Introduction for 6 Hard Cover

Forgiveness in Perspective

Publishing Advisory Board

Ana Maria Borlescu Peter Bray Ann-Marie Cook Robert Fisher Lisa Howard Peter Mario Kreuter Stephen Morris John Parry Karl Spracklen Peter Twohig

Inter-Disciplinary Press is a part of Inter-Disciplinary.Net A Global Network for Dynamic Research and Publishing

2016

Edited by

Francesca Dominello and David H. Pereyra

Inter-Disciplinary Press

Oxford, United Kingdom

The Inter-Disciplinary Press is part of Inter-Disciplinary.Net – a global network for research and publishing. The Inter-Disciplinary Press aims to promote and encourage the kind of work which is collaborative, innovative, imaginative, and which provides an exemplar for inter-disciplinary and multi-disciplinary publishing.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data. A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Inter-Disciplinary Press, Priory House, 149B Wroslyn Road, Freeland, Oxfordshire. OX29 8HR, United Kingdom. +44 (0)1993 882087

ISBN: 978-1-84888-420-5 First published in the United Kingdom in Paperback format in 2016. First Edition.

Introduction: Forgiveness in Perspective vii Francesca Dominello and David H. Pereyra

Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness 3 Aviva Zrihan-Weitzman and Zvi Eisikovits

The Temporality of Forgiveness: Memory, 25 Counter-Memory, Rearticulation Steve Larocco

The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman 41 Catholic Church: Where an Experience of Mercy and Forgiveness can Fail David H. Pereyra

Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical 65 Tradition: Precepts and Praxis in the Edicts of Ashoka Ravindra Kumar

Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness 91 for Indigenous Peoples Francesca Dominello

Index 127

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. © 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Introduction: Forgiveness in Perspective

Francesca Dominello and David H. Pereyra

Throughout history the notion of forgiveness has attracted a substantial amount of scholarly attention and debate. The extensive literature that now exists on forgiveness reveals its complex and contested nature. None of the chapters in this volume claim to have settled any of these debates or to have resolved any of the contentious views about forgiveness that have appeared in the literature to date. But they each, in their own way, aim to contribute new perspectives on forgiveness. Taking their cue from a range of fields that include psychology, philosophy, religious studies, history and politics, each chapter engages in its own unique exploration of the notion of forgiveness. In approaching forgiveness from these diverse disciplinary perspectives, the book intends to contribute further to the examination of the nature of forgiveness and how it is practised in society. In examining the notion of forgiveness in the realms of the interpersonal, religious and political spheres, each chapter provides original insight into the notion of forgiveness and the conditions that can make it possible. In exploring forgiveness in a variety of contexts readers will gain a deeper insight into the effects of forgiveness on the myriad of relationships that exist in the world in which we live. Among the debates about forgiveness, questions have arisen about its nature and how it affects those who seek it and grant it, and the relationships between individuals and communities that exist in society and in the broader political context. Central in these debates has been the question of whether forgiveness can be granted unconditionally or not. Within and among different disciplines, differences in opinion exist on this question. In Christian theology, for instance, some passages in the Bible on forgiveness have been interpreted as advocating unconditional forgiveness while other passages have been interpreted as evidence that forgiveness is conditional.1 A similar debate exists among secular scholars. In philosophy, some challenge the granting of unconditional forgiveness especially when it is granted in the absence of remorse for the transgression by the wrongdoer.2 In these cases the granting of forgiveness demonstrates a lack of self-respect and is considered a sign of weakness. Maintaining respect for oneself in the face of the wrongdoer’s blatant disrespect in committing the wrongdoing requires maintaining resentment towards the wrongdoer. Only when wrongdoers repent for their wrongdoing do they become deserving of forgiveness.3 The granting of forgiveness, then, depends on the wrongdoer’s demonstration of remorse. The wrongdoer’s repentance serves as a sign of respect for the victim. It demonstrates to the victim that the wrongdoer understands what they did was wrong, and that the victim did not deserve to be treated in that way.4 In turn, the wrongdoer, through their repentance, regains the

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. viii Introduction ______victim’s trust and respect that had also been violated by the wrongdoer’s harmful actions. This view of forgiveness depends heavily on the understanding of forgiveness and repentance as relational, and situates the remorse of the wrongdoer as a necessary precondition for forgiveness. According to this understanding the sincere expression of remorse for past wrongdoing is what makes forgiveness possible. Indeed, this could have particular consequences for the power dynamic that exists between the parties. In granting or withholding forgiveness the victim can assert control over the situation. When the situation had once exposed the victim to the power of the wrongdoer to cause harm, the victim is now in the position of power to determine the fate of the wrongdoer and decide whether to forgive them or not.5 Is this regard, the victim may see themselves in ‘a position of strength, respect and specialness.’6 This is when the wrongdoer’s remorse can play a vital role in softening the victim’s resentment and overcoming the destructive power-play that the wrongdoing may have had on their relationship. Through the wrongdoer’s remorse and the victim’s forgiveness both parties can be released from the effects of the past wrongdoing. In the ideal situation the wrongdoer’s remorse that inspires the victim’s forgiveness helps reunite the parties and restore equilibrium in the relationship between them. In this regard, the exchange of repentance for forgiveness between the parties helps to reunite them with mutual feelings of respect and trust. However, this understanding of forgiveness assumes that the parties are operating on an equal footing and that forgiveness, in restoring the relationship between the parties, can equalise power between them and achieve a state of peace and harmony in their relationship. This may be true in mutually respecting and trusting relationships but may not hold true where disparity in power exists between the parties. Indeed, the absence of remorse or the withholding of forgiveness viewed as a power struggle between victim and wrongdoer could say more about their own sense of pride than their sense of respect for themselves or each other and pride may not be an ideal sentiment upon which forgiveness should be based.7 But not all individuals are the same and therefore it would be presumptuous to assume that forgiveness works in the same way in all relationships. In psychology, in contrast, the granting or withholding of forgiveness is viewed more in terms of levels of mental and physical health than in terms of pride or respect. Thus, the withholding of forgiveness may not necessarily reflect the victim’s sense of self- respect or pride, but their inability to let go of anger and hostility towards the wrongdoer.8 Indeed, it has been found in the empirical research that people who forgive are happier and healthier than those who hold onto resentments.9 This seems to be the case whether forgiveness has been granted unconditionally or not. Viewed in this way forgiveness itself creates the pathway for healing for victims: without forgiveness, healing may be impossible. So understood, the granting of

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Francesca Dominello and David H. Pereyra ix ______forgiveness, even when granted unconditionally, is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength and may assist victims in overcoming the negative effects of perceiving themselves as ‘victims:’ with forgiveness, the victim identity dissolves, and a person’s true power emerges.10 As Spezzano has explained:

The beauty of forgiveness is that it releases us from patterns where we are caught. It releases us from being a victim and being caught in situations we do not like. Forgiveness changes our perception. When we see situations differently, things actually are different for us. Basically, all healing has to do with changing our perception and seeing things in a new light. Forgiveness allows us to live in a way that raises us above the situation, thus the situation changes.11

In this way, forgiveness may be seen as facilitating ‘a freedom within the individual, a release from the pain and trauma that enables one to move on and live in the world without grudges or hatred.’12 As Archbishop Desmond Tutu put it, forgiveness is ‘the best form of self-interest’ because it enables people ‘to survive and emerge still human despite all efforts to dehumanize them.’13 At this point in the discussion, it is notable that while there may be different perspectives on the question of whether forgiveness can be granted unconditionally or not, there seems to be agreement (at least in these perspectives) that forgiveness is indeed possible. Forgiveness is something that does happen in the real world and can be beneficial for those who practise it. However, forgiveness may be more complicated than that as the chapters in this volume reveal. Notably, in their chapter, ‘Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness,’ Zrihan-Weitzman and Eisikovits examine how forgiveness in the context of relationships that involve Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) is practised in different ways. Through their interviews of 15 women who have experienced IPV, Zrihan-Weitzman and Eisikovits reveal that forgiveness, even in cases of violence, can be practised both unconditionally – what the authors describe as ‘adaptive’ forgiveness – as well as ‘contingent’ forgiveness which they referred to as ‘conditional’ forgiveness. Importantly, their study shows that forgiveness does not function in the abstract but in particular social settings and that the attitudes to forgiveness of the women they interviewed have been shaped by their personal experiences and their relationships with others. Thus, whether the women practised adaptive or conditional forgiveness depended on wider contextual factors. Even so, the authors’ findings show that adaptive forgiveness, for some women, may be more of an automatic response to the violence, which on reflection the women realise, is not what forgiveness, as an ideal, should be. Forgiveness, in this form, may be better understood as maintaining the status quo – a return to routine – whereas conditional forgiveness depends on change in the relationship, if not also

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. x Introduction ______signally a change in oneself. However, for women living in violent relationships, the movement from forgiveness in its adaptive sense to conditional forgiveness does not necessarily mean they have overcome their feelings of resentment or have been healed by the forgiveness process. Instead, forgiveness for them seems to function as a survival mechanism that enables them to exercise some choice in their lives, as limited as that may be in the circumstances in which they live. In the following chapter, ‘The Temporality of Forgiveness: Memory, Counter- Memory, Rearticulation,’ Steve Larocco explores the workings of forgiveness in more detail. He takes as his starting point the prevailing idea in philosophy and psychology that forgiveness is quintessentially about the overcoming of resentful emotions and has nothing to do with memory and forgetting. He moves beyond the dichotomies this thinking creates, between past and present, forgiving and forgetting, to demonstrate the interrelatedness of emotion, memory and forgiveness. In contrast to many prominent forgiveness theorists, Larocco contends that memory does not work as an affront to forgiveness – as a way of forgetting the past – but in recalling the past through memory, forgiveness may in fact become possible. In the disarticulation and rearticulation of memory that he describes, Larocco shows how memory work forms an intrinsic part of the forgiveness process. In discussing the implications of his theory for the way we respond to atrocities that can and do occur in the political sphere and in our attitudes to wrongdoing that takes place within our personal relations with others, he enriches our understanding of forgiveness and illuminates its complexity. The recalling of the past, as he points out, can have paradoxical effects: on the one hand it brings forward memories that for many individuals or collectives may be unforgiveable, but only through the recalling of memory may there be any chance for forgiveness. David Pereyra’s chapter, ‘The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church: Where an Experience of Mercy and Forgiveness can Fail,’ adds a religious dimension to understanding of forgiveness. Penance, as one of the many sacraments of the Catholic faith, is a ritual practised by the faith community that enables them to experience the divine and become closer to God. As God through Jesus brought forth everlasting peace and forgiveness, it is through the sacrament of Penance – through the act of confession – that Catholic believers can find peace and forgiveness in God: ‘It provides the opportunity for those who have done wrong to come forward, name their brokenness, their need for forgiveness, and their desire for wholeness and reconciliation.’ Indeed, through the sacrament of Penance, Catholic followers are forgiven, an experience they then apply in their daily lives and fulfil their duty to God to forgive as God forgives and live together in a community of forgiveness and reconciliation. Thus, in contrast to the secular perspective on forgiveness offered in Larocco’s chapter that emphasises the temporal role of memory in forgiveness practice, the religious perspective adopted in Pereyra’s chapter explores the sacrament of Penance as a ritual performance that can help communities of believers to live a life of faith in God.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Francesca Dominello and David H. Pereyra xi ______However, when Pereyra turns to consider the sacrament of Penance as it is practised in Church, he finds declining participation in the ritual and institutional constraints on its practice which he fears are undermining the promise of God’s forgiveness among the faithful. In critically examining the Church’s approach to Penance that involves isolating the individual from the community, and requires the making of confession alone before a priest in the confessional box, Pereyra considers whether the communal celebration of Penance may overcome the complacency that now exists around the making of confession and restore the power of the sacrament of Penance among the faithful. In this regard, Pereyra suggests the design for a reconciliation centre in which the faithful in community with one another can practise repentance under the guidance of a bishop or priest. Approaching forgiveness in this way illuminates the spatial dimension of forgiveness that seems under-developed in the literature. Peyera’s approach recognises forgiveness as a community activity made possible by the particular place and time in which it is being practised. In creating a suitable place in which the ritual of Penance can be performed the promise of God’s forgiveness may live on as its religious meaning and significance is enriched by community spirit. In the final two chapters, forgiveness is examined in the political context. Ravindra Kumar’s chapter, ‘Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition: Precepts and Praxis in the Edicts of Ashoka’ reveals the potential for forgiveness to serve ideological ends. In the chapter, Kumar traces the change in attitude of the ancient Indian Emperor Ashoka from malicious murderer to compassionate ruler. The change occurred following his bloody military campaign against the people of Kalinga that almost destroyed the entire race of people. Faced with the devastation that he had inflicted upon them, Ashoka responded with compassion and forgiveness. Leaving a legacy of his thoughts and regrets for his actions in the form of edicts that he had his servants engrave on rocks and stones, we are able to gain an insight into the man who authorised their making and speculate about his intentions in creating these memorials for his past transgressions, and his eventual reform and commitment to peace and forgiveness. According to Kumar’s reading of history at this time, compassion and forgiveness – dhamma-vijaya – becomes the official policy of the state, which he attributes to the teachings of Ashoka through his edicts. It is notable that after the atrocities experienced by the Kalinga, Ashoka’s practise of forgiveness demonstrates its transformative power. He could not be forgiven by those whose lives he destroyed, but in his practise of forgiveness he transformed the lives of many who lived at that time. Finally, the chapter by Francesca Dominello, ‘Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples,’ brings together a number of the themes canvassed throughout the book about the nature of forgiveness and its effects. In her focus on recent state apologies to indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada and the United States, Dominello explores the relationship between apology and

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. xii Introduction ______forgiveness in the political sphere. Building on the understanding that apology and forgiveness are relational concepts, while also questioning the possibility of forgiveness in the political realm, Dominello considers how forgiveness may be re- conceptualised in a way that can empower Indigenous peoples. In contrast to Kumar’s historical reading of Ashoka’s practise of forgiveness, Dominello maintains the view that only those who have been wronged are in a position to forgive, and in the political sphere this may prove to be impossible. As a response to a state apology, forgiveness may only be the response of the individuals who have suffered past wrongs: collectives cannot forgive in the same way. Moreover, and unlike the religious view on forgiveness, an apology in the political realm does not give rise to a moral imperative to forgive. In the political realm, an apology is only one of the measures of reparation available to victims and both justice and reconciliation demand more than an apology to make good the harm suffered. Nevertheless, Dominello reminds us that an apology and forgiveness as relational concepts can open dialogue between the wrongdoer and the person wronged. In the political context this can translate to empowering those who have been wronged, like Indigenous peoples, by opening up political spaces for their political engagement that will enable their responses to be heard. Forgiveness may not be the response of Indigenous peoples to the apologies that are made to them, but through their responses they are in the position to ‘remind the community about what can, and cannot, be forgiven,’14 and of what is needed in the future to bring these societies closer to a state of justice and reconciliation.

Notes

1 Unconditional forgiveness is conveyed in this statement from Ephesians 4:31-32 ‘Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. And be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.’ Compare conditional forgiveness in Mat 6:14-15: ‘For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But, if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.’ 2 Jeffrie Murphy, ‘Forgiveness and Resentment’, Forgiveness and Mercy, eds. Jeffrie Murphy and Jean Hampton (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 26. 3 See: Miguel Bravo, ‘Does Self-Respect Require Withholding Forgiveness?’ Webbing Vicissitudes of Forgiveness, ed. Karen Bettez Halnon (Oxfordshire, UK: Inter-Disciplinary Press, 2014). 4 Trudy Govier and Wilhelm Verwoerd, ‘The Promise and Pitfalls of Apology’, Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (2002): 68, 70. 5 Trudy Govier, Taking Wrongs Seriously: Acknowledgement, Reconciliation, and

the Politics of Sustainable Peace (New York: Humanity Books, 2006), 70. 6 Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 115. 7 Compare: Bravo ‘Does Self-Respect Require Withholding Forgiveness?’, 13. 8 John Maltby, et al., ‘Personality Predictors of Levels of Forgiveness Two and a Half Years after the Transgression’, Journal of Research in Personality 42.4 (2008): 1088-1094. 9 Frederic Luskin, Forgive for Good (website), viewed 2 March 2015, http://learningtoforgive.com. 10 Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose (New York: Dutton Adult, 2005), 98. 11 Chuck Spezzano, If It Hurts, It Isn’t Love: Secrets of Successful Relationships (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1999), 4. 12 Nadine Changfoot, ‘Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Indian Residential Schools: Whose Truth? Whose Reconciliation?’ Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association, Ottawa, May 2009. 13 Desmond Tutu, No Future without Forgiveness (London: Random House, 1999), 52. 14 Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, 116.

Bibliography

Bravo, Miguel. ‘Does Self-Respect Require Withholding Forgiveness?’ Webbing Vicissitudes of Forgiveness, edited by Karen Bettez Halnon, 9-15. Oxford, UK: Inter-Disciplinary Press, 2014.

Changfoot, Nadine. ‘Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Indian Residential Schools: Whose Truth? Whose Reconciliation?’ Annual Meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association. Ottawa, May 2009.

Eckhart, Tolle. A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose. New York: Dutton Adult, 2005.

Govier, Trudy. Taking Wrongs Seriously: Acknowledgement, Reconciliation, and the Politics of Sustainable Peace. New York: Humanity Books, 2006.

Govier, Trudy and Wilhelm Verwoerd. ‘The Promise and Pitfalls of Apology.’ Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (2002): 68-82.

Luskin, Frederic. Forgive for Good (website). Viewed 2 March 2015. http://learningtoforgive.com.

Maltby, J., A. M. Wood, L. Day, T. W. H. Kon, A. Colley, and P. A. Linley. ‘Personality Predictors of Levels of Forgiveness Two and a Half Years after the Transgression.’ Journal of Research in Personality 42.4 (2008): 1088-1094.

Minow, Martha. Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998.

Murphy, Jeffrie. ‘Forgiveness and Resentment.’ Forgiveness and Mercy, edited by Jeffrie Murphy and Jean Hampton, 14-34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Spezzano, Chuck. If It Hurts, It Isn’t Love: Secrets of Successful Relationships. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1999.

Tutu, Desmond. No Future without Forgiveness. London: Random House, 1999.

Aviva Zrihan-Weitzman and Zvi Eisikovits

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to describe and analyse forgiveness by battered women towards their perpetrators. This is part of a larger study examining forgiveness and revenge among partners involved in intimate partner violence. The study used an analytic-phenomenological perspective and interviewed in depth 15 couples (30 interviews). They were a theoretical sample drawn from clients of centres for Treatment of Intimate Violence. The couples experienced violence and chose to remain in the relationship. For the present study 15 interviews with the women were analysed. Women described two kinds of forgiveness: One taken for granted, that we called ‘adaptive,’ that is meant to maintain the relationship and overcome the injury; the other which was contingent on change either by individual members of the couple or both that we named ‘conditional forgiveness.’ There was a movement between these two approaches to forgiveness on a time dimension. A spiral model describing this movement is presented and illustrated. Implications for the theory and practice of forgiveness are suggested.

Key Words: Intimate partner violence, forgiveness, qualitative analysis.

*****

1. Violence in Intimate Relations: Definitions The phenomena of Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) has been recognized and researched since the 1970’s. Over the years the perception of the dimension of the phenomena has undergone changes. Narrow objective definitions focus on physical and/or sexual abuse; that is, distinct acts of physical harm inflicted by one member of the family on another member. In contrast, there are wider subjective definitions which include, for example, the past and present use of force by one spouse against the other, which can result in feelings of loss of self-respect, control, security for the victim. The effects of continuous and/or repeated abuse may also result in the victim developing a sense of helplessness and entrapment. Other forms of abuse, apart from physical violence, have also been recognised. Psychological, economic, sexual, verbal and/or spiritual abuse, are other forms of abuse that can occur between spouses. Abuse can also include threats, as well as forcing the spouse to witness abuse of the children, relatives, friends, pets and/or valuable property.1 Although we will maintain that physical and emotional violence are closely related,2 in choosing research subjects, our research is focused on the narrow definition – women who have been physically or sexually harmed in the past by their marital partners. Nevertheless, the existence of psychological abuse and/or

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 4 Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness ______other forms of violence in the relationship were also examined throughout the interview as reported by the informants.

2. Forgiveness and Intimate Partner Violence The concept of forgiveness as a psychological act has been recognized and researched since the 1980’s. In the last decade much effort has been invested in attempts to reconcile lay and professional definitions of forgiveness. As Fincham has observed:

Common to most definitions of forgiveness is the idea of change whereby one becomes less motivated to think, feel and behave negatively for example retaliate or withdraw, in regard to the offender.3

Studies on forgiveness among couples suggest that reactions to offence contain simultaneous negative and positive dimensions, and that we cannot deny the presence of closeness, benevolence, and good will toward the partner, even when the partner is a perpetrator of violence.4 However, there appears to be little research on forgiveness in violent relationships from an insider’s perspective. It is the aim of the present chapter to study forgiveness from this angle. Unlike researchers, laypersons include acts of reconciliation and forgetting under the definition of forgiveness.5 Some researchers do believe that the individual is motivated to reconcile with the perpetrator of violence in interpersonal relationships.6 Such motivations have been found to be evolutionally functional in preserving beneficial relationships.7 Research conducted in shelters for women who have suffered domestic violence have indicated that forgiveness was a good predictor of the intention to return home.8 In hypothetical situations of violence, women who forgave tended to preserve the relationships with the perpetrators.9 Nevertheless, it has been suggested that the way partners conceptualize forgiveness is relevant to the probability that forgiveness actually will occur under certain conditions. For example, it has been argued that if the victim of abuse believes that he/she must forget the injury and therefore expose herself to further injury in the future, he/she is likely not to forgive.10 It has been argued that forgiveness is not always desirable since it may leave the forgiver vulnerable to additional injury and fails to take into account social justice considerations.11 Sharon Lamb, a feminist and sexual violence researcher, has criticized the theories of forgiveness related to women who experienced abuse. In her view, forgiveness is not necessarily focused on the self and the individual’s needs and, therefore, is not necessarily overall positive. She has suggested that in some situations, revenge or expression of suppressed anger can bring greater relief than forgiveness.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Aviva Zrihan-Weitzman and Zvi Eisikovits 5 ______Among the variables found to affect forgiveness between partners, are judgment about the severity of the offense,12 the quality of the relationship,13 its duration,14 the value attributed to the perpetrator,15 and the perception of his personality.16 Battered women tend to be less forgiving of perpetrators with complex psychopathology. The attribution of blame was also found to be related to unforgiveness,17 whereas confession and apology may encourage forgiveness,18 and even empower, as Francesca Dominello describes in her chapter in this volume. Empathy and religiosity were found to be related to the willingness to forgive in cases of Intimate Partner Violence.19 But recidivism,20 and circular escalation,21 which are often present in such relationships, makes forgiveness problematic, as it may lead to repeated attacks and exploitation of the victim,22 especially if the forgiveness involves coping by the disarticulation and rearticulation of memory as understood by Steve Larocco in his chapter in this volume. It appears that forgiveness is not a stable concept and varies across relationships and types of offenses in couple relationships. Of the various models of forgiveness presented in theory and in the professional literature, two precursors to forgiveness have been identified: (a) breach of trust or of a basic contract between people and (b) recognition of the injury and of the associated negative emotions. Continuous emotions of this kind over time may lead to depression and overall loss of emotional well-being among those who experience violence. Violence in interpersonal relationships produces a breach of norms, of mutuality, and of trust in the relationship.23 Under these conditions, the women experience emotional injury, but often use psychological mechanisms such as the denial of anger or of the experience of abuse altogether, or both, in order to cope with the violence. In the process, women may avoid developing a sense of injustice and resentment toward the perpetrator. Such avoidance may help women to overcome depression. In the next section we seek to explore the women’s perception of forgiveness as a meaningful option.

3. Method The present study attempted to study the meaning and dynamics of forgiveness from an insider’s perspective, as it appears in the eyes of the women who experience intimate violence. Qualitative methodology seemed most appropriate to achieve this goal. In the following we will describe briefly the sampling procedure, data collection and analysis. The procedure for complying with ethical standards is also described. Measures for trustworthiness are presented.

A. Study Sample The study sample consisted of 15 women who experienced moderate-to-severe levels of violence and were referred to centres for the treatment and prevention of family violence. It was a purposeful sample of informants who were verbal and information-rich and were willing to supply information.24 The study is part of a

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 6 Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness ______larger research investigating forgiveness in IPV relationships. The age range of the women was between 31 and 55. Three women had between 8-11 years of schooling; five women had finished high school; four had professional post high school education; three had a college education. Seven women defined their socio- economic status as difficult or very difficult and eight as comfortable or very comfortable. One woman defined herself as religious, eight as traditional and six as non-religious. Two women were married for up to five years, six were married between 5 and 15 years and seven for more than 15 years. Severity of violence was defined by the women’s self-reports and subdivided into severe and moderate, according to the subdivision of The First National Survey of Intimate Violence in Israel.25 For instance, arm twisting, hair pulling and slaps were identified as moderate, whereas fist blows, cuts, burns and being thrown against a wall were identified as severe acts of violence. Five couples were identified with mild violence and ten with severe violence. One woman described moderate and one- time violence; she did report continued emotional abuse; four women reported limited but repetitive violence; one woman reported one-time hard violence and continued emotional abuse. Nine women reported hard and continuous violence. The size of the sample was influenced by theoretical saturation concerning the meaning of forgiveness for violence in women’s lives.

B. Data Collection Each woman was asked to complete a demographic questionnaire, followed by an in-depth, semi-structured interview. The interview schedule referred to the woman’s reactions to offence in an IPV relationship. We aimed to conduct the interviews by focusing the discussion on several issues relevant to the investigation and ultimately help researchers answer the research question in the process of analysis. We attempted to understand the possibility of forgiveness following violence. We did so in the context of collecting information about the violence in the relationship as a whole and providing the interpersonal context for examining the possibility of forgiveness and/or revenge. To that end, trained professionals, in qualitative data collection and analysis, conducted the interviews.

C. Data Analysis We performed interpretative phenomenological analysis to investigate the participants’ meaning-making in particular contexts. The processes included a movement ‘from the particular to the shared meaning.’26 The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed line by line by open coding, while the researchers commented on the specific ways in which participants spoke about and understood their forgiveness, or the lack thereof, over time. We generated descriptive data inductively, by understanding the patterns that arise from the referential framework of those who transmit the information.27 The themes were grounded in the description and interpretation that emerged across the group of

D. Trustworthiness Analysis of the findings was performed through a procedure which avoided judgments about what constitutes forgiveness and what is defined by the researchers as ‘pseudo-forgiveness.’29 When an interviewee indicated that she forgave, we accepted her statement at face value, without questioning it, and without moral or theoretical judgment of whether it was forgiveness or not. This attitude increased the credibility of the research because it brought into the analysis the subjective understanding of the participants.30

E. Ethics The Ethics Committee of the University of Haifa and the Ministry of Welfare’s Research Unit approved the research. Every interviewee was provided with a written and oral explanation of the study, the measures that would be taken to protect his/her privacy, and the possible avenues available to help them, as part of the outcome of the study. They were given the possibility to stop the interview at any time during the process and they were also required to sign an informed consent form. All names used throughout the study are pseudonyms and the real names of the interviewees were protected. Information was not passed on to the partners or to any helping agents the informants had contact with.

4. Findings Analysis of the women’s experiences revealed two profiles of forgiveness: one taken for granted, which we called ‘adaptive,’ intended to maintain the relationship and overcome the injury; and another, ‘contingent’ upon change by one of the partners or both, which we named ‘conditional forgiveness.’ Over time some women presented in the interviews movement from adaptive to conditional forgiveness, while others described one particular type. The two types and the dynamics of the transition between them are described and analysed below. Yafit is married and the mother of a baby. As a new mother she is different from the other more experienced mothers. She mentioned that ‘there is a time to forgive.’ When asked whether she forgave when she should not have, she answered:

Yes. With my mother I had an open relationship … like when I was a kid. I finally ended up forgiving her. Today she is wonderful. She takes care of the baby … she is great … she is a perfect mother. But she keeps saying that when she was young she was awful. And I would forgive her at the wrong time always. I should have disregarded her at the time … like when I

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 8 Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness ______was a child to stay away from her …. This would be a proper reaction. I used to have friends all the time I was always surrounded by people … and hadn’t had too many expectations from her as a mother as it were. No … But actually I couldn’t avoid forgiving her. I was dependent on her. Like where would I live if not? I had no choice let’s say …. No. The truth is that it doesn’t seem I forgave her, because I abused her during my adolescence. I don’t think I ever forgave her. But I did. Not for nothing. And today she is making up for everything. Today like if I am smart I prefer to forgive her. I get from her … like a lot. So as it were it’s in my interest to forgive. As bad as it sounds I learned to be a little egotistic … You can trust yourself and do things for yourself, to make good things happen to you … to take care of your interests. I don’t have too many expectations from people ….

Q: Have you had situations like that with your partner?

A: Yes, in the beginning I would forgive him all the time. Then I learned …. Yes, in the beginning of the relationship all the time … the same day I would forgive. That is I would really try to be OK all the time because ... I would behave as if nothing happened and would try to shove everything under … so that everything would be all right but that wasn’t really right to do. Today I really don’t … it is good not to give in.31

Yafit reflects on the process of forgiveness and the conflict between forgiving and related social expectations. As in the case of other battered women we interviewed, her narrative moves back and forth in time and reflects both profiles of forgiveness. In her opinion, the adaptive forgiveness occurs at the wrong time, before reflection, and is more experiential than deliberate, behavioural rather than communicated to others. As she examines forgiveness in childhood toward her mother, she considers two alternatives: forgiveness and disregard. She chooses forgiveness associated with low expectations, the gains of staying together, and the basic protection of home. Her reflection suggests a high level of dependence. Thus, forgiveness is survival-related and as such, adaptive. A similar process is described in her couplehood. Continued reflection suggests that in adolescence she abused her mother as revenge and that revenge and forgiveness are incompatible, calling into question the process of forgiveness in childhood. Moving along the time line, she questions her past forgiveness and reconsiders it from a present perspective. Her forgiveness does not withstand time. When she considers forgiveness of her mother in the light

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Aviva Zrihan-Weitzman and Zvi Eisikovits 9 ______of present needs, she appears more forgiving because her interests and choices demand it. Focus on self-interest makes forgiveness conditional and opposed to social expectations whereby women are expected to sacrifice their interests for others and be altruistic rather than interest-driven. Examining her own forgiveness, Yafit moves simultaneously along two axes: one is related to the nature of her forgiveness, the other to the cultural and value context. On the first axis, forgiveness is adaptive or conditional upon change. Talking about forgiveness of her partner she talks about adaptive forgiveness: ‘I would behave as if nothing happened … so that everything would be all right.’ At present her forgiveness is contingent upon her husband’s change under therapy. On the second axis, she describes everyday forgiveness with some embarrassment and reservation, in light of the prescriptive, expectation-based forgiveness describing how things should be rather than how they are. Forgiveness motivated by benefit, personal considerations, and self-interest is perceived to be of lesser value. We examined adaptive forgiveness in some depth in relation to other women who still live in partnership in which they have experienced IPV. In the case of Orna forgiveness was for the sake of the family:

Orna: Despite the fact that lately I am less forgiving and I am trying to drag out the breach as much as possible, the truth is that when you have kids it is difficult … you need to talk about the kids; when you live together it is different. You cannot say we argued and I went to my mother and he is home and there is a complete break. When you are together you must talk it over at the end of the day, what goes on, you know naturally … it comes natural to me to forgive him it seems?! But I also forgive him for the children. All in all we have wonderful kids. It is really easy to take a package apart; it is more difficult to build couplehood. When you rebuild it you need to know how to do it and it is real hard.32

From Orna’s standpoint, forgiveness focuses on others, not on herself. Forgiving is the ability to give in to the other, to go back to the family routine involving the children and their needs. There is something ordinary, trivial in her forgiveness. Her attempts not to forgive cannot hold long enough to balance her almost automatic forgiveness into which she slips as an outcome of her daily existence. Forgiveness and unforgiveness are time-and-space-dependent for her (if she could go to her mother and disconnect, she could stick to unforgiveness). Her forgiveness is situated in the fear of losing the family integrity because she perceives herself as part of a family unit (we-ness), which must survive for the sake of daily needs. A sense of absence of choice emanates from her statements, resulting in adaptive forgiveness. Forgiveness becomes an account (justification/

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 10 Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness ______excuse) for remaining together. In other words, forgiveness is the bridge between her understanding that she should have left because of the violence, and that she remained in spite of that understanding. The others and we-ness provide an account (justification/excuse) for forgiving. Forgiveness and we-ness feed on each other in a circular manner, and one loses sight, which came first. In this vicious circle the element of choice is limited or lost. Similar observations were made in the case of Sima. Sima was asked ‘what is it to forgive?’ she mentioned:

It is to get back to routine; I think … it depends on how you define it …. Look forgiveness, I returned home. OK, I returned home, I came, I gave in, I forgave. I trampled over my dignity … as you would say. I think this is what forgiveness is all about. You did what you did and you did unpleasant things and part of the things continues and despite all I tend to overlook … it shouldn’t be that way … [Silence].33

Sima relates to forgiveness in the past. In her view, forgiveness is to return to routine, which she associates with behaviours such as disregard, and giving in. The goal is to look forward and the wish to continue. Because adaptive forgiveness is never associated with reflection, the ability to understand that one is in a circle rather than moving forward is missing. She gains insight into the process with reflection ‘It shouldn’t be that way …’ Following reflection, forgiveness is perceived as a more measured and thoughtful reaction, which leads Sima to reconsider her forgiveness:

I think I forgave him all these years. I forgave him. I constantly forgive.

