Risking Forgiveness
I will argue that forgiveness, on a large-scale, is a risky response to mass atrocities because the perpetrators may wrong again, the atrocity may be forgotten, and the victims may not be satisfied with this response. I will use Martha Minow and Jeffrie Murphy to explain problems with forgiveness, and will use, as an example, the United States as a violator of numerous peace treaties with Native Americans to illustrate the risks of mass forgiveness. Finally, I will present an alternative to forgiveness that would ideally allow for reconciliation and justice, as well as a way of healing and a new identity for victims and perpetrators.
As mentioned above, I believe forgiving on a large-scale is risky because the victims of mass atrocities may not be ready to forgive and may not be satisfied with this response. Nietzsche, Butler, and Murphy would all agree that a natural response to mass atrocity or any atrocity would be anger. Butler says in Fifteen Sermons,
“It hath been shown, that mankind naturally feel some emotion of mind against injury and injustice, whoever are the sufferers by it; and even though the injurious design be prevented from taking effect. Let this be called anger, indignation, resentment, or by whatever name any one shall choose; the thing itself is understood, and is plainly natural.” (Butler 102)
They begin to differ in opinion when this anger is prolonged or transformed into resentment; however, I agree with Butler and find preventing or destroying resentment extremely difficult in situations of mass atrocity. Erasing one’s personal identity by killing relationships that he or she is dependent on, insulting and challenging one’s existence, and displacing one from his or her homeland is grounds enough for serious hatred and resentment. If we multiply this by existing survivors, the result is mass hatred. Hatred does not entail the desire to harm another; rather, hatred is an irrevocable ill feeling toward a person or persons who has harmed that individual. I believe hatred exists, in some form, inside of each survivor of mass atrocity or violence. Some may suppress this hatred, others may openly embrace it in an outward or inward manner, but it must be present, as survivors would not recognize the events that happened to them as atrocities. If a government or society forgives the perpetrators too suddenly, or without addressing the ill feelings the victims possess, then the government is not acting in the interest of the victims and the direction of their hatred will be frayed and unpredictable.
Large-scale forgiveness may be equated with forgetting, which may suppress the events that have shaped the lives of victims and perpetrators, and the environment (physical, economic, and emotional) surrounding the victims and perpetrators. If a government or society has forgiven others for committing acts of mass violence or atrocity, and does not maintain the memory through education, memorials, or by providing ways for victims to express their pain (art, music, literature, religion etc.), then there is no way for the victims to heal. In other words, large-scale forgiveness runs the risk of forgetting the many ways mass atrocity or violence has re-shaped the lives of the victims and perpetrators, when attention is no longer focused on the aftermath, but on returning to “normal”, or maintaining a forgiving attitude toward the perpetrators. I am not saying that forgiving will always lead to forgetting, but I am leery that governments may be too eager to “forgive and forget” in order to focus energy on the new, while avoiding painful memories and emotions.
Another risk of forgiveness is the possibility that the mass atrocity or violence may continue or happen again. If a government or society forgives without seeking some sort of punishment, then that society has no way of controlling or preventing the mass atrocity from happening again. Contracts and treaties as forms of forgiveness are not enough. If a government does not desire punishment, but desires forgiveness, then the government should seek to dismantle the ability of the perpetrators to continue their destruction. Forgiving is not an appropriate response by itself, it must be also be enforced.
Martha Minow, author of Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, would also agree that forgiveness is a risky response to mass atrocity. Minow spends a lot of time explaining that forgiveness often moves away from problems too quickly and leads to forgetting or public ignorance of the problem (Minow 15). She says,
“Yet, in practice, forgiveness often produces exemption from punishment . . . [which] sacrifices justice in a foreshortened effort to move on . . . [and] such an effort to move on often fails because the injury is not so much forgiven but publicly ignored, leaving it to fester . . .” (Minow 15).
