Jeffries Vincent (Editor). Handbook Of Public Sociology

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

382 Chapter 21

It is particularly crucial that a perpetrator acknowledges the truth and is

willing to apologize when a relationship has been damaged. Bishop Des-

mond Tutu (1999) notes that many white South Africans tried to find refuge

in claims of ignorance as to the horrors of apartheid. It is clear, however, that

such claims are more the result of not having the strength to acknowledge

what happened. “Acknowledgement of the truth and of having wronged

someone is important in getting to the root of the breach” (270).

Forgiveness is eminently practical, as provided by Nelson Mandela’s im-

plementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in post-apart-

heid South Africa. The first step to forgiveness is speaking honestly about

what has happened and taking responsibility for doing wrong. Forgiveness

requires honesty about the victimizer, and it weighs future possibilities if

one forgives or remains angry.

Forgiveness involves an attempt to understand the perpetrator and hav-

ing empathy—standing in their shoes and appreciating the pressures and

influences that might have conditioned them. Once again we find the

wisdom of Desmond Tutu (1999) instructional on this matter: “Forgiving

means abandoning your right to pay back the perpetrator in his own coin”

(272). In an act of forgiveness people are declaring faith in the future of a

relationship, and the capacity of the wrongdoer to make a new beginning

from the course that he or she was on which caused the harm.

Reconciliation

Reconciliation has many meanings. Though most authors agree that it is

a process intended to end animosity between parties in conflict, essentially

it is the cessation of violence and polarization. Reconciliation implies a

restoration of conditions prior to the rupture in a relationship.

When a rupture occurs on an interpersonal level, the consequences gen-

erally entail material or psychological loss and a feeling of betrayal, victim-

ization, and loss of trust. The needs of the victim and offender often can be

resolved in a process with positive consequences for both.

On an intergroup level, the ideas and concepts are similar. In contentious

historical relationships between groups, the ultimate goal of the apology

and forgiveness process is reconciliation. If a group apologizes and the

victim or offended group does not forgive, the process is one-sided and

ineffective. No successful reconciliation can take place on that basis.

Reconciliation is a slow process and cannot be dictated, although some

governments, and lately even international NGOs, feel they can introduce

the processes of reconciliation. The Rwandan government has established

community courts titled Gacaca, whose mission is to listen to perpetrators

from the massacre of the Tutsi and judge whether reconciliation between

victim and offender is possible. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission

(TRC) process in South Africa was instituted by the government. The people

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation as Public Sociology 383

came before the commissions and told the truth about their suffering, al-

lowing aggrieved people to start the process of understanding and forgive-

ness and perpetrators to take responsibility for their actions. However,

sometimes reconciliation introduced from the top down may be resented

by the victims as a smoke screen that prevents real healing.

Bloomfield, Barnes, and Huyse (2003) claim that there are four main in-

gredients to the reconciliation process. Healing the wounds of survivors is a

central need of the victimized group (1); as is justice (2), either “restorative”

or “retributive.” Restorative justice is a broad term, which encompasses a

growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful approaches to harm,

problem solving, and violations of legal and human rights, while retribu-

tive justice maintains that proportionate punishment is a morally accept-

able response to crime. Although retributive justice often plays a part in the

reconciliation process, restorative justice embodies the concepts necessary

to repair a broken relationship (McNamara and Dhami 2003). Another key

ingredient is the historical truth-telling commissions and airing of griev-

ances (3). Finally, compensation for physical and psychological damages

inflicted upon the victims is made (4).

EXAMPLES OF APOLOGY, FORGIVENESS,

AND RECONCILIATION

Research into intergroup forgiveness is in its nascent stage and there is

evidence of positive outcomes in some countries where apology and for-

giveness have been manifested. While there is a significant amount of sci-

entific knowledge about interpersonal apology and forgiveness, intergroup

apology is an important and relatively open field for sociologists to study.

Several governments and communities have undertaken the intergroup

apology and reconciliation process in the recent past: The U.S. govern-

ment apologized in 1997 to African Americans for the Tuskegee Syphilis

Experiment. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa

implemented a program of healing after apartheid in 1995. In 1993 the

U.S. government apologized for overthrowing the Kingdom of Hawaii in

the nineteenth century and George H. W. Bush apologized to Japanese

Americans for their treatment during World War II (internment camps).

