Psychological Aspects of Forgiveness - Essay Example

? Forgiveness 2-3 Interpersonal relations often spiral into situations where one party is physically or emotionally injured, and forgiveness is thought to have been a way not only to move on to peace but also to resolve intrapersonal issues with the incident. As McMinn et. al (2008) explain, forgiveness has become a focus of contemporary science and is now considered in research as a part of contemporary values in terms of psychology, given the numerous journal publications on the topic. Previously it was only studied as a religious aspect. The research being accessible to everyone on internet has changed the general perspective to a realistic one also introducing the benefits of improving intrapersonal health and thoughts. When it comes to utilizing the benefits of forgiveness, it can be seen in two different ways, religious and psychological; even though both overlap. Forgiveness ensures that intrapersonal and interpersonal troubles of a person are resolved, which is the reason forgiveness cannot be taken as a responsibility or duty. Forgiving by force might shortly suppress the issues but does not resolve them, as per Baker (2012). To truly forgive, one needs to let go from the heart and release the resentment; religiously explained by McMinn et. al (1999), it might be an altruistic gift to the receiving individual; while from a psychological point of view it is seen as means of regaining personal health. This contrast of approaches of forgiveness shows two different perceptions of forgiveness with respect to intrapersonal characteristics and interpersonal relations. Where religion finds forgiveness to be a trait of God and a way to thank God for His forgiveness, psychologists find it as a therapeutic tool that helps an individual get relieved of his anguish. Reconciliation after forgiveness involves parties to re-establish the relationship but is unlikely to be always synonymous to forgiveness. As alluded by Baker (2012), forgiveness and reconciliation together might be a good combination in case of loved ones but they don’t always go together. This can be due to a number of reasons. For example, the forgiving individual might want to forgive the perpetrator but not have anything to do with them anymore, on the other hand the perpetrator might not even have any remorse in the first place or even being repeatedly injurious making reconciliation impossible whereas the victim might still want to forgive the person. Such situations define the differences between forgiveness and reconciliation. It might also be a point to note that acknowledgement of offense is also not equal to remorse while on the other hand, forgiveness being a choice still enables the victim to want to forgive an unrepenting perpetrator. The Gale Encyclopedia (2009) article on reconciliation also refers to forgiveness being both a psychological and a religious approach to emotional healing; both being in contrast, still aim the same thing - improvement of interpersonal relations and intrapersonal health. From another point of view, forgiveness might be seen as a unilateral act while reconciliation takes both (or all) parties involved. Forgiveness might also involve foregoing indebtedness so that the victim does not have to go through the ordeal of reconciling with the perpetrator. The senior citizens are also alluded to have found forgiveness and reconciliation an important part in the last phase of their life. The Gale Encyclopedia (2009) terms it as an ‘end of life concern’ for those in the last phase of their life. It is also sometimes the case that tolerance is confused with reconciliation. Tolerance and forgiveness might both be helpful in reconciliation but are not equal to it. Reconciliation involves people on two sides of a divide to uncover the ordeal they’ve been put through and sacrifice in order to re-establish a relationship. Tolerance also does not require the same level of honesty as for forgiveness while reconciliation requires both. This differentiates forgiveness to be unique in the way that it is not passive like tolerance and simply ignoring the reality does not equal forgiveness, rather the acknowledging the truth and then letting go is on par with forgiveness. Furthermore, like true forgiveness, true reconciliation also requires recognition at certain levels. This starts from the acknowledgement that the individuals possess distinct rights and it is their choice to sacrifice and let go or to use those rights. Forgiveness sometimes offers peace and a way to move on, but reconciliation offers a neat closure of the past. This might be considered as a benefit of reconciliation over just forgiveness. This might also go in reverse in some circumstances as per Ransley and Spy (2004)’s example. A couple might decide to reconcile as a compromise but still not forgive each other. In such case, true forgiveness comes only when the perpetrator has made due reparation and is likely to be a lengthy process. Ransley and Spy (2004) also claim that for true forgiveness, both persons have to go through similar ordeal to realize and empathize. This point of view contrasts with the previous one explaining that though forgiveness and reconciliation might be closely related, none of them are a prerequisite to the other. Reconciliation can be an ideal that follows forgiveness or