Minow also believes that forgiving may lead to silence, which may cause psychological harm to victims. She says, “ . . . forgiveness may mean ultimately forgetting or putting aside the harm . . .Victims and witnesses who seek to forget ironically may assist the perpetrators by keeping silent about their crimes. Silence about violence locks perpetrators and victims in the cruel pact of denial, literally and psychologically” (Minow 16). She also explains that no one can be forced to forgive and that every individual has his or her own way of dealing with the events that have occurred (Minow 21). Denying victims their own response, Minow says, would further their suffering (Minow 21). She says, “Individuals respond uniquely and differently to horror. At least the responses are their own. To demand different ones may be yet another form of degradation and denial of their very being” (Minow 20). Minow does not deny the possibility of forgiveness, rather she finds it difficult and desires further questions to be asked if forgiveness were to take place (Minow 21). She would ask,
“ . . . what should count as a good reason to forgive . . . what would it take, and what do our current or imagined institutions need to do, to come to terms with the past, to help heal the victims, the bystanders, and even the perpetrators? What would promote reconstruction of a society devastated by atrocities? What could build a nation capable of preventing future massacres and incidents or regimes of torture?” (Minow 21).
Minow does acknowledge the benefits of forgiveness, but does not think they are equal to the risks involved. I agree with Minow’s criticism of forgiveness, but will use further criticism to support my argument.
Jefferie Murphy, co-author of Forgiveness and Mercy, mentions a criticism of forgiveness that is applicable to mass atrocities and shows one risk involved in large-scale forgiveness. Murphy explains that forgiveness should not be granted too quickly as it may insult the victim(s) (Murphy 17). He says, “Indeed, if I am correct in linking resentment to self-respect, a too ready tendency to forgive may properly be regarded as a vice because it may be a sign that one lacks respect for oneself” (Murphy 17). In other words, when a person or government grants forgiveness too quickly that person or government is ignoring, or suppressing the pain and suffering experienced, which disrespects the person(s) and does not allow the victim(s) to heal. I believe, in cases of mass atrocity, that a government who forgave immediately would not have time to acknowledge or assess the damage that has occurred, and would not have time to provide immediate help. Forgiving too quickly may also perpetuate violence, for the perpetrators may not feel guilty for their actions, since the victims appear to have recovered so quickly, and may continue the violence.
Forgiving too quickly has occurred in Western Society and is partly the reason for the severe decline in the Native American population. The United States government and Native Americans, as we know, often struggled over the ownership of land. In order for the United States to remain on good terms with the Natives, they would offer them a peace treaty, which outlined where the Native people’s territory began and where the white people’s territory ended. Although the Native’s were outraged by the white people’s destruction of their land and people, they forgave them by signing a peace treaty. Forgiveness was granted by the Native Americans in the sense that they did not resist the white man’s attempt to make peace, and accepted or reconciled past actions, while opening the door to future interactions. However, the United States government often disobeyed these treaties, capturing more Native American land and shedding more Native American blood.
Although many peace treaties were signed, I am only referring to those signed willingly. There are many cases where the Natives were forced to sign these treaties or else their villages would be destroyed, and there are many cases where the Natives were ill-informed or were not told the true nature of the treaty, but I am not referring to these cases. I am also speaking of the Native Americans in very loose terms, with many generalizations.
In this example the Native people forgave without truly understanding the intentions of the United States government, and without understanding the nature of peace treaties. In other words, Native Americans forgave too quickly, as they did not have a full understanding of the United States government’s intention or of peace treaties themselves. Robert Enright, co-author of Interpersonal Forgiveness, would say that the Native Americans did not genuinely forgive if they did not understand the United States intentions or the peace treaties. He says, “The individual engages in ‘reframing’ . . . by striving to understand the offender’s personal history, current pressures, and basic human worth” (Enright 54) However, I disagree with Enright and believe that the Native Americans probably thought they understood their perpetrators and continued on with the forgiving process, even though they were not aware of the white man’s intentions. I believe it is important to strive to understand one’s perpetrators; however, this cannot ensure that he or she will ever know the perpetrator’s full intentions. Fully understanding the intentions of the United States government would have probably been difficult for the Native Americans, as an institution as such would be a foreign concept; however, the Native Americans could have taken more time to investigate intentions further.
