“Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.” —Alphonse Elric, Hagane no Renkinjutsushi
On another forum I am having a discussion about forgiveness. Someone mentioned that the reasons we (male survivors) should forgive is because it aids in the healing process and prepares us to ask for forgiveness.
I do not know how much I agree with that. In a way, it means that unless you forgive the hurts done to you then you will not heal. You will be bound by the anger, the hurt and the burden until you are capable of forgiving. To me, that makes forgiveness yet another obstacle. If a person is not ready for that step, assuming one must forgive, then he is essentially stuck and will never fully heal (if there is such a thing).
Perhaps it comes down to whether forgiveness is tied to emotion, in which case any negative feelings would prevent genuine forgiveness, or whether one can forgive while still holding the person(s) in contempt because it is the next logical step. I do not know, though it does not feel correct that one must forgive.
The other thing was that we (male survivors) need to forgive in order to be forgiven. I can see how this would make sense. How can you ask others to do what you are unwilling to do? But what if one cannot forgive himself? What then? Certainly that is part of the healing process as well, but if that cannot happen has one failed in healing?
That leaves me wondering just what ‘forgiveness’ really is and why, if at all, it needs to be done.
I am again reminded of Al’s words: Humankind cannot gain anything without first giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost.
The question is if what is gained by forgiving (if anything is gained at all) is equal to what has been lost.
I don’t think the quote is on target, either from a descriptive or prescriptive point of view.
I think your questions about forgiveness are intriguing, though. It seems to me that forgiveness is something that a victimized person gives to someone who injured him and who now seeks forgiveness for causing the injury. An obvious prerequisite here is that the transgressor admits to, and takes responsibility for, causing the transgression.
I think ‘forgiveness’ is much more problematic if it’s something which is purely a psychic act by the victim, particularly if the transgressor has never apologized or taken responsibility for the original transgression.
I can’t tell from your post whether you’re talking about the former (forgiving someone who has apologized) or the latter (psychically forgiving someone who may have never apologized and who indeed may now be long gone from one’s life). But it would seem to me to make a pretty big difference.
The transgressor’s apology/non-apology was not a factor in the discussion. I suppose since it is possible to forgive one who has not apologized, the transgressor’s state becomes irrelevant. The only factor is the person who forgives.
I think that is why I was reminded of that quote. Many people talk of burdens, weights and emotions that are ‘lifted’ when they forgave others. Because forgiveness is being done without the transgressor’s participation, it is as if a person is giving up something (albeit voluntarily) at his own expense. Perhaps there is value in that, but I cannot see it.
You bring up an interesting point about the transgressor, though. I had not thought about whether the person being forgiven wanted to be forgiven or had even made amends for their actions. That would make a huge difference.
I can’t comment on what happened “On another forum”.
Forgiveness is a gift that you give to the person or people who abused you. They owe you more than they can ever repay, and you cancel the debt as a gift to them.
If they are genuinely remorseful, you can accept that remorse in part payment of the debt, and forgive the rest.
But it’s a voluntary act of giving. Nobody has any business demanding a gift, or saying that you should give a gift, or that you need to give a gift in order to recover.
(More generally, nobody has any business telling a survivor that they need to (or “should”) do X in order to recover. I can tell you what has helped me, and what other people have told me has helped them. But it’s nobody else’s business whether or not it’s helpful to you.)
There is a similar process, which I call “dismissal”. That’s when you write it off as a bad debt. You’re not cancelling it. They still owe you, but you accept that you’re never going to be paid, and you choose to stop expending psychic energy on persuing it. I think it can be helpful for a survivor to dismiss the abuse. It’s been very helpful to me.
Finally, I have to say some words about this:
WTF do we “male survivors” need anyone’s forgiveness for?
I know that many abuse survivors also offend, and maybe offenders need forgiveness (though they have no right to demand it). But what we have here is a victim-blaming assumption that male survivors are offenders. FUCK OFF!
(That’s not directed at you, TS, you’re just the messenger.)
[...] This is adapted from a comment I left over at Toy Soldiers [...]
