BPDRecovery.com: Forums

Background to this quote is one friend having gotten angry at another, in a quite over the top, overdone way. This from the person who'd been on the receiving end.



I think that's an interesting thought... that sometimes an apology isn't necessary. I can recall one situation where that was the case; where an apology wasn't what I needed. I didn't get an apology. I got an "I'm not mad anymore". Which was enough.

When i hear the "reconciliation" I think of aboriginal reconciliation bc it's a big issue here. I don't know how much people generally know about this topic but about 10 years ago a book called "The Sorry Book" was begun, which essentially is a list of signatures from Australians apologising to the aboriginal people who were effected by the stolen generation (aboriginal children taken from their families to be raised by whites). Our Prime Minister at the time, Howard, refused to sign The Sorry Book which triggered a lot of opposition to him and debate. Our newer Prime Minster, Rudd, in his first month of power, made a national apology to the aborigines (The Sorry book is more a principle than a literal object), to the relief of many many Australians.

Anyway, politics aside, this is a generation of people who have been abused. The idea of The Sorry book was to put down a respectful apology to those who were abused by white Australia to allow some forgiveness to occur. Once there has been forgiveness the Aboriginal people are more able to move on and work towards reconciliation.

It's more sociology than psychology but I think the same principles apply.

So Ellen, I agree with you that forgiveness is a necessary ingredient in reconciliation, however I'm not convinced in the role you've described an apology plays or doesn't need to play in forgiveness. And I think the biggest contributing factor is how abusive the behaviour was. The more abusive the more hurt and the bigger the mountain to climb to reach forgiveness.

In the example you gave regarding 2 friends, one of whom didn't need an apology, just reassurance that they were still friends; well i think there's a lot of room for further analysis of that particular incident itself. For example - it sounds to me like the principles behind the conflict itself were not important or abrasive enough for forgiveness to come slowly - it sounds like forgiveness had already occurred. The person you quoted was no longer in a place of resentment, anger or hurt, they were in a place of reconciliation bc they were more interested in the state of their relationship, not the things that brought them into conflict.

I think apologies are important things. We cannot make anyone apologise for abusive behaviour, but we can communicate how the abuse has hurt us which can sometimes trigger the conscience of our abuser into an apology. It goes a long way towards heeling. I say this not so that people out there cans et about receiving their deserved apologies, bc that won't work. I'm saying it because I think it's important that people don't feel they are abnormal or wrong to not be able to discard resentment and bitterness caused by the harshest of circumstances. People who struggle to forgive in lighter situations are likely projecting a greater form of resentment from another more destructive source.

I think I understand how one who has had an online tiff (which I realise I don't know much about) with a friend may overcome this without the need for apologies - that forgiveness may come easier. But there are other, more detrimental forms of abuse around, eg: child abuse in any form (such as taking a generation of children from their families), where arriving at the point your online friend did is much more challenging. It is these forms of abuse that cause mental illness and lifelong struggle. It's not for me to determine that this discussion focus on more severe and challenging situations, but it does seem relevant on a forum for people with mental disorders largely caused by severe abuse. However, I think for people struggling with forgiveness in minor incidents as the one you've described, which I acknowledge could be a problem for some, I daresay tackling some larger areas of forgiveness that are leaking into the smaller areas of one's life could be a more helpful longer term strategy.

This is a separate thread from the forgiveness thread. Nor was I describing the role an apology plays or doesn't play in anything. Two specific examples, plus a general thought with the word "sometimes". I think you are taking what I wrote as more than what it is.

I do, though, appreciate you sharing your own thoughts.

Ellen I responded to this part of your post. Yes sometimes people forgive easily and with little action on the part of the forgiven to reach that. A thread on how easy some people find some situations some of the time, for myself, sheds little light on what would be the assumed aimed of discussing such a topic: to achieve forgiveness for those who struggle with it. For myself the post I made gave more meaning to the topic in general as it moved the discussion towards those who struggle, as struggling is what BPDR is designed to assist.

