A "Good" Apology

Dov Seidman nostalgically recalls  a time when apologies really meant something.  These days, he believes apology has become a sort of theater.  This is particularly true for public figures, whose apologies more and more frequently seem like performances rather than genuine expressions of remorse.  Seidman contends that the behavior of public figures simply reflects a broader societal norm.  According to Seidman, people today use apologies as a "verbal escape route" or a way to "get out of jail cheaply."  This trend has so cheapened the apology that it has become all but meaningless.

And so Dov Seidman, together with Andrew Ross Sorkin, have started a campaign to draw attention to the current "aplogy crisis."  Their project is called "Apology Watch" and can be found at nytimes.com/dealbook.  and on Twitter under the hashtage #ApologyWatch.  Seidman and Sorkin are asking readers to help them track new public apologies in real time.  The plan is to rate each apology on its level of overall sincerity. 

I first heard about Apology Watch on NPR.  I was immediately intrigued at the idea.  As I do with most things that spark my interest, I decided to do a little research on the topic.  While the focus of Apology Watch is primarily on people in the public arena, I am personally more interested in the function of apologies in interpersonal relationships.  Still, I hoped that some of Seidman's ideas might be applicable on both the large and small scale.     

Seidman believes that the sincerity of a given apology can be measured not so much by its content but by what comes both before and after it.  Before issuing an apology, Seidman contends, an offender should take the time to do some soul searching.  A good apology first requires a period of introspection.

An example of this, Seidman says, is the 2011 apology made by Netflix CEO Reed Hastings for raising subscription rates. The rate increase sparked an immediate backlash from consumers, who cancelled their subscriptions in droves. Stock prices fell over 7% in the weeks after the decision was announced. Two months after implementing the rate increase CEO Hastings issued an apology and restored prices to their original level. Hastings' apology was good, explains Seidman, because it began with "a complete vulnerable revelation" (i.e., success had made him arrogant and that this arrogance motivated his decision to raise prices).  Seidman believes that Hastings could only have come to this realization by looking inside himself and being honest about what he found (i.e., introspection). 

Seidman's suggestion, then, is that before issuing an apology an offender should take a complete moral inventory of himself.  Ken Blanchard and Margaret McBride suggest an offender ask himself the following:

*What mistakes did I make?
*Did I dismiss the feelings, wishes, or ideas of another person?
*Why did I do this?
*Was it an impulsive thoughtless behavior?
*Or was it calcualted?
*Did I act out of fear, anger, or frustration?
*What was my motivation?
*How long did I let this go on?  Has this behavior become a repeated pattern in my life?
*What truth am I not dealing with?
*Am I better than this behavior?

So according to Seidman, a period of introspection, self-examination, etc. should be undertaken before offering an apology.  There are also certain things that should come after a genuine apology.

Seidman states that a genuine apology must be followed by intentional and sustained changes in behavior.  If an apology is sincere, the person apologizing immediately begins to take action to repair, mitigate, or at least atone for whatever damage he has caused. 

So often people want forgiveness but are unwilling to accept the consequences of their actions.  Saying I'm sorry does not immediately restore trust once it has been betrayed; the restoration of trust takes time.  The victim of a betrayal may need the offender to take certain steps to demonstrate his trustworthiness, above and beyond what would otherwise be expected.  The offending party does not get to dictate what measures are "reasonable" or how much time it should take before trust is regained.  If he is genuinely sorry and truly wants forgiveness he must be willling to do whatever it takes for however long it takes.  These are the consequences of his actions.  Aplogizing does not exempt him from these consequences. 

This is something Seidman does not mention in his writing but that I think is relevant.  Perhaps we, as a society, let people off too easily.  Maybe we are too willing to forgive and forget once a public figure apologizes for bad behavior.  A movie star does something appalling; we still watch his movies.  A CEO takes advantage of his customers; we still buy his products or services.  A company abuses its employees; we continue to shop there.  A chemical company dumps toxins in the water supply?  A slap on the wrist and a license to keep operating.  We no longer hold anyone accountable.  We're probably lucky that people bother to apologize at all. 