Lech Walesa, the first president of post-Communist Poland, apologized in

Israel before the Knesset (parliament) for Polish anti-Semitism.

Mutual Apologies between Ukraine and Poland

A recent example that exhibited positive outcomes of mutual apology is

the case of Poland and Ukraine: In 2003 Ukraine and Poland commemo-

rated the sixtieth anniversary of the massacre of Poles and Ukrainians by

384 Chapter 21

their respective rightist underground armies in the region of Volhynia in

South Eastern Poland. Historically, that region, now incorporated into

Ukraine, had been a part of Poland, even though ethnic Poles were a

minority there. For generations, Ukrainians blamed Polish expansionism

and imperialism for the oppression of their people and felt that they were

relegated to second-class citizenship.

The massacres took place over the years 1941–1944, during the Nazi

occupation. The Ukrainian motivation was to drive out the Polish citizens

from that area. The Ukrainian underground (known as the Ukrainian Insur-

gent Army or UPA) killed between 50,000 and 60,000 Polish men, women,

and children. Estimates vary, and Poles claim a much higher figure. The

actual numbers may never be known. Retaliating for these killings, the Pol-

ish Underground Army (known as the Armija Krajowa or AK) took part in

the slaughter of approximately 15,000–17,000 ethnic Ukrainians. Toward

the end of the war, another tragedy occurred. In March 1945, in retaliation

for Ukrainian massacre of Poles, a detachment of Polish anti-Nazi guerrillas

killed hundreds of Ukrainian inhabitants of Pawlokoma. The Ukrainians

were herded into a local Greek Catholic church, interrogated and tortured,

and then executed in a local cemetery.

The sixtieth anniversary of the events at Volhynia was a turning point in

the relations between the two countries. Former president Kwasniewski of

Poland and President Kuchma of Ukraine, encouraged by Pope John Paul

II and with the approval of their respective parliaments, met in the region

where the tragedies took place to commemorate them and offer apologies

to one another, hoping to lay the groundwork for reconciliation. Both

presidents admitted that their people had committed unspeakable crimes

against the other.

Relations between Ukraine and Poland have greatly improved. Travel be-

tween the countries is easier, and tourism is increasing. Cultural exchange is

taking place, including festivals celebrating each other’s cultures, and there

is increased cross-border commerce and education. This is a good sign that

the seeds of reconciliation have taken root. In most recent polls, mutual

trust and good feelings between the peoples of the two countries have de-

veloped significantly over the past several years (CBOS 2005).

CONNECTION TO PUBLIC SOCIOLOGY

In concert with the current revival of some of the practical spirit of those

pioneers in American sociology who felt that studying a problem was the

prelude to solving it, social theory and research can and should be ap-

plied directly to the problems of our world. The idea of “public sociology”

(Burawoy 2005) is particularly appropriate, considering that the problems

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation as Public Sociology 385

societies face are complex and the consequences of not solving them are

severe. It is possible to materially improve the world by inculcating and

disseminating the practice of true apology and forgiveness, and building

processes that allow for reconciliation and restorative justice. There is evi-

dence that healing of past hurts is possible. The key to this healing lies in

the human capacity for empathy, or taking the role of the other. Altruistic

behavior and genuine apology are the basis for forgiveness. If we have con-

fidence in social research outcomes which can help to heal society, then the

role of public sociology should be to publicize the important findings and

relevance from which society can benefit in less jargonized language that

the general public and policy makers will understand.

How do we disseminate the positive outcomes of forgiveness and rec-

onciliation directly to the public? There are several promising avenues sug-

gested by sociologists. William J. Wilson states,

If the goal is to engage the public in sociological dialogue through the me-

dia, my experiences suggest the following principles: First, focus on issues of

national concern, issues that are high on the public agenda. Second, develop

creative and thoughtful arguments that are clearly presented and devoid of

technical language and academic jargon. And, third present the big picture

whereby arguments are organized and presented so that readers can see how

the various parts are interrelated. (1998:438)

Wilson outlines media venues that are important to access, such as press

releases and Op-Ed articles. Other venues such as talk shows, relevant

bloggers, TV programs, and documentaries are useful as well. Utilizing the

“Participatory Action Research” (1999) of Ernest Stringer, sociology can

become reflexive and the researcher can become a facilitator in the collab-

orative process for social change. The collaborative aspect of participatory

action research is to inform and empower the collective group in order for

social change to take place. If the world community is empowered by the

process of forgiveness and reconciliation through social research, perhaps

intergroup forgiveness could gain more progress to help establish a more

empathetic society.