Q: Are there any conditions to forgiveness from your perspective?

A: I don’t think so. If I would have real, real, truly real forgiveness, since these days I’ve been wondering about it … I am doing all kinds of mid-term summaries between me and myself, I am saying that [Silence], that I forgave him too much [Silence].

Q: What is true forgiveness?

A: True forgiveness is not here yet.

A: When I’ll go back as I used to be 15, 16 years ago, when I was all 100%, 200%, his and the children’s. Even if they would have had told me to stand I don’t know where, do whatever they say, to give, it was yes. Got it?34

After stating that she forgave, Sima maintains that her forgiveness was not authentic. Her contesting originates in retrospective reflection that leads her to reconsider her present forgiveness. When she compares her adaptive forgiveness pattern with her ideal of forgiveness, she begins to reassess it based on values, and it loses its optimal character, which is total, and intense (the ‘100%, 200%’ of being dedicated to him and the children and the association of this with unconditional forgiveness). Sima reflects on the Sartre’s love paradox in which the passion of merging with the other leads to loss of the urge when it takes places, as the other and the self are both lost.35 In her attempt to be ‘100%, 200%’ for the other, Sima is losing herself again and again. She sees the other as the focus, and her forgiveness becomes adaptive again. In contrast, Miri, in her interview, reflected on her forgiveness reaction as follows:

Q: What do you define as forgiveness?

A: Forgiveness is by in large …. What is forgiveness? It is actually as I told you the mere fact I am still with him in the same house and did not try to remove him from the house through the law. I could do that. I could be divorced today and he would have not stepped through the door of this house and I did not do that. I am trying to understand these things, trying to let go and forgive, what is to forgive actually? I am not … don’t even think I am sort of a holy person … as if nothing happened and I forgot all about it. I forgive because he made a mistake … and I think he recognizes his mistake. He is also paying a price for it. The situation that he needs to beg for peace at home, this situation that the kids don’t want him at home, that he is under criminal investigation for domestic violence. I think the price is quite high. I don’t need to do anything else.36

Miri’s forgiveness is conditional on three elements: First, the husband needs to recognize he made a mistake; second the husband is to show willingness to pay the price of the injury at home vis-à-vis his wife and children by begging for forgiveness and thus recognizing his changed status in the family; third, he is to

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 12 Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness ______pay the social and personal price arising from the legal procedures associated with his previous violence. By implying these conditions, Miri contests the possibility of unconditional forgiveness. Throughout the interview, Miri reflects on her past forgiveness as an act of restraint expressed by the mere decision to remain together. When asked directly what forgiveness is for her, she stops to think about it and asks herself over again. Her answer moves between the interpersonal and the personal space; she turns to the interviewer symbolizing the society at large and it’s outside norms and states that she should not assume that she is ‘saint.’ This enables her to reorganize her self-identity as forgiving from a place of settling accounts rather than from any mystical superior location. The price paid by the partner satisfies her need for revenge and settles the account and enables her to forgive. Her reflection is related to two intersecting dimensions: One related to her understanding of the nature of forgiveness as conditional and the other related to some ideal mystically understanding of forgiveness that she relates to external social and cultural expectations. Forgiveness as organized vis-à-vis her interviews is the result of these two dimensions and their interactive effect. The movement between Miri whose forgiveness is taken for granted and Miri who forgives contingent upon the partner’s regret and his punishment is fragile and emerges from the above described reflection in an ever changing couple reality. While Miri is placing the burden of responsibility for the change on her partner, other women describe the experience of change as their own or that they are part of it. From their perspective the couple reality changed. In the interview with Shira, for instance, she claimed:

Forgiveness from my perspective is not to keep waving to a person with the mistakes he made. That is to say we do need to remember what he did but not to keep talking about it on a daily basis. To move on …. To forgive is to show myself … perhaps I wasn’t ok either with him. In all fairness I wasn’t ok either. But when both parties help each other to find the way give space to each other, give each other some respect … it works better.37

Shira relates to forgiveness not only as movement forward but also as lack of movement backwards. She views both parties involved in this process and takes responsibility for her share in the process and in the reconstruction of the relationship. The motivation for change is expressed in the will to make progress, move on and not to get stuck in the past. Such formulation is opposite to conceptualizing forgiveness as forgetting or not remembering, which are past oriented. The interview with Chava reveals a similar attitude. Both Shira and Chava make forgiveness contingent on the recognition of injury and the joint

Q: You think there are conditions to forgiving?

A: Conditions? I think there are conditions to forgiving. Yes. I think these are conditions for myself and for him, the certainty that something basic has changed; that this is not reversible, that it will not return that something else has grown here, the recognition of this unnecessary energy, of the anger … that these are things that will not happen again.38

Chava describes an inner change in the interpersonal relationship. She experiences a changed reality. There is no return to routine as in adaptive forgiveness, but a new era is signalled, often by the decision to seek professional help. The question remains, what happens to the changed reality if and when there is a relapse and injury? Women teach us that relapse (or the fear of relapse) results in a reconsideration of forgiveness. In her interview Lilach observed:

I feel I did forgive him. But in the meantime I keep reminding him. As if I forgave but I keep reminding him since I have no choice. Or I forgave and didn’t at the same time. I don’t know. I didn’t really think about it. Now that we are bringing it up, when you bring up the previous questions, I suddenly ask myself: Did I forgive or not [laughs in embarrassment]. I said I forgive, felt I forgive, but once in a while I remind him … I don’t know.39

In Lilach’s words, pre-reflective forgiveness is always complete, true, and real. Wondering about forgiveness can create a collision between de-jure forgiveness (Lilach defines it as not taking revenge and not bringing up the past) and de facto forgiveness as it takes place. Because her forgiveness is associated with periodic reminders of the past each time there is fear of relapse, Lilach contemplates and contests her forgiveness. By saying ‘I forgave and didn’t’ Lilach expresses the belief that these reactions can coexist, whereas forgiveness and revenge (e.g., reminding) cannot. This illustrates how norms and social beliefs construct and reconstruct our self-feelings and experiences.

5. Discussion Narratives are constructed in places where beliefs rooted in folk psychology are infringed.40 Forgiveness, a folk concept of lay people, is derived from the cultural and religious history of western societies.41 When events follow their expected

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 14 Battered Women’s Pathways to Forgiveness ______course, folk narratives are not called into question;42 the social world is taken for granted and needs no further elaboration.43 For women living in IPV relationships, adaptive forgiveness is taken for granted. The need to explain arises only when the woman reflects upon the periodic reoccurrence of violence. This study illustrates the gaps between ideations taken for granted about forgiveness, which we inherit through the generations, and the everyday appearance of forgiveness in real-life situations. Battered women reflecting on their experiences live with the challenge of attempting to reconcile ideal and everyday forgiveness; the latter they live with but talk about less. They ‘behave forgiveness’ and interpret their behaviour as such after the fact. Moreover, their behaviour is often removed from the ideal concept, which at times leads to confusion and contradictions, and elicits justifications. Some researchers suggest that most forgiving falls between interpersonal expressions and inner transformations rather than at the extremes.44 The findings indicate that everyday forgiveness is of two types: adaptive and conditional upon change. In IPV relationships the experience is one of space constraints and time immediacy,45 leading to adaptive reactions in general and adaptive forgiveness in particular. It is associated with minimal activity but helps preserve the relationship irrespective of its consequences for the woman. The findings are consistent with research suggesting that forgiveness is characteristic of men and women in intimate relationships associated with a commitment to continue the relationship,46 and that in high-commitment relationships, lack of forgiveness may lead to increased tension and lowered psychological wellbeing.47 We hypothesize that adaptive forgiveness enables the continuation of relationships, lowers tensions, and promotes return to routine. It is thus associated with little if any change in the self or the relationship. Adaptive forgiveness has often been termed ‘pseudo-forgiveness’ because women are perceived as motivated to achieve relief from personal distress,48 or instrumental compensation.49 Alternatively, it may be considered as condoning or accepting the aggression of the partner. These may be regarded as inappropriate forms of adjustment to abuse.50 Such forgiveness may not meet the criteria of forgiveness as conceptualized on the basis of consequences. It can be said that adaptive forgiveness embodies the gap between ‘forgiveness activity choices’ and ‘forgiveness activity consequences,’51 which often perpetuate victimization and the inability to change the relationship. It has been argued that in dyadic relationships the injury occurs in the historical context of the relationship and within the dominant normative structure and, as such, in the context of previous injuries. Such contexts impact on the way the injury and the associated events are interpreted, and as such they impact on the approach to forgiveness adopted.52 In light of this, conditional forgiveness does not imply return to routine but rather change.53 Such forgiveness occurs within a context of choice, and women experience themselves as active. They anchor the forgiveness in the context of the relationship and in the processes occurring between the partners. Such forgiveness may be justified under the following

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Aviva Zrihan-Weitzman and Zvi Eisikovits 15 ______conditions: remaining in the relationship; recognition of the injury and regret; retribution and assuming the consequences of the mistakes; willingness to change and the experience of a changed relationship or of change of the self. It is perceived as a balanced and conscious reaction by comparison to the approach of adaptive forgiveness. The findings of this research broaden our ontological understanding of what constitutes the experience of battered women’s forgiveness whether in its adaptive or conditional form. The way that their approach to forgiveness can vary over time presents forgiveness as a process component. When both profiles of forgiveness are active over time, a spiral model emerges in which there is movement from the adaptive to the conditional and reflective modes. In these cases forgiveness is used as a way for battered women to experience movement within the relationship, even when they are stuck in a vicious circle. Such movement could help these women survive and become resilient and/or enable these women to continue to remain and suffer in violent relationships where choices and alternatives are limited.

Notes

1 Walter S. DeKeseredy and Martin D. Schwartz, ‘Definitional Issues,’ Sourcebook on Violence against Women, eds. Claire. M. Renzetti, Jeffrey. L. Edleson and Raquel Kennedy Bergen (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001), 23-34. 2 Sana Loue, Intimate Partner Violence: Societal, Medical, Legal, and Individual Responses (New York: Plenum Publishers, 2001). 3 Frank D. Fincham, Julie H. Hall and Steven R. H. Beach, ‘Forgiveness in Marriage: Current Status and Future Directions,’ Family Relations 55 (2006): 415- 427. 4 Lorig K. Kachadourian, Frank Fincham and Joanne Davila, ‘Attitudinal Ambivalence, Rumination, and Forgiveness of Partner Transgressions in Marriage,’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31 (2005): 334-342; Giorgia Paleari, F., Camillo Regalia and Frank Fincham, ‘Marital Quality, Forgiveness, Empathy, and Rumination: A Longitudinal Analysis,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31.3 (2005): 368-376. 5 Jill N. Kearns and Frank D. Fincham, ‘A Prototype Analysis of Forgiveness,’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (2004): 838-855. 6 Michael E. McCullough, Everett L. Worthington Jr. and Kenneth C. Rachal, ‘Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73.2 (1997): 321-336. 7 Michael E. McCullough, Robert Kurzban and Benjamin A. Tabak, ‘Evolved Mechanism for Revenge and Forgiveness,’ Understanding and Reducing Aggression, Violence, and Their Consequences, eds. Phillip R. Shaver and Mario

Mikulincer (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2011), 221- 239; Jeni L. Burnette, et al., ‘Forgiveness Results From Integrating Information About Value and Exploitation Risk Relationship,’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulleting 38 (2012): 345-356. 8 Kristina Coop Gordon, Shacunda Burton and Laura Porter, ‘Predicting the Intention of Women in Domestic Violence Shelters to Return to Partners: Does Forgiveness Play a Role?’ Journal of Family Psychology 18.2 (2004): 331-338. 9 Jennifer Katz, Amy Street and Ileana Arias, ‘Individual Differences in Self- Appraisals and Responses to Dating Violence Scenarios,’ Violence and Victims 12.3 (1997): 265-276. 10 Frank D. Fincham, Julie H. Hall and Steven R. H. Beach, ‘Till Lack of Forgiveness Doth Us Part: Forgiveness in Marriage,’ Handbook of Forgiveness, ed. Everett L. Worthington Jr., (New York: Routledge, 2005), 207-226. 11 Debra Kaminer, Dan J. Stein, Irene Mbanga and Nompumelelo Zungu-Dirwayi, ‘Forgiveness: Toward an Integration of Theoretical Model,’ Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes 63.4 (2000): 344-35.; Sharon Lamb, ‘Women, Abuse, and Forgiveness: A Special Case,’ Before Forgiving: Cautionary Views of Forgiveness in Psychotherapy, eds. Sharon Lamb and Jeffrie G. Murphy (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 155-171. 12 Julie Juola Exline, et al., ‘Too Proud To Let Go: Narcissistic Entitlement As A Barrier to Forgiveness,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87.6 (2004): 894-912; Myron D. Friesen, Garth. J. O. Fletcher and Nickola C. Overall, ‘A Dyadic Assessment of Forgiveness in Intimate Relationships,’ Personal Relationships 12 (2005): 61-77. 13 Frank D. Fincham, F. Giorgia Paleari and Regalia Camillo, ‘Forgiveness in Marriage: The Role of Relationship Quality, Attributions, and Empathy,’ Journal of Personal Relationships 9 (2002): 27-37; Jill N. Kearns and Frank D. Fincham, ‘Victim and Perpetrator Accounts of Interpersonal Transgressions: Self-Serving or Relationship-Serving Biases?’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31.3 (2005): 321-333. 14 Laura Yamhure Thompson, et al., ‘Dispositional Forgiveness of Self, Others, and Situations,’ Journal of Personality 73.2 (2005): 313-359. 15 Michael E. McCullough, et al., ‘On the Form and Function of Forgiving: Modeling the Time-Forgiveness Relationship and Testing the Valuable Relationships Hypothesis,’ Emotion 10.3 (2010): 358-376. 16 Patrick Carmody and Kristina Gordon, ‘Offender Variables: Unique Predictors of Benevolence, Avoidance, and Revenge?’ Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011): 1012-1017.

17 Jo-Ann Tsang and Matthew S. Stanford, ‘Forgiveness For Intimate Partner Violence: The Influence of Victim and Offender Variables,’ Personality and Individual Difference 42 (2007): 653-664. 18 Jarred W. Younger, et al., ‘Dimensions of Forgiveness: The Views of Laypersons,’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21.6 (2004): 837-855. 19 Tsang and Stanford, ‘Forgiveness for Intimate Partner Violence.’ 20 Lenore E. Walker, ‘How Battering Happens and How to Stop It,’ Battered Women, ed. Donna M. Moore (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979), 64-72. 21 Zeev Winstok, Partner Violence: A New Paradigm for Understanding Conflict Escalation (New York: Springer, 2013). 22 Lamb, ‘Women, Abuse, and Forgiveness’; Jeffrie G. Murphy, ‘Forgiveness, Self-Respect, and the Value of Resentment,’ Handbook of Forgiveness, ed. Everett L. Worthington Jr. (New York: Routledge, 2005), 33-40. 23 Norman K. Denzin, ‘Towards a Phenomenology of Domestic Family Violence,’ American Journal of Sociology 90 (1984): 485-511. 24 Joseph A. Maxwell, Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005). 25 Gideon Fishman, et al., Survey of the Extent and Characteristics of Violence Towards Women and Children and At-Risk Youth (Haifa, Israel: Minerva Centre for Youth Studies, University of Haifa, 2001). 26 Jonathan A. Smith, Paul Flowers and Michael Larking, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, 89. 27Anselm L. Strauss and Juliet M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990). 28 Smith, Flowers and Larking, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. 29 Robert D. Enright, Forgiveness is A Choice: A Step-By-Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope (Washington, DC: American Psychology Association, 2001). 30 Amia Lieblich, Rivka Tuval-Mashiach and Tamar Zilber, Narrative Research: Reading, Analysis and Interpretation (Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1998). 31 Yafit’s Interview, paragraph 132. 32 Orna’s Interview, paragraph 214. 33 Sima’s Interview, paragraph 158. 34 Sima’s Interview, paragraph 170. 35 Christian J. Onof, ‘Jean Paul Sartre: Existentialism,’ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, viewed 21 January 2014, http://www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-ex/. 36 Miri’s Interview, paragraph 66. 37 Shira’s Interview, paragraph 37. 38 Chava’s Interview, paragraph 92.

39 Lilach’s Interview, paragraph 131. 40 Jerome S. Bruner, Acts of Meaning (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990). 41 Michael E. McCullough, Kenneth I. Pargament and Carl E. Thoresen, ‘The Psychology of Forgiveness-History, Conceptual Issues, and Overview,’ Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice, eds. Michael E. McCullough, Kenneth I. Pargament and Carl E. Thoresen (New York: Guilford Press, 2000), 1- 14. 42 Bruner, Acts of Meaning. 43 Helmut R. Wagner, ed., Alfred Schütz - On Phenomenology and Social Relations - Selected Writings (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press 1970). 44 Myron D. Friesen, Garth. J. O. Fletcher and Nickola C. Overall, ‘A Dyadic Assessment of Forgiveness in Intimate Relationships,’ Personal Relationships 12 (2005): 61-77. 45 Otto Friedrich Bollnow, ‘Lived-Space,’ Reading in Existential Phenomenology, eds. Nathaniel Morris Lawrence and Daniel John O’Connor (New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1967). 46 Eli J. Finkel, et al, ‘Dealing With Betrayal in Close Relationships: Does Commitment Promote Forgiveness?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82.6 (2002): 956-974. 47 Johan C. Karremans, et al, ‘When Forgiving Enhances Psychological Well- Being: The Role of Interpersonal Commitment,’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (2003): 1011-1026. 48 Enright, Forgiveness is A Choice. 49 Gerrit Glas, ‘Elements of Phenomenology of Evil and Forgiveness,’ Trauma Truth and Reconciliation: Healing Damaged Relationships, ed. Nancy Nyquist Potter (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 171-202. 50 Frank D. Fincham, Julie H. Hall and Steven R. H. Beach. ‘Forgiveness in Marriage: Current Status and Future Directions,’ Family Relations 55 (2006): 415- 427. 51 Michael J. A. Wohl, Don Kuiken and Noels, Kimberly A. Noels, ‘Three Ways to Forgive: A Numerically Aided Phenomenological Study,’ British Journal of Social Psychology 45 (2006): 547-561. 52 Everett L. Worthington Jr., ‘More Questions About Forgiveness: Research Agenda for 2005-2015,’ Handbook of Forgiveness, ed. Everett L. Worthington Jr. (New York: Routledge, 2005), 207-226. 53 Michael E. McCullough and Lindsey M. Root, ‘Forgiveness As Change,’ Handbook of Forgiveness, ed. Everett L. Worthington Jr. (New York: Routledge, 2005), 91-107.

Bibliography

Bollnow, Otto Friedrich. ‘Lived-Space.’ Reading in Existential Phenomenology, edited by Nathaniel Morris Lawrence and Daniel John O’Connor. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1967.

Bruner, Jerome S. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990.

Burnette, Jeni L., Michael E. McCullough, Daryl R. Van Tongeren and Don E. Davis. ‘Forgiveness Results from Integrating Information about Value and Exploitation Risk Relationship.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulleting 38 (2012): 345-356.

Carmody, Patrick and Kristina Gordon. ‘Offender Variables: Unique Predictors of Benevolence, avoidance, and revenge?’ Personality and Individual Differences 50 (2011): 1012-1017.

DeKeseredy, Walter S. and Martin D. Schwartz. ‘Definitional Issues.’ Sourcebook on Violence against Women, edited by Claire. M. Renzetti, Jeffrey. L. Edleson, & Raquel Kennedy Bergen, 23-34. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2001.

Denzin, Norman K. ‘Towards a Phenomenology of Domestic Family Violence.’ American Journal of Sociology 90 (1984): 485-511.

Enright, Robert D. Forgiveness is a Choice: A Step-by-Step Process for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope. Washington, DC: American Psychology Association, 2001.

Exline, Julie Juola, Roy F. Baumeister, Brad J. Bushman, W. Keith Campbell and Eli J. Finkel. ‘Too Proud to Let Go: Narcissistic Entitlement as a Barrier to Forgiveness.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87.6 (2004): 894-912.

Fincham, Frank D., Giorgia F. Paleari and Camillo Regalia. ‘Forgiveness in Marriage: The Role of Relationship Quality, Attributions, and Empathy.’ Journal of Personal Relationships 9 (2002): 27-37.

Fincham, Frank D., Julie H. Hall and Steven R. H. Beach. ‘Forgiveness in Marriage: Current Status and Future Directions.’ Family Relations 55 (2006): 415- 427.

Fincham, Frank D., Julie H. Hall and Steven R. H. Beach. ‘Till Lack of Forgiveness Doth us Part: Forgiveness in Marriage.’ Handbook of Forgiveness, edited by Everett L. Worthington Jr., 207-226. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Finkel, Eli J., Caryl E. Rusbult, Madoka Kumashiro and Peggy A. Hannon. ‘Dealing with Betrayal in Close Relationships: Does Commitment Promote Forgiveness?’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 82.6 (2002): 956-974.

Fishman Gideon, Zvi Eisikovits, Gustavo S. Mesch and Ruhama Gusinsky. ‘Survey of the Extent and Characteristics of Violence Towards Women and Children and At-Tisk Youth.’ Haifa, Israel: Minerva Centre for Youth Studies, University of Haifa, 2001.

Friesen, Myron D., Garth. J. O. Fletcher and Nickola C. Overall. ‘A Dyadic Assessment of Forgiveness in Intimate Relationships.’ Personal Relationships 12 (2005): 61-77.

Glas, Gerrit. ‘Elements of Phenomenology of Evil and Forgiveness.’ Trauma Truth and Reconciliation: Healing Damaged Relationships, edited by Nancy Nyquist Potter, 171-202. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Gordon, Kristina Coop, Donald H. Baucom and Douglas K. Snyder. ‘The Use of Forgiveness in Marital Therapy.’ Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by Michael E. McCullough, Kenneth I. Pargament and Carl E. Thoresen, 203-227. New York: Guilford Press, 2000.

Gordon, Kristina Coop, Shacunda Burton and Laura Porter. ‘Predicting the Intention of Women in Domestic Violence Shelters to Return to Partners: Does Forgiveness Play a Role?’ Journal of Family Psychology 18.2 (2004): 331-338.

Kachadourian, Lorig K., Frank Fincham and Joanne Davila. ‘Attitudinal Ambivalence, Rumination, and Forgiveness of Partner Transgressions in Marriage.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(2005): 334-342.

Kaminer Debra, Dan J. Stein, Irene Mbanga and Nompumelelo Zungu-Dirwayi. ‘Forgiveness: Toward an Integration of Theoretical Model.’ Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes 63.4 (2000): 344-35.

Karremans, Johan C., Paul A. M. Van Lang, Jaap. W. Ouwerkerk and Esther S. Kluwer. ‘When Forgiving Enhances Psychological Well-being: The Role of Interpersonal Commitment.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 84 (2003): 1011-1026.

Katz, Jennifer, Amy Street and Ileana Arias. ‘Individual Differences in Self- Appraisals and Responses to Dating Violence Scenarios.’ Violence and Victims 12.3 (1997): 265-276.

Kearns, Jill N. and Frank D. Fincham. ‘A Prototype Analysis of Forgiveness.’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 30 (2004): 838-855.

Kearns, Jill N. and Frank D. Fincham. ‘Victim and Perpetrator Accounts of Interpersonal Transgressions: Self-Serving or Relationship-Serving Biases?’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31.3 (2005): 321-333.

Kelly, Liz. ‘How Women Define Their Experiences of Violence.’ Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse, edited by Kersti Yllo and Michele Louise Bograd, 114-132. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1988.

Lamb, Sharon. ‘Women, Abuse, and Forgiveness: A Special Case.’ Before Forgiving: Cautionary Views of Forgiveness in Psychotherapy, edited by Sharon Lamb and Jeffrie G. Murphy, 155-171. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Lieblich, Amia, Rivka Tuval-Mashiach and Tamar Zilber. Narrative Research: Reading, Analysis and Interpretation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1998.

Loue, Sana. Intimate Partner Violence: Societal, Medical, Legal, and Individual Responses. New York: Plenum Publishers, 2001.

Maxwell, Joseph A. Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.

McCullough, Michael E., Everett L. Worthington Jr. and Kenneth C. Rachal. Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73.2 (1997): 321-336.

McCullough, Michael E., Kenneth I. Pargament and Carl E. Thoresen. ‘The Psychology of Forgiveness: History, Conceptual Issues, and Overview.’ Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice, edited by Michael E. McCullough, Kenneth I. Pargament and Carl E. Thoresen, 1-14. New York: Guilford Press, 2000.

McCullough, Michael E. and Lindsey M. Root. ‘Forgiveness as Change.’ Handbook of Forgiveness, edited by Everett L. Worthington Jr., 91-107. New York: Routledge, 2005.

McCullough, Michael E., Lindsey Root Luna, Jack W. Berry, Benjamin A. Tabak and Giacomo Bono. ‘On the Form and Function of Forgiving: Modeling the Time- Forgiveness Relationship and Testing the Valuable Relationships Hypothesis.’ Emotion 10.3 (2010): 358-376.

McCullough, Michael E., Robert Kurzban and Benjamin A. Tabak. ‘Evolved Mechanism for Revenge and Forgiveness.’ Understanding and Reducing Aggression, Violence, and their Consequences, edited by Phillip R. Shaver and Mario Mikulincer, 221-239. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2011.

Murphy, Jeffrie G. ‘Forgiveness, Self-Respect, and the Value of Resentment.’ Handbook of Forgiveness, edited by Everett L. Worthington Jr., 33-40. New York: Routledge, 2005.

Onof, Christian J. ‘Jean Paul Sartre: Existentialism.’ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Viewed 21 January 2016. http://www.iep.utm.edu/sartre-ex/.

Padgett, Deborah K. Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research: Challenges and Rewards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998.

Paleari, Giorgia F., Camillo Regalia and Frank Fincham. ‘Marital Quality, Forgiveness, Empathy, and Rumination: A Longitudinal Analysis.’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31.3 (2005): 368-376

Smith, Jonathan A., Paul Flowers and Michael Larking. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis: Theory, Method and Research. Los Angeles: Sage, 2009.

Strauss, Anselm L. and Juliet M. Corbin, Basics of Qualitative Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 1990.

Thompson, Laura Yamhure, C. R. Snyder, Lesa Hoffman, Scott T. Michael, Heather N. Rasmussen, Laura S. Billings, Laura Heinze, Jason E. Neufeld, Hal S. Shorey, Jessica C. Roberts and Danae E. Roberts. ‘Dispositional Forgiveness of Self, Others, and Situations.’ Journal of Personality 73.2 (2005): 313-359.

Tsang, Jo-Ann and Matthew S. Stanford. ‘Forgiveness for Intimate Partner Violence: The Influence of Victim and Offender Variables.’ Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007): 653-664.

Wagner, Helmut R., ed. Alferd Schütz: On Phenomenology and Social Relations - Selected Writings. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1970.

Walker, Lenore E. ‘How Battering Happens and How to Stop it.’ Battered Women, edited by Donna M. Moore, 64-72. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1979.

Winstok, Zeev. Partner Violence: A New Paradigm for Understanding Conflict Escalation. New York: Springer, 2013.

Wohl, Michael J. A., Don Kuiken and Kimberly A. Noels. ‘Three Ways to Forgive: A Numerically Aided Phenomenological Study.’ British Journal of Social Psychology 45 (2006): 547-561.

Worthington Everett L. Jr. and Nathaniel G. Wade. ‘The Psychology of Unforgiveness and Forgiveness and Implication for Clinical Practice.’ Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 18.4 (1999): 385-418.

Younger, Jarred W., Rachel L. Piferi, Rebecca L. Jobe and Kathleen A. Lawler. ‘Dimensions of Forgiveness: The Views of Laypersons.’ Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 21.6 (2004): 837-855.

Aviva Zrihan-Weitzman teaches in the Tel-Hai College, Upper Galilee, and is the head social worker at the Center for Treatment and Prevention of Family Violence in Kiryat-Shmona and the Upper Galilee, Israel. Her research interests include qualitative research, domestic violence, wounds and injuries, forgiveness and revenge, and stress and coping.

Zvi Eisikovits is a Professor of Social Welfare. He is the Chair of the School of Criminology and Head of the Centre for the Study of Society at the University of Haifa, Israel. His research interests include qualitative constructivist research, intimate partner violence and child abuse, and research on forgiveness across the lifespan. He has published extensively in these areas and is presently working on a book on women who aged in violence and an edited collection of essays on forgiveness.

Steve Larocco

Abstract Much of the writing on forgiveness pays too scant attention to the dominant role of memory in determining the actual operations of forgiveness. Forgiveness is a process that involves the disarticulation and rearticulation of memory in its various forms: cultural memory, collective memory and the forms of individual memory (episodic memory, narratival memory, autobiographical memory and traumatic memory). It is in the interaction between emotion and these forms of memory that offense gets preserved and therefore becomes available for the work of forgiveness. In this sense, forgiveness is never simply a decision or an act of will; it always entails the complex, ongoing work of rearticulating memory in ways that transform or strike certain recollections of the past in order to re-open possibilities of social and/or interpersonal relations not bound by adverse, entrenched memories of the past.

Key Words: Forgiveness, imperative memory, emotion, resentment, forgetting, trauma, narrative, release, disarticulation, rearticulation.

*****

1. Introduction When Bishop Joseph Butler argued in the 18th century that forgiveness could be characterized as the overcoming of excesses of resentment, he was exhibiting the inclinations that characterized what has come to be termed ‘sentimentalist’ thought, which focuses on the primacy of emotions in motivating moral and other behaviour. Like thinkers such as Frances Hutchinson, David Hume, and Adam Smith, Butler believed that morality was an effect of the well-composed interaction and expression of sentiments or emotions. One consequence of this was that when he wrote his influential sermons on resentment and forgiveness, he treated resentment as a natural passion that forgiveness, which he considered a form of love for the other, could mitigate or overcome. Resentment, he argued, ‘is a weapon put into our hands by nature, against injury, injustice and cruelty,’ and forgiveness is an act of love that overcomes the potential excesses of such a feeling.1 However, in this construal of resentment and forgiveness, he commits a bit of a symptomatic oversight: although he had distinguished anger from resentment by suggesting that anger was a momentary feeling to fend off harm while resentment was a durable feeling about injury (whether physical or symbolic), he failed to fully take account of the temporal dimension of resentment (and of forgiveness).

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 26 The Temporality of Forgiveness ______Resentment, for Butler, considered primarily as an immediate feeling rather than as a composite of cognitively preserved emotion and self-focused, framing narrative scripts, is, for him, oddly locked into the present. Butler de-emphasizes that resentment is constructed by the binding together of feeling and its past, of emotion and memory. As a consequence, he construes forgiveness itself as the expression of a sentiment, as an act of a certain kind of Christian love, rather than as a struggle and engagement with time and memory, and their effects on emotion. While the focus on forgiveness as a form of love has some validity, that validity is, at best, partial, and tends to underplay the ways in which forgiveness operates in relation to particular constructions of an event, and the way a given event or action is preserved as an offense in and through memory.

