The granting of forgiveness in an intergroup context: African and Asian social representations

Abstract

The model for representing intergroup forgiveness suggested by Neto, Pinto & Mullet (2007a) has been extended through the examination of data from a large sample (n = 1036) of Asian (Cambodians and East Timorese) and African (Angolans, Guineans and Mozambicans) adults who have been personally affected by long-term wars and conflicts in their area. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that a nine-factor model could adequately fit the whole set of data. Overall, a large majority of the participants agreed with the view that forgiveness as an intergroup process was conceivable. For a majority of the participants: (a) the aim of the intergroup forgiveness process is reconciliation with the former offender; (b) the process does not need to be strictly conditional on adequate reparation and compensation; (c) it should be democratic -in other words, forgiveness should not be decided solely by politicians, traditional or religious authorities; (d) it belongs to the forgiver-forgiven dyad -in other words, interference from the international community should be minimal; (e) it should be public (and not a negotiation between members of the elite) -forgiveness should be announced to the whole community using broad international languages; and (f) it should be an all-encompassing process, that is, it should encompass all the members of the requesting group, all the members of the forgiving group and all the offences.

Between Remembering and Forgetting the Years of Political Violence: Psychosocial Impact of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Peru

“…Finally, approximately half of the participants report that forgiveness is possible. This level of agreement is similar to those reported in Asian and African nations (Mullet et al, ) but higher than in other Latin American nations like Chile, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay, in which only around 25% of participants agree with forgiveness and where large majorities reject it in general (Arnoso et al, ). Experiences, like in the Peruvian case, of extreme and massive political violence would provoke more painful recollections of the past because of the extension of the trauma.…”

“…However, in this case, the option of a politically controlled and selective memory does not necessarily lead to forgiveness but underpins peaceful coexistence. While a majority agrees with social forgiveness in Asia and Africa (Mullet et al, ), surveys in Latin America suggest that the majority of the population rejects this possibility. This negative attitude toward forgiveness was shared with nonsignificant differences by victims and nonvictims, though people agreeing with TRC activities disagree less with forgiveness (Cárdenas et al, ).…”

“…Belief in Forgiveness. A question was drawn up to assess social forgiveness (Kadima & Mullet, 2007;Mullet et al, 2010): "Do you think that people affected by violence could forgive those who hurt them?" Response options ranged from 1 5 "Not at all" to 5 5 "Absolutely.…”

“…Several authors have noted that, at the societal level, one of the most serious effects of politically motivated conflicts is the use of violence as a habitual and legitimate practice. This usually gives rise to societies where human relations deteriorate causing a negative social psychological impact on the individual, interpersonal, and collective levels (Martín‐Baró, ; Mullet, Nann, Kadima, Neto, & Pinto, ). Specifically, exposure to traumatic events of a violent nature facilitates the breaking of ties between individuals and their societies.…”

The impact of Gacaca tribunals in Rwanda: Psychosocial effects of participation in a truth and reconciliation process after a genocide

“…In sum, the fairness of the procedure and the outcomes of the ritual justice proved more satisfactory for the former than for the latter. For perpetrators, these trials meant the end of a long state of uncertainty about their fate as well as their possible reintegration in the community (Kanyangara et al, 2007;Mullet, Nann, Kadiangandu, Neto, & Pinto, 2010;Staub et al, 2003).…”