Self Forgiveness

Willingness to forgive is a trait that varies in degree from individual to individual.  Some people are so quick to forgive that they become easy to take advantage of.  Others nurse grudges for years over minor infractions.  Most of us fall somewhere between these two extremes: we are willing to forgive most people for most offenses but have identified certain conditions under which forgiveness is simply not possible. 

One thing I've noticed fairly consistently with my patients is that most of them are willing and able to forgive others but have a difficult time forgiving themselves.  Many of my patients who struggle with self forgiveness have been burdened by guilt and self blame for years.  By the time I see them, what started as guilt has become shame and self loathing.  How does this happen?

Think of someone you know (we'll call him Person A) who has a grudge against someone else (we'll call him Person B).  Whenever Person A hears Person B's name so much as mentioned he becomes angry.  He tells everyone he knows not to talk about Person B around him, but he sometimes brings Person B up himself just so he can say something mean about him.  Depending on how bad the grudge gets, Person A might go out of his way to learn things about Person B, especially things that suggest Person B is unhappy or having problems.  "It serves him right," Person A says when he learns of any malady in Person B's life.  Hating Person B can become quite an obsession if things get out of control...And so imagine this turned inward.  Imagine directing all this anger and hatred at oneself. 

Hall and Fincham offer another explanation.  When one person has been hurt by another, his instinct is often to avoid that person so as not to activate negative thoughts and feelings associated with the offense committed against him.  Often, it is possible to avoid the transgressor indefinitely: reconciliation is not necessarry, even if one chooses to forgive the offender.  This is not the case with someone who feels guilty about an offense he has committed against someone else.  It is not possible to escape negative thoughts and feelings about the offense by avoiding contact with the transgressor when one is the transgressor; it is not possible to avoid contact with oneself.  Attempts to avoid contact with oneself eventually lead to self estrangement or self destruction. 

So what needs to happen for a person to forgive himself?  According to Hall and Fincham, before a person can forgive himself he must acknowledge the wrongness of his actions and accept responsibility for what he has done.  Acknowledging wrongdoing and accepting responsibility are likely to generate feelings of guilt or regret.  This is all part of the process.  These emotions must be experienced fully and allowed to run their course, no matter how difficult, in order for self forgiveness to occur. 

This may sound simple, but true self forgiveness is often a long and arduous process.  It is typically quite painful for a person to admit that his actions caused very grave consequences.  The guilt that ensues is a heavy burden that becomes a constant companion from the moment responsibility is accepted until the moment self forgiveness occurs. 

For many people, feelings of guilt precipitate conciliatory behaviors and motivate efforts at restitution.  When apologizing to the victim is not possible, some confess their misdeed to God (or another higher power) and ask for His forgiveness.  Research suggests that people find it easier to forgive themselves when they believe they have been forgiven by their victim or by God.  Thus, receiving forgiveness from others sometimes enables us to forgive ourselves.  (Remember this next time you think about holding a grudge).

Something else that can help with self forgiveness is trying to find something positive to take away from an otherwise bad experience.  This is akin to finding the silver lining in a dark cloud.  Thus, while one acknowledges the negative consequences that resulted from his actions, he is able to take something positive from the experience as well.  Common examples of this include learning a valuable lesson, changing your priorities, or realizing how much a particular relationship means to you.

Are there reasons not to forgive?

I've been thinking a lot about forgiveness lately.  I initially had no strong opinions on the subject; rather, I had a vague sense that while forgiveness is a worthy endeavor, there are certain situations where forgiveness would not necessarily be a suitable goal.  After doing some research on the subject, I've adopted a firmer, more coherent position on when I believe forgiveness is an appropriate goal (and when it isn't).  I've come to the conclusion that forgiveness is only necessary when both the victim and the offender want to reconcile and rebuild their relationship.  If there is no desire or intention to repair a broken relationship, forgiveness is unncessary at best and detrimental at worst. 