Through a public dialogue between professionals, communities, and aca-

demics, it can be presupposed that a clearer understanding of the healthful

and relational benefits of altruistic apology and forgiveness will create an

interest among the general public. With a clearer understanding of apology

and reconciliation, and its benefits, there will be more engagement in prac-

ticing it. The apology process can then be included by various groups that

are concerned with physical and mental health; a mind and heart unbur-

dened by guilt, pain, regret, resentment, and stress may enjoy the benefits

of a longer, more healthy and peaceful life.

386 Chapter 21

DATA AND ANALYSIS

Sample

The data for this chapter consists of three sources: (1) the published

literature on altruism, apology, and forgiveness in the healing of past

transgressions; (2) data from a published article (Oliner 2005) that supple-

ments our findings; and (3) a non-random sample of 519 drawn from 435

respondents in the United States and 84 from Poland (Oliner and Zylicz

2008). The same open-ended questionnaire and scales were used in both

countries and in their respective languages. We were interested in respon-

dent’s attitudes and their behavior regarding altruism, spirituality/religios-

ity, apology, forgiveness, reconciliation and specifically if the respondents

hurt someone, apologized, and asked for forgiveness. The narratives from

this sample help shed light on the association between altruism, apology,

forgiveness, and reconciliation.

We asked respondents: “How important is apology?” Ninety-four percent

of the U.S sample and 90 percent of the Polish sample responded apology

is important (Oliner and Zylicz 2008). The following represents typical

statements from our respondents. “People will not be able to live in nurtur-

ing, sustaining, and trusting relationships without an avenue for apology

and forgiveness” (Respondent 207). Responding to the question of “How

is reconciliation possible between conflicting groups?” A respondent stated:

“Apology is crucial between groups and individuals. [It] is demonstrated

that attitude change and broken relations can repair” (R 112). Another

said: “I think it is the one thing that fosters a good relationship and it is the

healing ointment that can mend wounded relationships. It is the antidote

to division” (R 63).

To the question “What effects do forgiveness have on fractured human

relations?” 70 percent of the U.S. sample and 86 percent of the Polish

sample answered that forgiving has positive effects. A respondent said:

“When I forgive someone who hurt me this helps to free me from pain”

(R 101). Another respondent said, “People who apologize and truly want

reconciliation should be forgiven by those they have hurt, be it a person or

group” (R 97).

To support the findings for this chapter that correlate apology, forgive-

ness, and reconciliation, a sample of 194 from a previous study (Oliner

2005) was used to find the statistical significance of correlates reported

in the table below. This data is used to give a better understanding of the

concepts presented in this chapter. Scales were administered

to respon-

dents to find and compare variables. These are: mean altruism with mean

forgiveness scores, the importance of apology with mean forgiveness, the

importance of apology with mean daily spiritual experience, and mean for-

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation as Public Sociology 387

giveness with mean restorative justice. We found that all these correlations

were statistically significant below the .05 level; some of the correlations

were strong (below the .02 level) (see table 21.1).

CONCLUSION

A study with a larger random sample would be helpful to test our results.

Nevertheless, the findings indicate positive associations between altruism,

apology, forgiveness, and the likelihood of reconciliation. The Polish and

American samples were homogeneous enough to be compared. The open-

ended questionnaires translated into Polish were the same in each case and

applied to similar sample populations. Altruism was found to be positively

associated with forgiveness, restorative justice, love, and apology. Future

research should focus on the outcomes where apologies and forgiveness

have succeeded, but also where they have failed and why. In some cul-

tures where apology is perceived to be a sign of weakness or admission of

guilt, new methods need to be found and used in those cases where it was

unsuccessful. It would be useful to emulate those cultures where apology,

forgiveness, and reconciliation succeeded. This kind of effort should be an

important area for sociology to implement in the stimulation of dialogue

between groups.