The Native people also had less of an ability to enforce the peace treaty when the United States broke the peace treaty, and did not implement or encourage punishment until later, when they began to understand the white man’s intention. So, the Native people forgave without a way of enforcing or punishing those who caused harm, which ties into my idea that forgiveness must have some form of punishment, or some way of protecting the forgivers from further violence, or a way of dismantling that, which is harming the one that has forgiven, in order for forgiveness to be workable. This example also shows that forgiving too quickly does not allow time to assess the intentions of the perpetrators.
Now that I have demonstrated problems with forgiveness, I will explain another possible response to mass violence that does not require or support forgiveness although it is not excluded. This response requires acknowledgment, understanding, acceptance, and punishment. Both perpetrators and victims need to acknowledge the pain experienced by victims. Acknowledging the pain is acknowledging the effect of the atrocity (acknowledgment could also be expressed through the forms of memorials, art, or religion). If one (either the government as a whole, or the individual) has acknowledged the pain and suffering, then he or she can begin to understand the possible ways this atrocity will shape and re-shape the lives of those involved (including victims, perpetrators, and bystanders) and the reasons why perpetrators acted in atrocious ways. Next, victims, perpetrators, and bystanders must accept what has happened and realize that these events will live with them for the rest of their lives. They must realize that this event is now a part of who they are. If they reject this idea, they reject themselves. Acceptance is not the same as forgiving, although forgiveness is in some ways a form of acceptance, and could be used at this point in my response. Finally, a method is needed to punish or dismantle those who have caused the atrocity. This will secure, or attempt to secure future atrocities from happening again and will express the discontent of the group of people harmed. This response incorporates the needs of many people and does not force one to forgive or feel vengeance. However, this response does require one to deal with the consequences of the atrocity whether he or she is a perpetrator, a victim, or a bystander.
Forgiving, as far as I can foresee, is too risky of a response (to mass atrocities) by itself and must be accompanied by ways to deal with the negative energy left after the atrocity has occurred, as well as ways of preventing further harm. I have shown the many criticisms of forgiveness by both Minow and Murphy, such as its leading to forgetting, not being able to prevent future atrocities, and insulting the victims, and I have outlined a possible response to mass atrocities, which would hopefully dissolve extreme negative feelings due to the atrocity, provide an outlet for these emotions, and prevent future atrocities.
As mentioned above, I believe forgiving on a large-scale is risky because the victims of mass atrocities may not be ready to forgive and may not be satisfied with this response. Nietzsche, Butler, and Murphy would all agree that a natural response to mass atrocity or any atrocity would be anger. Butler says in Fifteen Sermons,
“It hath been shown, that mankind naturally feel some emotion of mind against injury and injustice, whoever are the sufferers by it; and even though the injurious design be prevented from taking effect. Let this be called anger, indignation, resentment, or by whatever name any one shall choose; the thing itself is understood, and is plainly natural.” (Butler 102)
They begin to differ in opinion when this anger is prolonged or transformed into resentment; however, I agree with Butler and find preventing or destroying resentment extremely difficult in situations of mass atrocity. Erasing one’s personal identity by killing relationships that he or she is dependent on, insulting and challenging one’s existence, and displacing one from his or her homeland is grounds enough for serious hatred and resentment. If we multiply this by existing survivors, the result is mass hatred. Hatred does not entail the desire to harm another; rather, hatred is an irrevocable ill feeling toward a person or persons who has harmed that individual. I believe hatred exists, in some form, inside of each survivor of mass atrocity or violence. Some may suppress this hatred, others may openly embrace it in an outward or inward manner, but it must be present, as survivors would not recognize the events that happened to them as atrocities. If a government or society forgives the perpetrators too suddenly, or without addressing the ill feelings the victims possess, then the government is not acting in the interest of the victims and the direction of their hatred will be frayed and unpredictable.