Perhaps some more information on the process of these forgivenesses would shed some more light on how to achieve that, which would be useful for people reading. An observation that apologies aren't always required gives little understanding of therefore what is. Gluten free bread may taste fine but you can't make it with the knowledge that it doesn't have gluten alone. You have to know what it does have.

I'm not sure I totally follow this thread but my interest was peaked by the connection to the aboriginal situation in australia....as it also exists here in the USA...and all throughout South America.......

I'm pondering whether or not reconciliation and forgiveness go hand in hand or not. An apology is clearly a request for forgiveness.......but what is reconciliation? To me it is different.......completely.....not necessarily about forgiveness at all.....but that would be a possible goal. Reconciliation means making right a wrong that has already been committed.

Unfortunately I don't believe reconciliation is actually possible between white people (I am white) and the aboriginal people who have been abused, killed, etc.....by "white" (European) colonizers. By saying that I mean that the wrongs done cannot be undone or paid for or made better. They are part of our collective history......as horrible as it is or was. I think that the only way to make it better.....is to go the way of begging for and giving forgiveness.......so that guilt can be abolished and people can unite to form a better future for all of us together in this world.

i know my thinking is rather utopic...dreamy....if you may......but i have to have hope that we can make this place better for our children and grandchildren. walking in guilt holds people to the past and doesn't allow for growth........as i see it.

this is just what i think.....off the cuff.......maybe i'm wacked......maybe i totally don't understand what this thread was talking about.......if so i beg your forgiveness.....i like interesting debates with people of diverse backgrounds.........

Call it a matter of perspective. I'm not looking at the subject of forgiveness. Not that it doesn't relate.

Although, on that subject of forgiveness, an apology is NEVER necessary for forgiveness. One can forgive without anything from the other person. There may not be reconciliation in those situations. I've forgiven the person that I used to consider a friend who repeatly said (posted on message board) nasty untrue things about me (accusing me of attitudes that go against my values, though apparently not his). Doesn't mean I'll ever be friends with him again. No, because it won't be any different. But he doesn't need to apologize or acknowledge he was wrong for me to forgive him. I've no need to hang on to the hurt. (Kinda like, forgiving a dept means the person doesn't have to pay you back; it doesn't mean you'll lend money to them again.)

That's off topic, though.

It was a thought for people to think about. If it doesn't get you thinking, then fine. Ignore it. No one's required to reply.

I think it's interesting to think about from the point of view of the person apologizing or not. If I've done something that someone else found hurtful, but can't apologize (maybe I don't see what I did as wrong; maybe I didn't do what they think I did), that doesn't mean there's no hope for reconciliation.

Also, seems to me that sometimes reconciliation is needed before there can be an apology.

It's a shift one's perspective kind of thing. The point of my post was to possibly inspire a shift in pespective. You are looking at it from your own perspective. But it doesn't apply to that perspective.

If you can't shift your perspective, or don't want to try, that's fine. Maybe the thought I shared, and this thread, isn't for you.

I split the topic as requested Ellen.

Personally i think this thread is a great success so far as indeed it has clearly got Skiotter and myself thinking about reconciliation, apologies (on topic) and even that ever so off topic aspect of the topic, forgiveness.

I see what you're saying Ellen and think you do raise some interesting points, particularly this one:



That comment did shift my perspective a bit bc I see exactly how that kind of situation could arise.

I am using this discussion as an opportunity to wrangle with my ideas about this subject and I'm afraid that I cannot remove the notion of forgiveness from it. That may land me in the forgiveness thread but I am finding that the things coming up within this thread are more related. Besides, the other thread is about forgiveness, not reconciliation so I could easily be asked to post here instead.



It clearly did get me thinking Ellen, as my quite long post indicated. It got my mind going over this topic and relating it to other notions in my mind, then bringing it back to what you have said and how that resonates with my opinion. That's what discourse is. I would have ignored your post if it did nothing to stimulate what I perceive as a valid thought. I'm not sure why you have stated there's no requirement to reply, and I wonder if perhaps that I disagreed with some of your original post has made you a little indignant.

