Abstract
It is interesting to look at the discrepancy between everyday use of expressions demanding forgiveness like ‘sorry’, ‘excuse me’, ‘I beg your pardon’ and many others, and the presence of dilemmas about the significance and possibilities of reaching the forgiving attitude in the professional psychological spheres. Obviously the subject is very intricate and raises many questions.
In this sense Farhad Dalal is not the exception to the rule. He has developed interesting questions and comments in his article on forgiving the unforgivable. Already from the title there radiates the intrinsic dilemma of possibility and impossibility to reach some mature point of view in that respect, regarding certain deep, narcissistic wounds that remain deeply carved in one’s memory and emotions. There are people who would like to avoid any complex dealing with the phenomenon of forgiveness (like actual Russian president Yeltsin who said that forgiveness belongs to God, and that his obligation was to send transgressors to him as soon as possible). Indeed there are wounds that are not easy or even possible to forgive. Even long life might be considered short with regards to the possibility of completing the forgiving process (or mourning, or reconciling as well). This is a sign that the mourning process is not completed and that the forgiving attitude cannot take root due to dilemma being reheated time and again by one’s vulnerability. Here we might recall the notion of ancient Greeks’ wisdom that everything flows (panta rei). Thinking on the nature of the forgiving phenomenon we are reminded of its ‘fluid’ properties, of its ups and downs, back and forth movements that constantly permeate intimate, inter-subjective and social spheres at large. In this sense Dalal’s position regarding the s.c. linear or cyclic nature of the process seems to me not to be an appropriate one.
Approaching Dalal’s statements that ‘the individualistic and internalist account of forgiveness is discredited’, and that ‘forgiveness is a property of the network’ (Dalal, 2016: 220), here I see a contradiction again—because one of the author’s key positions starts with disclosing his life-long wounds that he feels as being live, narcissistic vulnerability, searching for deeper understanding and resolutions. This dilemma is interlaced through the text till the very last phrase, and probably requires at least an acknowledgement. I will come to this point later.
There is another dilemma: even willing to forgive and free oneself from objections, criticism and reproaches, the life cycle is many a time not long enough to overcome the wound and grief, as said before. Here the author brings up several interesting points, like the dilemma of reflexive and paralysed citizens, the bystanders to become witnesses, how to approach perpetrators and not enter the sphere of betrayal, the capability of deeper understanding of his/her developmental pathology, and the remorse as a sign of re-humanization.
Of course, outside the internal world sphere there are intersubjective and large societal spheres, and the above mentioned considerations enlarge the field of associations. According to Dalal, they reflect dilemmas about guilt, shame and other hard feelings on different levels, from personal to national and beyond, on citizens’ identification figures, history, identity and culture. In this context the differentiation of the misdeeds between ‘perpetrated by some’ and ‘perpetrated in the name of someone’ is another key issue that the author would like to intertwine in his analytic approach to the phenomenon of forgiveness. In this sense, naming hot spots like Israel or Serbia, is obviously bringing the author to his own facets of loyalty dilemmas, which in certain circumstances tend to overburden him (everybody!), stirring up identity issues. This I see as the very personal and courageous part of the text, especially in times of the mass global migration compared to the personal identity. It includes learning versus unlearning processes, enabling continuous personality growing at a cost of uplifting of anxiety, inner tensions, even remorse. Here it might be helpful to introduce Friedman’s concept (2015) about partial identification. If the person is feeling and understanding his/her identity and sense of living depending on unforgivable stances, this means that without unfolding the idea of deeper understanding of the victim–perpetrator relationship and psychodynamic approach to the very source of the injury, the citizen will remain enslaved in the hating position. This is another very important and complex approach that influences the phenomenon of forgiveness, its values and its vicissitudes. The great risk is to confuse perpetrator’s malicious pleasure recalling vengeance with the forgiveness process as a form of betrayal. In everyday life and on a large scale it is possible to witness such dynamics.
