No Future Without (Personal) Forgiveness: Re-Examining the Role of Forgiveness in Transitional Justice

The role of forgiveness has been much discussed in the literature on transitional justice, but a basic point has been muddled: most acts of forgiveness are inherently personal and cannot be achieved by state actors alone. What I call personal forgiveness is extended by a single human victim who has been harmed by a wrongdoer. Personal forgiveness is distinguishable from three other forms of forgiveness: group forgiveness, legal forgiveness (a form of group forgiveness), and political forgiveness. In the context of transitional justice, I argue that: (1) personal forgiveness is a necessary condition for political forgiveness; (2) group forgiveness (including legal forgiveness), while not without a normative function, cannot effectuate either personal or political forgiveness, and (3) personal forgiveness requires a shared narrative framework to lead to political forgiveness. These assertions lead to two further observations. First, because the state has a normative role in its (limited) capacity to forgive on its own behalf and a practical role in its ability to spread and to transmit a shared narrative framework, the state has an important place in political forgiveness. Second, because the primary historical example of political forgiveness in transitional justice is the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission that unfolded within an explicitly Christian theological framework, it may be that the shared narrative framework need be religious or even Christian in nature

Thai conceptualizations of forgiveness within a work context : comparison with Western models

Forgiveness research has focused almost exclusively on individualistic Western culture despite acknowledgement of the importance of cultural factors. Conflict at work is common yet studies of forgiveness in work contexts are rare, as are qualitative studies. Addressing these short-comings, this study examines the forgiveness process as experienced by Thai nurses in a hospital within a collectivist culture heavily influenced by Buddhism. Thirty nurses were interviewed about a situation at work where the need for forgiveness arose. Qualitative methods were used to identify participants' cognitions, emotions, and behaviors in relation to the offensive event. Definitions of forgiveness were also elicited. Four continuous stages of the forgiveness process emerged: an experiencing stage, re-attribution stage, forgiveness stage, and behavioral stage. There were similarities with Western individualistic models but also some important differences related to Buddhism and Thai culture. Five dimensions of forgiveness emerged from the Thai definitions: overcoming negative approaches towards the offender, abandonment of negative judgment, fostering of positive approaches and loving-kindness towards the offender, awareness of the benefits of forgiveness, and forgiveness as incorporated within Buddhist beliefs. The results highlight the need to consider cultural influences when examining concepts like forgiveness

Efficacy of REACH Forgiveness across Cultures

Across cultures, most people agree that forgiveness is a virtue. However, culture may influence how willing one should be to forgive and how one might express forgiveness. At a university in the United States, we recruited both foreign-extraction students and domestic students (N = 102) to participate in a six-hour REACH Forgiveness intervention. We investigated the efficacy of the intervention overall as well as whether foreign-extraction and domestic students responded differently to treatment. Forgiveness was assessed using two measures—decisional forgiveness and emotional forgiveness. The six-hour REACH Forgiveness intervention improved participants’ ratings of emotional forgiveness, but not decisional forgiveness, regardless of their culture. Thus, the REACH Forgiveness intervention appears equally efficacious for participants from different cultural backgrounds when conducted in the United States with college students

Forgiveness Or Fairness?

Several philosophers who argue that forgiveness is an important virtue also wish to maintain the moral value of retributive emotions that forgiveness is meant to overcome. As such, these accounts explicate forgiveness as an Aristotelian mean between too much resentment and too little resentment. I argue that such an account ends up making forgiveness superfluous: it turns out that the forgiving person is not praised for a greater willingness to let go of her resentment, but rather for her fairness or good judgment. I conclude by arguing that the virtue of fair-mindedness is more compatible with maintaining the value of the retributive emotions than the virtue of forgiveness

Forgiveness takes place on an attitudinal continuum from hostility to friendliness: Toward a closer union of forgiveness theory and measurement.

