Forgiveness and Reconciliation, Research Paper Example

Introduction

The difference between forgiveness and reconciliation is revealed in the fact that reconciliation does not on its own constitute forgiveness. Real forgiveness of an interpersonal conflict, initially caused by an offense, is achieved through consistent work towards a state of mind. Forgiveness involves letting go of resentment caused by an offense, which can not be achieved just through reconciliation. Research also shows that cases of reconciliation based on conditional terms is just provisional reconciliation, which establishes limitations on the offended party’s ability to forgive the offender.  Authentic forgiveness is an attainable goal when therapy and active relational rehabilitation are implemented.  The following will take a closer look at the differences between reconciliation and forgiveness in interpersonal relationships, and the therapeutic approaches utilized in the process of resolving distrust or situations of relationship based betrayal. to provide useful recommendations on how forgiveness can be achieved.

Forgiveness and Reconciliation

The act of forgiving is very different from reconciliation.  This does not take away from the fact that reconciliation and forgiveness are closely related, but they are not terms often used  interchangeably within fields that study interpersonal relations.   Dr. Dennis Bagarozzi (2008) notes that the difference between reconciliation and forgiveness is revealed in many marital therapy cases, as both parties in a marriage can seek reconciliation and achieve reconciliation from an offense but this still does not mean the offending party is granted forgiveness. The main cause of this distinction is that it is natural for a person engaged in an interpersonal relationship who has been offended or betrayed by one they love to seek reconciliation while still feeling hesitant to forgive the offending party.  Bagarozzi (2008) defines reconciliation as the reestablishment of relations. The major problem that occurs, which reveals the key difference between reconciliation and forgiveness,  is the implementation of provisional reconciliation.  Provisional reconciliation refers to situations where the offender seeking forgiveness settles for reconciliation under the terms that they will never again commit the offense. Bagarozzi argues that provisional reconciliation is superficial and it’s often a red flag that real forgiveness has not been achieved.  Waldron, and Kelley (2005), define forgiveness as the process of letting go of feelings like hostility and resentment caused by an interpersonal offense.  Real forgiveness is something that must be worked towards. Emers and Canary (1996) refer to forgiveness as the only true “way to recover from a negative relational event” (Emers & Canary, 1996). The main complication that makes forgiveness such a hard state of mind to attain can be attributed to the many feelings that are difficult for the offended party to overcome. In his text on forgiveness , Griswold (2007) cites a chart drafted by Leland R. baumont that breaks down the path towards forgiveness and overcoming these challenges, as shown below:

Here it can be seen that the path to forgiveness requires sincere remorse on the part of the offender while the offended must vindicate the offender but this vindication can only be truly granted once the offended has let go of the spite and hurt that accompanied the initial offense. Leland’s model shows reveals the key difference between actual forgiveness and the commonly promoted idea of forgiveness shared within society. Morrow (2000) notes that, through promoting the idea of forgiveness which fails to relieve all parties involved from their guilt or debts, the end result is tying all parties to a “powerful contradiction”.  Morrow (2000) further notes that “ideologically, we proclaim that everything is over; in our depths, bitterness and guilt live on. If we cannot forgive—and some of the injuries for which we so easily call for forgiveness strike so deeply to the core of who we are that they hardly allow for it—then it is better that we acknowledge our difficulties” (Morrow, 2000). Morrow feels this is a preferred alternative to the parties involved pretending they have found an actual resolve for forgiveness. He states by expecting an apology or performing standard acts to receive forgiveness, they are only forcing others to “mouth words” that make the situation worse. Morrow offers a further interpretation of forgiveness pointing out that it is inherently associated with the concept of guilt and responsibility. He argues that guilt is the consequence of an offense for which the offender is responsible.

Communication Strategies Used in Forgiveness

In a study conducted by Douglas Kelley (1998) on the taxonomy of “forgiveness-granting communications,” he identifies three broad categories of forgiveness, specifically  indirect, direct, and conditional forgiveness.  Direct forgiveness entails the act of  communicating, where the offended partner engagement in sincere interaction with the offender. Waldron and Kelly (2005) note that during these interactions, it is customary  for the offended initiating the discussion to communicate the core nature of the transgression and its consequences to the offender (Waldron, V. Kelley, D. 2005).  Indirect forgiveness-granting entails non-verbal communication such as acts of remorse and act of vindication, and it usually occurs when resolving minor transgressions (Waldron, V. Kelley, D. 2005).  Conditional forgiveness is similar to provisional reconciliation where the offended communicates to the offender that they will be forgiven under certain conditions. Waldon and Kelley (2005) note that this form of forgiveness is inauthentic.

Therapeutic Approach to Forgiveness

In a study on therapeutic approaches to forgiveness researchers assessed how therapists work towards forgiveness when treating married couples that have issues with infidelity. The study found that four specific themes can be closely affiliated with forgiveness, and only through confronting these factors can forgiveness achieved.  The first factor entailed establishing a clear understanding of how the patients perceived the concept of forgiveness (Olmstead, S. Blick, R. & Mills, L. 2009).  The next factor entailed helping the patients to understand that there is work involved in the process of forgiveness, and to clarify any misconceptions related to forgiveness that the patients might have.  The third factor involves the couple discussing their wants and needs with one another in respect to the forgiveness process.  The final factor entails timing, specifically the time involved in understanding the reality of forgiveness and the reality related to the time it will take to achieve the goal.  All of these factors reveal forgiveness to be a challenging venture but one that can be achieved through diligence patience and a respect for the process.

Conclusion

In sum, the main difference between forgiveness and reconciliation can be seen in the fact that reconciliation does not necessarily result in forgiveness. Authentic resolution of an interpersonal conflict that was initially caused by an offense can only be achieved through forgiveness which is a state of mind that the offended party must work towards. Forgiveness entails the release of hostility and resentment caused from an interpersonal injury and this is something that can not easily be achieved with basic reconciliation. Likewise, situations where parties agree to reconcile based on conditional terms is often not authentic reconciliation, but just provisional reconciliation which creates a barrier between the offended party and achieving actual forgiveness.

References

Bagarozzi, D. A. (2008). Understanding and Treating Marital Infidelity: A Multidimensional Model. American Journal Of Family Therapy, 36(1), 1-17. doi:10.1080/0192618060118690

Emmers, T. M., & Canary, D. J. (1996). The effect of uncertainty reducing strategies on you couples’ relational repair and intimacy. Communication Quarterly, 44, 166-182

Griswold, C. (2007). Forgiveness: A philosophical exploration. Cambridge University Press.

Kelley, D. (1998). The Communication of Forgiveness. Communication Studies, 49(3), 255-271.

Morrow, D. (2000). Forgiveness and reconciliation. Future policies for the past.

Olmstead, S. B., Blick, R. W., & Mills, L. I. (2009). Helping Couples Work Toward the Forgiveness of Marital Infidelity: Therapists’ Perspectives. American Journal Of Family Therapy, 37(1), 48-66. doi:10.1080/01926180801960575

Waldron, V., & Kelley, D. (2005). Forgiving communication as a response to relational transgressions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(7), 723-742.