Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

372 Chapter 20

Easterly, William. 2006. The White Man’s Burden: Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest

Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York: Penguin.

Fein, Helen. 1979. Accounting for Genocide: National Responses and Jewish Victimiza-

tion during the Holocaust. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

———. 2007. Human Rights and Wrongs: Slavery, Terrorism, Genocide. Boulder, CO:

Paradigm Publishers.

Goldstein, Robert Justin. 1987. “The United States.” Pp. 429–456 in International

Handbook of Human Rights, edited by Jack Donnelly and Rhoda E. Howard. West-

port, CT: Greenwood Press.

Hayes, Christopher. 2007. “Hip Heterodoxy.” The Nation, June 11.

Hobbins, A. J. 1998. “Eleanor Roosevelt, John Humphrey and Canadian Op-

position to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” International Journal

53:325–342.

Howard, Rhoda. E. 1993. “Cultural Absolutism and the Nostalgia for Community.”

Human Rights Quarterly 15:315–338.

Howard-Hassmann, Rhoda E. 2001. “Gay Rights and the Right to a Family: Conflicts

between Liberal and Illiberal Belief Systems.” Human Rights Quarterly 23:73–95.

———. 2003. Compassionate Canadians: Civic Leaders Discuss Human Rights. Toronto:

University of Toronto Press.

———. 2005. “The Second Great Transformation: Human Rights Leapfrogging in the

Era of Globalization.” Human Rights Quarterly 27:1–40.

Howard-Hassmann, Rhoda E., and Claude E. Welch Jr. (eds.). 2006. Economic Rights

in Canada and the US. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Jeffries, Vincent. 2005. “Pitirim A. Sorokin’s Integralism and Public Sociology.” The

American Sociologist 36:66–87.

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond Borders: Advocacy Net-

works in International Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Landman, Todd. 2005. Protecting Human Rights: A Comparative Study. Washington,

DC: Georgetown University Press.

McLaughlin, Neil, Lisa Kowalchuck, and Kerry Turcotte. 2005. “Why Sociology Does

Not Need to Be Saved: Reflections on Public Sociologies.” The American Sociologist

36:133–151.

Moore, Barrington, Jr. 1978. Injustice: The Social Bases of Obedience and Revolt. White

Plains, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Morton, F. L., and Rainer Knopff. 2000. The Charter Revolution and the Court Party.

Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2007. Factbook 2007.

Rueschemeyer, Dietrich, Evelyne Huber Stephens, and John D. Stephens. 1992.

Capitalist Development and Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sandbrook, Richard, Marc Edelman, Patrick Heller, and Judith Teichman. 2007.

Social Democracy in the Global Periphery: Origins, Challenges, Prospects. New York:

Cambridge University Press.

Samnøy, Åshild. 1993. Human Rights as International Consensus: The Making of the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1945–1948. Bergen, Norway: Christian

Michelson Institute.

Sen, Amartya. 2000. “East and West: The Reach of Reason.” New York Review of Books

47:12, 33–38.

Public Sociology and Universal Human Rights 373

Steinhardt, Ralph G. 2005. “Corporate Responsibility and the International Law of

Human Rights: The New Lex Mercatoria.” Pp. 177–226 in Non-State Actors and Hu-

man Rights, edited by Philip Alston. New York: Oxford University Press.

UN. 2005. The Global Compact. 16 October (www.un.org/depts/ptd/global.htm).

UN. Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. 2007. April 19 (www

.ohchr.org/english/countries/ratification/8.htm).

U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the

United States: 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Economics, and

Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau.

Weissbrodt, David. 2006. “International Law of Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights: A US Perspective.” Pp. 41–54 in Economic Rights in Canada and the US,

edited by Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann and Claude E. Welch Jr. Philadelphia:

University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wells-Dang, Andrew. 2002. “Having It Both Ways.” Foreign Affairs 81:180–182.

Wiredu, Kwasi. 1996. Cultural Universals and Particulars: An African Perspective.

Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

375

This chapter focuses on the intersection of altruism, apology, forgiveness,

and reconciliation and its relationship with public sociology. Reconcili-

ation is the ending of conflict or renewing of a friendly relationship be-

tween disputing people or groups. Altruism is a voluntary act for which

the helper/altruist does not expect any external reward. I divide altruism

into two types: heroic altruism, which is voluntary and involves high risk

to the helper, and conventional altruism, which is voluntary but does not

involve high risk to the helper. For the purposes of this chapter I will be

focusing on how conventional altruism, an independent variable, is posi-

tively associated with intergroup and interpersonal apology, forgiveness,

and reconciliation. Individuals and groups who are hurt carry with them

a burden, and often a desire for retribution. The positive outcomes from

apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation can quell the desire for vengeance.

Such outcomes should become an important component for public soci-

ologists to advocate. Communities need to witness the potential benefits

of reconciliation, which public sociologists can facilitate by stimulating a

dialogic relationship with the public.

Despite considerable research on interpersonal forgiveness, as well as

recent interest by psychologists in the subject of intergroup forgiveness,

sociologists have not been active in studying this topic and the relationship

between altruism, apology, and reconciliation. The potential of sociological

perspective here is particularly important in terms of the developing study

of intergroup apology and forgiveness. Many scholars, such as Enright

(1998), Schimmel (2002), Tavuchis (1991), Post (2007), Ornish (1998),

Smedes (1996), Koenig (2001), Worthington (1998), Luskin (2001), and

375

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness,

and Reconciliation as

Public Sociology

Samuel P. Oliner

376 Chapter 21

Lazare (2004), have pointed out the relevance of altruism, love, apology,

and forgiveness for improving and stabilizing fractured human relations.

The connection between altruism, apology, forgiveness, and reconcili-

ation helps explain why offended groups and individuals would want to

forgive those that have hurt them. Genuine forgiveness is the willingness to

abandon resentment, negative judgment, and indifferent behavior toward

one who has unjustly injured others, while fostering the qualities of com-

passion, generosity, and even love toward the offender (Enright 1998). Al-

truistic behavior is a primary independent variable in the apology, forgive-

ness, and reconciliation process. In order to see the error of destructive acts

such as genocide or slavery from the wrongdoer’s perspective one must take

the role of the other and act in an unselfish, compassionate manner. If there

is confidence in academic research on apology and forgiveness that helps

heal society, then the role of public sociologists should be to disseminate

important findings and relevance from which social relations can benefit.

The following scholars have contributed to the understanding of altru-

ism, apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation: McCullough, Worthington,

and Rachal (1997); Bazemore (1998) [restorative justice]; Sullivan and

Tifft (2001); Galaway and Hudson (1996) [alternative dispute resolution];

Hauss 2003 [apology and forgiveness]; Bloomfield, Barnes, and Huyse

(2003) [reconciliation]; Hewstone et al. (2006) [intergroup forgiveness];

Allport (1954) [co-operation between conflicting groups, problem solv-

ing]; Kohlberg (1984) [moral development]; Post (2007); Sorokin (1954)

[philosophy and sociology of love, altruism, and compassion]; and finally

Tavuchis (1991) [the importance of different types of apology]. Public soci-

ology can significantly contribute to this study by integrating these perspec-

tives into a comprehensive model for dialogic purposes.

PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY

Michael Burawoy, 2004 ASA president, defines public sociology as “bring-

ing sociology into a conversation with publics, understood as people who

are themselves involved in conversation” (2005:7). The concept of public

sociology has brought with it a debate about both the role of sociology and

of the sociologist within society. Does social science need to stay confined

to the university? Burawoy invited all sociologists to be involved dialogi-

cally with the public in his presidential address. The discourse over public

sociology is growing and there are several promising avenues for the field. It

would be productive to make the public aware of the positive outcomes of

current research about intergroup apology, forgiveness, and reconciliation

through what Burawoy calls “organic public sociology.” This implies active

participation on the part of the sociologist to help resolve social problems

376 Chapter 21

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation as Public Sociology 377

for the welfare of society. The traditional public sociologist, on the other

hand, is not actively and directly involved in the participation of the resolv-

ing of social issues.