Large-scale forgiveness may be equated with forgetting, which may suppress the events that have shaped the lives of victims and perpetrators, and the environment (physical, economic, and emotional) surrounding the victims and perpetrators. If a government or society has forgiven others for committing acts of mass violence or atrocity, and does not maintain the memory through education, memorials, or by providing ways for victims to express their pain (art, music, literature, religion etc.), then there is no way for the victims to heal. In other words, large-scale forgiveness runs the risk of forgetting the many ways mass atrocity or violence has re-shaped the lives of the victims and perpetrators, when attention is no longer focused on the aftermath, but on returning to “normal”, or maintaining a forgiving attitude toward the perpetrators. I am not saying that forgiving will always lead to forgetting, but I am leery that governments may be too eager to “forgive and forget” in order to focus energy on the new, while avoiding painful memories and emotions.
Another risk of forgiveness is the possibility that the mass atrocity or violence may continue or happen again. If a government or society forgives without seeking some sort of punishment, then that society has no way of controlling or preventing the mass atrocity from happening again. Contracts and treaties as forms of forgiveness are not enough. If a government does not desire punishment, but desires forgiveness, then the government should seek to dismantle the ability of the perpetrators to continue their destruction. Forgiving is not an appropriate response by itself, it must be also be enforced.
Martha Minow, author of Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, would also agree that forgiveness is a risky response to mass atrocity. Minow spends a lot of time explaining that forgiveness often moves away from problems too quickly and leads to forgetting or public ignorance of the problem (Minow 15). She says,
“Yet, in practice, forgiveness often produces exemption from punishment . . . [which] sacrifices justice in a foreshortened effort to move on . . . [and] such an effort to move on often fails because the injury is not so much forgiven but publicly ignored, leaving it to fester . . .” (Minow 15).
Minow also believes that forgiving may lead to silence, which may cause psychological harm to victims. She says, “ . . . forgiveness may mean ultimately forgetting or putting aside the harm . . .Victims and witnesses who seek to forget ironically may assist the perpetrators by keeping silent about their crimes. Silence about violence locks perpetrators and victims in the cruel pact of denial, literally and psychologically” (Minow 16). She also explains that no one can be forced to forgive and that every individual has his or her own way of dealing with the events that have occurred (Minow 21). Denying victims their own response, Minow says, would further their suffering (Minow 21). She says, “Individuals respond uniquely and differently to horror. At least the responses are their own. To demand different ones may be yet another form of degradation and denial of their very being” (Minow 20). Minow does not deny the possibility of forgiveness, rather she finds it difficult and desires further questions to be asked if forgiveness were to take place (Minow 21). She would ask,
“ . . . what should count as a good reason to forgive . . . what would it take, and what do our current or imagined institutions need to do, to come to terms with the past, to help heal the victims, the bystanders, and even the perpetrators? What would promote reconstruction of a society devastated by atrocities? What could build a nation capable of preventing future massacres and incidents or regimes of torture?” (Minow 21).
Minow does acknowledge the benefits of forgiveness, but does not think they are equal to the risks involved. I agree with Minow’s criticism of forgiveness, but will use further criticism to support my argument.
Jefferie Murphy, co-author of Forgiveness and Mercy, mentions a criticism of forgiveness that is applicable to mass atrocities and shows one risk involved in large-scale forgiveness. Murphy explains that forgiveness should not be granted too quickly as it may insult the victim(s) (Murphy 17). He says, “Indeed, if I am correct in linking resentment to self-respect, a too ready tendency to forgive may properly be regarded as a vice because it may be a sign that one lacks respect for oneself” (Murphy 17). In other words, when a person or government grants forgiveness too quickly that person or government is ignoring, or suppressing the pain and suffering experienced, which disrespects the person(s) and does not allow the victim(s) to heal. I believe, in cases of mass atrocity, that a government who forgave immediately would not have time to acknowledge or assess the damage that has occurred, and would not have time to provide immediate help. Forgiving too quickly may also perpetuate violence, for the perpetrators may not feel guilty for their actions, since the victims appear to have recovered so quickly, and may continue the violence.
