Forgiveness Therapy: The Context and Conflict.

Abstract

This paper is a critique of forgiveness therapy that focuses on the cultural contexts in which forgiveness therapy arose, with a special focus on the movement to address the victimization of women. I describe forgiveness as described by forgiveness therapy advocates and the moral and non-moral benefits claimed on its behalf. I then describe the cultural context that may explain the popularity of this form of therapy at this historical moment; the first context is a broad cultural context, looking at ideologies and practices that support forgiveness as a therapeutic intervention; the second context is the more narrow context of a movement within the field of psychology called "positive psychology" that also supports forgiveness interventions; and the third context, is the ideologies and narratives around victimization and in particular victimization against women that have led to an application of forgiveness therapy for victims of abuse (Freedman & Enright, 1996). After describing these three contexts in which forgiveness therapy arose, I present a critique from a feminist as well as a broader humanistic/psychodynamic perspective. FORGIVENESS THERAPY: THE CONTEXT AND CONFLICTForgiveness and reconciliation are wonderful ideas. Together they connect a repentant, regretful, and remorseful wrongdoer, now a sufferer too, with the injured person, who may be to some extent ready to offer compassion and empathy in spite of her or his suffering. In this moral balancing act, the wrongdoer's suffering sends a message to the one he or she has wounded that the harm is acknowledged and the injured's rights must be taken seriously. The offender also makes a claim on behalf of him or herself that he is human, moral, and "one of us". The one who is hurt, depending on the depth of the hurt, and distance from it, her or his judgment of how sincere the wrongdoer is, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Forgiveness and Blame Among Suicide Survivors: A Qualitative Analysis on Reports of 4-Year Self-Help-Group Meetings

“…In the area of trauma, it has been also evidenced the importance of a factor improving selfacceptance: the capability of forgiving. Forgiveness is not synonymous with condoning, excusing, reconciling and forgetting (Baskin & Enright, 2004), but is defined as a free act chosen to give up the resentment experienced against a hurting action committed by someone else (Baskin & Enright, 2004;Enright, Freedman, & Rique,1998;Lamb, 2005;Worthington, Sandage, & Berry, 2000). This deliberative act requires four core conditions: being injured in a deep way; the injurer is responsible for the damage regardless of intentions; the forgiver freely choose to decrease resentment and revenge against the injurer; the forgiver willfully choose to forgive and does not require an apology by the injurer (Enright et al, 1991;Freedman & Zarifkar, 2016;Holmgren, 1993).…”

Role of Well‐Being Therapy in Achieving a Balanced and Individualized Path to Optimal Functioning

“…This has led to a growing number of investigations on positive emotions (Fredrickson & Joiner, ) and subjective well‐being (Diener, ; Diener et al, ), human strengths (Peterson & Seligman, ) and other positive personality characteristics such as compassion, hope and altruism (Park et al, ). These positive issues have been used as specific ingredients in so‐called ‘positive interventions’ (Magayar‐Moe, ; Rashid, ; Seligman et al, ; Sin & Lyubomirsky, ), which have been recently proposed: positive psychotherapy (Seligman et al, ), wisdom psychotherapy (Linden et al, ), gratitude interventions (Wood et al, ), positive coaching (Biswas‐Diener, , ), strengths‐based approaches (Biswas‐Diener et al, ; Govindji & Linley, ; Linley & Burns, ), hope therapy (Geraghty et al, ; Snyder et al, ) and forgiveness therapy (Lamb, ). All these new interventions that share a common theoretical background have not been sufficiently tested in clinical populations.…”

The forgiveness dilemma: emotions and justice at the Khmer Rouge tribunal

“…Supporters thus variously argue that forgiveness allows antagonists to move 'beyond sterile situations of mutual condemnation', halts never-ending cycles of revenge, and bestows therapeutic benefits upon the victims of serious wrongs, including human rights violations (Bole, Christiansen, and Hennemeyer 2004, 76;Arendt 1998, 240). At the same time, however, critics challenge the true therapeutic benefits of forgiveness (Lamb 2005), and question the notion that negative emotions such as anger and resentment ought to be overcome (Brudholm 2008;Lamb and Murphy 2002). They point to the disappointment and anguish felt by victims of human rights violations when forgiveness practices fail to heal the wounds of the past, when official forgiveness processes subjugate their right to choose whether or not to forgive, and when perpetrators appear to get off scot-free (Boraine 2000, 147).…”