Ellen I sense that sometimes you ave quite a unique view of the role of BPDR. You have stated that the thread may change my perspective, but it strikes me how closed you appear to have been to the perspective I've discussed here. You're telling me its off topic and seem to be discouraging discourse which involves questioning your own ideas. I get the very firm message that you view this thread, and others which have unfolded with you this way, as a platform to state your view with only agreements and extensions of that view welcome as a response. I do hope you're open to people challenging the notions you publicly post.

So, in response to the ideas you've raised, I'm seeing that there are a range of situations where reconciliation can occur in the absence of an apology. Because I am also trying to fit forgiveness into this equation, I see that apologies are not necessary in forgiveness, yet from the example I gave of reconciling white Australia with Aboriginal Australia, I see that apologies are regarded as significant in the process of reconciliation. The big difference between the examples you've given Ellen, and this one I've used, is the magnitude of the abuse and hurt. This is a the thought that your posts keep triggering in me, is that less is required to heel if less has been hurt. I appreciate that someone being rude or even verbally abusive to you online is hurtful, but obviously not quite in the same extremely traumatic way Aboriginal Australia were treated for decades, even centuries.

I have found that tiffs with my friends requires less for me to reconcile with them than the abuse my parents subjected me to (this would otherwise go without saying). I have also found the same with online disagreements of all proportions; that the hurt is just not able to penetrate as deeply as the childhood trauma. At a guess that may be why one is illegal and the other is not - bc of the damage caused. I relate these really quite different levels of hurt and abuse to highlight that although apologies are never essential in the reconciliation (or forgiveness) process, looking at those situations that are difficult to reconcile or find forgiveness, well, apologies are recognised as having a healing effect. I think it unwise to rely upon them, but I do find it interesting that a large proportion of a country's population thought apologies so important that they protested repeatedly and put millions of signatures onto petitions, for the government to make a formal apology to the Aboriginal people.

I see this is utterly relevant to BPDR as the level of abuse most of us come here to address is more on the extreme end of the scale than a fall out with an online buddy. I'm trying to put your words into a context which is relevant to me and the community. That makes my posts valid and is why I continue posting on this topic in his thread.

But the conclusion for (or from) me is very grey. Small arguments tend to be more grey than outright abuses. I see that a part of what you're saying is that different perspectives may be that both parties feel as hard done by as the other. I've been in situations like this myself. A bit of maturity can overcome such situations. But the situations that are more black and white can be more complex in terms of the emotional damage to one party. Excuse the pun, but the Aboriginal Stolen Generation is a more black and white affair, as is the abuse many of us experienced at the hands of our carers.

I remember my Dad once apologised to me after a particularly troublesome driving lesson. It felt amazing! It wasn't so much the validation that I was being badly treated, as the acknowledgment that Dad could see he could be wrong. It made my relationship with him seem worthwhile, bc it wasn't just me taking care of me: he could see I had needs too which meant we may be able to cooperate a bit on getting eachother's met. It gave me hope. This is the power of them. The validation we do not need to receive externally, but the commitment to cooperate is encouraged by apologies, which will lead to reconciliation more directly. It gives people a reason to trust, and I do think trust is a component of reconciliation (off topic I know).

If you want me to listen to your ideas, rather than reexplain my own point of view, leave out the words "Ellen" or "you" or any other referents to me. I can't follow and understand your ideas when your descriptions of them are built on reading things into what I said that aren't things I said or intended.

Choose between discussing my perspective (which means me replying back about my perspective) or discussing your own. Right now you are mixing the two, and that doesn't work for me.

Sarah....I agree with you that this topic is stimulating and worthwhile.

I haven't thought about the issues of reconciliation and apologies in a very long time and it definitely warrants review I think! I have to say that I may be shifting perspective on the whole issue.....and here's why.



I have always wanted my Dad to apologize to me......to just say that he was sorry for how he treated me. He has, over the years, demonstrated that he's sorry by things he has said and done. But he has never said the words and his behavior has not been consistent......so I can't say that I believe 100% that he is sorry.

Nevertheless....I have forgiven him. I did that a while ago. I couldn't hang on to the pain and anger any longer so it was easier to just let it go......and so I forgave him.

On reconciliation....I'd say some of his behavior has been an attempt at reconciliation.......and I appreciate that. But I still wish he's just apologize. My mom did and it was good for both of us.