Another interesting point connected with the above mentioned, raised by Dalal, is the relationship of the bystander–witness. In Dalal’s dilemma between individual, intersubjective and group, even international levels come to the fore again, underscoring the complexity of the problem. In this context he states that ‘the capacity to forgive the unforgivable is perhaps only possible for saints (Dalal, 2016: 227)’. This might mean that the work on forgiving is not for ‘ordinary’ people, as it is far too demanding. The question arises does this correspond to the everyday life experiences in private and professional settings? He then moves on to acknowledge and recognize (confrontation issues), mentioning vengeance only without attributing to it specific rich meanings. It is interesting what Berger writes about the empowering properties of vindictive thoughts, when they are not converted into deeds, in order to prevent a victim developing the victimhood psychological position (described by A. Berman in Urlić, Berger and Berman, 2013).
The author then comes to remorse. Here again the possibility to use empathic (Rifkin, 2009) understanding, illustrated in the text by Jesus’ life episodes, is reflexing the oscillations of the author between individual and the wide spectrum, and up to global dimensions of forgiving issues.
Here I would like to unfold some recollections from my resident period in the Department of Neurology in early 1970s. In former Yugoslavia it was the period when I had the opportunity to treat many World War Two veterans, Tito’s partisans, who were recovering in the hospital because of neurological health problems due to their advanced age, mostly strokes. During the night service many of them would call me and with a low voice would ask me some kind of favour. As members of the communist party they should have been declared as atheists. Seeing death with their own eyes, they asked me to arrange the possibility of them seeing a priest, to confess and receive the Holy Communion. In these cases, the friar from the neighbouring Franciscan monastery would arrive in an ordinary suit and was introduced as a relative. After confession and receiving the extreme unction these patients were very relaxed, as though having rid themselves of a very heavy burden. Others asked me to listen to their life stories, especially undeserved sufferings and humiliations, while serving their sentences under awful conditions, commenting that they hoped I understood them and God would hear their sincere confession. These were either people who did not dare to express their religious feelings openly because of being members of the only ruling party—or those experiencing severe and humiliating punishment for not having declared themselves as renouncing the Soviet Union and Stalin as leaders of workers’ power, and to embrace only Yugoslav communist party and Tito as correct interpreters of the new political order.
The need to browse through the life while ‘looking death into its eyes’, to talk with God and humans, and to eventually obtain forgiveness and reconciliation with themselves and others, and to tell the truth about many important aspects of their life, was an overwhelming experience from the very tumultuous periods that used to occur in former Yugoslavia. Some paralysed citizens did find the way to open up their reflexive part, and the so very human need to confide, to share some of their deepest secrets of humiliation and injustice done to them under certain, specific circumstances. The shame and guilt feelings were spread in their experiences to family members, causing additional pain and responsibility feelings.
These are just some reflections on the text that mirrors many aspects of such a complex issue as forgiveness appears to be. In this way among conclusions there is a statement that ‘the work of forgiveness is not the work of a solitary individual’, which is not a logical conclusion to this interesting article, because (especially for a group analyst) there is no such thing as a ‘solitary individual’, because he/she is the logical product of pre-existing networks, contributing to existing ones, and leaving traces after his/her material existence.
What might contribute to the possibility of starting to unfold the very complex phenomenon of forgiveness and to open up to its better understanding, besides a thorough mourning process, either in one’s inner world or on both (or more) sides involved? I suggest that without deep understanding of the wounds of those involved in the mourning process, and of their transgenerational wounding and mythology that supports or alleviates submission to these identity crises and burdens of everyday life, it is not possible to go over hurts and pains. I agree with Dalal’s stance that remorse in this respect helps to re-humanize the perception of enemies. The human condition is not better, as even neurobiology is confirming and admonishing us, being saints, sinners and/or just mortals.
To conclude, empathic capacities in understanding the human condition might support humanistic choices beyond saints and sinners. Perhaps the author will be inspired or annoyed by these comments, but this text is certainly an enrichment to the approach of the forgiveness phenomenon.
Footnotes
