us in some ways (and we ourselves do sometimes hurt and betray those we love). However I think we need to discriminate the *degree of the harm and hurt,* and that there are some actions we should not absolve or pardon. There are some actions for which we should demand accountability no matter how we feel about the person. If the actions are child abuse this accountability should include a clear understanding of continued risk to potential victims and the external/political significance of the act. In other words, perhaps it is in a given victim's interests to be released from anger toward a given perpetrator of a major crime; this should not be confused with a pardon. At the most extreme case if someone I loved very much were to someday do something horrible, I would never want to "forgive" in the external sense of pardon/absolve, but I might continue to love that person, and I might be graced with the experience of compassion for that person even as I might always feel anger too.
The danger I see is that in the context of intimate relationships we may blur the distinctions between different acts that should or should not be forgiven at the external level.
Jennifer Freyd
Copyright, 1997, Jennifer J. Freyd, jjf@dynamic.uoregon.edu
LIMITED CIRCULATION PERMISSION: The author gives the following limited permission for circulating this essay. It may be circulated in electronic version so long as this copyright and use statement is included and the essay is not modified in any way. No circulation for profit is permitted. I retain all other rights (including non-electronic-medium rights of publication.)
return to Jennifer Freyd home page
Last update 3 November 1997 by
jjf@dynamic.uoregon.edu