On the topic of discussions and disagreements....I do think they are very healthy for people. It makes us think and hopefully grow intellectually.

Yeah - although you can't make him say the word, you know it would help. It's a shame isn't it. But it's good to see you're not relying on his apology to move forwards. I also think that verbally saying "I am sorry" isn't the only way people apologise, and attempts to reconcile can be efforts to express sorry. Do you think your father's apology would help bc it makes a direct acknowledgment of his wrongs and the harm it did to you? And, if so, can you see his attempts at reconciliation as acknowledgment enough?

I'm trying to make a planned approach to my folks and so would like to know a bit about your own approach to reconciliation, apologies and forgiveness (and anyone else's views too).

Ellen I will post in this thread as I see fit, as I have to this point, and will continue to do so. I have made my choice to add my own perspective on a topic you've offered yours to. I am not happy to hear it's not working for you, but it is evidently working for me and Skiotter. You are welcome to contribute something more to steer the discussion back to where you'd prefer it, but as I see it we're on topic. Is there anything I can clarify for you or discuss with you that will help the thread "work for you" more?

On further reading of your last post, I should clarify that omitting words that I (obviously) believe make sense of my own is not something I'm prepared to do. However there may be other ways I can assist in this thread becoming more satisfying to you Ellen.

Sarah....I'm not really sure I understand what you mean by a "planned approach"......and I don't want to assume something...so I'll wait for you to respond.

I am making connections between this topic thread and Miyasa's thread about "blame and responsibility" and "opening Pandora's box....."

Is it OK to connect the two and have a discussion on reconciliation with family........in one thread? Just wondering.....I don't want to confuse anyone....but I do tend to bring the bigger picture into things when I ponder issues and topics like this one.

Yep me too. Generally that's considered "Hijacking" someone's thread , but otherwise it's up to the author of the thread. I will go and peruse the blame and responsibility thread you mentioned because I'd like to look into all this more. I'm going to post to you on CC so I hope you don't mind continuing a one on one discussion about this. I think there's some stuff I could benefit from by talking with you.

Oops. Messed up quotes. Since I copied the text, I'm just going to repost with the quotes fixed. (Maybe someone can delete the messed up one?) (And, okay, small addition in the first bit of my response.)


But I haven't been welcome to do that. I've been criticized instead.


I specified that. You are ignoring it. How many ways do I need to say "Don't claim I expressed an idea which I didn't" before you get it?


The only words I asked you to leave out are references to me. I did that because you have attributed ideas to me which I did not express. It's okay to bring your own thoughts to the subject. The problem is some of those thoughts you are incorrectly attributing to me. If you want me to stop saying "No, that's not what I said", then stop making claims about what I said. It's pretty simply.

Oh, and note, I didn't ask you do do anything. I said that, if you desire a certain response from me, you should post in a way that will get that response from me.

Put a different way: When you post attributing an idea to me that I don't hold and didn't express, then I, because of who I am, am unable to really consider what you have to say without first clarifying my own viewpoint.

I'm glad my post got someone to think. But I can't be part of a further discussion with you when some of the ideas you express you are incorrectly attributed to me.

I also want to make something clear. Posting this post was inspired simply because I read that line in the book. That's it. It's a book I just finished reading. Posting the quote was in no way inspired by any other thread, and was in no way for anyone in particular.

I'm done with this thread. There's nothing more for me in it.

Wait, one more note. After the exchange with Skiotter (now moved to a separate thread), I really just did not have the mental energy to deal with more of someone making claims about my viewpoints or how I think. But my understanding was that you also didn't want me to do that -- you wanted me to listen to your ideas. I didn't want to be scrutinized, you, as I understood it, didn't want me scrutinizing your comments about me instead of posting about the issue. So I tried to suggest how to get there.

Sarah, Skiotter, both of you, if you can't dialog with me on terms that are fair to me, then I'm just not able to dialog with you. Maybe that's a weakness, maybe it's a strength. Either way, it's me.