2. The Centrality of Memory Such failure to attend rigorously to the complex interplay of emotion, time and memory that forgiveness entails troubles much of the philosophical and psychological work that deals with forgiveness, not only in the work of an 18th century moral philosopher such as Butler, but also to some degree in diverse contemporary thinkers such as Charles Griswold, Glen Pettigrove, Vladimir Jankélévitch and Jacques Derrida.2 Jankélévitch exemplifies this pattern. He argues that alterations or expungements of memory – forgetting – cannot be an element of forgiveness, which must be a free act of love rather than a reframing of one’s relation to the past and memory.3 There is more than a whiff in Jankélévitch’s thinking and that of others like him that forgiveness is (and must be) a decision, a choice, an act of will or volition, one made in a moment that looks towards the future and not towards the past. I would argue instead that forgiveness always looks, to some degree, towards the past, specifically towards the past as remembered or recollected – as subjectively preserved – and that in this sense forgiveness is a means not simply of dealing with feeling, or making a decision, but rather entails struggling with an array of feelings embedded in and emergent as memory, which binds the person wishing to forgive into the pendency of time. What drives forgiveness is not simply a desire to change feelings; forgiveness involves an often much more complex impulse to address and alter in certain ways an experience of the past – the feelings that have coalesced with it, the narratives that construct and preserve it, the frameworks that construct it, shape it and give it meaning and affective power. Forgiveness in this sense is an effort to alter some of the imperative claims, some of the specific force, of the past. Though one might hope, as Shakespeare’s King Lear does, that forgiveness might allow a victim to ‘forget and forgive’ reprehensible treatment, forgiveness often entails not precisely forgetting but more involved memory work, in which what is crucial is not the erasing of burdening traces of past conflict or harm. Rather, what become salient are two forms of alteration: a shift in the emotional loading of that past, especially the events of offense or injury, involving a deflation of the adverse affective charge

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Steve Larocco 27 ______of a given memory (or complex of memories); and a shift in the cognitive shape and significance of the recollected past, a shift in its meaning or influence. One need not forget to forgive, but one does need to rework one’s relationship to certain kinds of memory, to make adverse memory less imperative, less of a disjunctive burden on social relations in the present. In this sense, one might think of forgiveness as a form of counter-memory, though that term may too strongly suggest an oppositional relation between memory and forgiveness. Forgiveness does counter adverse memory, but typically not by denying, deleting or obliterating it. Rather, it works by transforming what adverse memory does, how it affects the present. Perhaps a better way of phrasing this to say that forgiveness is a form of alter-memory, wherein forgiveness allows a person to transform his or her affective and cognitive relation to adverse memory, to forms of past offense, rather than simply to seek the consignment of such memory to oblivion. Jankélévitch, perhaps rightly, objects to the notion that forgiveness can entail the forgetting of offense, but he does so for the wrong reasons. It is not because forgetting eliminates choice – the very non-rehearsal of adverse memory, the non-cultivation of it – is a form of choice, and as such might, in certain circumstances, be considered as an act of volition, though it is a choice that both deals with time and is immersed in time. The choice is not made at once in a simple present, nor is it ruled by any simple mental executive function, but rather occurs in multiple presents as an ongoing act or as a disposition (whether conscious or non-conscious – the non-rehearsal of adverse memory doesn’t have to be intended or chosen to be forgiving; it is forgiving even if it is merely dispositional, that is, as a person’s habituated way of being in the world and responding to offense). The problem of forgiving as forgetting is more specifically a problem because forgetting can’t be, in most cases, chosen. One can refuse to cultivate or rehearse an adverse memory, one can want to forget, but the memory typically remains, often frustratingly against one’s will.4 Given the resistance of such memory to deletion and erasure, forgiveness then must be seen as countering and altering memory, rather than involving forgetting. Memory is much more easily altered or countered than extinguished. To borrow terminology from Lawrence Grossberg used in a different context, forgiveness involves the disarticulation and rearticulation of memory.5 It involves a disarticulation of a particular relationship between adverse affect and the personal salience of a narrative of the past that carries that affect into the present. In some way, one might think of this as a kind of disarticulation of memory and feeling, with the proviso that the alteration or disarticulation is provisional, partial, a work in progress. Disarticulation is the aim, but its success is often measured, incomplete. It may not be possible to disarticulate, in the case of trauma, a narrative of the event, however fragmentary, and the affect conjoined with it. At best, what may be possible is partial disarticulation, which may have its own narrative arc.6 Even partial disarticulation, however, opens up possibilities for the

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 28 The Temporality of Forgiveness ______alteration of memory, for rearticulation. Rearticulation involves the reconstruction of memory, a re-forming of its various components, with formal change facilitating affective alteration and vice versa. This can occur even if disarticulation hasn’t occurred or hasn’t been effective. The processes are related, often mutually involved, but need not be. The disarticulation of memory in forgiveness to some degree typically precedes its rearticulation, but a memory doesn’t have to be disarticulated in order to be rearticulated. Rearticulation can simply re-contour the narrative form of memory in order to render it less adverse, without necessarily disarticulating it. Rearticulation can involve the recontextualization of memory, reframing its social or interpersonal framework, or it can involve altered interpretations of the other’s motives or intent, due to a shift in understanding or to new information. Rearticulation also can involve a kind of strikethrough of an adverse memory, in which the memory remains intact, but in which the force of its original form has been undone, often by the addition of semiotic emotional inhibitors, that is, mental framing devices that counter or bracket out the original meaning and force of a given adverse memory. This is what underlies the conception of forgiveness as a kind of promise or contract with oneself, in which one act as if a given offense no longer matters in a given relationship, even if the memory of the offense remains emotionally troubling. Forgiveness involves a semiotic commitment to bracket out the imperative force of the offensive memory, to treat it as struck through, as present but negated. The larger problem, I am pointing out, is that most writers on forgiveness typically don’t take much interest in the complexities of memory as such, which I have just started to unfold and can only begin to sketch out in this chapter. This oversight adversely affects the ability of such writers to register, recognize or unpack forgiveness’s knotted relationship with memory. The urge to forgive arises because an event in the past believed to be offensive or injurious continues to influence the present, because the event has lodged in memory, and has done so imbued with negative emotion. It is the negative emotion, the resentment (or sadness, or shame, or guilt, etc.), that theories such as Butler’s cast as the focalizing object of forgiveness, but it is the mediation of that emotion in memory that allows it to become an issue at all. If the emotion weren’t enmeshed with or coupled to memory, where memory serves either as the medium, conservator or trigger of the negative feeling, the offensive event would not exist in a way that needed forgiveness. It is not emotions themselves that we forgive, but the persons, institutions or other social forms or actions that we believe have caused particular emotions. And it is memory that ties the emotion to its putative cause. It is memory, to use a felicitous phrase of Paul Ricoeur’s, that needs to be appeased.7

3. Forms of Memory Memory, in relation to forgiveness, occurs in several forms. To begin, there is cultural memory, which involves the aspects of the past that a given culture seeks

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Steve Larocco 29 ______to retain and reproduce by embedding those memories in cultural structures, narratives and objects. Examples would include what Pierre Nora has called ‘sites of memory,’ such as Auschwitz or Ground Zero, but also myths, stories, museums, memorials, monuments, etc.8 Such cultural material seeks to preserve the past and, in part, to retain and activate a particular form of its emotional force or valence in the present in relation to that articulation of the past. The focus of such preservation is to determine in and for the present what the past is and means, what its significance is. Cultural memory seeks to maintain, perpetuate and advance what a given culture asserts is relevant to the present, what has ongoing social, political and therefore affective significance. The enemy of such cultural memory is forgetting in two forms: first, simple oblivion, in which an incident, which might be significant, is simply extinguished or consigned to the dead storage of the cultural archive; and second, emotional uncoupling or disassociation, in which the emotional force of a past event is allowed to dissipate over time. Such forgetting doesn’t mean that an event disappears, but rather that it becomes inert, that it loses any imperative force to drive the present. The event in question may still persist as a representation, as an historical artefact, but it loses its ongoing cultural power; it may then fade into oblivion, though in an age of digital records of the past, oblivion may never fully occur. Cultural memory, then, as it attempts to control what a given culture remembers and what it forgets (or consigns to inert portions of the cultural archive), often preserves or institutes resentment, by retaining and often foregrounding or even celebrating cultural offenses, traumas and injuries (in the United States, an example is the national holiday of Columbus Day, which memorializes the beginning of the processes of colonization and genocide that allowed the nation to emerge; the creation of Ground Zero as a memorial to the World Trade Center attack is another example); such cultural memory creates an ongoing possibility of forgiveness (and political apology). Such cultural memory frequently opens a cultural space of contestation even as it seeks to institute a dominant cultural version of the past: people often respond to cultural memory quite differently depending on their specific position in a given social formation. As Francesca Dominello has explored in her chapter of this book, the relationship between cultural memory, political apology and the possibility of forgiveness is often fraught, particular in the case where a nation-state is attempting to alter its relation both to its own past and to the populations who have suffered as a result of that past.9 In such a situation, a State apology often attempts to supplant or at least neutralize its own troubling past and the memory of it, normally, paradoxically, by an act of remembrance. Here, disarticulation and rearticulation are typically at work, usually for political ends. One apologizes to facilitate the disarticulation of certain affects from certain memories, with the political aim of then rearticulating that past in a more socially cohesive way, as one whose negatives have been acknowledged and struck through so that different forms of cultural memory can emerge. In this way, cultural memory can be

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 30 The Temporality of Forgiveness ______connected to processes of restorative justice, wherein a culture works to rearticulate its relationship to a troubled past by putting that past into the context of new cultural memories, as occurred in the ‘Reitz Affair’ in South Africa, an incident in which the abuse of black workers by white students re-evoked the legacies of apartheid, but in which the construction of the affair itself as a kind of imperative cultural memory neutralized some of the adverse force of calling to memory South Africa’s racist past.10 In such instances, however, the peoples that felt the sting of that past and who have retained it in their own cultural memory, where there has not been fully consensual and restorative justice, often resist the disarticulation and rearticulation of adverse cultural memories, as such action may co-opt their own version and use of that cultural memory and enjoin forgiveness. Adversely affected populations may resist forgiveness precisely because it asks them to alter, counter or strike through their own cultural memory in favour of accepting the dominant culture’s often only partial recognition of a subaltern population’s nuanced connection to a particular cultural memory and its political implications. Politically non-dominant peoples often wish to retain an event as unforgivable, so that it can still do political work. To alter the memory by bracketing its force in the present through forgiveness (or even, at times, through restorative justice) is to unthread a relation between cultural memory and identity, a relationship that makes certain forms of forgiveness extremely complex and difficult. One can see the work of cultural memory in the imperative (repeated incessantly in the ever lengthening aftermath of the Holocaust) never to forget, to preserve memory of that constellation of events and the emotion that goes with it, to bind it into the present as a cultural force. In the present day United States, cultural memory of the Holocaust does social and political work, anchoring a narrative of good and evil, of American righteousness that goes well beyond horror at genocide. In an age of United States imperialism, it supports a narrative of American goodness that current events may not easily sustain. It is taught in schools in the United States, in part, to show what evil is (and evil is not American). As such, it becomes the embodiment of the unforgiveable, a cultural memory that cannot be disarticulated or rearticulated. It must simply be honoured, that is, rehearsed, in line with its dominant forms. Nonetheless, as long as this imperative preserves an emotionally activated terrain of cultural memory, there remains, implicitly, also a possibility to forgive, one that the very imperative seeks to negate. Forgiveness and memory create paradoxes, and one of those paradoxes is that the very effort to preserve memory charged with adverse emotion opens a possibility of forgiveness, even if that is precisely what the imperative memory wishes to disallow. If we perpetually remember the Nazi crime, then there remains a perpetual tension about whether to forgive, instead of merely preserving or using that atrocity to fuel ongoing resentment (or to specify and reify evil in a way that lets other forms of evil off the hook to some degree). Memory that is preserved is

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Steve Larocco 31 ______also memory that can be altered or countered. It can be disarticulated and rearticulated. In spite of these complexities, the dominant function of cultural memory is to use the recollected past to create symbolic nodes of group orientation and identification; as a consequence, such memory often exists in a relatively antagonistic relation to forgiveness, for forgiveness aims to transform, counter or strike through the meaning or significance of past offense, while cultural memory often attempts to preserve or memorialize scenes of past trauma, conflict and hostility to support a given social formation. Thus, forgiveness of a past violation (say, the attack by al-Qaeda on the World Trade Center) might be seen as itself offensive, in that it challenges dominant cultural memory and its uses. Of course, it is also true that cultural memory and forgiveness can work in tandem, as in a case where a dominant order attains forgiveness for an event in its past that it wishes to remember and use as a means to unite various factions in a political formation. In the United States, for example, the atrocities of the Civil War committed by the victors have been largely forgotten (and implicitly forgiven), allowing a dominant cultural memory of the war as a righteous victory over the forces of race-based slavery to emerge. This rearticulation of memory took a great deal of time, and certainly didn’t exist in the southern United States in the late 19th century. But it largely does now, due to a synergy between forgetting, forgiveness of a kind, and cultural memory. In addition to cultural memory, there is also collective memory, the memory of events that one shares with others and which, in spite of their supposed immediacy, have often been shaped by ideology. Collective memory differs from cultural memory in that it is more the aggregation of singular memories of a given shared event than a memory that is predominantly shaped by cultural aims and forces. Collective memory, therefore, though it is often refashioned by cultural memory, remains provisionally different from it. For example, the attack on the World Trade Center in the United States on September 11 exists as both a cultural memory and as a collective memory. As a collective memory, people, as individuals but also as part of a group, witnessed the saturation of television and other shared media with images and stories of the attack on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. This occurred to some degree prior to the event’s construction as a cultural memory, which happened in the United States very, very quickly. More specifically, those who were in Manhattan that day would have more individuated, less mediated, collective memories – shared experiences of the smell, of the sirens, perhaps of the towers crumbling, of noises and dust, but also of the fear and panic of others, of the sense of a world immediately disrupted in previously unimagined ways. In social life, such collective memories often immediately begin to interact with, and are shaped by, cultural memories, and the emotional loading of the memory of the event itself is powerfully influenced by these cultural forces, which are often powerfully ideological. Ideology wishes to shape what collective memory

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 32 The Temporality of Forgiveness ______means and will mean, and it does so by creating buttresses or supports or semiotic channels for certain kinds of memory and not for others, as well as shared narratival frames and judgments of value. These memories, at once collective and, in addition, cultural, strongly influence the emotional inclinations of a given social group or social formation. Ideology affects memories and often defines what events are to remain emotionally active – which events are acceptable sources of collective resentment, and which events are beyond collective forgiveness. As with cultural memory, collective memory often exists in a somewhat conflicted relationship with forgiveness, as it manifests forces of preservation while forgiveness entails forces of transformation, disarticulation and rearticulation. The complexity in collective memory is that the memories are also, experientially, individual, at least in part, and this means that their social shaping is less complete and controlling than with memories that are purely cultural. For those in lower Manhattan on 9/11, to take up the example I used earlier, the attack on the towers was less mediated, more singular, than it was for those watching the event on television somewhere else in the world, who would have had roughly the same experience of what happened as anyone else watching, namely, the one presented by the dominant media outlets. Persons in lower Manhattan in the vicinity of the towers also would have had a mediated experience, as their immediate, episodic memory would be altered over time by their own television watching and the construction of a dominant cultural version of the event. However, their original memories would not simply be supplanted by cultural memory, but rather were supplemented by it, leaving them with a memory that is at once singular, collective (in that many people in proximity to the event had roughly the same experience) and cultural. In situations of collective memory, forgiveness is complicated by the fact that there is no collective representation of the event that fully dominates singular experience. Though there may be cultural pressures either to forgive or not forgive a particular event that has been experienced and remembered collectively, the singular features of that memory mean that it will have different emotional loading and meaning for each bearer of that memory, even if there exist extensive commonalities across the population that carries the memory. It will have differing individual articulations. As a consequence, if forgiveness occurs, since it involves the disarticulation and rearticulation of that memory, it will occur differently for each bearer of memory (at a different pace, with different imperatives for and against, with different emotional stakes). Since the emotional loading of the memory will invariably differ between persons, sometimes significantly, the work of forgiveness on such memory has to be a hybrid form, partially individuated, partially collective (since the memory is, in part, collective, the way one deals with that memory faces cultural pressures, imperatives about how and what one should remember and what one’s memory means).

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Steve Larocco 33 ______In addition to such forms of cultural and aggregated memory, there are also personal or singular forms of memory, and these are more conventionally what we associate with forgiveness. Here I will emphasize three forms, which may overlap quite a bit: episodic memory, narratival/autobiographical memory, and traumatic memory. These are the forms of memory where forgiveness most frequently does its work, for they compose the subject-based means of retaining and constructing events of offense and injury, of articulating them in the sense of processing them into retainable forms, providing the material on which forgiveness typically operates. Episodic memory is memory that is focalized largely on the perception, both external and internal of a given event – the sights, sounds, smells, tastes, touches and feelings that one experienced (or imagined one experienced) in relation to a specific happening. This could include everything from the way a person gazed at one when delivering an insult to the tingling warmth of one’s own face flushing in response, to a sense of emotional deflation and sadness gradually smouldering, after the offender has departed, into rage. However, as Maurice Halbwachs and his followers have argued, these memories are not simply individual;11 instead, they are shaped and fashioned by social frameworks and forms. Episodic memory is always socially framed, taking shape according to social memory templates and norms, and consequently functioning in relation to such templates of significance. We remember an insult because we have been conditioned to experience certain kinds of behaviour as insults and to perceive that insults are significant, and consequently to remember them. And what is an insult is culturally specific. Arlie Russell Hoschild has argued persuasively that cultures have what she calls ‘feeling rules;’12 I would assert in parallel that cultures have something like memory ‘rules,’ which more precisely are habits and templates of memory, regularities and structures as much as codes and norms that govern the retention and emotional valence of experience. Such memory rules and templates direct what is remembered, and therefore also what remains to be forgiven.

4. Memory, Forgiveness, Self and Narrative One major form through which such fashioning and structuring of memory occurs entails the conventions of narratival and autobiographical memory. What is remembered or, more dynamically and actively, recollected, typically occurs in relation to the demands of narrative – what in one’s culture creates a significant story, what narrative supports or sustains the emotional load of certain kinds of experience. Events that don’t fit with such narratival conventions, unless they are traumatic, often don’t get remembered. Additionally, one of the means of experiencing existence as a self is through the synoptic, autobiographical narratives that we construct about ourselves, which link cultural values, narratival forms, episodic memory, and affective investments with constantly emergent tensions about identity. Who one is in the present is largely an effect of whom one has been in the past, and who that was is an effect of processes of selection and

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 34 The Temporality of Forgiveness ______forgetting, of narrativizing episodic memory, of affective loading and unloading. We are articulated beings, and much of that articulation derives from the articulation that is memory. It is on these articulations that forgiveness does much of its work, as resentment and other negative feelings arise in relation to a particular autobiographical construction of an event, to a particular articulation. The articulation of an event in memory is related, first, to imagined articulations of self – who am I? Is what happened ego-affirming or ego-dystonic? Who do I aspire to be or wish to become? Second, the articulation of an event as memory relates to the frameworks of culture – What in my culture is an offense? Is the offense major or minor, destabilizing or banal? What feelings attach to it conventionally? How long should it bother me? What does the offense say about who I am socially? What response will be viewed as a competent social performance? Third, the articulation involves one’s own personal history – Is experiencing such offense typical for me or unusual? Does it remind me of other similar experiences? Do I experience it as familiar or as strange? Do other memories intensify the feeling of what happened? Do other memories comfort me? Finally, fourth, the articulation is shaped by one’s own affective profile – Does the feeling that arises in relation to the event feel unbearable? Tolerable? How long and how intensely do my feelings last? Do I have tendencies towards certain kinds of dispositions or moods that affect my feelings? Am I prone to certain kinds of feelings and not to others? I could go on. All this particularizes one’s response to an insult or injury of some kind, and to its memory, yet is an effect of sociocultural factors. Forgiveness operates in relation to all of these intricacies of memory. For what forgiveness does, in a sense, is reframe through the processes of disarticulation and rearticulation how a particular event connects with one’s self-construction. Emotions such as resentment often operate in complex and deep relations with constructions of identity and the ways in which such constructions support and are supported by emotional profiles, the precise organization of one’s emotional registers and modes of arousal and response. Forgiveness intervenes in the way a memory has become embedded in a particular autobiographical narrative, altering the meaning and force of the memory and thereby altering who the self is in relation to the event. In this sense, both the articulation of the memory and the self change through forgiveness’s processes of disarticulation and rearticulation. This facilitates the alteration of the corresponding emotion, while simultaneously recursively revising the self. This change may be immediate, gradual, or repetitive. Because one can’t necessarily alter a memory all at once, especially because a memory’s emotional loading and valence is often not subject to intent or will as I mentioned previously, the changing of the emotional intensity and valence of memory may follow a sporadic, curved, oscillating or even repetitive trajectory. One may performatively forgive and wish to forgive, and still have emotions that don’t accord with that act. One may need to forgive, and then to forgive again, and then to forgive again, and for that to work, one may have to actively non-rehearse

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Steve Larocco 35 ______the memory of offense. Disarticulation and rearticulation are often quite difficult, for memory, in spite of it mutability, often remains resistant to certain kinds of change. It is worth noting that personal memories of offense (as with cultural memories of offense) are also not always adverse, or at least not adverse in a way that causes a desire to alter or counter them. In fact, in some cases, a person desires to cultivate particular adverse memories (a process that parallels some aspects of cultural memory). In such cases, it is active recollection, the worrying of an insult or offense, that enhances the articulation and retention of a memory’s episodic structure and emotional tone. Because issues of identity and justice are often tied up with memory, persons often want to preserve or even enhance/embellish memory articulations that sustain a desired version of self, even if the memory itself is, on one level, adverse. For the autobiographical memory of oneself may not be able to tolerate an acquiescence to the ‘injustice’ of a particular adverse event. To forget the adverse event consequently might be construed as a form a capitulation, framing the person who doesn’t nurture grievance (even to himself) as being the kind of person who accepts unfairness, who doesn’t honour and protect his or her dignity. Consequently, remembering the event, holding a grudge, enables a person to preserve a particular version of the autobiographical self, constructed through memory, one that will not give in to offense or insult. This kind of dynamic between memory, identity and affect often underlies feelings such as resentment, which garner their power by allowing a person to translate offense or injury into a hostile disposition that focuses on what one considers to be deserved recognition by the offending other and its loss. One wishes to remember the offensive event because it conjures up the feeling that one deserves recognition, paradoxically, by the offense’s negation of that deserving. As long as one resents, one constructs a self that deserves not to be trifled with, that deserves to be recognized. If one forgives, one becomes the kind of person who can be mistreated, stepped on, who doesn’t deserve recognition. In such an emotional dynamic, cultivating adverse memory is a means of creating a reflexive means to support selfhood through recollection and the feelings that attach to it. Autobiographical memory powerfully affects the ways in which emotion and memory are articulated and how they function. Autobiographical memory is what comprises the mosaic and/or synoptic narrative that constitutes one’s self (or selves, as one may have more than one, even competing, autobiographical memories and narratives). I am me because I am the subject of my own remembered life. As I select, cultivate, embellish, forget, and abandon past experiences, I shape my ‘self.’ Such memory is a framework, in part, of rehearsal (in a particular narrative form); I am the person who emerges in my rehearsed memories. As a consequence, there is a powerful connection between memory and identity, and this may cause problems for forgiveness, since one of the ways that forgiveness works is by altering the pattern of memory rehearsal and the desires

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 36 The Temporality of Forgiveness ______that attach to it. To change one’s pattern of memory rehearsal is, at some level, to change who one is. To resist that change, a person may hoard memory, especially those memories that support or sustain identity. When I feel resentment, for example, I typically hoard the memory of what offended me, because the memory of the injury or affront, when imbued with resentment, allows me, as I argued earlier, to continually feel my deserving of recognition. Resentment, in this sense, is narcissistically gratifying. Forgiveness, when it occurs in relation to hoarded memory, works by intervening in that hoarding process. It disarticulates, to some degree, resentment from the memory of the offense as well as from narcissistic self-construction, and allows a rearticulation of the memory in an altered or struck through form. Such memory work may not be an act of love or charity per se, but rather a wish to release oneself form a destructive pattern of repetition, in which one hoards adverse memories because one is bound by a particular version of autobiographical self, one that needs to rehearse adverse, narcissistic emotions for sustenance. In such cases, one returns through the hoarding of adverse memory to an avatar of self and the affect that supports it even if that repetition is personally distressing or agonizing and socially caustic. Forgiveness offers the possibility of release from this adverse hoarding of the past through the adjustment, the rearticulation, of memory and self.

5. Traumatic Memory and Forgiveness The complex interplay of memory, self-fashioning, offense, emotion and forgiveness is even more difficult when the instigating event is traumatic. In traumatic events, there is often an overloading of affect and cognition, which causes emotion to be remembered in ways in which narrative composure and episodic stability have been voided or expunged. Such memories often also tend to be intrusive and, at times, imperative, imposing themselves on the self and autobiographical memory in ways that are ego-dystonic and often fragmenting.13 To forgive such an event means trying to respond to a memory that is not fully available, either as episodic or as autobiographical memory. Sometimes, what one remembers are fragments or gaps, which are emotionally overloaded, supersaturated as it were. Because traumatic memory resists psychic assimilation, because it exists often in a double relation to one’s experience of identity (on the one hand, it often becomes a central feature of who one is, perhaps one’s defining memory; on the other hand, it remains unassimilated, alien and external to self and to the selected autobiographical memory that one deploys to constitute identity), such memory is often in an antagonistic relationship to it. What makes the forgiveness of trauma so difficult is that any assimilation of the traumatic event entails changes of autobiographical memory and its relation to the self that activate shame. Shame is the affective collapse or deflation that results from the disjunction of autobiographical self-fashioning from affectively loaded self-ideals and models. Traumatic events disrupt the ongoing integrating process of

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. Steve Larocco 37 ______narrative, affect and social ideals that forges and provisionally stabilizes a self. By creating non-assimilated, affectively saturated memories, memories that intrude on and disrupt affective and cognitive regulation and homeostasis, trauma undermines any composing of a relatively stable self. And because forgiveness cannot by itself disarticulate memory enough to counter such an effect, it may not be very appealing or helpful in relation to traumatic memory. Striking through a trauma, contracting with oneself to disregard it, may be to commit to a semiotic reframing that has no force. Forgiveness of traumatic events bears the burden of trying to reframe the relation between self, emotion, event and narrative in a way that overcomes the inaccessibility of the emotion to normal recollection and narratival composing. Traumatic memory is always unruly, and forgiveness in relation to it needs to be extremely patient, as the emotional dimension of such memory seems to be registered and perhaps imprinted in a way that is different than with more conventional episodic memory. One can forgive and forgive and forgive, yet environmental triggers can re-activate emotional flooding and remembering in spite of one’s wish to ‘forget and forgive.’ With traumatic memory, forgiveness may never be able to coalesce or sustain itself as an act, but rather may only exist as a perpetual process, one that is constantly disarticulating and rearticulating that which fundamentally disrupts or collapses articulation. In traumatic memory, the emotional changes and reframing of episodic memory in relation to autobiographical self-fashioning can only be tentative and provisional. Forgiveness in this sense becomes ongoing memory work, not a performative act or an act of release. It is repetitive but also always new, as it works in the oscillation between regression and renewal. Cultural memory can also be traumatic, as can collective memory, and involve some of these same dynamics.

6. Conclusion The complexities and structures of remembering, then, are central to the dynamics of forgiveness. Forgiveness at its core entails the transformation of memory and the emotions entwined with it, by disarticulating and rearticulating one’s relation to the retained past. Through this work, forgiveness forges a new commitment to a different future, but one which emerges only from rearticulations of the past. To forgive is not to forget, but to live with memory, not as its subject, but rather as its midwife. What forgiveness wishes to do is to facilitate the birth of new memory, taking the genetic matter of the past and articulating through it new possibilities of life.

1 Joseph Butler, ‘Fifteen Sermons Preached at he Rolls Chapel,’ Sermon VIII, 1846, viewed 23 July 2012, http://anglicanhistory.org/butler/rolls/index.html. 2 Paul Ricoeur’s, Memory, History, Forgetting, trans. Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), is an exception. 3 Vladimir, Jankélévitch, Forgiveness, trans. by Adam Kelly (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 57. Jankélévitch’s position on memory and forgiveness is, however, complex. He argues that the only forgiveness that is truly forgiveness is a forgiveness that remembers, that retains the rancour that the offended person felt about the offense (53-56). The past, for Jankélévitch, is imprescriptibly; it happened, and cannot be erased and must be dealt with. This is in concert with his notion that forgiveness is an excessive act of love and free choice, and not a process of working out the dialectics of memory and forgetting. 4 This is almost always the case with significant adverse memories, especially those that are traumatic. 5 Lawrence Grossberg, Cultural Studies in the Future Tense (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 21-22. 6 Disarticulation is different than dissociation, in that dissociation is a defence against memory, while disarticulation is an engagement with memory. While both attempt to alter the emotional effect of adverse memory (or experience, as dissociation can occur prior to memory), their relationship to memory differs. 7 Ricoeur, Memory, History, Forgetting, 412. 8 Pierre Nora, ‘Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memorie,’ trans. Marc Roudebush. Representations 26 (1989): 7-24, viewed 1 August 2013, http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/201/articles/89NoraLieuxIntr oRepresentations.pdf. 9 Francesca Dominello, ‘Apology and Forgiveness: Political Implications for Indigenous Peoples,’ Inter-Disciplinary.Net, viewed 14 January 2014, http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probingtheboundaries/wpcontent/uploads/2013/ 05/dominelloforpaper.pdf. 10 See Jessica Taylor, ‘Facing the Past in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Exploring Apology and Forgiveness as a Response to the University of the Free State “Reitz Affair”,’ Inter-Disciplinary.Net, viewed 23 January 2014, http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probing-the-boundaries/wpcontent/uploads/2013/05/taylorforpaper.pdf. 11 See Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, trans. Lewis Coser (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992) and Aleida Assmann, Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

12 Arlie Russell Hochschild, ‘Emotion Work, Feeling Rules and Social Structure,’ American Journal of Sociology 85, no. 3 (1979): 551-575, viewed 28 June 2013, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778583. 13 Bessel Van der Kolk and Onno van der Hart. ‘The Intrusive Past: Tthe Flexibility of Memory and the Engraving of Trauma,’ in Trauma: Explorations in Memory, ed. Cathy Caruth (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), 158-182.

Bibliography

Assmann, Aleida, Cultural Memory and Western Civilization: Functions, Media, Archives. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2011.

Butler, Joseph. ‘Fifteen Sermons Preached at the Rolls Chapel,’ 1846. Anglican History.Org. Viewed 23 July 2013. http://anglicanhistory.org/butler/rolls/index.html.

Derrida, Jacques. On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. Translated by Mark Dooley and Michael Hughes. New York: Routledge, 2001.

Dominello, Francesca. ‘Apology and Forgiveness: Political Implications for Indigenous Peoples.’ Inter-Disciplinary.Net. Viewed 14 January 2014. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probingtheboundaries/wpcontent/uploads/2013/ 05/dominelloforpaper.pdf.

Griswold, Charles. Forgiveness: A Philosophical Exploration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Grossberg, Lawrence. Cultural Studies in the Future Tense. Durham, NC: Duke Universty Press, 2010.

Halbwachs, Maurice, On Collective Memory. Translated by Lewis Coser. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992.

Hochschild, Arlie Russell. ‘Emotion Work, Feeling Rules and Social Structure,’ American Journal of Sociology 85, no. 3 (1979): 551-575. Viewed 3 June 2013. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2778583.

Jankélévitch, Vladimir. Forgiveness. Translated by Adam Kelly. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005.

Nora, Pierre. ‘Between Memory and History: Les Lieux de Memorie.’ Translated by Marc Roudebush. Representations 26 (1989): 7-24. USCB.edu. Viewed 1 August 2013. http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/201/articles/89NoraLieuxIntr oRepresentations.pdf.

Pettigrove, Glen. Forgiveness and Love. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Ricoeur, Paul. Memory, History, Forgetting. Translated by Kathleen Blamey and David Pellauer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004.