Greetings TS;
I’ve been lurking here for some time, but till now have not had much to add to the discussion. Though a late addition to this thread, perhaps you’ll find my thoughts on forgiveness of interest. I’m not a “survivor” in any of the usual meanings, but I’ve had reason to think about forgiving and being forgiven.
Your header quote is an interesting entry to the subject of forgiveness. I don’t think it’s quite accurate though. To gain something you often have to give something, but if what you give is of equal value to you, why would you? More often I find what I give, not expecting to gain much if anything, comes back to me multiplied.
I believe much of the confusion about forgiving and healing is due to using the same word, “forgive”, for several related but different emotional/social processes. Taking a gimmick from semantics I’m going to label these with numerical postscripts, i.e. forgive(1), forgive(2), and so on. An additional confusion is the idea that one must forgive to heal. It seems more so that as you heal you are able to forgive and that, in turn, helps the healing.
The first forgiveness you discuss, the need for a victim to forgive(1) the injuries done to him as part of healing is very similar to what Daran calls “dismissal.” It’s a unilateral action of the survivor, requiring no action or response from the transgressor; you’re writing off a debt that cannot be repaid. You hit it exactly when you wrote
“The transgressor’s apology/non-apology was not a factor in the discussion. I suppose since it is possible to forgive one who has not apologized, the transgressor’s state becomes irrelevant. The only factor is the person who forgives.”
Do not mistake forgive(1) for thinking that everything is now OK between you and your transgressor, that you’ll want to have contact with him or don’t feel contempt. In some other contexts (co-dependency) the idea of emotional detachment is very close to what I see as forgive(1). What you give up is the hope of revenge or repayment, what you gain is you no longer spend much time and emotional energy thinking or caring about what your transgressor thinks, feels, or does.
There is also the need to forgive(2) yourself for not having avoided the abuse. The “if only I had been smarter, stronger, hadn’t stayed out so late, locked the door, whatever, it wouldn’t have happened” thoughts. Maybe it wouldn’t have happened, or maybe something just as bad would have happened anyway. What’s needed is to recognize that you didn’t choose to be victimized, your transgressor chose to victimize and you happened to be available. What you give up is the illusion of control; that there is something you could have done to avoid being victimized, and, more disturbing, accept that even now, despite all, you could be victimized again. What you gain is knowing you are not responsible for your abuse and the freedom to accept the risks of living again.
Forgiveness(3) is more like what most people think of as forgiveness; a move towards reconciliation with your transgressor. This doesn’t mean you will be friends, only that there is the possibility of interacting with each other simply as fellow human beings, “forgetting” that the transgression happened. This is the goal of restorative justice, to as much as possible make things as they could have been if the evil had not happened. Where forgiveness(1) and (2) are unilateral actions of the survivor, independent of what anyone else does or does not do, forgiveness(3) is dependent on the transgressor accepting responsibility for his actions and repenting. If the transgressor has not accepted responsibility for his actions and repented it would be foolish to risk treating him as simply another human being; he remains a predator and a threat and you should not “forget” that. Note that accepting responsibility and repentance are unilateral actions of the transgressor and not dependent on the survivors forgiveness(1), (2) or (3). I do not think forgiveness(3) is owed to the transgressor because he has accepted responsibility and repented; it’s only a possibility growing out of responsibility, repentance, and the survivor’s forgiveness(1) and (2), though I understand that in some cultures it is expected. What you give up is being morally “one up” on the transgressor, what you gain is becoming simply another human being, perhaps more dented and scuffed than most, rather than continuing as a survivor.
Forgiveness(4), that of the transgressor forgiving the survivor is the rarest of forgiveness in my experience. It seems to be more frequent in abuse between adults, such as domestic violence, rather than in adult on child abuse. Sometimes it seems the survivor feels they played a less than totally innocent role in the abuse and want to be forgiven for their part, however slight. There also seems to be cases where the survivor feels they were too angry, too long, and too vengeful, and want forgiveness for that.
Best wishes in the new year;
Fred B