Forgiveness and exoneration: Hargrave
Further to the Spring book, Terry Hargrave's book Families and Forgiveness makes an excellent companion read in how it offers a very clear and distinct state of acceptance of a situation that is a kind of closure unto itself without backing the hurt party into the corner of unwilling or cheap forgiveness, that being exoneration.
Emphasis as in the source; [square brackets] indicate minor modifications for context by the blogger.
He explains it thusly:
When relationships are painful, they are painful because we feel victimized by an irresponsible person who cannot be trusted and shamed because we are not lovable. The guilt of a person who has treated us in an unjustified manner strikes hardest at our sense of trust and the shame strikes because we realize that we are not loved. It almost goes without saying that the more important the relationship to us, the harder the guilt and shame strike at our being.
This is why forgiveness is necessary in relationships. We want to know that we are loved and that people are trustworthy. Shame, guilt, and fear become overwhelming to us if we believe otherwise. But the task of forgiving takes enormous courage because we may enter back into relationships only to find that people still do not love us [as we want to be loved] and that they still cannot be trusted. However, if we cut ourselves off from our families [relationships] we lock in the shame and guilt in such a way that they cannot be addressed. How, then do we help ourselves and others constructively change the past and forgive where it can be changed and move on in other relationships when no change is possible?
The work of forgiveness... fits into two broad categories of exonerating and forgiving. Exonerating and forgiving are both on the same road and neither is inherently better than the other. Exonerating is the effort of a person who has experienced injustice or hurt to lift the load of culpability off the person who caused the hurt (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner, 1986), Instead of subjecting the wrong-doer to endless condemnation, the exonerating person learns how the environment and patterns of the injustice develop and understands and appreciates the wrong-doer's situation, options, efforts and limits. It is by gaining insight and understanding that a person who has experienced a tremendous injustice [within a relationship] is able to go about the work of exoneration.
Forgiving differs from exonerating in that forgiving requires some specific action regarding the responsibility for the injustice that caused the hurt. When a relational injustice occurs... the person who is victimized is hurt and it is reasonable for him or her to hold the wrongdoer responsible for the hurt. Trust in the relationship is at risk. Forgiving involves the victimized person's being given legitimate reason to believe that the wrongdoer accepts responsibility for the injustice and hurt caused, while promising to refrain from further injustice. Forgiveness is accomplished when the victimized person no longer has to hold the wrongdoer responsible for the injustice; the wrongdoer holds himself or herself responsible. The relationship betweent eh two can then be reestablished because trust has been restored. Forgiveness can be established by allowing the wrongdoer to compensate for past injustices by being trustworthy in significant ways in the future, and also by overtly addressing the responsibility of the injustice between the two parties. Forgiveness is accomplished by giving the opportunity for compensation and by the overt act of forgiving.
[...]Exonerating has two stations of insight and understanding, while forgiving has two stations of giving the opportunity for compensation and the overt act of forgiving. It is clear that even though exonerating and forgiving are along the same road and are aimed at the work of forgiveness, the two are very different and appropriate in different relationships at different times. Also, even though there are four stations...it should not be interpreted that they are stages, such that insight precedes understanding and so on. The stations [are] intertwined, but it is inappropriate to assume that people move through them sequentially or that they do not oscillate between stations many times int he course of the same relationship.
Exonerating and forgiveness differ in several ways, but primarily in their demands on the future relationship. Exoneration does not demand responsibility for the injustice, so it does not demand reestablishment of trust. Most often, however, this will limit the type of relationship that two people can have in the future. [...]
Forgiveness demands that trust be reestablished between two people after a relational hurt. Essentially, forgiving is relationship reconstruction. for this reason, forgiving puts a person back into a relationship that has caused hurt from injustice in the past. It puts the the person in a position of risk in order to build trust. Although forging is enormously fruitful, it certainly is not appropriate for every relationship.
Terry Hargrave, Families and Forgiveness
Routledge, Taylor & Francis (New York), 1994
Emphasis as in the source; [square brackets] indicate minor modifications for context by the blogger.
He explains it thusly:
When relationships are painful, they are painful because we feel victimized by an irresponsible person who cannot be trusted and shamed because we are not lovable. The guilt of a person who has treated us in an unjustified manner strikes hardest at our sense of trust and the shame strikes because we realize that we are not loved. It almost goes without saying that the more important the relationship to us, the harder the guilt and shame strike at our being.
This is why forgiveness is necessary in relationships. We want to know that we are loved and that people are trustworthy. Shame, guilt, and fear become overwhelming to us if we believe otherwise. But the task of forgiving takes enormous courage because we may enter back into relationships only to find that people still do not love us [as we want to be loved] and that they still cannot be trusted. However, if we cut ourselves off from our families [relationships] we lock in the shame and guilt in such a way that they cannot be addressed. How, then do we help ourselves and others constructively change the past and forgive where it can be changed and move on in other relationships when no change is possible?
The work of forgiveness... fits into two broad categories of exonerating and forgiving. Exonerating and forgiving are both on the same road and neither is inherently better than the other. Exonerating is the effort of a person who has experienced injustice or hurt to lift the load of culpability off the person who caused the hurt (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner, 1986), Instead of subjecting the wrong-doer to endless condemnation, the exonerating person learns how the environment and patterns of the injustice develop and understands and appreciates the wrong-doer's situation, options, efforts and limits. It is by gaining insight and understanding that a person who has experienced a tremendous injustice [within a relationship] is able to go about the work of exoneration.
Forgiving differs from exonerating in that forgiving requires some specific action regarding the responsibility for the injustice that caused the hurt. When a relational injustice occurs... the person who is victimized is hurt and it is reasonable for him or her to hold the wrongdoer responsible for the hurt. Trust in the relationship is at risk. Forgiving involves the victimized person's being given legitimate reason to believe that the wrongdoer accepts responsibility for the injustice and hurt caused, while promising to refrain from further injustice. Forgiveness is accomplished when the victimized person no longer has to hold the wrongdoer responsible for the injustice; the wrongdoer holds himself or herself responsible. The relationship betweent eh two can then be reestablished because trust has been restored. Forgiveness can be established by allowing the wrongdoer to compensate for past injustices by being trustworthy in significant ways in the future, and also by overtly addressing the responsibility of the injustice between the two parties. Forgiveness is accomplished by giving the opportunity for compensation and by the overt act of forgiving.
[...]Exonerating has two stations of insight and understanding, while forgiving has two stations of giving the opportunity for compensation and the overt act of forgiving. It is clear that even though exonerating and forgiving are along the same road and are aimed at the work of forgiveness, the two are very different and appropriate in different relationships at different times. Also, even though there are four stations...it should not be interpreted that they are stages, such that insight precedes understanding and so on. The stations [are] intertwined, but it is inappropriate to assume that people move through them sequentially or that they do not oscillate between stations many times int he course of the same relationship.
Exonerating and forgiveness differ in several ways, but primarily in their demands on the future relationship. Exoneration does not demand responsibility for the injustice, so it does not demand reestablishment of trust. Most often, however, this will limit the type of relationship that two people can have in the future. [...]
Forgiveness demands that trust be reestablished between two people after a relational hurt. Essentially, forgiving is relationship reconstruction. for this reason, forgiving puts a person back into a relationship that has caused hurt from injustice in the past. It puts the the person in a position of risk in order to build trust. Although forging is enormously fruitful, it certainly is not appropriate for every relationship.
Terry Hargrave, Families and Forgiveness
Routledge, Taylor & Francis (New York), 1994