Practicing public sociology is the use of research for the solution of prac-

tical problems via the dissemination of knowledge, and through hands-on,

direct interaction with the public. This audience includes not only the

general public, but also the media and other academics as well. Burawoy

recalls some academics in sociology that make a “vehicle” of their research

for the public domain’s discussion, researchers who instigate debates be-

tween publics. The sociologist therefore has an active involvement within

academia and beyond the “ivory tower.”

Burawoy (2004), states that “Academics are living in a fool’s paradise, if

they think they can hold on to their ivory tower, fashioned for another era,

another world.” He continues, saying that “for too long, far too many of

us have been hiding under the blanket of academic freedom and university

autonomy—all in the name of truth”(1). At this point, the public is not in-

terested in subsidizing the kinds of academic pursuits outlined by Burawoy

because they perceive them as having little significance in their everyday

lives, and research simply collects dust on shelves. If the public were to see

the potential of apology individually and at the group level, perhaps more

interest could fuel this area of research into including it on a national and

international agenda.

Through the inclusion of the process of apology and forgiveness within

school curricula, the media, business training, public relations, and non-

government organizations, the educational importance and emphasis

of reconciliation may be reproduced for future generations including

students, employees, clients, and the general public. This is a marriage

between the different sociological practices Burawoy bases his ideas upon:

public, professional, critical, and policy sociology. Balancing the justified

norms of professional sociology with the effectiveness of policy sociol-

ogy along with the relevance inherent in public sociology and the moral

vision of critical sociology, we can see how to merge these four distinct

types of sociological knowledge into a useful model to implement apol-

ogy, forgiveness, and reconciliation at a greater scale. Working together,

the four types of sociology discussed below are the foundational basis

for the sociological study of apology and forgiveness and could lead to a

more caring society.

Professional sociology is concerned mainly with the quantitative and quali-

tative evidence gathered about apology and reconciliation. The advantages,

successes, and applicability toward society coincide with the expectations

of social scientists who primarily judge validity upon the methodical pro-

cess of hypotheses and conclusion. There is evidence that where apology,

forgiveness, and reconciliation have taken place, better relations are evident

378 Chapter 21

between parties. Over 90 percent of our sample (Oliner and Zylicz 2008)

found apology to be necessary for their well-being.

Policy sociology then is the implementation of the professional findings.

With enough substantiated evidence, governments, schools, and businesses

may incorporate the usefulness of apology and forgiveness in pro-social

education and training into their organizations.

Critical Sociology provides the moral vision to demonstrate the useful-

ness of apology and forgiveness on a grand scale. Vincent Jeffries (2005)

sees a relationship between Burawoy’s four forms of public sociology and

Sorokin’s system of integral sociology. “Because his integral sociology is

systemic and comprehensive it makes major contributions to each of the

interdependent forms of sociology delineated by Burawoy” (84).

The four models in public sociology have a systemic connection that

should not be overlooked; the strength of the models working together pro-

vides a context in which sociologists may use their knowledge and research

comprehensively.

ALTRUISM, RELIGION/SPIRITUALITY, AND EMPATHY:

ATTRIBUTES OF APOLOGY AND FORGIVENESS

Important variables for the healing of pain for groups and individuals are

empathy, spirituality/religiosity, and love. The intersection of the above

components creates a fertile environment and is associated with the apol-

ogy, forgiveness, and reconciliation process. Acting altruistically out of a

sense of empathy for another can lead a person or group to become aware

of wrongdoing to others. Scholars maintain that altruism, apology, and

forgiveness are an essential part of the survival of society.

