Monday, 5 February 2024

Post No. 2,706 - Toxic forgiveness [Content Warning: emotional & physical abuse, violent crimes including taking life, despots, critique & criticism of forgiveness]

As I wrote here, my post Post No. 230 - Forgiveness, published 13th February 2011, has been placed behind a sensitivity shield or warning notice. I am NOT disputing that decision, and I have stated so and apologised for the distress caused in my commentary post, and am in the process of adding content warnings etc to the rest of nearly 3,000 blog posts (the “etc” covers updating formatting, updating some concepts, and so on). 

I do, however, consider that the contents of that post are important (and I have provided a brief review of that original post, including one very important point, near the end of this post). 

I started re-writing that post to present my arguments without the problems that have been pointed out to me - and I am not editing the original post, as my learning may be useful for others (and thus seeing the before and after posts may aid that learning of what not to do). 

However, with the benefit of 13 years of subsequent lived experience and growth, I have now decided to do a new take on the subject, under a new and, in my opinion, more accurate term: 

toxic forgiveness 

Forgiveness is generally promoted as something that is good for individuals as it allows them to move on with their lives after trauma, heal, and not be as personally susceptible to the ongoing influence of their abusers. 

This can potentially be the case - and it can also have benefits such as limiting the formation of nonBPM  (nonphysical) links, which would only have to be cleared at some future date to enable a proper nonphysical separation of abuser and victim. 

In addition, it may be less likely to lock abusers into continuing being abusers, but that is a concept that requires careful consideration, which I won’t try to do in this post. (If you are interested in this, do some research into those who have left violent [e.g., gang] lifestyles and what enabled them to do so - it is far more complex than this one aspect. I have written briefly about that elsewhere, and will add some links if I find them.)  

However, there are a number of problems that can also occur with forgiveness. 

Other people have used the term “toxic forgiveness” to address problems at a personal level, and I have provided some links to articles on that aspect below. What I would add to those is that, at a personal level, “toxic forgiveness” can also encompass: 

  • a fawning stress response to the abuser - i.e., doing something to appease the abuser out of fear of being abused if that fawning isn’t done; 
  • a form of spiritual bypassing - both at a personal level (to avoid examining personal issues that led to being in the situation [e.g., if one is too ... desperate to have a relationship, and wind up in an abusive situation rather than dealing with fear of being alone, healthier sources of meaning, etc so that a relationship is a bonus on top of having a “good life”, rather than being a substitute for “a good life”) and at a societal level (such as why some people are abusive - and societal pressure to be coupled etc).

That leads in to the main issue I wish to cover with this concept, which is that all causes/contributing issues to problems need to be identified and dealt with, not only the most obvious - or the most palatable. 

This issue also crops up in the human rights debate between holding despots to account vs. getting them out of the way quicker to minimise the harm they are doing. 

The argument for accountability is that it helps gives a sense of closure to the victims of the despot (i.e., it is personally healing - which is an argument that may also apply to consideration of criminal charges or civil action at the personal level of abuse), and that it is also likely to discourage future possible despots (which is an argument that also applies at a personal level - i.e., abusive people are less likely to be abusive if they see other abusive people being charged. The failure to see such charges being laid promptly and resulting in conviction is one of the reasons that far right extremists such as neo-n___s and other fascists are becoming a larger group).

The argument for getting the despot to, say, another nation that has offered asylum, is that it enables the ongoing damage to be stopped sooner and thus be limited, and to start rebuilding / healing nations quicker (although the victims may not be healed under this approach - and especially not if they are bullied into some notional display of “toxic forgiveness”).

I’m not going to try to define the boundary between these two approaches, as it depends on each circumstance - and that also applies to the personal situation. 

Only those involved or with relevant expertise and experience can determine that boundary. 

One additional point that I would add and emphasise, however, is that this is not an either/or situation: it is possible to have a certain amount of both. 

As an example of that, at a national level, maybe have the despot go into asylum and then have truth telling and an as genuine as possible trial in absentia - which, if it results in a guilty verdict, may give the victims a sense of justice (aka “closure”). 

At a personal level, it may look like having charges pressed or a civil action commenced, but acting without malice/ill will and being emotionally calm throughout the event - invulnerable to barbs, ignore the abuser, etc.

However, I want to return to the social arena again, where “toxic forgiveness” is very similar to “toxic positivity”: it deals with personal responses to issues and pretends that doing so meanns the problem no longer exists. 

Wrong. The problem still exists, and will harm others if it is not addressed. 

An example of that is the abuse of apprentices that used to be widespread a few decades ago. The abuses used could result in severe emotional damage and physical injury - up to and including death. Despite that, some people who went through it would claim to be unaffected - whereas their emotional scarring/crippling indicated otherwise, as did their willingness to inflict on others something that they found painful or unwelcome (possibly out of a sense of misdirected rage/revenge?). This may also be a fawning response, possibly as a survival mechanism if they needed work (e.g., to support a family) and that job was all they could do. I have seen that in office situations (as psychological abuse), incidentally, so it is not only trade apprentices who experience that problem. 

Also, this is not limited to toxic masculinity, as I have seen women (and trans+ people) engage in this sort of abusive behaviour. 