forgiveness a desire following a reconciliation. This, however is different from pseudo forgiveness or reconciliation which has been forced upon one or both parties either by external factors or their own emotions. Reconciliation is only helpful after forgiveness if the destructive behaviour of the perpetrator has been overcome. As explained before, an unrepenting perpetrator who is repeatedly injuring the forgiving party not only makes it impossible to reconcile but also hinders true forgiveness. For a moment if we contrast forgiveness and reconciliation in comparison with revenge and retribution for intrapersonal content and progressive interpersonal relationships, revenge does not improve the relationships. The victim might feel better or feel that justice is being served and take it as a closure of his past but it might still not serve as his peace of mind. For example, someone being robbed or embezzled of all his life savings will might feel better when the perpetrator is caught and made to repay, but the other associated anguish from the fraud or the intrapersonal sense of fairness being breached is not relieved by retribution itself. Peace of mind is directly related to either being indifferent in this case or forgiving. Vice versa the person might not be repaid even after the perpetrator is arrested and the feelings could be reversed if the person had helped in catching him. The related feeling of injustice and breach might be alleviated but the lack of money that was robbed will still continue to cause pain for the person. This means justice and accountability might be upheld while the origin of the pain might not be relieved of or the other way round; in both cases the victim continues to be in pain over the other. Does a victim truly get compensated if both these principles have been fulfilled? Taking another example of a couple where one partner has cheated on the sincere one, and eventually got caught. The cheating partner might realize their mistake and truly repent and yet not reconcile due to the personal humiliation of being caught while the victim might have no choice to forgive the partner even on cheating being romantically too involved and attached and want to reconcile. This calls into question both the previous principles. Repentance and justice might both have been served along with forgiveness, but yet there is no reconciliation due to the initial perpetrator. This further calls into question of Ransley and Spy (2004) that if both persons have to go through similar ordeal to empathize or whether it is possible to happen without this kind of karmic punishment for the perpetrator. It also puts a question mark on whether or not accountability, repentance, and forgiveness all together can bring peace of mind without reconciliation in such an example. The victim, who does not want any kind of retribution - just reconciliation, is being repeatedly injured by the denial of perpetrator who does not want to reconnect after being caught. This shows that reconciliation is as important as forgiveness itself in some cases inspite of the contrasting differences between the two; peace of mind is sometimes the combination of the two or in some cases separation of the two concepts. Reconciliation without forgiveness (as in indifference) for the sake of the children of a separated couple might bring peace of mind to both parties and forgiveness without reconciliation is likely to bring peace of mind to a victim of an assault with the victim having nothing to do with the perpetrator again and forgoing any ordeal related to it. The third case as explained above being a combination of two where peace of mind is unattainable or atleast something that comes after much deterioration of the victims mental health without both forgiveness and reconciliation going hand in hand. Where reconciliation and forgiveness contrast brightly to each other, they might be just tightly interrelated in some circumstances for both their intrapersonal characteristics and for interpersonal relationships. Comparing the differences between forgiveness and other terms that share the basic concept is often tricky. To differentiate them either psychologically in terms of research or spiritually in terms of meditation: condone, excuse, pardon, exonerate, atone, forgive and reconcile are all overlapping but non-identical concepts. Forgiveness employs the use of intrapersonal feelings of the victim and the victim might unilaterally forgive the perpetrator for the given transgression. References McMinn, Mark R.; Fervida, Heath; Louwerse, Keith A.; Pop, Jennifer L.; Thompson, Ryan D.; Trihub, BobL; McLeod-Harrison, Susan (July 1, 2008). Forgiveness and Prayer. Journal of Psychology and Christianity. Print. McMinn, M. R., Meek, K. R., Dominguez, A. W., Ryan, J. G., A- Novotny, K. A. (1999). Forgiveness motives among evangelical Christians: Implications for Christian ma mage and family therapists. Marriage and Family: A Christian Journal, 2, 189-199. Print. Baker, Marjorie E. (August 5, 2012). Forgiveness: What it is, what it isn't. Dayton Daily News (Dayton, OH). Web. The Gale Encyclopedia of Senior Health: A Guide for Seniors and Their Caregivers (January 1, 2009). Reconciliation. Web. Ransley, Cynthia; Spy, Terri (2004). Forgiveness and the Healing Process: A Central Therapeutic Concern. Brunner-Routledge. p 69. Print. Read More