For me, it depends on the magnitude of the hurt. There are some things where I can imagine an "I'm not mad anymore" just might work. Typically that's over something smaller or that which didn't deeply affect me, but not always. I can think of one example.

One thing I've come to learn in my family, at least in the past - When someone's mad, no one talks about it. You're cut off completely, could be and has been years before a reconciliation. I've seen it happen between every single one of my family members, myself included. The way we've come together again is usually due to something tragic. It's never brought to the table, EVER. And there's always that wonder in the back of my head. Do they even remember it? Do they even want to BE here? Do they even give a damn? And if one of them were to say "You know what? I'm not upset anymore", I think that in itself is it's own apology, in a certain light. It's acknowledgment. Not acknowledging anyone's specific hurts or wrongdoings, but acknowledging the situation...It happened. And they're not pissed anymore. It's kind of like the line in the book. He just wanted validation that the friendship still meant something. And when dealing with people who maybe hold it in, hold grudges, have extreme difficulty managing emotions, that's kinda huge. And sometimes, enough. I feel there are different sets of standards for everyone. For someone who is quite emotional and quick to recognize their mistakes, maybe I would feel the need for more. Maybe that just wouldn't be enough. *shrug*

I also brought up my uncle and acknowledgment in my other post...That is different. He went far and beyond my expectations. Had he never acknowledged his wrongdoing and my pain, but spoke to me...I probably would have settled for that, but maybe not...That is a different, old kind of pain and I am still coming to grips with my feelings then and my feelings now.

Ellen,

I don't know what you're talking about. I honestly don't understand how I've attributed ideas to you which you did not express. I'm a bit lost really. I'd appreciate you explaining this to me Ellen, rather than leaving the thread.



I've found this quite often happens with me - that I need to clarify my viewpoint more than once. I just see it as one of those frustrating limitations of the written, as opposed to the spoken, word.

But I'm finding that you're repeatedly saying I'm misquoting* you, or something like that, but I can't see how or where I've done that. You've said a couple of times that you won't listen until I stop misunderstanding* you, but I'm afraid this does little to help me understand further what I've obviously misunderstood. I'm asking you to clarify for me, again if necessary. I just don't get it!


* These are not words that you have used, but are my own words to convey the concept of me having "attributed ideas to you which you did not express".

Sarah, I've already done so. I don't think it will do any good for me to repeat myself.

Example.

Me: (First post in thread.)

You: I'm not convinced in the role you've described an apology plays or doesn't need to play in forgiveness.

Me: Nor was I describing the role an apology plays or doesn't play in anything.

ellen and sarah.....

as i understand human communication to go....the responsibility for the message is up to one delivering it....not the one on the receiving end.

by that i mean to point out that the person who writes needs to make sure that the message s/he is trying to convey is clearly conveyed and if not....take responsibility for miscommunication....and then follow up with a clarification.

It isn't the responsibility of the "listener" or the "reader" to try to figure out what the "speaker" or the "writer" is trying to say (unless you're in an academic or fine art setting.....different context completely......and one that is clearly open to the interpretation(s) of the receivers.

Miyasa........I need to re-read your message tomorrow b/c I'm too tired to respond intelligently tonight!

Sleep well everyone.

I don't disagree, Skiotter.

Let me add. It is the responsibility of the listener to have an awareness of what was actually said (the words) versus what they are reading into it. And someone says "no, you are reading into what I wrote" to give that some thought.

Ironically, this off topic conversation between Sarah and I actually connects with the topic -- reconciliation.

We have two people with differing expectations, wishes, and perceptions.

Me, what I would like is to let it go. I accept that she perceives things as she does, including her perception of me. And I accept that I can't make someone change their view of me or what I said. Reconciliation does not mean not accepting those things I cannot change. It doesn't mean throwing radical acceptance out the window.

Oops. I meant to add, that while I would like to let it go, I've answered specific things Sarah said out of fairness to her.

Oh, so it was that comment. Thank you for clarifying. It had crossed my mind that's what you meant but I thought it was already addressed (obviously you or I missed something in my own communication).

Ellen, I hereby acknowledge that you were indeed not describing the role an apology does or doesn't play in anything.

Wow, what a storm in a tea cup!