In a recent book edited by Stephen Post (2007), the researchers noted a

strong positive correlation between altruistic behavior and both physical

and mental health. For this chapter we administered the altruism scale de-

veloped by Rushton, Chrisjohn, and Fekken (1981). Of the total sample of

519, the U.S. respondents scored 87 percent, and the Polish respondents 91

percent. Altruistic behavior is found in most cultures and belief systems and

works to create a more just, friendly, and caring world, while contributing

to social solidarity.

Sorokin (1954), Post (2007), Koenig (2002), McCullough, Pargament,

and Thoresen (2000), and Ornish (1998) all express in different ways that

altruism and love are life-giving forces. It has been well established that

when genuine processes such as love, compassion, and empathy are a part

of apology, they lead to forgiveness (Worthington 1998). This process then

leads to unloading burdens and feelings of hurt both for the harmed and

the harm-doer, which ultimately may lead to reconciliation and the recog-

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation as Public Sociology 379

nition of the humanity in the offender. It is a powerful emotional release

and a clear acceptance of compassion. If the apology is genuine, it helps

to extinguish the rage and need for revenge, as well as helping to end the

cycle of violence.

Oliner and Oliner (1988) found that people who exhibited altruistic be-

havior during the rescue of Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe were fundamen-

tally empathic; they felt others’ pain. Generally altruists tend to come from

loving homes who witnessed caring by role models. During their upbring-

ing, instead of being physically disciplined, they were spoken to about right

and wrong by their family. Rescuers of Jews in Nazi occupied Europe were

generally attached in a healthy, emotional, and psychological way to their

families. They internalized the ethics of justice and compassion for others,

as well as a universal sense of spirituality, which is tolerant of other faiths

and moral traditions. Our research (Oliner and Zylicz 2008) concludes that

there is a positive association between altruism and spirituality/religiosity.

On religiosity/spirituality, the U.S. respondents scored 89 percent, and the

Polish sample scored 81 percent. Those individuals who exhibit altruistic

traits show the power and necessity of apology and forgiveness as the

means to restoring broken relationships.

Apology

Nicholas Tavuchis, in his book (1991), maintains that apology has

four different configurations. The first is interpersonal apology from one

individual to another or ONE-TO-ONE; for example, a father apologizing

to a daughter for sexual abuse. A second configuration is apology from an

individual to a collectivity, or ONE-TO-MANY; for example, a Klansman

apologizing to African Americans for racism and violence. The third is an

apology from a group to an individual, or MANY-TO-ONE, such as when

people stood by as Kitty Genovese was murdered in Queens, New York,

and then later, community leaders apologized to Kitty’s family. The fourth

configuration of apology is from one group to another, or MANY-TO-

MANY; for example, a nation represented by leaders, such as Germany,

apologized to the world for committing genocide. More recently several

U.S. states, including Virginia, have apologized to African Americans for

slavery. There are some important similarities between interpersonal and

intergroup apologies. In the case of interpersonal apology it implies that

an individual who has harmed another genuinely apologizes and asks

for forgiveness. While in the case of a group or nation harming another

group or nation, the leaders of the harming group publicly apologize to

the group that they have harmed historically or contemporaneously and

ask for forgiveness. The desire for healing and reconciliation is shown in

both cases.

380 Chapter 21

Apology reflects an interest and a capability on the part of the offender

to show respect and rehumanize the other. The ability to apologize shows

that the victimizer cares about the feelings of others, and is an indication of

empathy. By apologizing, one disarms the other person or group and they

no longer perceive the harm-doer as a threat.

When the moral order has been ruptured or when values and norms have

been violated within families or communities, survival is threatened. Hu-

man survival is based upon the need for group interaction and solidarity;

forgiveness, apologies, and social norms serve to facilitate the maintenance

and integrity of these groups (Gold and Davis 2005). Through genuine

apology and forgiveness, harmony may be restored.