Taylor, Jessica. ‘Facing the Past in Post-Apartheid South Africa: Exploring Apology and Forgiveness as a Response to the University of the Free State “Reitz Affair”.’ Inter-Disciplinary.Net. Viewed 23 January 2014. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net/probing-the-boundaries/wp-content/uploads/ 2013/05/taylorforpaper.pdf.

Van der Kolk, Bessel and Onno van der Hart. ‘The Intrusive Past: The Flexibility of Memory and the Engraving of Trauma.’ In Trauma: Explorations in Memory, edited by Cathy Caruth, 158-182. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995.

Steve Larocco teaches theory and literature at Southern Connecticut State University in the United States. He is currently writing a book on forgiveness. His recent publications have been on forgiveness, personality theory, shame, and the relations between semiotics and emotions.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church: Where an Experience of Mercy and Forgiveness can Fail

David H. Pereyra

Abstract The Church’s theology of forgiveness is situated within a vision of the world marked by disintegration and divisions. How the faithful are able to experience forgiveness depends on how they perceive the impact of sacramental reconciliation. In 1983, the Synod of Bishops developed a proposal on how the Church could respond to its contemporary reconciling mission through a renewed practice of Penance and Reconciliation. Almost twenty years have passed and the number of people going to confession continues to decrease. This chapter will discuss what future, if any, the sacrament of Penance has in the life of the Roman Catholic Church. In Western culture, our relationship with the ‘transcendental other’ has always been a cause of crisis, stretching and shattering the symbols through which people struggle to express faith, forcing them to find new ones. Forgiveness and grace are not experienced directly in the sacrament, as they are celebrated. This possible lack of experienced reconciliation, together with other factors, has influenced the decline of confessions. In this chapter, I will examine how other ways of practising the ritual reconciliation could find appeal among the faithful. Attention will be paid to ontological, phenomenological, and cultural aspects of the ritual of reconciliation. I will look closely at the theology informing the celebration of the sacrament. This analysis will include a reflection on the actual experience of the ritual in order to point out both its strengths and inadequacies. Questions will include: How do liturgical actions help the faithful take hold of this mystery-laden myth? What kind of ritual is needed for forgiveness and reconciliation? What is the role of body language? The experience of confession is not an easy task for many believers, nevertheless, its attraction for them may lie in its mysterium tremendum et fascinans.

Key Words: Rituals, sacrament, reconciliation, penance, religious practices.

*****

1. Reconciliation: A Prelude of Forgiveness A reconciliation journey implies movement towards a new spiritual state of being. Therefore, whether reconciliation is made physically or contemplatively, the idea of journeying is central to it. Reconciliation is like a personal pilgrimage, where the penitent makes a journey because he or she needs time to reflect upon personal dilemmas or wrongdoings. The destination signifies not the end of the journey, but the threshold into a new way of being – of seeing life afresh with spiritually cleansed eyes.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 42 The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church ______Religious traditions have, as their origin, an experience of the divine from which arises a faith community. In order to perpetuate the experience, a given community practises rituals that serve as memorials. Steve Larocco in his chapter in this volume examines this aspect of cultural memory as a way of opening up the possibility to forgiveness. In the religious context, rituals allow the group to experience, over and over again, the God who acts to bring faith into being. In the Christian tradition, the shared experience of the divine is practised through the ‘sacraments,’ with which the community experiences being reconstituted and reoriented toward God. Christians believe that God has reconciled humanity through Christ – who grants divine forgiveness – and that Christians are ministers of reconciliation. God, in meeting humanity in its experience of brokenness and distorted relationships, brings people back to wholeness and unity by his forgiveness. Christians recognize that this gift is also their individual and collective task, which means being in a community united by forgiveness and reconciliation. The Church carries out this responsibility to conduct the rituals of the sacrament of Penance – popularly known as confession. It provides the opportunity for those who have done wrong to come forward, name their brokenness, their need for forgiveness, and their desire for wholeness and reconciliation. They gather for penitential purposes, acknowledging their need for the saving presence of God, and transformation. This process of transformation and reconciliation is ritualized in the liturgical celebration of Penance.1 This spiritual experience, and the sense of hope and promise it creates, should, arguably, appeal to those who hold onto the faith. However the decline of ‘confessions’ in the Roman Catholic Church has been considerable.2 This decline raises many questions. One critical question is whether the ritual, in keeping the liturgical moment a private one between priest and penitent, and isolating the penitent from their community, is the best choice. This creates the impression that the sacrament’s direction is simply towards forgiveness and towards the removal of the obstacles in the way of a private relationship with the divine. I will focus on this limited aspect of the experience of the sacrament and consider what new thinking about the performance of the ritual of penance can offer to current liturgical praxis.

2. Sacrament of Penance The rite and formularies for the sacrament of penance were revised by the Congregation for Divine Worship in 1973, but little work was done to create a liturgy in which forgiveness can manifest itself. A phenomenological approach gives clues on how to do this, but in order to understand this approach its basic concepts must first be defined: ‘The phenomenological fact of the matter is that space and time come together in place.’3 Through the rite of Penance and

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 43 ______Reconciliation, ‘a person passes from ordinary, profane time into sacred time.’4 As Christian Duquoc says:

Reconciliation is dynamic, it integrates the destructive past with a movement that abolishes it. It is a messianic concept; it incarnates in an authentic movement the most indestructible of all desires – peace and transparency.5

Sheldrake adds:

A place of forgiveness invites all who enter to make space for the other, to move over religiously or socially, to make room for those who are unlike, and in that process to realize that everyone

has become something different.6

A place of forgiveness creates space for the diversity of human voices to participate. This place has to make space for the other to be transformed into something new. Reconciliation becomes the genius loci – the true meaning of that event. To forgive and to be forgiven is a life given event, what Francesca Dominello calls in her chapter in this volume ‘the power to forgive.’ Christian faith tradition recognizes five forms of forgiveness in which the one divine forgiveness takes concrete shape. The theologian Herbert Vorgrimler emphasizes six forms:

1. Reconciliation through hearing the word of God. Because of God’s own unique initiative, the divine word encounters us as a word of reconciliation in the form of an offer to everyone who hears, and in the form of real pardon of those who, in a repentance worked by grace, become aware of their need for forgiveness. The encounter with the forgiving word of God (in preaching, reading discussion, or the dialogue of prayer) is no less effective or certain than the encounter that takes place, for example, in a sacramental action.

2. Reconciliation through restitution. Reconciliation with the people we have wronged or injured is a precondition for God’s effective forgiveness (Matt 5: 23-24; 6:12).

3. Reconciliation through productive love. Wherever a person turns away from fixation on himself or herself and the sterility that results from that, wherever such a person undertakes a commitment, individually or socially, on behalf of others, that

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 44 The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church ______person’s sins are forgiven in this God-given practice of love, even if he or she does not think directly of God and God’s forgiving word.

4. Reconciliation through conversational encounter. The New Testament admonitions to speak to one another and to listen to one another make it clear that conversation, critique, and self- criticism can be of decisive importance in the reception of the effective word of forgiveness.

5. Reconciliation through dying with Jesus. Concrete practices of penance can often arise out of mistaken or sick ideas. If notions of earning forgiveness and masochistic ideas of reparation are avoided, ascetic forms of life, the acceptance of situations that have no human solutions (loneliness, old age) and the endurance of meaningless but unavoidable suffering can be understood as the death of the self and its guilt, a dying with Jesus and an occasion of the forgiveness won for us by Jesus.

6. Reconciliation through the Church. From the beginning, the Church recognized itself as a community of those called by God to be a place of reconciliation and peace in the midst of a godless world. Since there were early signs of a discrepancy between the task of being God’s sinless possession, and therefore ‘holy,’ and the reality, which was marked by manifold faults and failing, the Church sought for what was ‘objectively’ holy, something that could not be damaged by human sin, and found it primarily in the realm of the sacraments.7

How we experience these six forms of forgiveness will depend on how we perceive the impact of reconciliation. The practice of the sacrament of Penance is not a mental exercise, but something that must be lived. It is not an isolated act or an unconscious experience from everyday life. On the contrary, it is an event in which the person freely performs an act of conscience. The Christian sinner, having heard the word of love and mercy from the spirit of Christ, receives his message of reconciliation, and then desires conversion. This sacrament is not merely a psychological or moral act, which implies an effort to repair sin. It is a religious event. The penitent experiences his or her heart having been penetrated by divine forgiveness, granted by God. This then provides the repentant the possibility of re-entering into his or her relationship with God again, in communion with Christ and the Church.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 45 ______Reconciliation is not an instantaneous consequence or result, an understanding with which Dominello, Larocco, Zrihan-Weitzman and Eisikovits in this volume would agree. But in the context of this chapter, in the religious context, it can be understood as a spiritual process. In this process of reconciliation, the faithful is first inspired and moved to seek forgiveness of God and others. Such conversion leads the penitent to be sorry for sin and intent on living a renewed life. Its progression starts with ‘contrition,’ followed by ‘confession,’ then ‘satisfaction,’ and then finally reaches ‘absolution.’ Let’s expand on this process. First is ‘contrition.’ Reconciliation between two people can only happen when both agree to it, an understanding advanced by Dominello. The attractio Patris offers forgiveness and friendship. It is this first action from God that makes contrition possible, but only if the wrongdoer has removed himself or herself from sin. This is known as paenitentiae virtus, the moral and religious disposition which prompts a person who has been moved by the grace of Christ to overcome sin in himself or herself.8 Second comes ‘confession.’ For the inner repentance to be valid, it must be expressed in an ecclesial way. In effect, the conversion of our heart must manifest itself in external and social dimensions – the auricular confession of sins. This oral expression manifests our inner world to the Church. The confession of sins is one possible way to do this. This intrinsic moment reveals to God, and to the Church, our conversion of the heart. Then ‘satisfaction’ takes place; it is what the penitent does to repair the effect of sin. These amends, which are imposed by the minister, act as medicine and cause a change in the mentality which has provoked sin.9 Finally comes ‘absolution.’ It is in effect a word of forgiveness spoken by the minister in virtue of the power which they have received from Christ, and a word of faith which condenses the beliefs of the Church. The power of the keys10 reconciles the person with God, and the power of jurisdiction reconciles the person with the Church.11 In the Roman Catholic Church, the authority to forgive sins is a sacramental duty, whose validity is confirmed by the Church through the local bishop. Those who celebrate Penance come as penitents and leave forgiven, restored to grace, because of Christ’s ministry of reconciliation. Then, in an allusion to Penance as a rebaptism, the minister instructs the members of the assembly that reconciliation cleanses them.12 This blessing provided a litany of thanksgiving to God, who forgives sins through the paschal mystery of Jesus, in the Holy Spirit. There are four intercessions that mention how God saves people from the darkness of sin and brings them into light and peace, rids their conscience of the works of death, opens the gates of mercy, and pardons for the sake of eternal life.13 The prayer of blessing also serves as the concluding prayer for the intercessions, and reminds all sinners that God corrects out of justice, forgives out of compassion, and shows mercy in order to save people.14

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 46 The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church ______In summary, sin is an offense against God, which disrupts the relationship with the Holy Trinity. Because the members of the Church form one body of Christ, they are joined together in relationship. Therefore, the sin of one harms others. The sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation then entails both, reconciliation with God and reconciliation with others. It involves the restoration of relationships, horizontally with our brothers and sisters and vertically with the Holy One.15 The sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation is the gift of God’s justice, mercy and compassion, which forgives sin as both individual and corporate evil. Reconciliation takes place through the ministry of the whole Church.

3. Gestures and Rites of Forgiveness: The New Rite of Penance in the 1980s Vatican II’s revision and promotion in the celebration of the sacraments were based on finding gestures, words and rites that gave clearer expression to the original symbolism. The immediate goal was to make the texts and rites clear enough for people to understand them easily and take part in them. The new Rite of Penance makes it clear that ‘The whole Church, as priestly people, acts in different ways in the work of reconciliation that has been entrusted to it by the

Lord.’16 The Church calls sinners to repentance through the proclamation and preaching of God’s Word, but the Church also intercedes for penitents, asking God, who alone forgives sins, for mercy. ‘The Church is the instrument of conversion and forgiveness through the ministry of bishops and priests, who both preach God’s Word and through the Holy Spirit declare that God forgives sin,’ but also ‘the parts that penitents themselves have in the celebration of the sacrament

are of the greatest importance.’17 First, properly disposed, the penitent confesses their sins. Second, the penitent receives the forgiveness of God through the Holy Spirit and the ministry of the bishop or priest. Third, he or she proclaims the mercy of God that he or she has experienced. Therefore, the penitent and minister celebrate the liturgy whereby the Church is renewed.18 In 1983 bishops from around the world were summoned by Pope John Paul II to a Synod. The topic of the preparatory document of the Synod was ‘Reconciliation and Penance in the Mission of the Church.’ James Dallen, an expert on the sacrament of Penance found this document contained many indications of the Counter-Reformation outlook suggesting ‘a negative assessment of the world, little appreciation of communal celebrations and the universal priesthood, an individualistic understanding of the sacrament’s nature and effect, little reference to the liturgy,’19 and its rituals. The same impression can be found in Pope John Paul II’s postsynodal apostolic exhortation, Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, issued in 1984. He emphasized the teaching of the Council of Trent: individual confession and the priestly ministry absolution:

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 47 ______But with regard to the substance of the sacrament there has always remained firm and unchanged in the consciousness of the church the certainty that, by the will of Christ, forgiveness is offered to each individual by means of sacramental absolution given by the ministers of penance. It is a certainty reaffirmed with particular vigour both by the Council of Trent and by the

Second Vatican Council.20

The sacrament exists for the forgiveness of persons as such rather than communities as such. Reconciliation is administered to the individual person, notwithstanding that person’s membership of the Church and the genuinely communitarian dimension of this and, indeed, every sacrament.21 In producing this document Pope John Paul II was trying to revitalize the practice of the sacrament in response to what he recognized had been for a long time in crisis.22 He insisted on the qualities of the minister and the way in which it is necessary to practise the sacrament. However, his approach has not resolved the issue and raises questions about whether there are other, and more effective, ways the ritual could be practised.

4. The Theology behind Reconciliation To approach these issues, it may be worthwhile to take a step back and consider the history of the theology behind Reconciliation and its phenomenological categories and how the Church’s understanding of where and how to celebrate the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation has evolved over time. In early times, Penance was performed in public and could be administered only once in the life of an individual. In this paenitentia episcopalis, the sinners entered ‘the group of penitents’ to reflect and repent in public rituals (exomologesis) and through practices that symbolized remorse. The bishop supervised these actions, and it was he who decided when the penitents had received reconciliation with the Church, which in turn meant reconciliation with God. This ritual was only conducted in public and most likely took place in the cathedral church with the bishop presiding. In front of the bishop’s chair reconciliation would be conferred.23 Over time, penance became more punitive, and people were less willing to enter the group of penitents. Penitents would not only experience personal stigma for their sins, but they would also face lifelong consequences as their old sins would impede on the performance of their public

functions in the future.24 During this time many only resorted to penance in the moment before their death. Thus the ritual of penance began to evolve from the ‘group of penitents’ ritual to the deathbed ritual.25 In the sixth century, the canonical practice of penance encountered a major crisis: many Christians refused to submit to its harsh conditions. Some monasteries, following the tradition of the fathers of the desert, directed pilgrims

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 48 The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church ______spiritually and then permitted those unwilling to enter canonical penance to do penance privately. The ritual thus changed from a public event into a private one. This movement started in Ireland, and is called ‘Celtic penance.’ This celebration of Reconciliation was less elaborate and it was in the priest’s home or study that individual confessions were heard. We find in the ‘Celtic penitential books’ guidelines for the care of sinful souls, testimonies that people did penance through a private confession with a monk-priest, who then imposed satisfaction and penance to be practised in private; only then, could the penitent return to the monk to receive reconciliation privately.26 Over the next three centuries, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon monks spread this new practice across continental Europe. In the twelfth century, a theological basis for confessional penance was needed to validate this widespread practice. In the discipline developed at the Fourth Lateran Council and enshrined at the Council of Trent, the natural order of this celebration was rearranged to insure that confession and absolution would be connected and thereby guarantee the connection to the quasi matter of the form of this sacrament. The teachings of Trent became the dominant approach to the sacrament of Penance over the next four hundred years. It was the first time that a council addressed penance in such

amplitude.27 The pastoral practice of sacramental penance after Trent found new teachers and spiritual guides. Despite the imposition of the annual confession by the Lateran Council IV and confirmed by Trent, it was promoted as a pastoral activity called the ‘popular mission,’ and was celebrated in a city or rural area as an extraordinary event, with the purpose of renewing faith. These missions were run by such religious orders as Jesuits, Franciscans and Dominicans and were oriented to the practice of private auricular confession. The norm for the sacrament after Trent was the use of the confessional. Previously, the confessor would sit in the nave of the church with the penitent kneeling beside him. It was Cardinal Borromeo who first ordered a partition between the penitent and the confessor. The use of these confessional boxes influenced, and was influenced by, the way the rite was celebrated. They have been designed in a way to hide the minister in order that the sinner could say his or her sins without been seen by him; at the same time, the penitent cannot see the minister. The appearance of confessional boxes caused the homelike atmosphere in Celtic penance to be lost. As can be seen, confessionals are relatively new in Christian history and they pose more than one difficulty to the celebration of the sacrament. Until the Vatican II’s liturgical reform in the 70’s, Roman Catholic’s rituals were shaped by an intense individualism. The Vatican II proposed a return to a communitarian character. The reform of all of the sacraments was based on this concept which emphasizes the responsibility of the individual to the faith community; when the rite, according to its proper nature, admits a communitarian celebration; ‘this way of celebrating is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.’28 The sacrament of Penance is one

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 49 ______of those that require more reflections on the degree of participation of the community. The council fathers affirmed that our Lord Jesus Christ is the primordial sacrament of reconciliation with God and that the Church is its manifestation. They highlighted the social and communal character of conversion and its outcome: reconciliation with the Church and God. This theological understanding resulted from the most extensive research done into the history of penance, and the rediscovery of the ecclesial dimension of penitential practice. This opened the possibility for a clear recognition of the visible sign of this sacrament and for renewal of its presence in the liturgy. However, this intervention did not have much influence on the final document. This is evident from the document’s focus on the sacrament’s social and ecclesial nature by linking reconciliation with God to reconciliation with the Church. In conclusion, the mandate to reform the rite of Penance was to make the texts and the rite clear enough for people to understand them easily and take part in them. But this has done little to move away from the individualistic approach to confession that had been evolving over the past centuries

5. Forgiveness Moves forward to Reconciliation The post-conciliar committee revised the sacrament of Penance and offered the Church three liturgical rites of reconciliation intended to replace the Tridentine ritual. In practice, the one most in use is the official ‘Rite for the Reconciliation of Individual Penitents.’ But it is rarely celebrated according to the published ritual. The new Rite of Penance brings up more than one new characteristic when compared to the previous one. The first new characteristic is ‘the rites for individual reconciliation and reconciliation of several penitents with individual confession and individual absolution.’ The second new characteristic is the celebrative sequence of the rite, having four elements: introduction, liturgy of the Word, liturgy of the sacrament and conclusion. The inclusion of the liturgy of the Word was the most evident structural change. It shows a new experience of ritual as the activity of the Church gathered to respond to God’s Word. The new rite for the sacrament of Penance embodied the new ideas from Vatican II but did not bring new solutions or orientations regarding how to celebrate it. Nevertheless, the new Rite restored the laying-on of hands at the moment of the absolution. The person who celebrates the sacrament must know the symbolism of this gesture and this is to be made in a sufficiently expressive way. The association of the hand gesture both with forgiveness of sin and with the work of the Holy Spirit emphasizes the communal dimension of the sacrament. This gesture becomes impossible when the screen stands between penitent and minister; the new Rite (laying on of hands) and the 1917 Code of Canon Law (use of the screen) thus fall into contradiction. The new Code of Canon Law (1983) apparently offered this solution: the place to celebrate the sacrament needs to be

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 50 The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church ______equipped with a fixed grill between minister and penitent for those who wish to celebrate the sacrament anonymously and it must be equipped to allow penitents to speak face-to-face to the minister. In either scenario, the penitent also should be offered the option to either kneel or sit. In this way, true liturgical and pastoral progress from believers is possible as they are able to see the ministers as a sign of Christ in the laying on of hands.29 In the confessional box, most ministers and penitents celebrate an individually created hybrid of the Vatican II and Tridentine rites. In this unofficial hybrid, confession is most often the first step; absolution follows the penance that will be given at a later time. The experience of forgiveness and reconciliation is made difficult by the fact that most Roman Catholics are still going to the trouble of ‘going to confession’ and they continue to have a very poor experience of the ritual as a consequence. The rite of reconciliation for individual penitents calls first, for a proper preparation of priest and penitent, by prayer, to celebrate the sacrament. Second, the priest should welcome penitents with friendly words. Third, there is a reading of Holy Scripture, for only through the word of God do Christians receive light to recognize their sins and are called to conversion and to confidence in God’s forgiveness. Next comes the penitent’s confession of sins, immediately after the priest offers practical advice for beginning a new life. Next, the priest imposes an act of penance on the penitent. This underlines the fact that sin and its forgiveness have a social aspect. Fourth, through a prayer for God’s pardon, the penitent expresses contrition and the resolution to begin a new life. The priest extends his hands over the head of the penitent and pronounces the formulary of absolution; ‘I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father and the Son and of the Holy Spirit,’ and makes the sign of the cross over the penitent. Fifth, the penitent praises the mercy of God and gives him thanks in a short invocation taken from scripture. Finally, the minister bids the penitent to go in peace.30 As long as we continue to not pay proper attention to the full, individual celebration of the sacrament of penance and reconciliation, it is difficult to imagine that this sacrament will ever be truly meaningful and become, in the life of Christians, that place referred to by the rite of Penance. An unfortunate truth in Roman Catholic communities is that parish after parish has cut back the hours when priests are available for hearing confessions. One of the essential tasks that the Church cannot neglect is to announce the divine mercy, to incite conversion in men and women, and celebrate the forgiveness and reconciliation of God. The need to have Christian communities, that are a place to promote and celebrate conversion and reconciliation with God and the community, is urgent and pressing. To answer this need, every church requires a particular place where the community congregates to worship reconciliation. The decline of this particular sacramental practice is not an excuse to get rid of the promise of God’s forgiveness. It would be a grave impoverishment for the

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 51 ______Roman Catholic Church if the faithful live their Christian lives without any reconciled celebration with both God and their brothers and sisters. The new rite of Penance offers a variety of possibilities to celebrate this reconciliation. These have to be an inspiration for our communities. If ministers habitually and systematically suppress parts of the rite, they deprive the faithful of the whole penitential dimension.

6. Forgiveness: A Shared Experience Post-Vatican desires were to move forward in celebrating the sacrament of Penance in community,31 but these intentions were in practice for a short time and then vanished. Based on the fact that human nature is intrinsically social, and relationships sustain and strengthen the person, I argue that the tensions that surround any possible renew of the sacrament of Penance are the result of two opposing factors. These factors are dissatisfaction with an individualistic practice of celebrating the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation, and a desire to celebrate it communally. Many can argue that the loss of the sense of sin is a sign of our culture. In fact, the way the liturgy is currently practised satisfies our modern-day obsession with privacy and our belief in the exaltation of the lonely individual. In fact, the sacrament easily can be experienced as therapeutic relief and the cleansing of conscience. A communal celebration would challenge this. Communal celebrations can be the core and mission of the Church, if it is to be a reconciling community.32 Perhaps the major resistance towards communal celebrations comes from the hierarchy of the Church. Avant-garde experiences of communal absolutions were banned almost immediately. There was fear of possible abuses and a diminishment of the concept and perception of the sacrament. These communal celebrations began in the 1950’s in France and Belgium and were used particularly during Lent in response to pastoral needs. They did not attract a great deal of attention, however, until they became more commonly used in the Netherlands where they achieved a quasi-official status. The 1972 Pastoral Norms restricted these practices.33 More recently, in 2005, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former archbishop of Quebec, addressed a pastoral letter to his congregation which read: ‘I ask all pastors and all ministers of the sacrament (of penance) to suspend general absolution throughout the diocese.’34 In view of all these challenges, the remainder of this chapter will focus on a proposal for a diocesan centre for reconciliation that constitutes an occasion for a renewed practice of penance, particularly in its celebrative dimensions, where the reconciliation of penitents may be celebrated in all liturgical seasons and on any day. The location of a reconciliation centre could be in the cathedral that used to be the centre of the diocese and the place of convocation for many priests and lay people. Or it could be in a sanctuary, if there is one, in the diocese. This centre has to be conceived as a space set aside for the ‘worship of God’ and also a ‘place of

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 52 The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church ______refuge’ where human beings can find sustenance in one another and so encounter the mercy of God. Great sensitivity of the architects and artists involved in the design of the centre as well as strong leadership among pastoral ministers would be essential for its success. The idea would be to create a space in which the Christian faithful celebrate and encounter the reconciling mystery of Jesus Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.35 It should be a place where the local bishop should be not afraid of implementing liminal practices, and provide a place for creativity. Gestures are easier to understand than words. A team of competent and experienced priests would be necessary to develop practices that would appeal to those attending the centre. In dioceses where these kinds of centres are working, a schedule for the faithful with the name of the priests and the day when they are in attendance should be posted. The new Penitenzieria in Sant’Antonio da Padova is a perfect example. (Image 1)

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 53 ______In an old oratory part of the convent, Giovanna Osti and Ferruccio Tasinato designed a reconciliation centre according to the new Rite and the technical specifications as mentioned above. The architectural plan allows us to see several reconciliation rooms on each side of the main chapel; each one has its own access for penitents from the main space, while the lateral corridors give access for the priest. (Image 2)

Image 2: Floor-plan. Penitenzieria, located inside the convent of the Basilica di Sant’Antonio in Padova. Design: Giovanna Osti and Ferruccio Tasinato architects. © 2014. Courtesy of Ferrucio Tasinato.

A main entrance and waiting area helps to emphasize the idea of transition. The succession of lights on the floor dramatically conveys the idea of threshold. The Franciscan Friars’ idea was to recuperate a space inside the convent to receive pilgrims from around the world to celebrate the sacrament of Penance. The imposing mural of the Crucifixion by Annigoni brings the space to a climax. (Image 3) The liturgical program should include all the necessary settings to perform the rite for individual penance: reception, liturgy of the word, confession, and absolution. Louis-Marie Chauvet, in an article written in 1997, has devised three criteria that the space in which the sacramental ritual will take place should satisfy.36 The first relates to its human function: the place has to provide enough intimacy and discretion to give the penitent confidence. The second is its religious function: the place has to have beauty that distinguishes it from a simple administrative office. The third is that it must be properly Christian: ‘it ought to evoke symbolically the God rich in mercy revealed in Jesus.’37 These three factors provide the basis for the design of a diocesan centre for reconciliation.

Images 3 and 4: Entrance and Interior. Penitenzieria, located inside the convent of the Basilica di Sant’Antonio in Padova. Design: Giovanna Osti and Ferruccio Tasinato architects. © and courtesy of Paolo Utimpergher).

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 55 ______One who enters into the reconciliation room will recognize familiar Christian symbols. Even though people may not be aware of the symbols and their phenomenological aspects, the committee should work on them. We recognize first the threshold, then the waiting area, and finally the confessional area, its environment, the light, the sound and the setting. The ‘threshold’ marks the journey of conversion of the penitent, the intention of returning to the house of the Father. ‘There comes a time to make amends, it never is too late to try again, to save our soul.’38 This is a physical and psychological experience, and the architectural crossing can prompt a subconscious, or even conscious, experience of transition or conversion in someone’s personal life. This observation strengthens the general idea that the best space for reconciliation is inside the church, not only because the person has entered into the sacredness of the church, but also because the penitent has crossed a second threshold, representing entry into an even deeper spiritual experience. The waiting room has to be arranged in such manner that it helps the penitent to pray or to do an examination of conscience. This waiting area has to be provided with enough space to accommodate three or five persons, according to the regular number of penitents. A Bible or Gospel book, including an edition in large script for people with reading difficulties, should be available and even be displayed there. Some parishes have environmental music, such as Gregorian chants. This option could help as long as it is at the adequate volume. The option of having environmental music could also help as a barrier of sound between the waiting room and the confessional area. Each space must reflect the local community’s aesthetic as well as its sense of hospitality, pastoral care, and ministries of healing. The francophone bishops in their comment on the new rite for the place of reconciliation said that the place to celebrate the sacrament is important and that it should give all the expressive value of its signs of greeting and forgiveness.39 There should also be a piece of art, which moves people to reconciliation as, for example, the return of the prodigal son, Jesus the Good Shepherd, Jesus’ outpouring the Holy Spirit upon the apostles for the remission of sins on Easter evening, Jesus on the cross, or any other image that could enhance the moment before the celebration of the sacrament. What is clear is that reconciliation chapels should be anything but uninspiring and without character. Some aspects of the setting for the reconciliation chapels are being examined in consideration of the abuse scandal in the Church.40 It has been suggested that windows be installed in the door of the reconciliation chapels.41 The bishops of England and Wales established the requirements of the ‘Review on Child Protection,’ according to the Nolan Report recommendations: ‘the setting for reconciliation of children should be in a place where both priest and child may be seen but not heard.’42 The Episcopal Conference also added safety and security considerations; the provision of more than one door in the centre, so that neither

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 56 The Sacrament of Reconciliation in the Roman Catholic Church ______minister nor penitent may be trapped inside; and a panic button for cases of emergencies. They said: ‘Those who celebrate the sacrament should be protected from allegations and even physical attacks; both priest and people can feel and sometimes are acutely vulnerable in this one-to-one situation.’43 The reconciliation centre allows a more self-reflective prayerful confession, either in its communitarian form or in its individual one. The space should be such that the community can pray and celebrate, in a simple way, the sacrament of forgiveness. A team of competent and experienced priests will be necessary. Another important service to offer in this centre is the communal celebration of Reconciliation and Penance. These celebrations should take place on a regular day and time. All these services may be published in parish news and on the diocesan website, and could be linked with its own page with tools such as biblical readings, spiritual readings, forms of examination of conscience and the prayers present in the new Rite. Such a place is made to ensure that churches are visible and continue to sound the memory of an invitation: ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven has come near.’

Let us not forget this word: God never ever tires of forgiving us! ‘Well, Father what is the problem?’ Well, the problem is that we ourselves tire, we do not want to ask. We grow weary of asking for forgiveness. He never tires of forgiving, but at times we get tired of asking for forgiveness. Let us never tire, let us never tire! He is the loving Father who always pardons, who has that heart of mercy for us all. And let us too learn to be merciful to everyone.44

It may be that the future of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation in the life of the Roman Catholic Church is ultimately in the hands of its ministers. Pope Francis, speaking to cleric in a ‘Course on the Internal Forum’ dealing with the Sacrament and the ministry of Confessors, strengthened the idea that the sacrament has to be an experience of forgiveness and mercy. However, forgiveness and grace today are not often being experienced directly in the sacrament because of lack of competence among ministers. The answer may lie in Pope Francis’ resolution:

We must not forget that the faithful often have difficulty approaching the sacrament, whether for practical reasons, or because of the natural difficulty in confessing one’s own sins to another person. For this reason it is necessary to work hard on ourselves, on our humanity, never to become an obstacle but a channel to draw near mercy and forgiveness.45

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. David H. Pereyra 57 ______In a complex world where many people face serious difficulties, this new vision of Penance and Reconciliation may be filled with a sense of sacredness and promise, thanks to the implementation of places for Reconciliation, where bishops can assign their best ministers.46 The creation of sacred places for reconciliation has become an important dimension of the pastoral mission of the Church today, allowing the faithful to find a communitarian way for transformation, which is the best kind of ritual for the sacrament of forgiveness. The place of Reconciliation and Penance is not only a question of practical order; it becomes a strong link between the welcoming of a live Christian community and the return of the prodigal son.