Forgiving too quickly has occurred in Western Society and is partly the reason for the severe decline in the Native American population. The United States government and Native Americans, as we know, often struggled over the ownership of land. In order for the United States to remain on good terms with the Natives, they would offer them a peace treaty, which outlined where the Native people’s territory began and where the white people’s territory ended. Although the Native’s were outraged by the white people’s destruction of their land and people, they forgave them by signing a peace treaty. Forgiveness was granted by the Native Americans in the sense that they did not resist the white man’s attempt to make peace, and accepted or reconciled past actions, while opening the door to future interactions. However, the United States government often disobeyed these treaties, capturing more Native American land and shedding more Native American blood.
Although many peace treaties were signed, I am only referring to those signed willingly. There are many cases where the Natives were forced to sign these treaties or else their villages would be destroyed, and there are many cases where the Natives were ill-informed or were not told the true nature of the treaty, but I am not referring to these cases. I am also speaking of the Native Americans in very loose terms, with many generalizations.
In this example the Native people forgave without truly understanding the intentions of the United States government, and without understanding the nature of peace treaties. In other words, Native Americans forgave too quickly, as they did not have a full understanding of the United States government’s intention or of peace treaties themselves. Robert Enright, co-author of Interpersonal Forgiveness, would say that the Native Americans did not genuinely forgive if they did not understand the United States intentions or the peace treaties. He says, “The individual engages in ‘reframing’ . . . by striving to understand the offender’s personal history, current pressures, and basic human worth” (Enright 54) However, I disagree with Enright and believe that the Native Americans probably thought they understood their perpetrators and continued on with the forgiving process, even though they were not aware of the white man’s intentions. I believe it is important to strive to understand one’s perpetrators; however, this cannot ensure that he or she will ever know the perpetrator’s full intentions. Fully understanding the intentions of the United States government would have probably been difficult for the Native Americans, as an institution as such would be a foreign concept; however, the Native Americans could have taken more time to investigate intentions further.
The Native people also had less of an ability to enforce the peace treaty when the United States broke the peace treaty, and did not implement or encourage punishment until later, when they began to understand the white man’s intention. So, the Native people forgave without a way of enforcing or punishing those who caused harm, which ties into my idea that forgiveness must have some form of punishment, or some way of protecting the forgivers from further violence, or a way of dismantling that, which is harming the one that has forgiven, in order for forgiveness to be workable. This example also shows that forgiving too quickly does not allow time to assess the intentions of the perpetrators.
Now that I have demonstrated problems with forgiveness, I will explain another possible response to mass violence that does not require or support forgiveness although it is not excluded. This response requires acknowledgment, understanding, acceptance, and punishment. Both perpetrators and victims need to acknowledge the pain experienced by victims. Acknowledging the pain is acknowledging the effect of the atrocity (acknowledgment could also be expressed through the forms of memorials, art, or religion). If one (either the government as a whole, or the individual) has acknowledged the pain and suffering, then he or she can begin to understand the possible ways this atrocity will shape and re-shape the lives of those involved (including victims, perpetrators, and bystanders) and the reasons why perpetrators acted in atrocious ways. Next, victims, perpetrators, and bystanders must accept what has happened and realize that these events will live with them for the rest of their lives. They must realize that this event is now a part of who they are. If they reject this idea, they reject themselves. Acceptance is not the same as forgiving, although forgiveness is in some ways a form of acceptance, and could be used at this point in my response. Finally, a method is needed to punish or dismantle those who have caused the atrocity. This will secure, or attempt to secure future atrocities from happening again and will express the discontent of the group of people harmed. This response incorporates the needs of many people and does not force one to forgive or feel vengeance. However, this response does require one to deal with the consequences of the atrocity whether he or she is a perpetrator, a victim, or a bystander.
Forgiving, as far as I can foresee, is too risky of a response (to mass atrocities) by itself and must be accompanied by ways to deal with the negative energy left after the atrocity has occurred, as well as ways of preventing further harm. I have shown the many criticisms of forgiveness by both Minow and Murphy, such as its leading to forgetting, not being able to prevent future atrocities, and insulting the victims, and I have outlined a possible response to mass atrocities, which would hopefully dissolve extreme negative feelings due to the atrocity, provide an outlet for these emotions, and prevent future atrocities.
posted by Karen Jarboe at
11:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home