Forgiveness of work problems and working conditions (e.g.,. “oh its just the economy”, or “of its just because of competition”, and the perennial “oh its just the way things are”) is a major problem. If people had had that attitude in the past, we would not have things like the eight hour working day, as everyone would have forgiven those causing the problems rather than doing their jobs better so that they caused less harm. 

In a more modern condemnation, if people didn’t say amathiac things like “oh, it’s just a stepping stone to something else”, or “oh, we all had to do that when we were younger” (no, actually, you didn’t), or “oh, I’m sure they like the flexibility” (which is presumptuous, and often wrong - and those who do like the flexibility need to remember the problems this can cause for others), we would not have the problems described as “the gig economy”. 

(Did you notice that I did not mention what is the main cause for the gig economy: “oh, we have to do that to maintain/grow profit and/or reduce costs [at the expense of peoples lives/wellbeing and family security/functioning”?)

If people forgave circumstances in the past we would not now have things like women’s suffrage. 

If people did not forgive economic/social conditions then we would not have the climate crisis or other problems such as colonialism, racism/white supremacism and past/current slavery. 

Yes, I am aware that all of these are complex issues with many causes/contributing factors, but one of those factors is ... some form of toxic forgiveness, even if it seems to be complacency. 

 

Forgiveness can, when toxic, be a force that stops personal and social change for the better ...


There is a balance here, as I alluded to when I described the human rights debate, between changing what one can - or, more accurately contributing what one can to a larger movement for change, which is what social/human rights change is for most of us, and enduring what we cannot. The “trick” is understanding that the balance point is dynamic (it changes between issues, and between times & circumstances within any one issue), and knowing what that point is ... and knowing that both sides are not mutually exclusive: most situations require both ... 

I can update the Serenity Prayer for that (and to generalise it): 

 

May I have the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
the courage to change or help change the things I can,
and the wisdom to know the difference and when to blend both.


The links regarding “toxic forgiveness” as a personal issue that I mentioned above are (and there are more, if you wish to do a deeper internet search):


I’ll finish with a brief review of my original post:

I began by questioning what I consider inadequate information on the mechanisms of forgiveness - how does one actually forgive someone who has committed a major wrong about oneself? Most of it seems to be based on will power (which almost never works in the long term), or doing so as part of religious observances (and I mentioned a documentary about Tibet which has some amazing examples of forgiveness). 

I then examined a book written by someone who survived an extremely abusive, violent event, but did move on, and had the sort of good, practical advice I considered was necessary. Largely, that was - more or less, using my words for the moment - based on denying the person who has tried to harm her the satisfaction of allowing herself to be harmed - which also applied to the situations in Tibet.

I could relate to that as, for example, I didn’t want to give those kids who bullied me at school the satisfaction of seeing me upset or intimidated or whatever it was that they sought to make me feel (that's not, in my opinion, bravery or anything noble, necessarily, on my part: unlike those in Tibet, it was more stubbornness on my part). 

I also discussed group reincarnations - and now, I would add serial reincarnations with individual people as a possibility, which means that situations / problems that are not constructively resolved (remembering that fawning is NOT a resolution) will become an issue in subsequent lives.

I then examined the concept of not wanting to forgive people - including a particularly vile category of abuser, but examined that mainly in the context of human rights, including in the workplace. What I have written in this post covers that much better, in my opinion. 

I then finished with a very important point, one that I consider still applies to this post: 

 

we train people on how to treat us by the sorts of behaviours we accept

 

That is important, and should never be forgotten. 

Think about it - deeply. 

I also discussed what I described then as “righteous anger”, which I would now describe as anger redirected into passion. 

And that also is an important point that should be kept in mind - and I would now direct people to the work of Karla  McLaren for guidance on how to do that.



PS - this, much later video, also provides some commentary: 

 

PPS - I have thought of another example of toxic forgiveness: the silence and inaction of the powerful who heard of,  suspected, or knew of the sexual abuses that would eventually lead to the #MeToo movement. That silence and especially that inaction was forgiving abusers for their wrongdoing, and caused massive harm to innocent people.



And here are a few other links that might be of use/interest on this: 



Possible flaws 

Where I can, I will try to highlight possible flaws / issues you should consider:

  • there may be flawed logical arguments in the above: to find out more about such flaws and thinking generally, I recommend Brendan  Myers’ free online course “Clear and Present Thinking”;  
  • I could be wrong - so keep your thinking caps on, and make up your own minds for yourself.

 

If you appreciated this post, please consider promoting it - there are some links below, and there’s also Instagram. 

Remember: we generally need to be more human being rather than human doing, to mind our MÓ•gan, and to acknowledge that all misgendering is an act of active transphobia/transmisia that puts trans+ lives at risk & accept that all insistence on the use of “trans” as a descriptor comes with commensurate use of “cis” as a descriptor to prevent “othering” (just as binary gendered [men’s and women’s] sporting teams are either both given the gender descriptor, or neither).

Copyright © Kayleen White 2007-2024     NO AI   I do not consent to any machine learning aka Artificial Intelligence (AI), generative AI, large language model, machine learning, chatbot, or other automated analysis, generative process, or replication program to reproduce, mimic, remix, summarise, or otherwise  replicate any part of this post or other posts on this blog via any means. Typo’s may be inserrted deliberately to demonstrate this is not an AI product.     Otherwise, fair and reasonable use is accepted under Creative Commons 4.0 on an Attribution-ShareAlike basis https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/  




 

Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,