Notes

1 James Dallen, The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1986), 311. 2 James O’Toole refers to extensive surveys that show that the number of Catholics in North America going to confession has been plummeting in the last fifty years. ‘The National Opinion Research Center conducted extensive surveys of Catholics in 1965 and in 1975, the drop was from 38 percent to 17 percent, while the number of those who said that they never or almost never went rose from 18 percent to 38 percent.’ James O’Toole, ‘Empty Confessionals,’ Commonweal 23 (2001): 10-11. He mentions that a minister used to hear confession for five hours every Saturday at the beginning of the century; thirty minutes was the norm by the end of it. O’Toole, ‘Empty Confessionals,’ 10-12. 3 Edward S. Casey, ‘How to Get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time,’ Sense of Place, eds. Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso (New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 1996), 36. 4 James C. Livingston, Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion (New York: Macmillan, 1989), 63. 5 Christian Duquoc, ‘Real Reconciliation and Sacramental Reconciliation,’ Sacramental Reconciliation, ed. Edward Schillebeeckx (New York: Herder and Herder, 1971), 26. 6 Philip Sheldrake, Spaces for the Sacred: Place, Memory, and Identity (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001), 79. 7 Herbert Vorgrimler, Sacramental Theology, trans. Linda M. Maloney (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1992), 203-04. 8 Ibid., 349-54. 9 José Ramos-Regidor, El Sacramento de la Penitencia: Reflexión Teológica a la luz de la Biblia, la historia y la pastoral (Salamanca: Sígueme, 1997), 363-65.

10 The expression ‘power of the keys’ is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (Matthew 16:19). Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited as proof of the Church’s power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be lost in heaven’ (Matthew 16:19). 11 Ramos-Regidor, El Sacramento de la Penitencia, 338-44. 12 Roman Catholic Church, Book of Blessings: For Study and Comment by the Bishops and the Member and Associate-Member Conferences of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy (Washington DC: International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1987), no: 1208. 13 Ibid., no: 1212. 14 Ibid., no: 1213. 15 International Committee on English in the Liturgy, ‘Rite of Penance,’ The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul VI (Minnesota: Pueblo, 1990), no: 5, 528. 16 Ibid., no: 8, 531. 17 Ibid., no: 8-9, 531. 18 Ibid., no: 11, 536. 19 Dallen, The Reconciling Community, 225. 20 Pope John Paul II, ‘Reconciliatio et Paenitentia: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul Ii to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful on Reconciliation and Penance in the Mission of the Church Today.’ Vatican.va (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1984): 30, viewed 11 June 2014, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html. 21 David Coffey, The Sacrament of Reconciliation (Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2001), 5. 22 Pope John Paul II, ‘Reconciliatio et Paenitentia,’ 28, 23 James Dallen gives a good description of the scene: ‘The setting is itself impressive. The bishop is seated on his chair, which is on a raised platform in the apse. The penitents are prostrate in tears. The people gather around, standing in witness to the penitents’ return, bowing in prayer to support the petitions of the penitents, weeping in compassion and thus compensating for the baptism to which the penitents had been unfaithful.’ Dallen, The Reconciling Community, 71. 24 ‘Penance,’ The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, ed. Paul Bradshaw (Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 367.

25 Pierre Adnès, La Penitencia, trans. Francisco Aparicio (Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1981), 122. 26 Ibid., 140. 27 Ibid., 193. 28 Ibid. 29 Pere Farnés, ‘El lugar de la Penitencia,’ Dossiers Cpl, ed. José Aldazábal (Barcelona: Centre de Pastoral Litúrgica, 1994), 42-43. 30 International Committee on English in the Liturgy, The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul Vi, 2 Vols. (Minnesota: Pueblo, 1990), I: 534- 38. 31 The Vatican II proposed a return to a communitarian character. The reform of all of the sacraments was based on this communitarian character; when the rite, according to its proper nature, admits a communitarian celebration; ‘this way of celebrating is to be preferred, so far as possible, to a celebration that is individual and quasi-private.’ The sacrament of Penance is one of those that require more reflections on the degree of participation of the community. Pierre Adnès, La Penitencia, Historia Salutis (Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 1981), 193. 32 James Dallen, ‘Reconciliation: Celebration of the Church,’ Journal of the Liturgical Conference 9.4 (1991): 95-100. 33 Jame Dallen, The Reconciling Community, 190-92. 34 Marc Ouellet, ‘Pastoral Letter on the Practice of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation,’ Inquisition.ca. 2005, viewed 1 May 2013, http://inquisition.ca/en/serm/pitie_absolution.htm. 35 Kevin Seasoltz, A Sense of the Sacred: Theological Foundations of Christian Architecture and Art (New York: Continuum, 2005), 345. 36 Louis-Marie Chauvet, ‘Quels lieux pour les confessions individuelles,’ Chroniques d'art sacré 52 (1997): 17. 37 Ibid. 38 Ciarán Brennan and Leo Brennan, Anam, from Anam, BMG Records, 1990, compact disc. 39 Commission Episcopale Internationale Francophone, Célébrer la Pénitence et la Réconciliation (Paris: Chalet, 1978), 30. 40 Ann Carey, ‘Clergy Re-Examine Confessional Design,’ Our Sunday Visitor 91 (2002): 5. 41 Leo Knowles, ‘For English, Welsh Kids, It’s Glass Confessionals,’ Our Sunday Visitor 90 (2001): 5. 42 Lord Nolan et al., Nolan Review (London: Cumberlege Commission Website, 2007), no. 3.3.9, Cathcom.Org. viewed April 2 2013, http://www.cathcom.org/mysharedaccounts/cumberlege/finalnolan3b.htm.

The committee that produced the report, formally known as The Independent Review on Child Protection in the Catholic Church in England and Wales, was set up six years ago after a series of scandals involving paedophile priest. Its chairman, Lord Nolan, is a retired appeal-court judge. 43 Catholic Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales, Consecrated for Worship: A Directory on Church Building (London: The Catholic Truth Society and Colloquium, 2006), no. 221. 44 Pope Francis, ‘Angelus,’ Vatican.va. (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2013), viewed April 29 2013, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/angelus/2013/documents/papa- francesco_angelus_20130317_en.html. 45 Pope Francis, ‘Address of Pope Francis to Participants in a Course Sponsored by the Apostolic Penitentiary,’ Vatican.va. (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2014), viewed July 5 2014, http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2014/march/documents/papa- francesco_20140328_corso-penitenzieria-apostolica.html 46 Patrick Prétot, ‘Accueil Et Réconciliation,’ Chroniques d'art sacré 52 (1997): 16.

Bibliography

Adnès, Pierre. La Penitencia. Historia Salutis. Madrid: Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 1981.

———. La Penitencia. Translated by Francisco Aparicio. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1981.

Brennan, Ciarán and Leo Brennan. Anam. From Anam. BMG Records. 1990, Compact Disc.

Carey, Ann. ‘Clergy Re-Examine Confessional Design.’ Our Sunday Visitor 91 (July 7 2002): 5-5.

Catholic Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales. Consecrated for Worship: A Directory on Church Building. London: The Catholic Truth Society and Colloquium, 2006.

Casey, Edward S. ‘How to Get from Space to Place in a Fairly Short Stretch of Time.’ In Sense of Place, edited by Steven Feld and Keith H. Basso, 13-52. New Mexico: School of American Research Press, 1996.

Chauvet, Louis-Marie. ‘Quels lieux pour les confessions individuelles.’ Chroniques d'art sacré. Des lieux pour la réconciliation 52 (hiver 1997): 17-18.

Coffey, David. The Sacrament of Reconciliation. Lex Orandi Series. Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2001.

Commission Episcopale Internationale Francophone. Célébrer la Pénitence et la Réconciliation. Paris: Chalet, 1978.

Dallen, James. ‘Penance.’ The New Westminster Dictionary of Liturgy and Worship, edited by Paul Bradshaw, 366-69. Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

———. ‘Reconciliation: Celebration of the Church.’ Journal of the Liturgical Conference 9.4 (1991): 95-100.

———. The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance. Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1986.

———. The Reconciling Community: The Rite of Penance. New York: Pueblo, 1986.

Duquoc, Christian. ‘Real Reconciliation and Sacramental Reconciliation.’ Sacramental Reconciliation, edited by Edward Schillebeeckx, 26-37. New York: Herder and Herder, 1971.

Farnés, Pere. ‘El lugar de la Penitencia.’ Dossiers CPL, edited by José Aldazábal, 39-44. Barcelona: Centre de Pastoral Litúrgica, 1994.

International Committee on English in the Liturgy. The Rites of the Catholic Church as Revised by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Published by Authority of Pope Paul VI. 2 Vols. Vol. I. Minnesota: Pueblo, 1990.

Knowles, Leo. ‘For English, Welsh Kids, It’s Glass Confessionals.’ Our Sunday Visitor 90 (2001): 5-5.

Livingston, James C. Anatomy of the Sacred: An Introduction to Religion. New York: Macmillan, 1989.

Lord Nolan, et al. Nolan Review. London: Cumberlege Commission Website, 2007. Cathcom.Org. Viewed 2 April 2013. http://www.cathcom.org/mysharedaccounts/cumberlege/finalnolan3b.htm.

O’Toole, James. ‘Empty Confessionals.’ Commonweal 23 (2001): 10-12.

Ouellet, Marc. ‘Pastoral Letter on the Practice of the Sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.’ Inquisition.Ca. 2005. Viewed 1 May 2013. http://inquisition.ca/en/serm/pitie_absolution.htm.

Pope Francis. ‘Angelus.’ (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana 2013). Vatican.Va. Viewed 29 April 2013. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/angelus/2013/documents/papa- francesco_angelus_20130317_en.html.

———. ‘Address of Pope Francis to Participants in a Course Sponsored by the Apostolic Penitentiary.’ (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2014). Vatican.Va. Viewed July 5 2014. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

Pope John Paul II, ‘Reconciliatio et Paenitentia: Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation of John Paul II to the Bishops, Clergy and Faithful on Reconciliation and Penance in the Mission of the Church Today.’ (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1984): 30. Vatican.Va. Viewed 11 June 2014, http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html

Prétot, Patrick. ‘Accueil et Réconciliation.’ Chroniques d’art sacré 52 (1997): 16.

Ramos-Regidor, José. El Sacramento de la Penitencia: Reflexión Teológica a la luz de la Biblia, la historia y la pastoral. Salamanca: Sígueme, 1997.

Roman Catholic Church. Book of Blessings: For Study and Comment by the Bishops and the Member and Associate-Member Conferences of the International Commission on English in the Liturgy. Washington D.C.: International Commission on English in the Liturgy, 1987.

Seasoltz, R. Kevin. A Sense of the Sacred: Theological Foundations of Christian Architecture and Art. New York: Continuum, 2005.

Sheldrake, Philip. Spaces for the Sacred: Place, Memory, and Identity. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Vorgrimler, Herbert. Sacramental Theology. Translated by Linda M. Maloney. Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 1992.

David H. Pereyra is an architect from Buenos Aires and holds a degree of Doctor in Philosophy of Theology from the University of Toronto, Canada. In his Master of Arts thesis in Theology he addressed the space of Reconciliation in the Catholic Church. From 2012-14 he held a postdoctoral position at the Ontario College of Art and Design University, working at the Inclusive Design Research Centre. He is currently the coordinator of the Liturgy Seminar at the Toronto School of Theology, University of Toronto.

Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition: Precepts and Praxis in the Edicts of Ashoka

Ravindra Kumar

Abstract In Indian history, forgiveness has customarily been found embedded in the doctrine of compassion. In the ancient religious texts forgiveness is described as an essential human virtue and it is prescribed as desirable for all to practice it. Significantly, this righteous principle finds a very earnest practitioner in ancient Indian history in the Maurya Dynasty emperor, Ashoka. He is remembered in Indian history as a devout votary of the doctrine of morality who adopted a novel method of propagating moral values in different parts of his empire through edicts engraved in the form of epigraphs on rocks and stone pillars. These edicts call the doctrine of morality dhamma and they serve to promote moral principles such as compassion, liberality, nobility of action and non-injury to all. The edicts of Ashoka are significant epigraphic records as they enunciate the basic principles of dhamma and also provide information about their practice in different parts of the empire. Another remarkable feature of the edicts is that they are addressed directly to the people and are expressed in the emperor’s own words in a completely unedited form, thus establishing a direct conversation between them. Although state resources were used by the emperor for engraving the epigraphs in various parts of the empire, the edicts were not intended to be imperial decrees. Ashoka spent considerable effort and energy in propagating dhamma but refrained from imposing its principles by force. This chapter probes the elements of compassion and forgiveness as enshrined in dhamma and outlines their practical facets.

Key Words: Dhamma-vijaya, edicts, epigraphs, non-violence, Mahabharat, Manusmriti, stone-pillars.

*****

1. Introduction In Indian religious tradition, forgiveness and compassion have historically been recognized as virtuous attributes for mankind to acquire and to put into social practice. The Shantiparva of Mahabharat, one of the two Sanskrit epics, elaborates on the features of eternal morality and identifies forgiveness and compassion as two of the essential noble merits of mankind.1 Similarly, Manusmriti, a Dharmashastra text, lists forbearance and forgiveness among the ten characteristic attributes of dhamma – the ideals of morality – to be imbibed and followed in everyday life by all sections of society.2 This long tradition of codifying noble deeds finds a unique manifestation in the edicts of emperor Ashoka that were issued by him in the form of epigraphs in the third century BC. These edicts were

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 66 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______engraved on rocks and specially crafted stone pillars and were placed in different parts of the empire at such strategically important places and along trade and pilgrimage routes so as it invite regular public assembly and therefore the people’s curiosity and attention. Yet, these edicts were never used, neither in their nature nor in form, to impose imperial decrees or establish any kind of monarchical fiat. On the contrary, these epigraphs extolled the nobleness of good actions and resorted to persuasion so that people would pursue the path of right conduct. The use of language and script was carefully chosen to address a very wide populace, particularly the common-folk, who were considered the target audience of the edicts. They also contained disarmingly forthright admissions of guilt by the emperor for waging the Kalinga war, a fierce combat between the invading Mauryan army and the Kalinga state which left thousands dead or destitute. The events of that war led Ashoka to abandon Dig-vijaya (conquest through war) and adopt Dhamma-vijaya (victory through morality). The use of epigraphs for proclaiming and advocating forbearance and other moral tenets among the public at such an early period is an unparalleled instance in Indian history. The Ashokan epigraphs that carry the emperor’s edicts present a unique record of the humane dimensions of a ruler’s mind and the underlying conceptual framework of his beliefs and convictions. The epigraphs are also an extraordinary record of history in conveying Ashokan’s remorse and resolve to abandon violence and war that had resulted in mass human suffering, and to advocate compassion and non-violence in achieving everlasting peace among humankind. It is therefore worthwhile to probe the historical roots and circumstances of these epigraphs and to also examine, to the extent that it is possible, the impact these public pronouncements of compassion, forbearance and embedded forgiveness could have had on the general conduct of the people at the time.

2. Epigraphic Genesis Ashokan epigraphs have been largely found incised on rock surfaces and monolithic pillars. They have been discovered in more than forty places over an area that extends to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Nepal and up to Karnatak in India. Ashoka’s edicts are unique documents as they seem to carry the emperor’s own words to his reader audience free from impersonal official tint. The linguistic style of the edicts is that of conversation between the audience and the speaker, which is the emperor himself in these instances. The predominant script in these edicts is Brahmi, and a few of them were also issued in Kharoshthi, Aramaic and Greek scripts. The language used in the Brahmi edicts is mainly Prakrit and one bilingual edict found at Shar-i Kuna (near Kandahar) in Afghanistan is written in Aramaic and Greek. The edicts of Ashoka, discovered so far, may be classified as follows:

Ravindra Kumar 67 ______1. The set of fourteen Major Rock Edicts: A set of fourteen Major Rock Edicts or inscriptions incised on rocks occurring at ten different places in Kandahar, Peshawar and Hazara districts in the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan and Uttarakahnd, Gujarat, Bombay, Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka.

2. Seven Pillar Edicts: A set of six edicts and one containing a supplementary seventh edict, occurring at Kandahar, Delhi, Allahabad and Champaran.

3. Minor Rock Edicts: Minor Rock Edicts incised on rocks at seventeen different places, the southernmost being three in Chitradurga district in Mysore. Five of these are accompanied by a supplementary or second edict. Another Minor Rock Edict has been found at Bahapur (New Delhi) in 1996.

4. Inscriptions of miscellaneous character engraved on rocks, pillars and walls of caves.

Ashoka’s edicts comprise of the earliest decipherable corpus of written documents from India and have survived to this day because they are written on rocks and stone pillars. These pillars in particular are testimony to the technological and artistic genius of ancient Indian civilization. It is most likely that the original count of pillars was far more than the ten that have been found with edicts engraved on them. In an important edict, known as Rupnath Rock- Inscription, and considered as the progenitor of the practice of issuing proclamations, Ashoka conveys to his audience his reasons for issuing proclamations and his intent on their geographical spread. It reads as follows:

(A) Devanampriya speaks thus

(B) Two and a half years and somewhat more (have passed) since I am openly a Sakya.

(D) But a year and somewhat more (has passed) since I have visited the Samgha and have been very zealous

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 68 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______(E) Those gods who during that time had been unmingled (with men) in Jambudvipa, have now been made (by me), mingled (with them).

(F) For this is the fruit of zeal.

(G) And this cannot be reached by (persons of) high rank (alone), (but) even a lowly (person) is able to attain even the great heaven if he is zealous.

(H) And for the following purpose has (this) proclamation been issued, (that) both the lowly and the exalted may be zealous, and (that) even (my) borderers may know (it), (and) that this same zeal may be of long duration.

(I) For, this matter will (be made by me to) progress, and will (be made to) progress considerably; it will (be made to) progress to at least one and a half.

(J) And cause ye this matter to be engraved on rocks where an occasion presents itself.

(K) And, (wherever) there are stone pillars here, it must be caused to be engraved on stone pillars.

(L) And according to the letter of this (proclamation) (you) must dispatch (an officer) everywhere, as far as your district (extends).

(M) (This) proclamation was issued by (me) on tour.

(N) 256 (nights) (had then been) spent on tour.3

It is evident from the above script that the proclamations were to be carried by the royal officers in all parts of the empire and engraved on rocks and stone pillars available in those places. The location of the edicts seems to have been decided by two factors, proximity of important population centres or places of people’s assembly, and the availability of suitable rocks for engraving the edicts in locations that would easily attract the people’s attention. The tenor of these edicts has a persuasive personal conversational style that clearly suggests they were addressed to the people. However, the objective of universal acceptance of these edicts among the people was neither feasible nor could be achieved. Ashoka admits, in disarmingly candid fashion, that all the edicts issued by him could not be engraved

Ravindra Kumar 69 ______in full text at all the places. Sometimes the location would not be suitable for accommodating the entire text on the available rock surface or the engraver would be found wanting in the desired skill. But also sometimes the target audience would not appreciate the message contained in the edict and would compel the officials carrying the edict to either abandon or abbreviate the project. The Girnar text of Rock Edict XIV, as given below, provides evidence of this:

(A) These rescripts on morality have been caused to be written by king Devanampriya Priyadarsin either in an abridged (form), or of middle (size), or at full length

(B) And the whole was not suitable everywhere.

(D) And some of this has been stated again and again because of the charm of certain topics, (and) in order that men should act accordingly

(E) In some instances (some) of this may have been written incompletely, either on account of the locality, or because (my) motive was not liked, or by the fault of the writer.4

3. Exposition of Compassion The edicts of Ashoka are principally concerned with the exposition of his policy of dhamma. The central themes of dhamma are compassion and forgiveness, noble conduct, tolerance and non-violence. Dhamma also includes concord as a cardinal principle of inter-community and inter-religious relations. The emperor is identified in these edicts as Devanampriyah Priyadarsi Raja which is often shortened into Devanampriyah or Priyadarsi Raja.5 In one case, the Minor Rock Edict I found at Maski in Karnataka, the identification is Devanampriya Asoka; this, incidentally, is the only instance in which Asoka as the name of the emperor is used. It reads thus:

(A) [A proclamation] of Devanampriya Asoka.

B) Two and a half years [and somewhat more] (have passed) since I am a Buddha-Sakya.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 70 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______(D) Those gods who formerly had been unmingled (with men) in Jambudvipa, have now become mingled (with them).

(E) This object can be reached even by a lowly (person) who is devoted to morality.

(F) One must not think thus, —(viz.) that only an exalted (person) may reach this.

(G) Both the lowly and the exalted must be told: ‘If you act thus, this matter (will be) prosperous and of long duration, and will thus progress to one and a half.’6

The edicts are generally silent, due perhaps to the nature of their subject matter, on the specific dates that various events occurred. Yet it is possible to gauge from the available sources, insights into emperor Ashoka’s persona and a chronological sequence of events as they took place during his reign as emperor. For example, we are able to determine, on the basis of the details given in Pillar Edict VI, that the practice of issuing edicts was started 12 years after Ashoka’s coronation, in 252BC. The Delhi-Topra Pillar Edict VI reads thus:

(A) King Devanampriya Priyadars in speaks thus

(B) (When I had been) anointed twelve years, rescripts on morality were caused to be written by me for the welfare and happiness of the people, (in order that), not transgressing those (rescripts), they might attain a promotion of morality in various respects

(C) (Thinking): ‘thus the welfare and happiness of the people (will be secured)’, I am directing my attention not only to (my) relatives, but to those who are near and far, in order that I may lead them to happiness, and I am instructing (them) accordingly

(D) In the same manner I am directing my attention to all classes

(E) And all the sects have been honoured by me with honours of various kinds

(F) But this is considered by me (my) principal (duty), viz. visiting (the people) personally

Ravindra Kumar 71 ______(G) (When I had been) anointed twenty-six years, this rescript on morality was caused to be written by me.7

4. Repentance and Forgiveness In these epigraphs the first and the most important historical event to which a reference was made, is the victorious military campaign launched by Ashoka against the State of Kalinga. Rock Edict XIII makes a mention of this important historical event and gives details of this hard-won conquest. The Kalingas appear to have been brave people who could not be vanquished. The conquest therefore needed the waging of a bloody war that resulted in many killings and casualties. All the essential details of this war, and the traumatizing miseries it caused, were graphically described by the emperor in the engravings on the Rock Edict XIII (Shahbazgarhi Rock) which are reproduced below:

(A) When king Devanampriya Priyadarsin had been anointed eight years, (the country of) the Kalingas was conquered by (him).

(B) One hundred and fifty thousand in number were the men who were deported thence, one hundred thousand in number were those who were slain there, and many times as many those who died.

(C) After that, now that (the country of) the Kalingas has been taken, Devanampriya (is devoted) to a zealous study of morality, to the love of morality, and to the instruction (of people) in morality.

(D) This is the repentance of Devanampriya on account of his conquest of (the country of) the Kalingas.

(E) For, this is considered very painful and deplorable by Devanampriya, that, while one is conquering an unconquered (country), slaughter, death, and the deportation of people (are taking place) there.

(F) But the following is considered even more deporable than this by Devanampriya.

(G) (To) the Brahmanas or Sramanas, or other sects or householders, who are living there, (and) among whom the following are practised: obedience to those who receive high

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 72 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______pay, obedience to mother and father, obedience to elders, proper courtesy to friends, acquaintances, companions, and relatives, to slaves and servants, (and) firm devotion, – to these then happen injury or slaughter or deportation of (their) beloved ones.

(H) Or, if there are then incurring misfortune the friends, acquaintances, companions, and relatives of those whose affection (for the latter) is undiminished, although they are (themselves) well provided for, this (misfortune) as well becomes an injury to those (persons) themselves.

(I) This is shared by all men and is considered deplorable by Devanampriya.

(J) And there is no (place where men) are not indeed attached to some sect

(K) Therefore even the hundredth part of the thousandth part of all those people who were slain, who died, and who were deported at that time in Kalinga, (would) now be considered very deplorable by Devanampriya.

(L) And Devanampriya thinks that even (to one) who should wrong (him), what can be forgiven is to be forgiven.

(M) And even (the inhabitants of) the forests which are (included) in the dominions of Devanampriya, even those he pacifies (and) converts.

(N) And they are told of the power (to punish them) which Devanampriya (possesses) in spite of (his) repentance, in order that they may be ashamed (or their crimes) and may not be killed.

(O) For Devanampriya desires towards all beings abstention from hurting, self-control, (and) impartiality in (case of) violence. (P) And this conquest is considered the principal one by Devanampriya, viz. the conquest by morality.

(Q) And this (conquest) has been won repeatedly by Devanampriya both here and among all (his) borderers, even as

Ravindra Kumar 73 ______far as at (the distance of) six hundred yojanas, where the Yone king named Antiyoka (is ruling), and beyond this Antiyoka, (where) four-kings (are ruling), (viz. the king) named Turamaya, (the king) named Antikini, (the king) named Maka, (and the king) named Alikasudara, (and) towards the south, (where) the Chodas and Pandyas (are ruling), as far as Tamraparni.

(R) Likewise here in the king’s territory, among the Yonas and Kamboyas, among the Nabhakas and Nabhitis, among the Bhojas and Pitinikas, among the Andhras and Palidas, – everywhere (people) are conforming to Devanampriya’s instruction in morality.

(S) Even those to whom the envoys of Devanampriya do not go, having heard of the duties of morality, the ordinances, (and) the instruction in morality of Devanampriya, are conforming to morality and will conform to (it)

(T) This conquest, which has been won by this everywhere,—a conquest (won) everywhere (and) repeatedly,— causes the feeling of satisfaction.

(U) Satisfaction has been obtained (by me) at the conquest by morality.

(V) But this satisfaction is indeed of little (consequence).

(W) Devanampriya thinks that only the fruits in the other (world) are of great (value).

(X) And for the following purpose has this rescript on morality been written, (viz.) in order that the sons (and) great-grandsons (who) may be (born) to me, should not think that a fresh conquest ought to be made, (that), if a conquest does please them, they should take pleasure in mercy and light punishments, and (that) they should regard the conquest by morality as the only (true) conquest.

(Y) This (conquest bears fruit) in this world (and) in the other world.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 74 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______(Z) And let there be (to them) pleasure in the abandonment of all (other aims), which is pleasure in morality.

(AA) For this (bears fruit) in this world (and) in the other world.8

The fierce and gruesome battle at Kalinga was a matter of profound sorrow and remorse for the emperor, feelings that were heightened by the fact that the Kalingas were a brave and civilized people, and were not barbarians. Their social system was based on the very moral precepts that Ashoka subsequently preached in his dhamma. The bloodshed caused in the war had strained their entire social fabric. Their family systems were massively undermined by the wounding, death or deportation of individual family members. The friends, acquaintances, relations, and helpmates of the Kalinga soldiers suffered equally. The aftermath of the war was also ghastly and mournful. Ashoka’s empathy and sensitivity made the situation extremely painful and grievous for him and created the conditions for the seeds of compassion and forgiveness in him to grow. The thirteenth Rock Edict is unique in several ways: it pronounces the principles of Ashoka’s new policy of compassion and forgiveness, ascribes detailed reasons for the genesis of the policy, and is a public affirmation of the need to apply the concept of dhamma-vijaya as a key element for successful foreign policy and relations with neighbouring kingdoms in the future. The Edict is very carefully drafted, in all likelihood by the emperor himself or under his direct supervision, and would have been carefully released and propagated. Foremost, the details of Kalinga war casualties are boldly inscribed in the Edict as it is placed for public scrutiny at sites visited by large assemblies of people or regularly frequented by travellers. The repentance of the emperor on account of his conquest of Kalinga is publicly admitted. The depth of his misery, its intense impact on his conscience, and his admission of the complete inconsequentiality of war as a method of victory over people, is inscribed in the most thoughtful and reflective manner. The emperor is now driven to a zealous study of the ‘path of dharma,’ an avowed penchant for dhamma and the resolve is to make his people follow the course set by dhamma. Forgiveness for the wrongs inflicted on the individuals and also on the state is now the avowed state policy executable, of course, within the bounds of reasonable forbearance. And it would seem, as the discussion in the chapter by Francesca Dominello in the volume shows, it is a course of action that has been followed by states more recently in their attempts, as inadequate as they are, to achieve reconciliation by issuing apologies for past wrongs. The emperor was now prepared to put up with much injury at the hands of other people whom he would be always ready to forgive as long as their actions could be forgiven and were not beyond the limits of forgiveness. He was to apply this policy also to the aboriginal people of the forests whom he was so anxious to win over to the moral life of dhamma, provided they did not actually indulge in the crime of killing people, in

Ravindra Kumar 75 ______which case alone the policy of forgiveness would not apply to them and they would be severely punished.

A significant dimension is added by the Separate Rock Edict II found at Dhauli and Jaugada to Ashoka’s doctrine of forgiveness in dealing with Border States or kingdoms that had not been conquered by him. The Jaugada version of the Sepatrate Rock Edict II reads thus:

(A) Devanampriya speaks thus

(B) The Mahamatras at Samapa have to be told (this) at the word of the king

(D) And this is considered by me the principal means for this object, viz. (to give) instruction to you

(E) All men are my children

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 76 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______(F) As on behalf of (my own) children I desire that they may be provided by me with complete welfare and happiness in this world and in the other world, even so is my desire on behalf of all men

(G) It might occur to (my) unconquered borderers (to ask): ‘What does the king desire with reference to us?’

(H) This alone is my wish with reference to the borderers, (that) they may learn (that) the king desires this, (that) they may not be afraid of me, but may have confidence in me; (that) they may obtain only happiness from me, not misery; (that) they may learn this, (that) the king will forgive them what can be forgiven; that they may (be induced) by me (to) practise morality; (and that) they may attain (happiness) both (in) this world and (in) the other world.

(I) And for the following purpose I am instructing you, (viz. that) I may discharge the debt (which I owe to them) by this, that I instruct you and inform (you) of (rny) will, i.e. (of) my unshakable resolution and vow.

(J) Therefore, acting thus, (you) must fulfil (your) duty and must inspire them with confidence, in order that they may learn that the king is to them like a father, (that) he loves them as he loves himself, (and that) they are to the king like (his own) children

(K) Having instructed you and having informed (you) of (my) will, i.e. (of) my unshakable resolution and vow, I shall have (i.e. maintain) officers in all provinces for this object.

(L) For you are able to inspire those (borderers) with confidence and (to secure their) welfare and happiness in this world and in the other world

(M) And if (you) act thus, you will attain heaven, and you will discharge the debt (which you owe) to me

(N) And for the following purpose has this rescript been written here, (viz.) in order that the Mahamatras may strive at all times to inspire (my) borderers with confidence and (to induce them) to practise morality.

Ravindra Kumar 77 ______(O) And this rescript must be listened to (by all) every four months on (the day of) Tishya.

(P) And it may be listened to also between (the days of Tishya).

(Q) It may be listened to even by a single (person) when an occasion offers.

(R) And if (you) act thus, you will be able to carry out (my orders).9

The desire of Ashoka to assure his unconquered neighbours about the applicability of the doctrine of dhamma in their dealings with him is evident in the above edict. He projects himself as a father figure to the Border States and allays any fears that they may have of domination by assuring them of welfare measures and a policy of pardon. He instructs his officers to deal with everyone impartially and not get inflicted with evil habits such as envy, anger and cruelty.

5. Non-Violence in Public Action Compassion, at this time, becomes the bedrock of all public actions. Victory through dhamma-vijaya takes the centre-stage and victory-by-sword is completely abandoned as a form of statecraft. The emperor derives great satisfaction from the fact that his ideal of dhamma-vijaya has won adoration beyond the frontiers of his own dominion in the Hellenic world, both in his own neighbourhood and beyond. The same ideals of dhamma-vijaya receive approbation in the South by kingdoms located as far as Tamraparni and including Cholas and Pandyas. The emperor gives public expression to the feeling of satisfaction derived from the repeatedly successful application of the policy of dhamma-vijaya. He requests his descendants to ‘regard the conquest by morality as the only (true) conquest.’ But the beneficiaries of his compassion were not only his people and neighbours. Ashoka’s dhamma, which originated from human sufferings experienced during the Kalinga war, evolved over time to bring within its ambit an attitude of compassion towards all living creatures. The Delhi-Topra version of Pillar Edict V, issued towards the later years of Ashoka’s reign, enunciates this amplified version. It reads thus:

(A) King Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus.

(B) (When I had been) anointed twenty-six years, the following animals were declared by me inviolable, viz. parrots, mainas, the aruna, ruddy geese, wild geese, the nandimukha, the gelata, bats, queen-ants, terrapins, boneless fish, the vedaveyaka, the Ganga-

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 78 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______puputaka, skate-fish, tortoises and porcupines, squirrels (?), the srimara, bulls set at liberty, iguanas (?), the rhinoceros, white doves, domestic doves, (and) all the quadrupeds which are neither useful nor edible.