Intergroup Apology

Effective apology and forgiveness, then, requires that we recognize the ex-

istence of a problem and its seriousness. It is only then that those who were

harmed may abandon vengeance and even begin to empathize with the vic-

timizer. This central aspect of forgiveness aims to mend and renew relations

that are otherwise fractured. Over the last 30 years there have been at least

two dozen “truth-telling” commissions established in various parts of the

world, including Africa, Latin America, and Eastern Europe. One aspect of

these truth commissions is simply to tell the truth about what happened, in

order to help heal the victim. In East Germany for example the Stasi (secret

police) files showed how they had oppressed people.

Intergroup apology is an important component of this new understand-

ing of forgiveness and reconciliation, which is responsible for the substan-

tial number of political, religious, and other group leaders who apologize

to those they have harmed historically or recently.

In our research (Oliner and Zylicz 2008), we found that approximately 87

percent of our sample felt that apology played an important role in healing

the respondents’ pain as well as both individuals and groups. One respon-

dent said: “An apology may soften the heart of the offending party. This

opens up further conversation which leads to better understanding between

the two parties and may lead to mutual forgiveness” (Respondent 105).

Interpersonal Apology

Interpersonal apology most often takes place between individuals in close

relationships; however it can also take place between strangers and it is pos-

sible to forgive without receiving apology. An example of interpersonal for-

giveness without apology is that of Eva Moses Kor, a survivor of Auschwitz

and the experiments of Joseph Mengele. She has since forgiven Mengele for

his torturous experiments on her and her twin sister in the documentary

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation as Public Sociology 381

“Forgiving Dr. Mengele.”

For Eva Moses Kor, forgiving Mengele is a way of

healing her pain. It appears that there is a need for apology throughout the

world. People harm and offend one another every day, which causes them

to feel alienated. People carry burdens of shame as they hold on to resent-

ments from being offended and guilt from offending others. Some hurts

may cause us to consider vengeance, even against the ones we love. This is

frequently found with couples. The harmony of the relationship is broken,

and there is recrimination. Marriage counselors find it important to open

the process of taking responsibility for actions and beginning the process

of apology as a means of reconciling between partners. Fincham, Stanley,

and Beach (2007) maintain that forgiveness is a transformative process that

leads to positive motivation and transaction between marital partners.

Forgiveness

Forgiveness is an essential step toward reconciliation and mending a re-

lationship. The importance of forgiveness cannot be underestimated, and,

indeed, a body of work has grown up around the concept.

The teachings of all world religions are filled with persuasive suggestions

that apology and forgiveness lead to both emotional and spiritual growth,

healing, and peace. Many argue that they ought to be implemented in our

educational systems because scientific evidence indicates that it does make

a difference in people’s lives (Koenig 2001, 2002; Worthington 1998;

Smedes 1996), helping to reconcile transgressors or evildoers with those

who have been victimized. We should perhaps take encouragement from

the wide spectrum of research being conducted into the benefits of the

forgiveness process in both interpersonal and intergroup relations. These

studies are being conducted in evolutionary biology, and neuroscience, and

are beginning to appear in social sciences.

Some victims have found a great burden lifted from them when the

forgiveness process begins. For instance Sidney Finkel (a friend of the au-

thor), a Holocaust survivor who went through hell in various concentration

and extermination camps, has since forgiven the Nazis for the trauma he

experienced. Speaking of his forgiveness he stated, “I began the unthink-

able process of forgiving the German people and it has released me.”

Kim

Phuc, the young girl portrayed nude running away from a napalm attack,

in the famous photo taken during the Vietnam War, has since forgiven

those responsible for her pain and lasting scars from the war. “I forgave the

men who coordinated the bombing of Trang Bang. Now my mission is to

spread the message of love, hope, and forgiveness because it is not easy to

deal with this sort of pain.”

Another example are the survivors of the My

Lai massacre in 1968 during the Vietnam War, who have recently forgiven

the perpetrators of the massacre.