Forgiveness
To forgive is an emotional transformation, in which you “let go” and move beyond the conflict or “wrong” that you perceive another has done to you (Waldron & Kelley, 2005). It is not condoning, excusing, or forgetting someone’s transgression but reducing the negative reactions to the transgression and engaging in compassion and kindness toward the other person (Toussaint, Owen, & Cheadle, 2012).
After Annie and Lillian apologize to each other in Bridesmaids, they begin to joke with each other about their past conflicts and history together as friends. They do not hold grudges about the past but instead just move ahead to their friendship in the future. They express that their relationship will change once Lillian gets married but that they will have a new kind of close friendship. Indeed, scholars argue that forgiveness involves a renegotiation of the relationship, including new expectations and rules for future interactions (Guerrero, Andersen, & Afifi, 2013).
In addition to having relational benefits, forgiveness can also have health benefits. Research shows that forgiveness following interpersonal conflict can reduce the stress load on the heart (Lawler et al., 2003). Having a more “forgiving personality” is also associated with improved cardiovascular functioning (Toussaint & Cheadle, 2009), as well as greater overall mental health and physical well-
Note, however, that requiring an apology or penance from another person before you are willing to forgive may actually have negative consequences. For one thing, the apology may never come and you may be stuck hanging onto the bitterness. For another, withholding forgiveness until your “conditions” are met may be associated with relationship deterioration (Waldron & Kelley, 2005), and possibly even increased health risks (Toussaint, Owen, & Cheadle, 2012), compared to when you forgive because you feel it is the morally “right” thing to do (Cox, Bennett, Tripp, & Aquino, 2012). It appears that being able truly to let go of the hurt is what provides the most optimism for relationship reconciliation.
BACK TO
Bullies and Drama
Back at the beginning of this chapter, we talked a bit about school bullying, and the somewhat ill-
- Bazelon talks about the difference between bullying, which involves repeated abuse and a marked power difference, and “drama,” which involves more of a two-
way interaction. Researchers note that discussions of bullying often suggest “that there are bullies and there are the bullied, but dramas that involve relational aggression often lack a clear perpetrator and victim (Markwick & Boyd, 2011).” The difference between the two is rooted in power dynamics— it’s only bullying if one party has some power, be it real or perceived, over the other. - Few people get through high school without some intimate familiarity with bullying—
either as a victim, a perpetrator, or a bystander. But most of us manage to get through it, not necessarily unscathed, but without resorting to harming ourselves or others. Learning to manage conflict productively, even (or perhaps especially) when faced with bullying, is an important part of growing up. “Doing this right,” Bazelon points out, “means recognizing that there is truth in the old sticks- and- stones chant: Most kids do bounce back from cruelty at the hands of other kids. They’ll remember being bullied or being a bully; they’ll also learn something useful, if painful” (Bazelon, 2013). - In any incident, it is important that the context be considered. But “zero tolerance” policies for bullying and other infractions leave administrators’ hands tied when it comes to discipline: students who clearly have no intentions of violence or harm—
such as a child whose mother packed a knife in her lunch box to cut an apple— receive the same punishment as a student who brings a knife to school to attack a classmate. Researchers suggest productive policies, ones that encourage student dialogue, inform students about bullying, and empower administrators to consider the context of an incident when assigning blame or doling out punishments, are far more effective than zero- tolerance rules (American Psychological Association, 2008).