(C) Those [she-goats], ewes, and sows (which are) either with young or in milk, are inviolable, and also those (of their) young ones (which are) less than six months old.

(D) Cocks must not be caponed.

(E) Husks containing living animals must not be burnt.

(F) Forests must not be burnt either uselessly or in order to destroy (living beings).

(G) Living animals must not be fed with (other) living animals.

(H) Fish are inviolable, and must not be sold, on the three Chaturmasis (and) on the Tishya full-moon during three days, (viz.) the fourteenth, the fifteenth, (and) the first (tithi), and invariably on every fast-day.

(I) And during these same days also no other classes of animals which are in the elephant-park (and) in the preserves of the fishermen, must be killed.

(J) On the eighth (tithi) of (every) fortnight, on the fourteenth, on the fifteenth, (and) on festivals, bulls must not be castrated, (and) he-goats, rams, boars, and whatever other (animals) are castrated (otherwise), must not be castrated (then).

(K) On Tishya, on Punarvasu, on the Chaturmasis, (and) during the fortnight of (every) Chaturmasi, horses (and) bullocks must not be branded.

(L) Until (I had been) anointed twenty-six years, in this period the release of prisoners was ordered by me twenty-five (times).10

A distinctive feature of this edict is its emphasis on the precept of non-violence and the intense desire to propagate its practice among the people by issuing royal injunctions. Ashoka had set personal example by drastically reducing the killing of

Ravindra Kumar 79 ______birds and animals for the royal kitchen.11 He was now desirous of propagating the same attitude of compassion towards all living beings. It is interesting to note that Ashoka accepted Buddhism as his creed after the Kalinga war – initially as a lay follower – and later as a patron. Some analogies might lead us to expect Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism may have made him a zealot, persecuting, in all probability, the votaries of other religions. In reality, however, he appears to have been a ruler that was extremely benevolent to other creeds and allowed everybody to try to attain salvation in their own fashion. In a very significant edict – Rock Edict XII – the framework of his religious views was elaborately presented. The Rock Edict XII, Girnar Rock states:

(A) King Devanampriya Priyadarsin is honouring all sects: both ascetics and householders, both with gifts and with honours of various kinds he is honouring them

(B) But Devanampriya does not value either gifts or honours so (highly) as (this), (viz.) that a promotion of the essentials of all sects should take place.

(D) But its root is this, viz. guarding (one’s) speech, (i.e.) that neither praising one’s own sect nor blaming other sects should take place on improper occasions, or (that) it should be moderate in every case.

(E) But other sects ought to be duly honoured in every case.

(F) If one is acting thus, he is both promoting his own sect and benefiting other sects.

(G) If one is acting otherwise than thus, he is both hurting his own sect and wronging other sects as well.

(H) For whosoever praises his own sect or blames other sects,— all (this) out of devotion to his own sect, (i.e.) with the view of glorifying his own sect,—if he is acting thus, he rather injures his own sect very severely.

(I) Therefore concord alone is meritorious, (i.e.) that they should both hear and obey each other’s morals

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 80 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______(J) For this is the desire of Devanampriya, (viz.) that all sects should be full of learning, and should be pure in doctrine.12

It is evident, then, from this edict that Ashoka exhorted his people to take a positive view about religions other than their own, to develop a genuine understanding about them, to get to know their fundamental tenets, and study with equanimity their doctrinaire basis. He earnestly hoped to promote among his people an essential understanding about different religions. The practical requirements for attaining this ideal are carefully attended to, by him, as he propagated restraint on speech and on covert attempts at glorifying one’s own religion especially at the expense of other religions. It is also notable that Ashoka appears in his edicts as a pious emperor who was mindful of the ‘debt’ which every king owes to his subjects in return for the revenue levied from them, and which affords them protection:

(I) For I consider it my duty (to promote) the welfare of all men.

Ravindra Kumar 81 ______(J) But the root of that (is) this, (viz.) exertion and the dispatch of business.

(K) For no duty is more important than (promoting) the welfare of all men.

(L) And whatever effort I am making, (is made) in order that I may discharge the debt (which I owe) to living beings, (that) I may make them happy in this (world), and (that) they may attain heaven in the other (world).13

Reflecting the same sentiment he says:

(E) All men are my children.

(F) As on behalf of (my own) children I desire that they may be provided with complete welfare and happiness in this world and in the other world, the same I desire also on behalf of all men.14

Ashoka’s enunciation of morality was imbued with the values of compassion, moderation, tolerance and respect for all life. These are the values considered as defining the general attributes of Indian culture. The Ashokan state gave up the predatory foreign policy that is characteristic of monarchical states. It replaced it with a policy of peaceful co-existence. The judicial system was reformed in order to make it fair, less harsh and less open to abuse, while those sentenced to death were given a stay of execution to prepare appeals and regular amnesties were given to prisoners:

(L) And my order (reaches) even so far (that) a respite of three days is granted by me to persons lying in prison on whom punishment has been passed, (and) who have been condemned to death.

(M) (In this way) either (their) relatives will persuade those (Lajukas) to (grant) their life, or, if there is none who persuades (them), they will bestow gifts or will undergo fasts in order to (attain happiness) in the other (world).15

6. Reflexive Epilogue It is significant that Ashoka, towards the later years of his reign, began to reflect on his policy of dhamma. It may be, therefore, no coincidence that the edict that carries these reflective observations happens to be the last

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 82 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______known major edict of his reign. It is identified as Pillar-Edict VII and reads thus (Delhi-Topra version):

(A) King Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus.

(B) The kings who were in times past, had this desire, that men might (be made to) progress by the promotion of morality; but men were not made to progress by an adequate promotion of morality.

(D) The following occurred to me.

(E) On one hand, in times past kings had this desire, that men might (be made to) progress by an adequate promotion of morality; (but) on the other hand, men were not made to progress by an adequate promotion of morality.

(F) How then might men (be made to) conform to (morality)?

(G) How might men (be made to) progress by an adequate promotion of morality?

(H) How could I elevate them by the promotion of morality?

(I) Concerning this, king Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus,

(J) The following occurred to me.

(K) I shall issue proclamations on morality, (and) shall order instruction in morality (to be given).

(L) Hearing this, men will conform to (it), will be elevated, and will (be made to) progress considerably by the promotion of morality.

(M) For this purpose proclamations on morality were issued by me, (and) manifold instruction in morality was ordered (to be given), [in order that those agents] (of mine) too, who are occupied with many people, will exhort (them) and will explain (morality to them) in detail.

Ravindra Kumar 83 ______(N) The Lajukas also, who are occupied with many hundred thousands of men—these too were ordered by me: ‘in such and such a manner exhort ye the people who are devoted to morality.’

(O) Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus.

(P) Having in view this very (matter), I have set up pillars of morality, appointed Mahamatras of morality, (and) issued [proclamations] on morality.

(Q) King Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus.

(R) On the roads banyan-trees were caused to be planted by me, (in order that) they might afford shade to cattle and men, (and) mango-groves were caused to be planted.

(S) And (at intervals) of eight kos wells were caused to be dug by me, and flights of steps (for descending into the water) were caused to be built.

(T) Numerous drinking-places were caused to be established by me, here and there, for the enjoyment of cattle and men.

(U) [But] this so-called enjoyment (is) [of little consequence].

(V) For with various comforts have the people been blessed both by former kings and by myself.

(W) But by me this has been done for the following purpose: that they might conform to that practice of morality.

(X) Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus.

(Y) Those my Mahamatras of morality too are occupied with affairs of many kinds which are beneficial to ascetics as well as to householders, and they are occupied also with all sects.

(Z) Some (Mahamatras) were ordered by me to busy themselves with the affairs of the Samgha; likewise others were ordered by me to busy themselves also with the Brahmanas (and) Ajivikas; others were, ordered by me to busy themselves also with the

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 84 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______Nirgranthas; others were ordered by me to busy themselves also with various (other) sects; (thus) different Mahamaras (are busying themselves) specially with different (congregations).

(AA) But my Mahamatras of morality are occupied with these (congregations) as well as with all other sects.

(BB) King Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks-thus,

(CC) Both these and many other chief (officers) are occupied with the delivery of the gifts of myself as well as of the queens, and among my whole harem [they are reporting] in divers ways different worthy recipients of charity both here and in the provinces

(DD) And others were ordered by me to busy themselves also with the delivery of the gifts of (my) sons and of other queens’ sons, in order (to promote) noble deeds of mora1ity (and) the practice of morality.

(EE) For noble deeds of morality and the practice of morality (consist in) this, that (morality), viz. compassion, liberality, truthfulness, purity, gentleness, and goodness, will thus be promoted among men.

(FF) King Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus.

(GG) Whatsoever good deeds have been performed by me, those the people have imitated, and to those they are conforming.

(HH) Thereby they have been made to progress and will (be made to) progress in obedience to mother and father, in obedience to elders, in courtesy to the aged, in courtesy to Brahmanas and Sramanas, to the poor and distressed, (and) even to slaves and servants.

(II) King Devanampriya Priyadarsin speaks thus.

(JJ) Now this progress of morality among men has been promoted (by me) only in two ways, (viz.) by moral restrictions and by conversion.

Ravindra Kumar 85 ______(KK) But among these (two), those moral restrictions are of little consequence; by conversion, however, (morality is promoted) more considerably.

(LL) Now moral restrictions indeed are these, that I have ordered this, (that) certain animals are inviolable.

(MM) But there are also many other moral restrictions which have been imposed by me.

(NN) By conversion, however, the progress of morality among men has been promoted more considerably, (because it leads) to abstention from hurting living beings (and) to abstention from killing animals.

(OO) Now for the following purpose has this been ordered that it may last as long as (my) sons and great-grandsons (shall reign and) as long as the moon and the sun (shall shine), and in order that (men) may conform to it.

(PP) For if one conforms to this, (happiness) in this (world) and in the other (world) will be attained.

(QQ) This rescript on morality was caused to be written by me (when I had been) anointed twenty-seven years. (RR) Concerning this, Devanampriya says.

(SS) This rescript on morality must be engraved there, where either stone pillars or stone slabs are (available); in order that this maybe of long duration.16

This edict provides a comprehensive account of the measures envisaged and implemented by the emperor for promoting the principles of dhamma especially the values of compassion, non-violence towards all living beings, liberality, forgiveness, and noble conduct. The graphic details contained in Pillar-Edict VII provide us with sufficient indicators of the extensive efforts and resources that were used for sustaining such large-scale measures. Ashoka appears as a thoughtful emperor fully cognizant of the fact that similar efforts at establishing and propagating the practice of morality as a public doctrine were made by the earlier rulers and that his propagation of dhamma was not an entirely novel practice. He is therefore determined to initiate measures that would persuade people to adopt and

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 86 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______practice the tenets of dhamma and is ever ready to invest state resources towards achieving this mission.

In conclusion, it would seem that the assessment of Ashoka as a legend and one of the greatest rulers in the history of India is completely justifiable. There has been no parallel in Indian history, and, quite possibly, no other leader in the histories of nations of the world, so committed to the propagation of forgiveness and compassion as official state policy. The dictum ‘what can be forgiven is to be forgiven’ was an affirmative act bereft of any negative connotations. In fact the entire phraseology of Ashokan edicts is imbued with solemn morality. The emperor’s intention was for his edicts to inspire the creation of more just and more spiritually inclined societies. According to the available evidence it would appear that he enjoyed a considerable amount of success in this regard.

Ravindra Kumar 87 ______

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 88 Forgiveness and Compassion in Indian Historical Tradition ______Notes

1 Aryabharati International Society for Hindu Veda Vignan and Atmic Research, The Mahabharat in Sanskrit (Aryabharati.org (AISHVAR), 2004-2008), Book 12, Verse 7-8, viewed 15 May 2014, http://www.aryabharati.org/mahabharat/mahabharsn.asp 2 Rajvir Shastri, ed., Vishuddha-Manusmriti (Delhi: Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust, 1996), 285. 3 Eugen Hultzsch, Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum:Inscriptions of Asoka, Vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1925), 167-169. 4 Ibid., 26. 5 The etymological meaning of the term Devanampriya is ‘dear to the gods’ and of Priyadarsi is ‘of amiable appearance.’ 6 Hultzsch, Inscriptions, 175. 7 Ibid., 129-130. 8 Ibid., 68-70. 9 Ibid., 117-118. 10 Ibid., 127-128. 11 Ibid., 2 (First Rock Edict- Girnar Rock). 12 Ibid., 21-22. 13 Ibid., 13 (Sixth Rock-Edict: Girnar version). 14 Ibid., 95 (First Separate Rock-Edict: Dhauli version). 15 Ibid., 125 (Pillar-Edict IV: Delhi-Topra version). 16 Ibid., 133-137.

Bibliography

Aryabharati International Society for Hindu Veda Vignan and Atmic Research. The Mahabharat in Sanskrit. Aryabharati.org (AISHVAR), 2004-2008. Book 12, Verse 7-8. Viewed 15 May 2015. http://www.aryabharati.org/mahabharat/mahabharsn.asp.

Hultzsch, Eugen. Corpus Inscriptionum Indicarum: Inscriptions of Asoka. Vol. 1. Oxford: Claridon Press, 1925.

Mookerji, Radha Kumud. Asokan Inscriptions: A Commentary. Allahabad: Kitab Mahal Pvy. Ltd., 1942.

Shastri, Rajvir. ed. Vishuddha-Manusmriti. Delhi: Arsh Sahitya Prachar Trust, 1996.

Ravindra Kumar 89 ______

Sircar, D. C. Inscriptions of Asoka. New Delhi: Publications Division, 2009.

Ravindra Kumar teaches history at Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi, India. His other research interests include heritage, tourism and environment.

Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples

Francesca Dominello

Abstract It is generally accepted in apology discourse that the offer of an apology is empowering for victims: it gives them power to forgive or to refuse to forgive; they may even choose to ignore the apology. The effects can be far-reaching. Reconciliation between the parties – an essential function of an apology – could be completely derailed in the absence of forgiveness. This chapter aims to explore the recent state apologies made to Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada and the United States and to consider in what ways, if any, these apologies have been empowering for them. The chapter will begin by reviewing the range of functions an apology can serve. In the political context these functions may include facilitating a process of reconciliation, promoting the justice needs of victims, and possibly even their forgiveness, through the acknowledgement of their experiences of injustice in an apology. They may even represent a shift in power between the parties. In this regard, the chapter will explore whether the acceptance or rejection of an apology is in fact a source of empowerment for Indigenous peoples. In developing the understanding of apology-making as a relational process, the chapter will identify ways in which state apology-making can provide Indigenous peoples opportunities to engage in the political life of the nation. As will be argued, however, insufficient attention has been paid to Indigenous peoples’ responses to the apologies made to them. The chapter will conclude by arguing that in the absence of serious consideration of Indigenous peoples’ responses to the apologies, the understanding of apologies as empowering for them in terms of the granting or withholding forgiveness is being undermined.

Key Words: Apology, empowerment, forgiveness, Indigenous peoples, justice, reconciliation.

*****

1. Introduction As religious and civic bodies, corporate entities, individuals and states, have turned their attention to acknowledging and responding to human suffering inflicted in the past by their predecessors, we have come to witness the rise of what some scholars have aptly called ‘the Age of Apology.’1 Among the range of apologies that have been made to date, the focus of this chapter is on recent state apologies to Indigenous peoples: the ‘Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples’ formally delivered in Australia by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd on 13 February 2008; the ‘Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools’ formally

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 92 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______delivered in Canada by Prime Minister Stephen Harper on 11 June 2008; and, the ‘Apology to Native Peoples of the United States’ that was signed into law by President Barack Obama on 19 December 2009.2 In focusing on these apologies and the responses of Indigenous peoples to them, the chapter aims to deepen the understanding of the political functions of official apologies. Apologies can function in a range of ways. The ideal response to the offer of an apology is forgiveness that results in the reconciliation of the relationship between the parties. However, forgiveness is not always the response especially when official apologies are concerned. But in spite of the many meanings that these apologies may have for victim survivors, their responses have not received the attention they deserve. Building on the understanding that apology and forgiveness are ‘relational,’3 the chapter argues that apology-making could provide scope for the political empowerment and engagement of Indigenous peoples through their responses to the apologies that have been made to them.

2. What is an Apology and what Does It Do? Apologies are often referred to as ‘speech acts’ whereby the speaker expresses sorrow and regret for moral wrongdoing and seeks forgiveness from the wronged party.4 Their aim is usually to restore relations between the parties.5 Essential to achieving this end is forgiveness.6 According to this understanding, the victim is the central figure of the apology: only victims have the power to forgive, to accept or reject the apology. They may even ignore the apology.7 ‘To apologize,’ as Govier has claimed, involves a shift in power. The ‘one who had power to harm is now opening himself or herself to the other,’ leaving him or her ‘vulnerable to the responses to the other.’8 According to Minow, these responses may include victims seeking punishment, offering forgiveness, or deciding that the wrongful acts fall outside the domain for forgiveness. The effect for survivors is to ‘secure a position of strength, respect and specialness.’9 And yet, while these observations appear to provide the opportunity for further investigation into the responses that apologies inspire, there is a tendency in the literature to mainly focus on the actual act of apologizing and how apologies can be offered in ways that will fulfil their ultimate purpose of inspiring forgiveness and reconciliation between the parties. The approach seems only to allow victims to either accept or reject the apology in their responses. In this respect, the focus is on how best to achieve forgiveness and reconciliation through the apology process. In achieving these aims, the emphasis is on the understanding of the acknowledgement of past wrongdoing in an offer of an apology as a show of respect for victims. According to Govier and Verwoerd the most significant aspect of the power of an apology is to ‘unsay’10 the original insult that:

Francesca Dominello 93 ______the wronged person has no moral worth and merits no moral consideration. … For one who has been humiliated or treated as worthless, such acknowledgement of dignity and human worth is profoundly significant.11

To summarise the basic claim: the offender’s remorseful acknowledgement of his/her wrongful act in an apology has moral value for the victim by helping him/her restore his/her sense of self-worth and self-respect.12 In return, the victim may become open to forgiving the wrongdoer, improving, if not restoring, relations between them.13 The victim may in fact sense a moral obligation to respond positively to the apology and accept it.14

3. Apology and Forgiveness As is apparent from the discussion so far, an apology does not exist in isolation, but is a relational process that begins with the offender’s willingness to admit responsibility for the wrong and express remorse for his or her actions, and ends by opening the opportunity for the offended to respond with forgiveness.15 Indeed, some have argued that forgiveness may only be justifiable after an offender has apologized and repented.16 In these respects apology and forgiveness have been viewed as acting together to complete a mutually beneficial transaction.17 By no means, however, is there agreement on the way that apology and forgiveness relate to one another. For instance, some have taken a strict binary view on the making of an apology as creating a moral duty for the victim to forgive, while others have adopted the completely opposite view to argue that forgiveness is most virtuous when it is given freely without expectation of return.18 Moreover, some have claimed that the granting of forgiveness signals the end of the matter culminating in ‘reconciliation and a fresh start, with no debts outstanding and nothing still held against the wrongdoer,’19 while for others forgiveness can coexist with victim demands for additional forms of redress.20 All of these arguments, however, seem to assume that forgiveness is a real possibility whether an apology is made or not.21 But as Zrihan-Weitzman and Eisikovits have made clear in their chapter in this volume, in the context of analysing forgiveness in violent relationships, forgiveness may not be so easy. As Smith has noted, apologies, especially for more serious harms, can only be judged over the duration of the offender’s lifetime:

The ultimate meaning of apologies – like the meaning of promises – depends on future behaviour and therefore we cannot conclusively judge them at the moment they are spoken. … We often judge an offender’s commitment to reform and forbearance over their lifetime, and any regression can diminish an apology’s significance.22

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 94 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______A similar observation could be made about forgiveness. Forgiveness, even when it has been granted may not prevent the victim at a later date from relapsing into a state of resentment and disdain, nor for that matter does a refusal to forgive preclude the victim from forgiving at a later date.23 In spite of the range of possible ways of understanding the relationship between apology and forgiveness, the general assumption is that reconciliation requires forgiveness.24 But in the context of political apologies like those made to Indigenous peoples for past injustices, the possibility of forgiveness being granted has been questioned on various grounds. The time lapse between the wrongdoing and the apology; whether consensus can be reached among survivors on the issue of granting forgiveness; who has the authority to grant forgiveness, and whether he or she can display the feelings and attitudes required to impart that message on behalf of the collective, are some of the issues that have been raised.25 Though forgiveness has been formally granted in certain circumstances, and some have stressed the importance of forgiveness as a source of empowerment for Indigenous peoples, the fact remains that forgiveness has been rarely granted by them.26 Unsurprisingly, considering the dilemmas involved in the granting of forgiveness, when it has been granted by Indigenous peoples it is usually the response of individuals speaking on their own behalf and not for the collective: ‘If I am able to forgive my perpetrator, I can forgive Canada,’27 prominent Residential School survivor, Willie Blackwater, announced in response to Harper’s apology in Canada. Indeed, those speaking on behalf of the collective have reinforced the idea that forgiveness is an individual decision, and not a collective one.28 Ultimately, the fact that nothing can be said or done that can undo the harm that has been done has raised issues about the possibility of forgiveness and whether an apology can in fact inspire victims to forgive. While forgiveness may, for some, be the ideal ‘effect’ of an apology, the reality may be that an apology is not accepted.29 Indeed, some have viewed true forgiveness as an impossible ideal to achieve.30 Forgiveness, then, may not be the response of victims. However, that is not to say that these apologies cannot serve other functions. Apologies made in the political realm often form part of national transitional justice schemes, particularly as they can assist in achieving the aims of transitional justice by correcting the public record, raising awareness of history through the public acknowledgement of the violations, reasserting the moral value of the violated norms, and promising reform and forbearance in the future.31 An apology cannot undo the harm done, but can assist in overcoming some of the effects of the harm to the victims’ sense of identity and assist in changing broader public perceptions of them. An official apology:

makes clear that past treatment of the group never was morally justified. In an official apology, the highest political authorities

Francesca Dominello 95 ______acknowledge that the culture of the victim group is not now, and never was, morally inferior to that of the offender group. The very identity of the victim group may be reshaped in this process.32

So understood, a political apology enacts respect and recognition: the respect shown to the victim in an apology may make up for the disrespect shown to the victim at the time of the wrong. 33 This recognition may, to some extent, satisfy their need for reparative justice by addressing the indignity that had been caused by the harm. For minority groups such as Indigenous peoples a political apology may reconstitute their subjectivity: it legitimizes their experience of suffering and being wronged, thereby according them a full subject position, as against a history of marginalizing and silencing them in the mainstream.34 Indeed, as some have claimed, the true value of political apologies lies in the contribution they can make to the just resolution of past wrongs: it is their capacity to do justice that is the basis for their contribution in advancing reconciliation.35 Moreover, a political apology will often be met with suspicion and cynicism if it is not also backed by appropriate forms of redress aimed at overcoming the legacies of past wrongs and ensuring against the repetition of harm in the future.36 In these respects, these apologies reveal how the need for justice can outweigh the virtue of forgiveness in the real world. Thus, an apology may not inspire forgiveness, but the acknowledgement of past wrongdoing – particularly in addressing the original message of insult – in an official apology may contribute to meeting the justice needs of victim survivors by restoring the dignity that the wrongdoing had once stripped from them. The acceptance of responsibility for past wrongs in an official apology may also lead to a reappraisal of the state’s obligations towards those groups to which the apology is addressed.37 In these respects, the effectiveness of an apology does not depend on the granting of forgiveness, but on maintaining the promises implied in the apology, requiring the state to engage in a process of reform and to refrain from repeating the wrongdoing in the future.38

4. Apologies to Indigenous Peoples: What Should They Do? As has become clear from the discussion so far, an apology may not inspire forgiveness, but it could assist in setting the pathway towards justice for those who have been wronged. In order to succeed in this way apologisers must demonstrate that they ‘have come to see their actions in the same way as their victims (ie, as a wrongdoing) and that they firmly renounce the disrespect that those actions implied.’39 As Smith has observed, an apology requires ‘the offender to name each specific offense, identify the moral principle breached by each offense, and endorse this underlying principle.’40 Ultimately, in his view, these elements are

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 96 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______linked to each other. Depending on the principles that are identified in an apology, subsequent reform might shift accordingly.’41 In the case of settler-colonized nations such as Australia, Canada and the United States, Indigenous peoples’ experiences of injustice can be traced back to the arrival of foreign invaders to their shores. In the process of colonization that followed, the perception of Indigenous peoples as inferior beings – as primitive and uncivilized heathens – legitimized the imposition of settler culture and laws on their communal ways of life. The acquisition of sovereignty by European colonial powers over the territories of their traditional lands had devastating consequences for them – the scope of their authority for maintaining and protecting their societies and determining their own futures, as they once did according to their own laws and customs, was diminished forever.42 The challenges posed by colonization for Indigenous peoples were further compounded by the violent expansion of the colonial frontier resulting in death, disease and poverty for Indigenous peoples as they were dispossessed of their lands and their communities were dispersed and became disintegrated. With the rise of social Darwinism came predictions that Indigenous peoples were doomed to become extinct in the face of the superior forces of western civilization. Settler-colonized nations like Australia, Canada and the United States responded by implementing laws and policies which further undermined Indigenous peoples’ connections to their traditional lands and familial ties. In pursuing rigorous policies of assimilation, such as the state-sanctioned practice of removing Indigenous children from their families, these nations sought to completely eradicate the presence of Indigenous peoples forever. The undermining of Indigenous culture and traditions in these ways was a direct affront to the identity of these peoples as Indigenous peoples.43 The rhetoric upon which these laws and policies depended continued to perpetuate conceptions of Indigenous peoples as uncivilized: in the context of child removal policies they were considered unable to care and protect their own children. The message underpinning these policies was that only by abandoning their way of life and adopting the European way of doing things would ensure a place for them in white society. In reality, the systems of government and administration put in place by the foreign powers, and that operated within cultures that were largely antipathetic to all things Aboriginal, did not ensure the equal protection of Indigenous peoples before the law or provide them with the same citizenship rights as the Europeans who invaded their lands. Instead, the violence and abuse, exploitation and expropriation, discrimination and sub-standard conditions imposed on them in the new colonial world order severely undermined their life chances from which they have been unable to fully recover. Overall, the process of colonization ensured the creation of a state of severe inequality, disadvantage and cultural alienation for Indigenous peoples. Indeed, the establishment of a colonial order in these nations would not have succeeded if it were not for the violent and discriminatory

Francesca Dominello 97 ______treatment of the original Indigenous inhabitants. As Calermajer has observed with respect to the Australian experience:

Aboriginality was considered a deficit, an anathema to the progress of civilization, inconsistent with full citizenship, and an impediment to the development of the nation ... [C]olonial, or postcolonial Australia needed the category of the uncivilized native to affirm its own claim to civil and sovereign legitimacy.44

Specifically, then, with respect to Indigenous peoples it has been argued that an apology would need to start by delegitimizing the ‘political cultural norm that says that treating Aboriginal people as less than full citizens and human beings is acceptable.’45 In moral terms this would mean that from now on they should be treated with respect as full human beings. Translated into political terms, the affirmation of their moral worth and condemnation of their past mistreatment in an official apology would suggest that their exclusion from full participation in the political life of the nation, previously legitimized on the basis of their racial inferiority, is no longer sustainable. This would require re-evaluating race relations and the rights of Indigenous peoples, including their claims for sovereignty and self-determination. Current laws and policies would also need re-evaluation according to the principles of self-determination and community consultation. Indeed, the victim-centred approach to apology making, when translated into the making of a political apology, would entail adopting a course of action committed to the resolution of Indigenous claims for justice. In this regard, an apology would, once and for all, dispel the myth that the operation of laws and policies aimed at Indigenous peoples were well-intended, and acknowledge that they operated within racist cultures that looked forward to the day when Indigenous peoples would be completely eradicated.46 Thus, if an interpersonal apology aims to (re)unite the parties on the basis of ‘moral equality,’ a state apology to Indigenous peoples would initiate a process that would advance their political and legal equality and the recognition and protection of their rights. From an Indigenous perspective, nothing short of an apology acknowledging the injustices wrought upon them through the processes of colonisation would be in order: an acknowledgement that would in turn help transform relations from their present colonial form into their postcolonial future.47

5. The Apologies in Australia, Canada and the United States: An Overview Notably, however, none of the three apologies under consideration in this chapter frame the wrongdoing to Indigenous peoples in these ways. Instead, the wrongs acknowledged in each apology reflect their more immediate historical contexts: the movement for an apology to the Stolen Generations in Australia that had been growing in momentum since the Australian Human Rights and Equal

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 98 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______Opportunity Commission tabled its report, Bringing Them Home in Parliament in 1997; the push for an apology by Native Canadians that increased in momentum after the abysmal conditions in the Indian Residential Schools were made public in the 1990s; and the push for an apology to Native Americans in the United States initiated by former Republican Senator Sam Brownback in 2004.48 In this respect, the Canadian ‘Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools’ appears to have the clearest intention in addressing a particular era in Canada’s history. The Australian apology is also specific in its references to the past injustices experienced by members of the Stolen Generations though its title, ‘Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples,’ is not explicit in this regard. In contrast to these two apologies, the ‘Apology to Native Peoples of the United States’ provides the broadest account of wrongdoing as it:

recognizes that there have been years of official depredations, ill- conceived policies, and the breaking of covenants by the Federal Government regarding Indian tribes;

apologizes on behalf of the people of the United States to all Native Peoples for the many instances of violence, maltreatment, and neglect inflicted on Native Peoples by citizens of the United States; [and]

expresses its regret for the ramifications of former wrongs…49

Even so, the final version of the US apology has been heavily criticized for a number of reasons: unlike the Canadian and Australian apologies, the US apology was not officially delivered by the President at the time of signing and no public announcements were made; the original Preamble to the apology that provided details of a range of wrongs and harms committed against Native Americans was not included in the Act; the apology has no legal effect and makes no provision for reparations; and, as one provision embedded in thousands of others in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, its overall effectiveness has been seriously undermined.50 Moreover, it is apparent from the language used in all three apologies that the nations making them were not prepared to trace the wrongs inflicted on Indigenous peoples back to their colonial origins, or, for that matter, to acknowledge the manifestations of colonialism currently at work in these nations. Indeed, to do so would unsettle many of the assumptions upon which the legitimacy and pride of these nations rests. Arguably, the claim that ‘colonization was wrong’ would undermine the legitimacy of the systems of government that currently exist in these nations; indeed, such a claim could bring the very existence of these nations into question. Instead, by isolating particular injustices as the focus of each apology (as

Francesca Dominello 99 ______is most evident in both the Australian and Canadian apologies), the nature of the wrongdoing has been framed in terms of liberal democratic principles of equality and fairness that underpin these nations and have been violated by the past mistreatment of their Indigenous populations. In this way these nations can reassert the virtue of these principles and the virtue of their nations that were founded upon them. At the same time, they can avoid facing the moral dilemmas and the legal, socio-economic and political implications that the claim ‘colonization was wrong’ implies for the legitimacy of these nations. Indeed, in focusing on specific wrongs the apologies have not challenged the exercise of state power in the commission of these wrongs. On the contrary, in affirming the democratic principles that underpin these nations, as will become clearer below, these apologies have succeeded in legitimizing the power of the state to govern while also maintaining the status quo on the (non-recognition) of the legal and political rights of the Indigenous peoples in these nations. In the Australian case, the focus of the apology on the Stolen Generations was made clear at the outset when Rudd declared:

We apologize especially for the removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, their communities and their country.51

In these respects, the specific focus of the apology was on the injustices that had been inflicted upon individual Indigenous persons, their families and communities through the implementation of laws and policies that authorised the forcible removal of Indigenous peoples (mostly children of mixed parentage formally referred to as ‘half-castes’) over the course of most of the 20th century. The practice usually involved the removal of these children to government and non- government institutions where they would be subsequently relocated either to work as servants, to live in foster homes or were adopted by white families. Considering the background to the apology, its specific references to the injustices experienced by the Stolen Generations were inevitable. An apology to the Stolen Generations had been one of the fifty-four recommendations made in Bringing Them Home.52 Of these, the recommendation for a national apology had generated the most interest and debate, sparking a mixed response between those who supported the idea of an apology, and those who did not. Though many Australians supported the apology (and Rudd noted at the outset of the apology that he was fulfilling an election promise in making the apology that day), it was also true that there were others – particularly political conservatives – who were opposed to it.53 Considering the heated debate over the apology that lasted for more than a decade after Bringing Them Home was released, the apology gives the appearance of being a great achievement. As an apology addressed to the Stolen Generations, its significance lies in the Australian government finally accepting