Researchers commonly conceptualize forgiveness as a rich complex of psychological changes involving attitudes, emotions, and behaviors. Psychometric work with the measures developed to capture this conceptual richness, however, often points to a simpler picture of the psychological dimensions in which forgiveness takes place. In an effort to better unite forgiveness theory and measurement, we evaluate several psychometric models for common measures of forgiveness. In doing so, we study people from the United States and Japan to understand forgiveness in both nonclose and close relationships. In addition, we assess the predictive utility of these models for several behavioral outcomes that traditionally have been linked to forgiveness motives. Finally, we use the methods of item response theory, which place person abilities and item responses on the same metric and, thus, help us draw psychological inferences from the ordering of item difficulties. Our results highlight models based on correlated factors models and bifactor (S-1) models. The bifactor (S-1) model evinced particular utility: Its general factor consistently predicts variation in relevant criterion measures, including 4 different experimental economic games (when played with a transgressor), and also suffuses a second self-report measure of forgiveness. Moreover, the general factor of the bifactor (S-1) model identifies a single psychological dimension that runs from hostility to friendliness while also pointing to other sources of variance that may be conceived of as method factors. Taken together, these results suggest that forgiveness can be usefully conceptualized as prosocial change along a single attitudinal continuum that ranges from hostility to friendliness. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)

Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Forgiveness and reconciliation are central to moral life; after all, everyone will be wronged by others and will then face the dual decisions of whether to forgive and whether to reconcile. It is therefore important that we have a clear analysis of each, as well as a thoroughly articulated understanding of how they relate to and differ from each other. Forgiveness has received considerably more attention in the Western philosophical literature than has reconciliation. In this paper I aim to give it the attention it deserves and develop an account of interpersonal reconciliation. On my view reconciliation is fundamentally bilateral (whereas forgiveness is fundamentally unilateral). It entails transparency and agreement between the wrongdoer and the victim as to the nature of a past wrong or set of wrongs. And, it requires that moral repair be made between the two parties (which entails that both parties bear proper attitudes towards each other). In making my case I contrast reconciliation with toleration and collaboration, in order to demonstrate that reconciliation also entails forgiveness (though forgiveness does not entail reconciliation)

The treatment of forgiveness in counselling and therapy.

Situations involving perceived hurts, slights, and other interpersonal maltreatment are at the core of counselling and therapy. Resolution of these situations frequently involves forgiveness of the transgressor. Despite this the concept of forgiveness has received relatively little attention within the counselling and therapy literature. The reasons for this are explored beginning with the association between forgiveness and the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Freud avoided the term forgiveness and psychoanalysts until very recently have followed suit. Ways in which forgiveness are conceptualised are explored. Difficulties related to forgiving associated with our conceptualisations of natural justice are identified. A cautionary note is struck about the dangers of pathologising non forgiveness given the enthusiasm for forgiveness in the current research literature and in Positive Psychology. Distinctions between processes of forgiveness are made which are particularly potent for counselling. A summary of the literature with regard to the health benefits of forgiveness is presented and some client dilemmas in relation to forgiveness are outlined. Most of the emergent research on forgiveness is being undertaken by academic psychologists and the argument is made that counselling psychologists are uniquely equipped to contribute to the growing research literature on forgiveness.</p

Moral Projection and the Intelligibility of Collective Forgiveness

ABSTRACT. The paper explores the philosophical intelligibility of contemporary defences of collective political forgiveness against a background of sceptical doubt, both general and particular. Three genera sceptical arguments are examined: one challenges the idea that political collectives exist; another challenges the idea that moral agency can be projected upon political collectives; a final argument challenges the attribution of emotions, especially anger, to collectives. Each of these sceptical arguments is rebutted. At a more particular level, the contrasts between individual forgiveness and collective forgiveness gives rise to various problems and the ‘desiderata’ for their resolution - authority, specificity and temporal proximity - are briefly explored

Defining forgiveness: Christian clergy and general population perspectives.

The lack of any consensual definition of forgiveness is a serious weakness in the research literature (McCullough, Pargament &amp; Thoresen, 2000). As forgiveness is at the core of Christianity, this study returns to the Christian source of the concept to explore the meaning of forgiveness for practicing Christian clergy. Comparisons are made with a general population sample and social science definitions of forgiveness to ensure that a shared meaning of forgiveness is articulated. Anglican and Roman Catholic clergy (N = 209) and a general population sample (N = 159) completed a postal questionnaire about forgiveness. There is agreement on the existence of individual differences in forgiveness. Clergy and the general population perceive reconciliation as necessary for forgiveness while there is no consensus within psychology. The clergy suggests that forgiveness is limitless and that repentance is unnecessary while the general population suggests that there are limits and that repentance is necessary. Psychological definitions do not conceptualize repentance as necessary for forgiveness and the question of limits has not been addressed although within therapy the implicit assumption is that forgiveness is limitless.</p