The currently prevailing models of forgiveness describe it as a process that begins with acknowledging the pain casued by the betrayal and ends with developing empathy for the offender and acknowledging our own falliability and capacity to offend.  We know we have forgiven someone when our negative feelings about that person and his actions have been replaced with positive emotions.

I think back to my own experiences with betrayal.  I no longer feel any anger towards people who hurt or betrayed me in the past, nor do I feel any pain associated with these incidents.  Still, I cannot honestly say that the anger and hurt I once felt have been replaced with positive emotions.  When I think back to a particular time when someone mistreated me or betrayed my trust I don't feel anger or hatred, but neither do I experience a flood of compassion for the one who offended me. 

Historically, when a person has hurt or betrayed me, I have coped with the situation by  acknowledging and working through the negative emotions associated with these incidents; in most cases, I was eventually able to understand the various factors that contributed to the offenders' actions.  Truthfully, I no longer harbor any resentment or ill will towards anyone who has ever hurt or betrayed me.  The caveat: most of these people are no longer a part of my life. 

I'm not the kind of person who is quick to cut someone out of my life at the slightest offense.  Yet there have been people in my life who proved to be toxic; when, over time, I came to realize this, I chose to protect myself by ceasing to associate with these people.  This was never a decision I made lightly.

The problem with replacing negative feelings about a person and his actions with positive ones is that having positive feelings about a person increases the likelihood that you will allow that person to be a part of your life (in some way or another).  In other words, "true" forgiveness increases the likelihood of reconciliation.  If you reconcile with a toxic person who has not changed and thus remains toxic, you enable that person to continue to affect your life in a way that will most likely be negative. 

This assertion is supported by research.  Studies suggest that forgiveness in toxic relationships facilitates reconciliation, even while the offender continues to engage in toxic behavior.  One study found that victims of domestic violence who reported that they forgave their partners for the abuse were more likely to return to their partner (and thus to the abusive relationship).  A recent study by J. McNulty supported his hypothesis that forgiveness can "increase the likelihood that offenders will offend again by removing unwanted outcomes for those offenders that would otherwise discourage them from reoffending."

In sum, I believe that complete forgiveness is not always adviseable.  However, it is not necessary to forgive in order to let go of anger and hatred and move forward with one's life.

How to Forgive

Forgiveness.  Some of us offer it too readilty; others refuse to offer it at all.  It can be given freely or begrudgingly, conditionally or unconditionally.  The decision to forgive is a deeply personal one and can be quite difficult to make.  Anyone who has ever been forgiven knows forgiveness for what it is: a gift, which bestows upon its recipient a deep sense of gratitude and appreciation.

Often, when we have been hurt or betrayed by another, our initial response is to distance ourselves from the resulting emotional pain.  We become angry because anger is easier to deal with than pain.  This is a natural reaction that serves a protective function in the immediate aftermath of a betrayal.  As a long term coping mechanism, however, anger is far from adaptive.  Anger that is nurtured and fed over time becomes hatred.  Hatred eats at a person until it consumes every aspect of his life.  Thus, the person is twice victimized: first by the one who betrayed him and then by himself, in his choice to remain angry instead of trying to move forward.

We can choose forgiveness instead.  This may or may not mean restoring the relationship between victim and offender.  Sometimes the relationship can be mended.  At other times, reconciliation is ill-advised.  Fortunately, forgiveness does not require reconciliation.  Rather, forgiveness represents a change in the emotional response of one person towards another.  Forgiveness means working through the hurt and the anger and then moving past it.

Forgiveness is not something that happens immediately; it is a process that takes place over time.  There are many theories about forgiveness and each one has its own ideas about the specific path one must take on the way to forgiveness.  Still, most theories agree on a few basic tasks that must be completed in order for forgiveness to occur. 