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 100 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______responsibility for the negative impact that the policy of forcibly removing Indigenous children has had, not only on those who were directly affected by the policy, but also on entire Indigenous families and their communities across Australia. Indeed, mindful of the controversy that surrounded the making of the apology (particularly former Prime Minister John Howard’s adamant refusal to apologize to the Stolen Generations throughout his term in office) Rudd gave his reasons for making an apology to the Stolen Generations. Central to the apology was the question posed at the start of the apology: ‘Why apologize?’54 In providing a range of answers to this question (that in fact read as rebuttals for all the reasons why Howard had refused to apologize), Rudd presented his own understanding of the harms suffered by the Stolen Generations which he portrayed to the audience as a way of satisfying those who supported the apology, while also placating those who were not entirely convinced that it was appropriate in the circumstances. The inclusion of the story of Nanna Nungala Fejo, a Warumungu woman, now in her 80s, who was forcibly removed from her mother in 1932, was instrumental in this regard in providing an Indigenous perspective on the harms they have suffered – a perspective that, arguably, would have universal appeal:

I asked Nanna Fejo what she would have me say today about her story. She thought for a few moments then said that what I should say today was that all mothers are important. And she added: “Families – keeping them together is very important. It’s a good thing that you are surrounded by love and that love is passed down the generations. That’s what gives you happiness.”55

In quoting Nanna Fejo in this way, Rudd managed to establish a common understanding of the wrongdoing that most would agree was morally reprehensible. It was an understanding that was founded on the value of the family as the fundamental social institution for all of humankind that had been violated by the practice of forcibly removing Indigenous children from their families.56 In appealing to the common humanity of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians in this way, Rudd laid the foundations for a reconciled nation: ‘Decency, human decency, universal human decency, demands that the nation now step forward to right a historical wrong.’57 But if there remained any doubts about the need for an apology, Rudd’s final attempt at laying these doubts to rest was by appealing to a fundamental ‘Aussie’ principle. From a purely Australian perspective, as Rudd made clear in the apology:

reconciliation is in fact an expression of a core value of our nation – and that value is a fair go for all. There is a deep and

Francesca Dominello 101 ______abiding belief in the Australian community that, for the stolen generations, there was no fair go at all. There is a pretty basic Aussie belief that says it is time to put right this most outrageous of wrongs.58

There is no doubt that the acknowledgement of the wrongfulness of the state supported practice of forcibly removing Indigenous children in an apology was an important gesture for the government to make. Rudd’s approach, however, is limited in a number of important respects. First, is the limited way Rudd framed the harms suffered by the Stolen Generations by confining their losses to the impacts on their familial ties and the personal effects of these losses: ‘the hurt, the pain and suffering … the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied.’59 By framing the harms in these terms, Rudd evaded mentioning the more serious social and economic costs of this practice: the malnourishment, maltreatment, emotional, sexual and physical abuse and labour exploitation that the children were often exposed to while in institutional care. The abuse and neglect had a cyclical effect: the impact on one generation would be felt on the next as those traumatised by their experiences have often been unable to cope with adult responsibilities such as looking after their own children. Poor health, lack of education and equal employment opportunities has exacerbated these problems.60 Furthermore, Rudd’s attempt at establishing a common understanding of the wrongdoing in evoking the audience’s response to ‘the sheer brutality of the act of physically separating a mother from her children’ as ‘a deep assault on our senses and on our most elemental humanity,’61 did not sufficiently account for the cultural costs of the child removal policy for those Indigenous peoples affected by the policy. The practice of removing children from their families did not only deny these children the love, happiness and support of a stable family life (as the story of Nanna Fejo suggests). The practice of removing children often made it impossible for cultural knowledge to be transmitted from one generation to the next. Indeed, the original intention behind the policy of ‘dealing’ with the ‘Aboriginal problem’ was for white Australia to witness the eventual demise of the Aboriginal race in Australia. The widely held view was that the Aboriginal race would eventually die out. The removal of Aboriginal children of mixed parentage from their families was to facilitate their assimilation into the white race. In this respect, the removal of Indigenous children was intended not only to break down their connections to their wider familial structures: in breaking down their family ties their culture – their ‘native characteristics’ as Cecil Cook put it (and quoted by Rudd) – would also be eradicated.62 Viewed in this way, the system of removing the children did not only deny Indigenous children the love of their mothers: it was part of a broader process of eliminating the Indigenous Other.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 102 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______The effects were devastating for Indigenous peoples. When Indigenous children were removed they were often not told of their cultural heritage or were banned from practising their customs and speaking their languages. They would be punished if they resisted the European way of doing things. The shame they would feel about their Aboriginality and the racism they experienced as children growing up in predominantly white societies left many of them marred with feelings of cultural alienation – both towards the Indigenous culture and the settler culture. The impact was felt not just by those individuals who were physically removed. Broader Indigenous kinship structures were also adversely affected as the cycle of removal of children across generations would impact upon familial ties and also on cultural and spiritual ties to land.63 Moreover, the emphasis Rudd placed on the personal harms suffered by the Stolen Generations also detracted attention away from the political and legal implications of these harms for Indigenous peoples. In this respect, he seemed most prepared to concede that the operation of the laws and policies were racially discriminatory:

The uncomfortable truth for us all is that the parliaments of the nation, individually and collectively, enacted statutes and delegated authority under those statutes that made the forced removal of children on racial grounds fully lawful.64

Notably, however, while he acknowledged that the state policies of forcibly removing Indigenous children was ‘deliberate’ and ‘calculated’ and were

taken to such extremes by some in administrative authority that the forced extractions of children of so-called ‘mixed lineage’ were seen as part of a broader policy of dealing with ‘the problem of the Aboriginal population,’65

he completely elides the issue of whether the policy was genocidal in intent.66 The emphasis on the personal aspects of the losses suffered also detracted from the implications of the apology for the exercise of state power and the limits on that power the making of an apology implies. As Reilly has argued: ‘to be genuine, the apology requires a certain loss of sovereignty.’67 In Reilly’s view, however:

At no time does the apology resile from the power of the State to enact laws of removal or its power to enforce them. In fact, the apology confirms the power of the State to pass the laws.68

As Rudd made clear in the apology (and quoted above) ‘the forced removal of children on racial grounds [was] fully lawful.’ In making this claim, Rudd exposed

Francesca Dominello 103 ______a serious deficiency in Australian law: ‘put simply, the laws that our parliaments enacted made the stolen generations possible ... The problem lay with the laws themselves.’69 However, at no time in the apology does he consider how state power could be curtailed to ensure against the making of similar laws in the future. Indeed, in finding that the forced removal of Indigenous children was lawful he omitted to add that this practice was in direct conflict with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander customary laws relating to children and their care.70 Evidently the polarity that exists between the two systems of laws remains intact. Ultimately, Rudd’s focus on the personal losses of the Stolen Generations detracted away from the full impact that Australian laws and policies have had on ‘Aboriginal communities, their laws and customs, their language, their land ownership, and ultimately, their sovereignty.71 In contrast to the Rudd apology, the Harper apology to the survivors of the Indian Residential Schools is somewhat clearer in identifying the motivation for the establishment of the schools and provides a fuller account of the harms suffered by former students. However, it is not without its own limitations. Prime Minister Harper began his apology by acknowledging the role of the Canadian government in the development of the residential schools as early as the 1870s. Once established, the schools were administered jointly by the Canadian government and the Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian and United churches.72 The ‘two primary objectives’ of the schools, as Harper pointed out:

were to remove and isolate children from the influence of their homes, families, traditions and cultures, and to assimilate them into the dominant culture.

These objectives were based on the assumption that aboriginal cultures and spiritual beliefs were inferior and unequal. Indeed, some sought, as was infamously said, “to kill the Indian in the child.”73

In attempting to make these objectives a reality, over the course of more than one hundred years more than 150,000 aboriginal children were separated from their families and communities. ‘The treatment of children in these schools.’ as Harper surmised, would become ‘a sad chapter of our history.’74 In this regard, Harper acknowledged the government’s role in building ‘an educational system in which very young children were often forcibly removed from their homes and often taken far from their communities.’75 He acknowledged that conditions in the schools were inadequate; Indigenous languages and cultural practices were prohibited in the schools; in the schools children were subjected to emotional, physical and sexual abuse and neglect; and ‘children died while attending residential schools, and others never returned home.’76 He further

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 104 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______acknowledged that the children separated from their families ‘were deprived of the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents and communities;’77 the consequences of the Indian residential schools policy were profoundly negative and ... has had a lasting and damaging impact on aboriginal culture, heritage and language;’78 and the ‘legacy of Indian residential schools has contributed to social problems that continue to exist in many communities today.’79 In response to these harms, Harper apologized to former students, family members and communities recognizing that it was wrong to ‘forcibly remove children from their homes,’80 and that the separation of children from ‘rich and vibrant cultures and traditions ... created a void in many lives and communities.’81 He further recognized how ‘far too often these institutions gave rise to abuse or neglect and were inadequately controlled’82 and that the intergenerational effects the separation of children from their families have undermined ‘the ability of many to adequately parent their own children’ and to protect their own children from also suffering abuse.83

The Government of Canada sincerely apologizes and asks the forgiveness of the aboriginal peoples of this country for failing them so profoundly. We are sorry.84

When the Australian and Canadian apologies are compared, it is evident that the Canadian government has been prepared to accept responsibility for a broader range of harms than the Australian government. Arguably, the differences between them may be explained by their immediate historical, political and legal contexts. In delivering the Australian apology, Rudd appeared very conscious of the mixed feelings in Australia about an apology to the Stolen Generations. However, in providing a rather limited account of the harms, the wording of Rudd’s apology seems to have been directly affected by the forces of conservatism. This is most obviously conveyed in his government’s failure to offer compensation to the Stolen Generations and instead introduce the ‘Closing the Gap’ welfare package; an approach not dissimilar to the one that had been pursued by the former conservative Howard government.85 In Canada, in contrast, the broader account of the harms in Harper’s apology (at least when compared to the Australian apology), is consistent with the understanding of the harms as they have been generally accepted within the legal and political circles in Canada – an understanding that can be attributed to the efforts of survivors in raising awareness of their dire experiences of the residential school system and had led to the introduction of the Aboriginal Healing Foundation in 1998 and, more recently, the Settlement Agreement in 2007 and the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada in 2008.86

Francesca Dominello 105 ______Nevertheless, the Harper apology, like the Rudd apology, also fails to connect the harms to their broader legal and political implications. For instance, Harper may have apologized for separating children from their homes and ‘from rich and vibrant cultures and traditions, that … created a void in many lives and communities’ (as noted above), but he did not go so far and acknowledge the interconnectedness between the residential school system and the dispossession of lands. As Jacobs has claimed, the institution of compulsory schooling for Indigenous children was not only aimed at destroying intergenerational bonds, but was aimed at eradicating their ‘intimate cultural knowledge of the land.’87 And in focusing solely on the direct effects of the residential school on Indigenous peoples, he ignored other cultural harms caused to Indigenous peoples, such as the process of compulsory enfranchisement that was designed to strip them of their Indian status.88 Indeed, considered in the broader legal and political context, it becomes clearer that the overall political aim was to undermine Indigenous identities and facilitate their final demise. However, in the apology, Harper acknowledged that the policy of assimilation underpinning the residential school system aimed ‘to kill the Indian in the child’ was informed by assumptions about Indigenous peoples’ racial inferiority and inequality.89 In this respect, Harper, like Rudd, was only prepared to acknowledge racism as the motivating force behind the child removal policy and steered clear of any admission that the policy served as a technique of genocide.90 Moreover, in repeatedly pointing out in the apology that it is only ‘now’ obvious ‘that it was wrong to separate children,’91 the Eurocentric attitudes that originally underpinned the residential school system remain unchallenged. Implicit in these statements is the recognition of the work of survivors in raising political awareness of the legacies of the system in present history; but these statements also reveal a complete lack of awareness of Indigenous peoples past opposition to the state-run school system and of their claims that the schools were in direct violation of their sovereignty and self-determination.92 So understood, the limited acknowledgement in Harper’s apology of the impact of the residential school system on Indigenous traditions, culture, heritage and language becomes evident and the consequences of the system upon Indigenous peoples’ sovereignty and self-determination comes into full view. In this respect, his claim in the apology that ‘[t]here is no place in Canada for the attitudes that inspired the Indian residential schools system to ever again prevail,’93 may at most be signally the end of racist attitudes towards Indigenous peoples in Canada, but whether that is a true possibility remains doubtful as long as colonial attitudes continue to prevail.94 In this regard, the apology suffers from the same shortcomings as the Australian apology. In both, the recognition of the injustices caused by the forcible removal of Indigenous children is treated as though now each government has recognized the errors of its ways, and the path has now been set for healing and reconciliation. But in confining their apologies to the harms suffered as the result

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 106 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______of the forced separation of Indigenous children from their families, these nations have left many of the claims of Indigenous peoples for justice unanswered. Furthermore, in confining the harms suffered to their personal and social effects, these states have evaded the broader political and legal harms suffered by Indigenous peoples: that the practice of removing Indigenous children was an affront to Aboriginal sovereignty and laws and that the racist attitudes that underpinned the practice sought the complete eradication of Indigenous peoples in each nation. In these ways, these nations have maintained the legitimacy of their own sovereign power in determining the course of action to pursue in Indigenous affairs in future. Each leader may imagine that their respective apology has created the conditions for a new partnership with Indigenous peoples, but the terms of this new relationship will remain under the control of each state.

6. Responses of Indigenous Peoples Evidently, a disjuncture exists in the Indigenous perspective of the wrongdoing and the wrongs that these nations were prepared to acknowledge and accept responsibility for in the apologies. In view of these limitations of the apologies, the importance of Indigenous peoples’ responses to them becomes more clearly apparent for re-orienting the focus of these apologies on the victim survivors. Nevertheless, so far in the literature, this dimension of the apology process has been overlooked. In this section the political implications of the responses of Indigenous leaders to official apologies will be explored. As noted, the making of an apology is empowering for victims: only victims have the power to grant or withhold forgiveness. Forgiveness, may assist in overcoming human suffering, assisting victims in overcoming the sense of their victimhood.95 The victim identity dissolves, and a person’s true power emerges96 The chapter by Larocco in this volume takes this point up when he compares forgiveness as an act of love and forgiveness as the work of memory. But, arguably even when victims do not forgive, the withholding of forgiveness can also be a source of empowerment. Some acts are unforgivable but, according to Minow, the survivors are the ones

who remind the community about what can, and cannot, be forgiven. The authority to view a violation as beyond forgiveness marks one of the survivors’ contributions to the community’s moral sense.97

And yet, in spite of these insights into the potential psychological and moral functions of forgiveness, little attention has been directed specifically to the way that the responses of victim survivors could function in the sphere of politics. Not only is this approach at odds with the conceptualization of apology and forgiveness as relational, but it can also have the effect of silencing them and trivializing the

Francesca Dominello 107 ______importance of their participation in the broader reconciliation process. Acknowledging these responses as forming a part of the apology process is important, particularly in the case of Indigenous peoples whose experience of being silenced has been the source of past (and present) injustices. The intention of the remainder of this chapter is to examine some of the political implications of the responses of Indigenous leaders – first with respect to the Australian and Canadian apologies and then with respect to the US apology. Most notably, the delivery of the Canadian apology by Prime Minister Harper represented a historic first when National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples Congress, Patrick Brazeau, Inuit President, Mary Simon, President of Métis National Council, Clement Chartier, and President of the National Aboriginal Women’s Association of Canada, Beverley Jacobs, responded to the apology on the floor of the House of Commons. This move was particularly significant considering that Harper had been opposed to allowing them to respond to the apology in the Commons.98 In contrast, Indigenous leaders in Australia did not formally respond to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s apology delivered in Parliament. However, immediately following the apology, Tom Calma, then Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, delivered a formal response in the Member’s Hall, Parliament House, while Patrick Dodson, former Chairman of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, addressed the National Press Club in Canberra.99 Clearly in responding to the apologies the intention was for these leaders to actively participate in a political act that was of particular significance for them. Indigenous and non-Indigenous leaders coming together in this way – strikingly evoked by the images of the Indigenous leaders assembled in the House of Commons – provided a symbol for the way forward in the process of reconciliation for each respective nation. Notably, however, those who were waiting for statements of forgiveness, and the ‘reconciliation’ it implies, were left somewhat disappointed.100 As each representative in turn expressed gratitude for the apologies, none of them expressly granted forgiveness. In a speech in the Senate on the day following the Canadian apology, Mary Simon, remarked:

The Prime Minister on behalf of Canada and Canadians also asked us for forgiveness. As individuals we will all make our own choice in that regard. As leader of the organization representing the Inuit of Canada, I believe that real and lasting forgiveness must be earned. It will only be forthcoming when it is clear that government is willing to act.101

Though her view does not represent the views of all Indigenous peoples, the fact that none of the representatives who officially responded to the apologies expressly

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 108 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______granted forgiveness is indicative that the circumstances did not warrant forgiveness – at least not yet. Instead, the responses conveyed the understanding of reconciliation as based on developing a relationship of working together to find solutions to the problems now facing the Indigenous peoples of these nations. As Simon put it:

We must be “in the room,” working together with Government to build this new relationship. Gone are the days when policy or legislative initiatives are “invoked for us.”102

Some may lament that these apologies were not met with forgiveness, but instead of taking the view that without forgiveness there can be no healing, these responses could, in their way, contribute to healing in these nations. As stated earlier: apologies involve a shift in power whereby apologisers open themselves to the responses of those whom they have wronged. To be effective in this regard would require Indigenous peoples to become an active part of the process, opening the opportunity for Indigenous peoples to express their own understanding of the wrongdoing and to provide guidance on the measures of reparations needed and how they should be implemented in the future. Indeed, one way of prioritising Indigenous perspectives on solutions to the problems they are now facing could be to focus on their responses to the apologies made to them. If official apologies can lead to reappraisals of the state’s obligations owed to them, the responses of Indigenous peoples would provide insights into how these commitments can be fulfilled in the future. In fact, in their respective responses to the apologies each of these leaders pushed the boundaries that have been set by government around the issues Indigenous peoples continue to face in settler-colonized nations by treating the apologies as though they were addressing the legacies of colonialism for Indigenous peoples, and not simply discrete acts of wrongdoing. For example, Dodson, used his response to the Australian apology to remind his audience of the outstanding issues facing Indigenous Australians and the need for government to address them. His understanding of the apology ‘as an epic gesture on the part of the Australian settler state to find accommodation with the dispossessed and colonized,’103 translated into the need to develop ‘practical public policy that recognizes the fact that Indigenous society – which draws on thousands of years of cultural and religious connection to Australian lands – has survived.’104 In these respects he drew on the survival of Indigenous cultural traditions, evidence of broader national support for the recognition of Indigenous peoples in the Australian polity, and the apology itself, as providing the impetus for change and support for his more far-reaching reforms which, apart from ‘closing the gap’ initiatives, would also include constitutional reform, compensation and land rights reform.105 Indeed, a common theme in all of the leaders’ responses was that the

Francesca Dominello 109 ______apologies needed to be backed by government action or else they would be entirely meaningless. But unlike the approach of the state leaders who used the making of the apologies to reassert the legitimacy of the state to continue to drive Indigenous policy, these Indigenous leaders asserted their legitimate role in determining the parameters and direction of their relationship with the state in the future. Their take on the apologies as the end of the old relationship and the beginning of a ‘new relationship’ meant that the ‘top-down’ approach to Indigenous policy would no longer acceptable. Evidently, however, the little attention these leaders’ responses have received to date is indicative of the continuing imbalance of power in settler-colonized relationships. To overcome this problem, and create a more inclusive practice of apology-making, one suggestion has been to include the asking for ‘forgiveness’ as an essential part of the apology-making process which would place the wronged parties directly in a position of authority. Not only would they be placed in a position to accept or reject the apology, but their position would also be strengthened in determining the adequacy of any offers of reparations and in making demands for additional forms of redress if necessary.106 The offer of an apology, then, may not necessarily lead to the creation of harmonious and co-operative relationships, but can create a space for debate, such as in determining whether an apology should be offered; the content of the apology; and the way forward in the future once the apology is made – debates to which Indigenous peoples can make, and have made, valuable contributions. Indeed, the US apology signed by President Barack Obama in December 2009 raised a number of issues for Native Americans. While they did not actively seek an apology, it was a contested issue among some of them.107 But once the process was set in motion, the content of the apology was determined through the workings of a political process over which Native Americans ultimately had little control. Subsequently, the apology was criticised for not acknowledging historical wrongs that are of critical importance to them.108 Ultimately, the way the apology was delivered has attracted the most criticism. As noted previously, the apology is just one of thousands of provisions contained in the Defense Appropriations Act. Moreover, Obama did not publicly present the apology at the time of signing. Former Republican Senator Sam Brownback, sponsor of the original Bill, read the apology some months later during an event at the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C. Though there were five tribal leaders present, representing the Cherokee, Choctaw, Muscogee (Creek), Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate and Pawnee nations, issues remain. While a number of Native Americans have expressed support for the apology and some are agitating for another, they also recognize the need for official acknowledgement of the apology in order to raise public awareness and make government account for past wrongs.109

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 110 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______From the perspective in this chapter, however, its ‘un-public’ aspects could also be criticized for denying Native Americans the opportunity to officially respond to it. The attempts of Navajo Mark Charles to raise public awareness of the apology make this point to some extent. In particular, on the third anniversary of the apology in 2012, he read out the Defense Appropriations Act at a public gathering near the White House in Washington. After listing the shortcomings of the apology he was quoted as saying:

Today, as a Navajo man, I want to encourage our Native peoples not to accept this apology – not out of bitterness; not of anger, not out of resentment.

But out of respect for ourselves, out of respect to Governor Brownback, out of respect to President Obama, Native peoples deserve a better apology. Gov Brownback and President Obama deserve the right to make a better apology.110

Unfortunately, it was also reported that he has gained little support from tribes and organizations. Indeed, while an apology is supposed to be empowering for victims – only they can accept or reject it – it seems as though in this case Native Americans do not feel that the rejection of the apology is an option for them. As the leader from Creek Nation, Alfred Berryhill, remarked in response to Brownback’s reading of the apology:

We feel as if this took effort on the part of the US government … We do appreciate the effort of the Congress. I know it’s hard for our nation to apologize to anyone.111

Thus, notwithstanding all of its shortcomings, the apology has generally been viewed as ‘a win’112 for Native peoples and ‘a historical step’113 in the relationship between the US government and tribes. But for all of the attention that the apology has received, we can see the general failure to recognize the important role victims survivors have in accepting or rejecting apologies being repeated in discussions of this apology. Ultimately, this approach reinforces the power of the governments offering the apologies – and lets them get away with too much – which is not what a genuine apology should be about. As Indigenous Australian, Anthony Dillon, has argued: ‘To depend on someone else for an apology in order to heal or move forward is disempowering.’114 While he has argued that only forgiveness can bring about true healing, the approach adopted in this part of the chapter has been to emphasise the political importance of the responses of victim survivors to the healing process, whether they forgive or not.

Francesca Dominello 111 ______7. Conclusion Overall, the aim of this chapter has been to contribute further to the understanding of the political functions of official apologies. By providing an overview of the acknowledgement of harm in the apologies and of the responses of Indigenous peoples to them, the chapter has aimed to deepen the understanding of the making of official apologies as a form of political action, not only for those who make them, but also for those to whom they are made. The examination of the responses to the Canadian, Australian and US apologies revealed that the apology process in practice could potentially provide a source of political empowerment for Indigenous peoples, but until there is a greater awareness of this potential, the act of apologizing will continue to treated as a ‘solo performance’ of those who make them.115

Notes

1 Roy L. Brooks, ‘The Age of Apology,’ When Sorry Isn’t Enough: The Controversy over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice, ed. Roy L. Brooks (New York and London: New York University Press, 1999), 3-12; Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann and Mark Gibney, ‘Introduction: Apologies and the West,’ The Age of Apology: Facing up to the Past, by Mark Gibney et al. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 1-9; Trudy Govier and Wilhelm Verwoerd, ‘Taking Wrongs Seriously: A Qualified Defence of Public Apologies,’ Saskatchewan Law Review 65 (2002): 139. 2 Kevin Rudd, Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples (Parliament of Australia, February 13, 2008), viewed 11 May 2015, http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/2008-02- 13/0003/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf; Stephen Harper, Statements of Ministers: Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools (Parliament of Canada, June 11, 2008), viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/House/392/Debates/110/HAN110-E.PDF, 6849- 6851; Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, Apology to Native Peoples of the United States, s. 8113, December 19, 2009, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl111-118.pdf. 3 Nicholas Tavuchis, Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1991), 47. 4 Tavuchis, Mea Culpa, 22, 109; Trudy Govier and Wilhelm Verwoerd, ‘The Promise and Pitfalls of Apology,’ Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (2002): 68. 5 The ‘wider social web’ in which the parties are enmeshed, may also benefit from an apology: Tavuchis, Mea Culpa, 13; see also Jean-Marc Coicaud, ‘Apology: A Small Yet Important Part of Justice,’ Japanese Journal of Political Science 10 (2009): 93-124.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 112 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

6 Tavuchis, Mea Culpa, 35. 7 Martha Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence (Boston: Beacon Press, 1998), 115. 8 Trudy Govier, Taking Wrongs Seriously: Acknowledgement, Reconciliation, and the Politics of Sustainable Peace (New York: Humanity Books, 2006), 70. 9 Minow, Between Vengence and Forgiveness, 115. 10 Govier and Verwoerd, ‘The Promises and Pitfalls of Apology,’ 72. 11 Ibid., 70. 12 Kathleen Gill, ‘The Moral Functions of an Apology,’ The Philosophical Forum 31 (2000): 16. 13 Coicaud, ‘Apology: A Small Yet Important Part of Justice,’ 106; Gill, ‘The Moral Functions of an Apology,’ 17; Govier and Verwoerd, ‘The Promise and Pitfalls of Apology,’ 68-70. 14 Neil Funk-Unrau, Potentials and Problems of Public Apologies to Canadian Aboriginal Peoples (Menno Simons College, 2004), viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.mscollege.ca/downloads/MSC_research_funkunrau1.pdf, 3. 15 Lee Taft, ‘Apology Subverted: The Commodification of Apology,’ The Yale Law Journal 109 (2000): 1140, 1142-3. 16 Nick Smith, I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 137. 17 Tavuchis, Mea Culpa, 8. By no means, however, is there agreement on the way that apology and forgiveness relate to one another. For a summary of the main debates in the field see generally Nick Smith, I Was Wrong, chap. 6. 18 Smith, I Was Wrong, 133, 137. 19 Ibid., 134. 20 Ibid., 135. 21 Ibid., 133. 22 Ibid., 81. 23 Compare Janna Thompson, ‘Is Apology a Sorry Affair? Derrida and the Moral Force of the Impossible,’ Philosophical Forum 41.3 (2010): 268-9. 24 The approach of Desmond Tutu to reconciliation in South Africa is a notable example in this regard: Govier, Taking Wrongs Seriously, 90; Frances McLernon et al., ‘Memories of Recent Conflict and Forgiveness in Northern Ireland,’ The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict, ed. Ed Cairns and Micheál Roe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 125–143. 25 Janna Thompson, ‘Is Apology a Sorry Affair?’ 266-7. Jacques Derrida, ‘On Forgiveness,’ On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness, trans. Mark Dooley and Michael Hughess (New York: Routledge, 2002), 45; cf Trudy Govier, Forgiveness and Revenge (London and New York: Routledge, 2002), 92-5.

Francesca Dominello 113 ______

26 Most notably, in New Zealand, Wellington-based Taranaki Whanui ki Te Upoko o Te Ika responded to the 2009 Crown apology for breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi with a formal Statement of Forgiveness. 7DUDQDNL:KƗQXLNL7H8SRNRR Te Ika and The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and The Sovereign In right of New Zealand, Deed of Settlement of Historical Claims, 2009, viewed 11 May 2015, http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary%5CTaranakiWhanuikiTeUpokoo TeIkaDeedofSettlement.pdf, 16; Anthony Dillon, ‘Does the Apology Bring about Healing,’ Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal 32.4 (2008): 6. 27 Juliet O’Neill and Tobin Dalrymple, ‘Aboriginal Leaders Hail Historic Apology,’ Vancouver Sun, June 11, 2008, viewed 27 February 2015, http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=18133d91-b8aa-4fbe- 956e-20298d79c1d5. 28 Patrick Dodson, After the Apology, National Press Club of Australia, February 13, 2008, viewed 27 February 2014, http://www.sisr.net/apo/dodson.pdf, 3; Mary Simon, ‘Apology to Students of Indian Residential Schools, Representatives of Aboriginal Community Received in Committee of the Whole’, Parliament of Canada, June 12, 2008, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/392/Debates/pdf/069db_2008-06-12- e.pdf, 1505. 29 Coicaud, ‘Apology: A Small yet Important Part of Justice,’ 102-3. 30 Derrida, ‘On Forgiveness,’ 27-60; Thompson, ‘Is Apology a Sorry Affair,’ 259- 61. 31 Minow, Between Vengence and Forgiveness, 115. 32 Gill, ‘The Moral Functions of an Apology,’ 23. 33 Danielle Celermajer, ‘The Apology in Australia: Re-Covenanting the National Imagery,’ Taking Wrongs Seriously: Apologies and Reconciliation, ed. Elazar Barkan and Alexander Karn (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2006), 175; Janna Thompson, ‘Apology, Justice, and Respect: A Critical Defense of Political Apology,’ The Age of Apology: Facing up to the Past, ed. Mark Gibney et al (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 34. 34 Celermajer, ‘The Apology in Australia,’ 176. 35 Ibid., 174-175; Thompson, ‘Apology, Justice, and Respect,’ 34. 36 Govier Taking Wrongs Seriously , 75. 37 Melissa Nobles, The Politics of Official Apologies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 33. 38 Govier Taking Wrongs Seriously, 73. See generally, Thompson, ‘Apology, Justice, and Respect,’ 31-44.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 114 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

39 Paul Muldoon, ‘Past Injustices and Future Protections: On the Politics of Promising,’ Australian Indigenous Law Review 13.2 (2009): 3. 40 Smith, I Was Wrong, 221. 41 Ibid., 224. 42 In the United States, the doctrine of discovery at first operated to subject Native Americans to Christian rule and then continued to inform developments in U.S. law after the U.S. succeeded in gaining independence from Britain in 1776 (Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L. Ed. 681 (1823)). The cumulative effect of decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court has limited tribal sovereignty rights in the areas of transferring land and dealing with foreign powers (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831); Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 8 L. Ed. 483 (1832)). Each tribe has retained the right to self-government, and no state may impose its laws on the reservation. However, Congress maintains ultimate power to limit or abolish tribal governments (United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 98 S. Ct. 1079, 55 L. Ed. 2D 303 (1978)). It was in its exercise of plenary power over Native Americans, that the US government committed atrocious acts against them, breaking numerous treaties that were for the protection of tribes and lands, and enacting legislation aimed at the removal of Native Americans from their ancestral homelands and the appropriation of their lands: Steve Newcomb, ‘Five Hundred Years of Injustice: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice,’ Shaman’s Drum, Fall 1992, 18-20. The doctrine of discovery also applied in Canada where the courts deprived the Native Canadians of land and self-government on the basis of the acquisition of Crown sovereignty (St. Catherines Milling and Lumber v. The Queen, XIII S.C. 577, 614-5 (1887); Calder v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, 1 S.C.R. 313, 315, 322 (1973); see also the Constitution Act, 1967 which gave Parliament power to make laws with respect to: ‘Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians’ (s. 91(24), 92 amended 1982); Glen St. Louis, ‘The Tangled Web of Sovereignty and Self-Governance: Canada’s Obligation to the Cree Nation in Consideration of Quebec’s Threats to Secede,’ Berkeley Journal of International Law 14 (1996): 381-382. In Australia, the dispossession of Indigenous peoples’ lands was justified on the basis of the terra nullius doctrine. Though the doctrine was overturned by the High Court of Australia in Mabo v Queensland [No 2] (1992) 175 C.L.R. 1, the Court accepted the British assertion of sovereignty in 1788, and held that from that time there was only one sovereign power and one system of law in Australia: see generally, Stuart Banner, ‘Why Terra Nullius? Anthropology and Property Law in Early Australia,’ Law and History Review 23 (2005): 95-131. 43 Celermajer, ‘The Apology in Australia,’ 160.

Francesca Dominello 115 ______

44 Ibid., 159, 161. 45 Ibid., 176. 46 For an expose of the genocidal impact of the Indian Residential Schools in Canada and the Indian Boarding School in the United States see: Ward Churchill, Kill the Indian, Save the Man: The Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools (San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2004); compare the position in Australia: Celermajer ‘The Apology in Australia,’ 156-162. 47 Jennifer Henderson and Pauline Wakeham, ‘Colonial Reckoning, National Reconciliation?: Aboriginal Peoples and the Culture of Redress in Canada,’ English Studies in Canada 35 (2009): 3. 48 Australian historian, Peter Read, first used the term ‘stolen generations’ when referring to the removal and institutionalization of Indigenous children in New South Wales from 1883 to 1969: see Peter Read, The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969 (New South Wales: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, 1982). For an overview of the apology movements in Australia, Canada and the United States see Nobles, The Politics of Official Apologies, 72-80, 85-89, 93-104. 49 Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010, s. 8113(a)(3)-(5). 50 In April 2009, former Senator Brownback had reintroduced the ‘Apology Resolution’ for the third time in the Senate that included a lengthy preamble: S. J. Res. 14, 111th Congress (2009-2010), Apology Resolution, April 30, 2009, viewed 27 February 2015, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111sjres14is/pdf/BILLS-111sjres14is.pdf. For commentary on the US apology see Rob Capriccioso, ‘A sorry Saga: Obama Signs Native American Apology Resolution; Fails to Draw Attention to It,’ Indian Country Today, January 13, 2010, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.danielnpaul.com/AmericanApologyToAmericanIndians.html; Lise Balk King, ‘A Tree Fell in the Forest: The U.S. Apologized to Native Americans and No One Heard a Sound,’ Indian Country Today Media Network.com, December 3, 2011, viewed 11 May 2015, http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/a-tree-fell-in-the-forest%3A- the-u.s.-apologized-to-native-americans-and-no-one-heard-a-sound-65750. 51 Rudd, Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, 167. 52 Recommendation 5a called for apologies by all Australian Parliaments; Recommendation 5b called for apologies by State and Territory police forces; and, Recommendation 6 called for apologies by churches and other non-government agencies: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home, Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families (Commonwealth of Australia: Sterling Press, 1997), 287, 292.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 116 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

53 See generally, Frank Brennan, ‘The History of Apologies Down Under,’ Thinking Faith: The Online Journal of British Jesuits, February 21, 2008, viewed 27 February 2015, http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.pdf. 54 Rudd, Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, 167. 55 Ibid., 168. 56 UN General Assembly, Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989, viewed 27 February 2015, http://www.un-documents.net/a44r25.htm. The Preamble to the United Nations Human Rights Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes: the family, as the fundamental group of society and the natural environment for the growth and well-being of all its members and particularly children, should be afforded the necessary protection and assistance so that it can fully assume its responsibilities within the community, [and] that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. 57 Rudd, Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, 168. 58 Ibid., 169. 59 Ibid. 60 ReconciliACTION, Stolen Generations Fact Sheet, July 28, 2007 (updated February 21, 2012), viewed 27 February 2015, http://reconciliaction.org.au/nsw/education-kit/stolen-generations/. 61 Rudd, Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, 168. 62 Ibid. See also, Commonwealth of Australia, Aboriginal Welfare: Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities, Canberra, April 21-23, 1937, viewed 27 February 2015, http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/archive/referendum/20663.pdf, 11. On that occasion A.O. Neville, Commissioner of Native Affairs, Western Australia, remarked: Are we going to have a population of 1,000,000 blacks in the Commonwealth, or are we going to merge them into our white community and eventually forget that there ever were any aborigines in Australia? 63 Celermajer, ‘The Apology in Australia,’ 160-161. 64 Rudd, Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, 169. 65 Ibid., 168. 66 One of the conclusions in Bringing Them Home was that the forcible removal of Aboriginal children infringed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment for the Crime of Genocide (1948): Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home, 271-275. However, the claim was vehemently rejected by the conservative right. For a compelling analysis of genocide in Australia see A. Dirk Moses, ‘Genocide and Settler Society in Australian History,’

Francesca Dominello 117 ______

Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, ed. A. Dirk Moses (United States: Berghahn Books, 2004). 67 Alex Reilly, ‘The Inherent Limits of the Apology to the Stolen Generation,’ University of Adelaide Law Research Paper No. 2009-002, October 3, 2008, viewed 27 February 2015, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1294101, 14. 68 Ibid. 69 Rudd, Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples, 169. 70 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home, 464- 465. 71 Reilly, ‘The Inherent Limits of the Apology to the Stolen Generation,’ 14. 72 Harper, Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools, 6849-6850. 73 Ibid., 6850. 74 Ibid., 6849. 75 Ibid., 6850. 76 Ibid. 77 Ibid. 78 Ibid. 79 Ibid. 80 Ibid. 81 Ibid. 82 Ibid. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Dylan Lino, ‘Monetary Compensation and the Stolen Generations: A Critique of the Commonwealth Labor Government’s Position,’ Australian Indigenous Law Review 14 (2010): 18-34. 86 Legacy of Hope Foundation and Aboriginal Healing Foundation, Hope and Healing, viewed 27 February 2015, http://www.legacyofhope.ca/downloads/hope-and-healing.pdf, 1-28. 87 Margaret D. Jacobs, White Mother to a Dark Race: Settler Colonialism, Maternalism, and the Removal of Indigenous Children in the American West and Australia, 1880-1940 (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2009), 249. 88 The Canadian Encyclopedia, ‘Enfranchisement,’ viewed 27 February 2015, http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/enfranchisement/. See also Jay Makarenko, ‘The Indian Act: Historical Overview,’ Judicial System and Legal Issues, June 2, 2008, viewed 15 November 2015, http://mapleleafweb.com/features/the-indian-act-historical-overview. 89 Harper, Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools, 6850.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 118 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

90 See generally Roland Chrisjohn and Sherri Young, The Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian Residential School Experience in Canada (Penticton, BC, Canada: Theytus Books, 1997). Notably, in 1920, Duncan Campbell Scott, Deputy Superintendent General of the Department of Indian Affairs, argued in support of implementing even more aggressive measures of assimilation that the ‘object is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic, and there is no Indian question, and no Indian Department’: Henderson and Wakeham ‘Colonial Reckoning, National Reconciliation?’ 8. 91 Ibid. 92 Henderson and Wakeham ‘Colonial Reckoning, National Reconciliation?’ 8. 93 Harper, Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools, 6850. 94 Henderson and Wakeham ‘Colonial Reckoning, National Reconciliation?’ 2. 95 Chuck Spezzano, If It Hurts, It Isn’t Love: Secrets of Successful Relationships (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1999), 4. 96 Eckhart Tolle, A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose (New York: Dutton Adult, 2005), 98. Compare Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 237-240 where, by drawing on Christian religious teachings, she explains how forgiveness can be mutually fulfilling for all ‘men.’ 97 Minow, Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, 116. 98 Richard Beales, ‘Federal Government Must “Stay Apologized” Say Aboriginal Leaders,’ Brantford Expositer, Canada, December 15, 2008, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2008/12/15/federal-government-must-stay- apologized-say-aboriginal-leaders. 99 Tom Calma, Response to Government to the National Apology to the Stolen Generations, Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, February 13, 2008, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.reconciliation.qut.edu.au/issues/Response%20by%20HREOC%20Tom %20Calma%2013.02.2008.doc, 1; Patrick Dodson, After the Apology, National Press Club of Australia, February 13, 2008, viewed 27 February 2015, http://www.sisr.net/apo/dodson.pdf. Tom Calma had been asked to speak on behalf of the National Sorry Day Committee and the Stolen Generations Alliance: the two national bodies that represent the Stolen Generations and their families. In his speech he defined his role as being ‘to respond to the Parliament’s Apology and to talk briefly about the importance of today’s events.’ Patrick Dodson was invited to speak by the National Press Club. 100 Dillon, ‘Does the Apology bring about Healing,’ 6; Hugh Mackay, ‘It’s a Sorry State of Affairs when Forgiveness is not the Main Objective,’ The Sydney Morning Herald, November 17, 2009, viewed 11 May 2015,

Francesca Dominello 119 ______

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/its-a-sorry-state-of-affairs-when- forgiveness-is-not-the-main-objective-20091115-igav.html. 101 Mary Simon, Apology to Students of Indian Residential Schools, 1505. For additional speeches made by Mary Simon in response to the Canadian apology see, Mary Simon, Speeches in Response to Apology to Residential School Survivors (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2008), viewed 11 May 2015, https://www.itk.ca/media/speech/speeches-response-apology-residential-school- survivors. 102 Mary Simon, Apology to Students of Indian Residential Schools, Representatives of Aboriginal Community Received in Committee of the Whole, 1505. 103 Dodson, After the Apology, 6. 104 Ibid. 105 Dodson, After the Apology, 4-5. 106 Mark Gibney and Erik Roxstrom, ‘The Status of State Apologies,’ Human Rights Quarterly 24 (2001): 935. 107 See, for example, Tom Laughing Wolf/Uyetsasgvi Wahya, ‘Response to an Apology: A Response to The Colonizers’ ‘Apology’ to The Colonized,’ From the Front Lines ...Where Resistance is never Futile..., May 31, 2005, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.thelunaticgazette.com/ev.php?URL_ID=105048&URL_DO=DO_TOP IC&URL_SECTION=201. 108 Lise Balk King, ‘A Tree Fell in the Forest.’ 109 A. Jay Adler, ‘A Proper Apology to Native America,’ The Sad Red Earth, November 26, 2010, viewed 11 May 2015, http://sadredearth.com/a-proper-apology-to-native- america/http://sadredearth.com/a-proper-apology-to-native-america/; King, ‘A Tree Fell in the Forest.’ 110 Levi Rickert, ‘Apology to American Indians Unacceptable: Too Little, Too Late,’ Native News Network: Connecting Native American Voices, December 20, 2012, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/apology-to-american-indians- unacceptable.html#apology-to-american-indians-unacceptable. 111 Associated Press, ‘Apology to Tribes - US Apologizes to American Indians for Mistreatment,’ Native American Times: Today’s Independent Indian News, May 23, 2010, viewed 11 May 2015, http://www.nativetimes.com/news/tribal/3651- apology-to-tribes-us-apologizes-to-american-indians-for-mistreatment. 112 Capriccioso, ‘A Sorry Saga.’ 113 Associated Press, ‘Apology to Tribes.’ 114 Dillon, ‘Does the Apology bring about Healing,’ 6.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 120 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

115 Mackay, ‘It’s a Sorry State of Affairs.’

Bibliography

Adler, A. Jay. ‘A Proper Apology to Native America.’ The Sad Red Earth, 26 November 2010. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://sadredearth.com/a-proper-apology-to-native-america.

Apology Resolution. S. J. Res. 14, 111th Congress (2009-2010). 30 April 2009. Viewed 27 February 2015. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111sjres14is/pdf/BILLS-111sjres14is.pdf.

Associated Press. ‘Apology to Tribes - US Apologizes to American Indians for Mistreatment.’ Native American Times: Today’s Independent Indian News, 23 May 2010. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.nativetimes.com/news/tribal/3651-apology-to-tribes-us-apologizes-to- american-indians-for-mistreatment.

Arendt, Hannah. The Human Condition. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1998.

Banner, Stuart. ‘Why Terra Nullius? Anthropology and Property Law in Early Australia.’ Law and History Review 23 (2005): 95-131.

Beales, Richard. ‘Federal Government Must “Stay Apologized” Say Aboriginal Leaders.’ Brantford Expositer, Canada, 15 December 2008. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2008/12/15/federal-government-must-stay- apologized-say-aboriginal-leaders.

Brennan, Frank. ‘The History of Apologies Down Under.’ Thinking Faith: The Online Journal of British Jesuits, February 21, 2008. Viewed 27 February 2015. http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/20080221_1.pdf, 1-4.

Brooks, Roy L. ‘The Age of Apology.’ When Sorry Isn’t Enough: The Controversy over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice, edited by Roy L. Brooks, 3- 12. New York and London: New York University Press, 1999.

Francesca Dominello 121 ______

Calma, Tom. Response to Government to the National Apology to the Stolen Generations. Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 2008. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.reconciliation.qut.edu.au/issues/Response%20by%20HREOC%20Tom %20Calma%2013.02.2008.doc.

Canadian Encyclopedia. ‘Enfranchisement.’ Viewed 27 February 2015. http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/en/article/enfranchisement/.

Capriccioso, Rob. ‘A Sorry Saga: Obama Signs Native American Apology Resolution; Fails to Draw Attention to It.’ Indian Country Today, 13 January 2010. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.danielnpaul.com/AmericanApologyToAmericanIndians.html.

Celermajer, Danielle. ‘The Apology in Australia: Re-Covenanting the National Imagery.’ Taking Wrongs Seriously: Apologies and Reconciliation, edited by Elazar Barkan and Alexander Karn, 153-184. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 2006.

Chrisjohn, Roland and Sherri Young. The Circle Game: Shadows and Substance in the Indian Residential School Experience in Canada. Penticton, BC, Canada: Theytus Books, 1997.

Churchill, Ward. Kill the Indian, Save the Man: The Genocidal Impact of American Indian Residential Schools. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 2004.

Coicaud, Jean-Marc. ‘Apology: A Small yet Important Part of Justice.’ Japanese Journal of Political Science 10 (2009): 93-124.

Commonwealth of Australia. Aboriginal Welfare: Initial Conference of Commonwealth and State Aboriginal Authorities. Canberra, April 21-23, 1937. Viewed 27 February 2015. http://www.aiatsis.gov.au/_files/archive/referendum/20663.pdf.

Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2010. Apology to Native Peoples of the United States. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl111-118.pdf.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 122 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

Derrida, Jacques. ‘On Forgiveness.’ On Cosmopolitanism and Forgiveness. Translated by Mark Dooley and Michael Hughes, 27-60. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Dillon, Anthony. ‘Does the Apology Bring about Healing.’ Aboriginal and Islander Health Worker Journal 32.4 (2008): 5-22.

Dodson, Patrick. After the Apology. National Press Club of Australia. February 13, 2008, viewed 27 February 2015. http://www.sisr.net/apo/dodson.pdf.

Eckhart, Tolle. A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose. New York: Dutton Adult, 2005.

Funk-Unrau, Neil. Potentials and Problems of Public Apologies to Canadian Aboriginal Peoples. Menno Simons College, 2004. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.mscollege.ca/downloads/MSC_research_funkunrau1.pdf.

Gibney, Mark and Erik Roxstrom. ‘The Status of State Apologies.’ Human Rights Quarterly 24 (2001): 911-939.

Gill, Kathleen. ‘The Moral Functions of an Apology.’ The Philosophical Forum 31 (2000): 11-27.

Govier, Trudy. Forgiveness and Revenge. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.

Govier, Trudy. Taking Wrongs Seriously: Acknowledgement, Reconciliation, and the Politics of Sustainable Peace. New York: Humanity Books, 2006.

Govier, Trudy and Wilhelm Verwoerd. ‘Taking Wrongs Seriously: A Qualified Defence of Public Apologies.’ Saskatchewan Law Review 65 (2002): 139-162.

Govier, Trudy and Wilhelm Verwoerd. ‘The Promise and Pitfalls of Apology.’ Journal of Social Philosophy 33 (2002): 68-82.

Harper, Stephen. Statements of Ministers: Apology to Former Students of Indian Residential Schools. Parliament of Canada, 11 June 2008. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/hoc/House/392/Debates/110/HAN110-E.PDF.

Francesca Dominello 123 ______

Henderson, Jennifer and Pauline Wakeham. ‘Colonial Reckoning, National Reconciliation? Aboriginal Peoples and the Culture of Redress in Canada.’ English Studies in Canada 35 (2009): 1-26.

Howard-Hassmann, Rhonda E. and Mark Gibney. ‘Introduction: Apologies and the West.’ In The Age of Apology: Facing up to the Past, edited by Mark Gibney, 1-9. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Bringing Them Home, Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. Commonwealth of Australia: Sterling Press, 1997.

King, Lise Balk. ‘A Tree Fell in the Forest: The U.S. Apologized to Native Americans and No One Heard a Sound.’ Indian Country Today Media Network.com, 3 December 2011. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/opinion/a-tree-fell-in-the-forest%3A- the-u.s.-apologized-to-native-americans-and-no-one-heard-a-sound-65750.

Laughing Wolf, Tom/Uyetsasgvi Wahya. ‘Response to an Apology: A Response to The Colonizers’ “Apology” to The Colonized.’ From the Front Lines ... Where Resistance is never Futile.... 31 May 2005. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.thelunaticgazette.com/ev.php?URL_ID=105048&URL_DO=DO_TOP IC&URL_SECTION=201.

Legacy of Hope Foundation and Aboriginal Healing Foundation. Hope and Healing. Viewed 27 February 2015. http://www.legacyofhope.ca/downloads/hope-and-healing.pdf.

Lino, Dylan. ‘Monetary Compensation and the Stolen Generations: A Critique of the Commonwealth Labor Government’s Position.’ Australian Indigenous Law Review 14 (2010): 18-34.

Makarenko, Jay. ‘The Indian Act: Historical Overview.’ Judicial System and Legal Issues, June 2, 2008. Viewed 15 November 2015. http://mapleleafweb.com/features/the-indian-act-historical-overview.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 124 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

Mackay, Hugh. ‘It’s a Sorry State of Affairs when Forgiveness is Not the Main Objective.’ The Sydney Morning Herald, 17 November 2009. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/its-a-sorry-state-of-affairs-when- forgiveness-is-not-the-main-objective-20091115-igav.html.

McLernon, Frances et al. ‘Memories of Recent Conflict and Forgiveness in Northern Ireland.’ The Role of Memory in Ethnic Conflict, edited by Ed Cairns and Micheál Roe, 125-143. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.

Minow, Martha. Between Vengeance and Forgiveness: Facing History after Genocide and Mass Violence. Boston: Beacon Press, 1998.

Moses, Dirk A. ‘Genocide and Settler Society in Australian History.’ In Genocide and Settler Society: Frontier Violence and Stolen Indigenous Children in Australian History, edited by A. Dirk Moses, 3-48. United States: Berghahn Books, 2004.

Muldoon, Paul. ‘Past Injustices and Future Protections: On the Politics of Promising.’ Australian Indigenous Law Review 13.2 (2009): 2-17.

National Sorry Day Committee. The Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. 2013. Viewed 11 May 2013. http://www.nsdc.org.au/events-info/the-apology-to-australias-indigenous-peoples.

Newcomb, Steve. ‘Five Hundred Years of Injustice: The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice.’ Shaman’s Drum Fall 1992: 18-20.

Nobles, Melissa. The Politics of Official Apologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

O’Neill, Juliet and Tobin Dalrymple. ‘Aboriginal Leaders Hail Historic Apology.’ Vancouver Sun, June 11, 2008. Viewed 27 February 2015. http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=18133d91-b8aa-4fbe- 956e-20298d79c1d5.

Read, Peter. The Stolen Generations: The Removal of Aboriginal Children in New South Wales 1883 to 1969. New South Wales: Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, 1982.

Francesca Dominello 125 ______

ReconciliACTION. Stolen Generations Fact Sheet. July 28, 2007. Updated February 21, 2012. Viewed 27 February 2015. http://reconciliaction.org.au/nsw/education-kit/stolen-generations/.

Rickert, Levi. ‘Apology to American Indians Unacceptable: Too Little, Too Late.’ Native News Network: Connecting Native American Voices, 20 December 2012. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.nativenewsnetwork.com/apology-to-american-indians- unacceptable.html#apology-to-american-indians-unacceptable.

Rudd, Kevin. Apology to Australia’s Indigenous Peoples. Parliament of Australia, 13 February 2008. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/genpdf/chamber/hansardr/2008-02- 13/0003/hansard_frag.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf.

Simon, Mary. ‘Apology to Students of Indian Residential Schools, Representatives of Aboriginal Community Received in Committee of the Whole’. Parliament of Canada, 12 June 2008. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/392/Debates/pdf/069db_2008-06-12- e.pdf.

Simon, Mary. Speeches in Response to Apology to Residential School Survivors. Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, 2008. Viewed 11 May 2015. https://www.itk.ca/media/speech/speeches-response-apology-residential-school- survivors.

Smith, Nick. I Was Wrong: The Meanings of Apologies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

Spezzano, Chuck. If It Hurts, It Isn’t Love: Secrets of Successful Relationships. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1999.

St.Louis, Glen. ‘The Tangled Web of Sovereignty and Self-Governance: Canada’s Obligation to the Cree Nation in Consideration of Quebec’s Threats to Secede.’ Berkeley Journal of International Law 14 (1996): 380-422.

Taft, Lee. ‘Apology Subverted: The Commodification of Apology.’ The Yale Law Journal 109 (2000): 1135-1160.

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 126 Political Implications of Apology and Forgiveness for Indigenous Peoples ______

Tavuchis, Nicholas. Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1991.

Terabyte.co. 7DUDQDNL:KƗQXLNL7H8SRNRR7H,NDDQG The Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust and The Sovereign In right of New Zealand, Deed of Settlement of Historical Claims. 2009. Viewed 11 May 2015. http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary%5CTaranakiWhanuikiTeUpokoo TeIkaDeedofSettlement.pdf.

Thompson, Janna. ‘Apology, Justice, and Respect: A Critical Defense of Political Apology.’ The Age of Apology: Facing up to the Past, edited by Mark Gibney, 31- 44. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

Thompson, Janna. ‘Is Apology a Sorry Affair? Derrida and the Moral Force of the Impossible.’ Philosophical Forum 41.3 (2010): 259-274.

UN General Assembly. Convention on the Rights of the Child. November 20, 1989. Viewed 27 February 2015. http://www.un-documents.net/a44r25.htm.

Francesca Dominello is a Lecturer in the Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, Australia. She is also a PhD candidate in the Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Her thesis examines the political functions of recent state apologies to Indigenous peoples in Australia, Canada and the United States.

Index

1 B 1972 Pastoral Norms, 51 barbarians, 74 battered women, 3, 8, 15 beliefs, 13, 45, 66, 103 2 Bible, vii, 55 20th century, 99 Bishop Joseph Butler, 25 bishops, 46, 55, 57 brokenness, x, 42 A burns, 6 Aboriginal, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 112, 113, 115, 116, C 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 Canada, xi, 13, 63, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 98, abuse, 3, 4, 5, 6, 14, 23, 30, 55, 81, 96, 104, 105, 107, 111, 113, 114, 115, 101, 103, 104 118, 120, 121, 123, 125, 126 acceptance, 44, 68, 91, 95 canonical, 47 Adam Smith, 25 celebration, xi, 41, 42, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, adaptive, ix, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15 55, 56, 59 adolescence, 8 change, ix, xi, 3, 4, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 26, al-Qaeda, 31 28, 34, 36, 45, 49, 108 analysis, 3, 5, 6, 7, 41, 117 child removal policies, 96 anchoring, 30 children, 3, 9, 11, 55, 75, 76, 81, 96, 99, apology, xi, xii, 5, 29, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 115, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 116 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, Christians, 42, 47, 50 112, 113, 115, 119, 120, 124, 125 civic bodies, 91 Apology to Former Students of Indian collective memory, 25, 31, 32, 37 Residential Schools, 91, 98, 111, 117, comfortable, 6 118, 123 communal, xi, 46, 49, 51, 56, 96 Arlie Russell Hoschild, 33 communitarian, 47, 48, 56, 57, 59 Ashoka, xi, xii, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, communities, vii, x, 47, 50, 51, 96, 99, 71, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 86, 88 100, 103, 104, 105 atrocities, x, xi, 31 community, x, xi, xii, 42, 44, 48, 50, 51, attention, vii, 25, 50, 51, 66, 68, 70, 91, 55, 56, 57, 59, 69, 97, 101, 106, 116 92, 102, 106, 109, 110, 115 compensation, 14, 104, 108 Australia, xi, 91, 96, 97, 98, 100, 101, conditional, vii, ix, xii, 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 104, 107, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 13, 14, 15 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, conditional forgiveness, ix, xii, 3, 7, 13, 125, 126 14 Australian Human Rights and Equal confession, x, xi, 5, 41, 42, 45, 46, 48, Opportunity Commission, 98, 118, 49, 50, 53, 56, 57 121 consensus, 94 autobiographical memory, 25, 33, 35, 36 contingent, ix, 3, 7, 9, 12 continuous violence, 6

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 128 Index ______corporate entities, 91 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, cultural alienation, 96, 102 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, cultural memory, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32 46, 47, 49, 50, 55, 56, 57, 65, 66, 69, cuts, 6 74, 75, 86, 88, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 104, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 112, 118, 119, 124 D formulation, 12 data collection, 5, 6 framework, 6, 28, 35, 66, 79 David Hume, 25 Frances Hutchinson, 25 death, 44, 45, 47, 71, 74, 81, 96 Francesca Dominello, vii, xi, 5, 29, 38, dehumanize, ix 43, 74, 91, 126 demand, xii, 9 demographic, 6 G deportation, 71, 74 Desmond Tutu, ix, 13, 112 generations, 14, 100, 101, 102, 103, 115, devastating, 96, 102 116, 125 dhamma, xi, 65, 69, 74, 77, 81, 86 dimension, x, xi, 3, 25, 37, 47, 49, 51, 57, 75, 106 H disarticulation, x, 5, 25, 27, 29, 30, 32, habits, 33, 77 34, 38 history, vii, xi, 13, 34, 38, 40, 47, 48, 49, disciplinary, vii, 38, 39, 40 65, 66, 88, 89, 94, 95, 98, 103, 105 disregard, 8, 10, 37 history and politics, vii disrespect, vii, 95 Holy Trinity, 45 dominant, 14, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32, 48, 103 homeostasis, 37 hypothetical, 4 E Easter, 55 I emotional, 3, 5, 6, 26, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, immediate, 26, 32, 34, 46, 97, 104 34, 35, 37, 38, 101, 103 implications, x, 30, 99, 102, 105, 106, emotional violence, 3 107 empowerment, 91, 92, 94, 106, 111 indigenous, xi, 124 engagement, xii, 26, 38, 92 Indigenous, xi, xii, 38, 39, 91, 92, 94, 95, European, 96, 102 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, F 114, 115, 116, 117, 123, 124, 125, 126 failure, 26, 104, 110 Indigenous peoples, xii, 91, 92, 94, 96, faithful, xi, 41, 45, 50, 52, 56, 57 97, 99, 105, 106, 108, 111 family, 3, 5, 9, 11, 74, 100, 101, 104, individuals, vii, viii, x, xii, 31, 74, 91, 116 94, 102, 107 feeling rules, 33 inherit, 14 forgave, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13 injury, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26, forgiveness, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, 3, 4, 5, 33, 34, 35, 36, 65, 71, 72, 74 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, intent, 28, 34, 45, 67, 102

Index 129 ______interpersonal, vii, 4, 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, 25, notion of forgiveness, vii 28, 97 interrelatedness, x Intimate Partner Violence, ix, 3, 4, 5, 15, O 16, 17, 21, 23 open coding, 6 IPV, ix, 3, 6, 9, 14 organization, 34, 107 overcome, x, xi, 3, 5, 7, 25, 45, 109 J judgment, 5, 7 P justice, xii, 4, 30, 35, 45, 46, 91, 94, 95, Padova, 52, 53, 54 97, 106 pain, ix, 101 paradox, 11 K past, viii, x, xi, xii, 3, 8, 10, 12, 13, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 35, 37, 38, Kalinga, xi, 66, 71, 72, 74, 77, 79 43, 49, 74, 82, 91, 92, 94, 95, 97, 98, 99, 105, 107, 109 Penance, x, xi, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, L 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62 labour exploitation, 101 perception, ix, 3, 5, 33, 51, 96 language, 41, 66, 98, 103, 104, 105 perpetrators, 3, 4, 5 laws, 96, 97, 99, 101, 102, 103, 106, 114 personal, ix, x, 9, 12, 14, 27, 33, 34, 35, legacy, xi, 104 41, 47, 55, 68, 78, 101, 102, 103, 106 legitimacy, 97, 98, 106, 109 perspectives, vii, ix, 108 legitimate, 109 phenomenological, 3, 6, 41, 42, 47, 55 literature, vii, xi, 5, 40, 92, 106 philosophy, vii, x physical, viii, 3, 25, 55, 56, 101, 103 physical harm, 3 M policy, xi, 69, 74, 77, 81, 88, 100, 101, married, 6, 7 102, 104, 105, 108 Maurice Halbwachs, 33, 38 political context, vii, xi, xii, 91, 105 memory, x, 5, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, potential, xi, 25, 106, 111 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 56, 106 President, 92, 98, 107, 109, 110 mental, viii, 27, 28, 44 priest, xi, 42, 46, 48, 50, 53, 55, 60 military, xi, 71 promise, xi, 28, 42, 50, 57, 58, 99 minister, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 56, 57 pseudo-forgiveness, 7, 14 Ministry of Welfare’s Research Unit, 7 psychological, 3, 4, 5, 14, 26, 44, 55, 106 psychology, vii, viii, x, 13 N R Nanna Fejo, 100, 101 Native Americans, 98, 109, 110, 114, real-life, 14 115, 123 reconciliation, x, xi, xii, 4, 41, 42, 43, 44, nature of forgiveness, vii, 12 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 55, negative effects, ix 56, 57, 74, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 100, New Delhi, 67, 80, 89 105, 107, 108, 112, 118, 121

© 2016. Inter-Disciplinary Press. Author complimentary copy only. Distribution is prohibited. http://www.inter-disciplinary.net. 130 Index ______regularities, 33 survive, ix, 9, 15 rejection, 91, 110 symbolism, 46, 49 relational concepts, xii relationships, vii, viii, ix, 4, 5, 6, 14, 15, 42, 46, 51, 93, 109 T religious and political spheres, vii theology, vii, 41, 47 religious meaning, xi theory, x, 3, 5, 40 religious studies, vii threats, 3 remorse, vii, viii, 47, 66, 74, 93 Torres Strait Islander, 99, 103, 107, 116, repetitive violence, 6 123 researchers, 4, 6, 7, 14 trajectory, 34 resentment, vii, viii, x, 5, 25, 26, 28, 29, trauma, ix, 25, 27, 31, 36 30, 32, 34, 35, 36, 94, 110 traumatic memory, 25, 33, 36, 37 Residential School, 94, 118, 119, 121, Treatment of Intimate Violence, 3 125 retribution, 15 revenge, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 13, 19, 23 U Review on Child Protection, 55, 59 understanding, viii, x, xii, 6, 7, 10, 12, rite, 42, 48, 49, 50, 53, 55, 59 15, 28, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 80, 91, 92, Roman Catholic Church, x, 41, 42, 45, 94, 100, 101, 104, 108, 111, 116 50, 56, 58, 62 United States, xi, 29, 30, 31, 40, 91, 92, 96, 97, 98, 111, 114, 115, 117, 122, S 124, 126 University of Haifa, 7, 17, 20, 23 sacraments, x, 42, 44, 46, 48, 59 Sanskrit, 65, 88, 89 scholars, vii, 91 V self-respect, vii, viii, 3, 93 victim, vii, viii, ix, 3, 4, 5, 26, 92, 93, 94, semiotic emotional inhibitors, 28 95, 97, 106, 110 severe, 5, 96 violence, ix, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 14, 23, severe acts of violence, 6 65, 66, 69, 72, 78, 86, 96, 98 shelters, 4 society, vii, 12, 65, 96, 108, 116 spiral model, 3, 15 W state, viii, xi, xii, 29, 41, 65, 66, 74, 81, weakness, vii, ix 86, 88, 91, 94, 95, 96, 97, 99, 101, women, ix, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 24, 102, 103, 105, 106, 108, 114, 119, 50 124, 126 World Trade Center, 29, 31 status quo, ix, 99 wounding, 74 Steve Larocco, x, 5, 25, 40, 42 wrongdoing, vii, viii, x, 92, 94, 95, 97, Stolen Generations, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 98, 99, 100, 101, 106, 108 103, 104, 115, 116, 117, 118, 121, 123, 125