Before a person can forgive, he must first accept the reality of the offense committed against him.  He must recall the offense in detail and allow himself to experience the emotions associated with the betrayal.  He should acknowledge and explore his anger and hatred.  He will probably find that beneath these emotions lie feelings of hurt, fear, and vulnerability.  He must allow himself to experience these emotions as well.  Hopefully, he will come to view himself with compassion and to let go of any self-blame.

I believe this is the most important step.  It is, in my opinion, where most of the healing takes place.  Personally, I think a person could work through this part of the process and go on to live a happy, psychologically healthy life.  Nevertheless, I have committed to writing about the process of forgiveness in its entirety, so I'll move on to step two.

The second phase of the forgiveness process is building empathy for the offender by learning to view him as human and therefore falliable.  An effort is made to see things from the offender's persepctive, to put yourself in his shoes and try to imagine his thoughts and feelings.  There is an attempt to identify and understand the factors that might have contributed to or motivated the offender's actions.  It is important not to confuse empathy with condoning or excusing the offender's behaviors.  Rather, the goal is to avoid the pitfall of labeling the offender a "bad person."  People are rarely all good or all bad.  Good people often do bad things.  And sometimes even "bad" people do good things. 

The third and final task of forgiving involves acknowledging that we are not unlike our offender in that we too are human and have, at some point in our lives, behaved in ways that were hurtful to others.  In this final task, we are called upon to reflect on our own lives; we are asked to recall times when we were the offender and required others to forigve us.  In some ways this is an extension of phase two, in that acknowledging our own failings makes it easier to empathize with someone else who has done something wrong.  Admitting that we too are capable of behaving selfishly prevents us from being overly judgmental or self righteous.

Keep in mind that every situation is different and that forgiveness is not always the best option.  Still, we should be aware that it is an option and should have the freedom to choose forgiveness if we so desire.

Forgiveness

I recently attended a training with several of my coworkers. I thought the speaker (Robert Grant, Ph.D.) was unique and really enjoyed hearing what he had to say.  I was surprised to learn that not all of my colleagues felt this way.  In fact, some of them were deeply disturbed by the speaker's message.  I heard that one woman in particular was so upset that she didn't want to return for the second day of training.  I honestly don't know what upset them so much -- I heard all this "through the grapevine" and didn't feel comfortable asking them.  I do, however, have a guess...

One of the topics the speaker addressed was how to forgive someone who has done something very bad to you.  He stressed that this is not always desirable or appropriate but indicated that some patients will want to forgive their perpetrators and we should be prepared to help them (when our clinical judgment says this is a good idea, of course).

The speaker explained that when we are de-humanized by a person we in turn tend to de-humanize that person in our minds.  The person who violated us is a monster, something other than human.  When embarking upon the path to forgiveness (forgiveness is a process, not a single event) the goal is for the "victim" to learn to see the perpetrator as human.  In order to do that a person has to acknowledge that he (and, in fact, all humans) is capable of the same type of behavior in which his perpetrator engaged.  Perhaps if his lot in life had been different - if he'd had different genetic vulnerabilities or the "right" combination of traumatic experiences - perhaps he could have turned out like the perpetrator.  A person might surmise that in order for his offender to have done such horrible things he must have experienced a lot of pain, suffering, and maltreatment in his own life.  This does not in any way condone the perpetrator's actions - it just enables one to see him as human.

This might not seem to be all that controversial of a concept.  What happened, however, is that the speaker gave some examples.  He attempted to empathize with (and to thereby humanize) a hypothetical sex offender.  The murmurs of protest from the crowd were immediate.  The speaker reiterated that he was not condoning the behavior of sex offenders and was not saying that a sex offender should not be punished.  Still, the crowd was displeased.

Personally, I thought this was a demonstration of how difficult it is to forgive someone who has done terrible things.  If a room full of chaplains, psychiatrists, and psychiatric social workers are resistant to empathizing with a hypothetical sex offender then forgiveness must be a difficult thing indeed.  This experience made me realize that we should never take forgiveness for granted for, when offered, it is truly a blessing.