People are beginning to recognize that one’s nation or group may not

always be on the side of angels, but rather on the side of harm-doers as

well. This appears to be liberating, as individuals and groups are becoming

more empathetic toward the suffering of their fellow human beings caused

by other nations or groups. Many victims are forgiving, as can be seen by

their desire to unload their burdens and mend the rift between themselves

and those who have either hurt them or been hurt by them. The virtue of

forgiveness and the nurturance of humanity can be taught using age ap-

propriate pedagogy. Caring, love, and forgiveness are timely and necessary

areas of study because people in many places around the world recognize

that they suffer from humiliation, anger, and a desire for vengeance. It is

Table 21.1. Significant Correlations

Correlation Significance

Importance of apology—mean forgiveness .380 <.000

Mean forgiveness—mean agape .169 .018

Importance of apology—mean DSE .218 .002

Mean forgiveness—mean restorative justice .298 <.000

Mean agape—mean restorative justice .290 <.000

Mean altruism—mean forgiveness .334 .013

388 Chapter 21

possible to encourage conflicting groups to re-humanize victimizers, heal

the pain, and acknowledge the need for fairness, justice, and love. Because

it is possible sociologists must help it to become a reality.

NOTES

1. Printed in New York Times May 8, 2007. Article by Dana Stevens.

2. Printed in Naperville Sun April 25, 2007. Article by Britt Carson. Retrieved

April 27, 2007 (www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/356419,6_1_

NA25_HOLOCAUST_S1.article).

3. Printed in Ms. Magazine October/November 2001.

4. The scales used were: (1) Altruistic Personality Scale (developed by J. Phillippe

Rushton, R. D. Chrisjohn, and G. Fekken, 1981); (2) Daily Spiritual Experience

Scale (DSE) (developed by Lynn G. Underwood, 1999); (3) the Traits of Forgiveness

Scale (developed by Jack W. Berry and Everett Worthington, 2001); (4) Agape Scale

(developed by Clyde Hendrick and Susan Hendrick); and (5) Restorative Justice and

Earned Redemption scale as suggested by the research of Gordon Bazmore (1998),

Umbreit (1995), and McNamara and Dhami (2003).

REFERENCES

Allen, Natalie, and John Phillippe Rushton. 1983. “Personality Characteristics of

Community Mental Health Volunteers: A Review.” Journal of Voluntary Action

Research 12:36–49.

Allport, Gordon W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Bazemore, Gordon. 1998. “Restorative Justice and Earned Redemption: Communities,

Victims, and Offender Reintegration.” American Behavioral Scientist 41:768–813.

Berry, Jack W., Les Parrot, Lynn O’Conner, Nathaniel Wade, and Everett Worthing-

ton. 2001. “Dispositional Forgivingness: Development and Construct Validity of

the Transgression Narrative Test of Forgiveness.” Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin 27:1277–1290.

Bloomfield, David, Teresa Barnes, and Luc Huyse (eds.). 2003. Reconciliation after

Violent Conflict: A Handbook. Stockholm, Sweden: International Institute for De-

mocracy and Electoral Assistance.

Burawoy, Michael. 2004. “To Advance, Sociology Must Not Retreat.” The Chronicle

of Higher Education 50:24–27.

———. 2005. “For Public Sociology.” American Sociological Review 70:4–28.

CBOS (Centrum badania Opinii Społecznej/ Public Opinion Research Center).

2005. Por Kummunikat CBOS “Sytuacja Polski na arenie miedzynarodowej.” Li-

piec. Retrieved June 15, 2006 (www.cbos.pl/spiskom.pol/2001/kom088/kom088

.htm).

Enright, Robert. 1998. The Enright Forgiveness Inventory User Manual. Madison, WI:

International Forgiveness Institute.

Altruism, Apology, Forgiveness, and Reconciliation as Public Sociology 389

Enright, Robert D., and Richard Fitzgibbons. 2000. “Helping Clients Forgive: An

Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope.” Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Fincham, Frank D., Scott Stanley, and Steven Beach. 2007. “Transformative Pro-

cesses in Marriage: An Analysis of Emerging Trends.” Journal of Marriage and Fam-

ily 69:275–292.

Galaway, Burt, and Joe Hudson. 1996. Restorative Justice: An International Perspective.

Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

Gold, Gregg J., and James R. Davis. 2005. “Psychological Determinants of Forgive-

ness: An Evolutionary Perspective.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 29(2):111–

135.

Hauss, Charles. 2003. “Apology and Forgiveness.” Beyond Intractability, edited by Guy

Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado,

Boulder. September 2003. Retrieved October 11, 2005 (www2.beyondintractability

.org/m/apology_forgiveness.jsp).

Hendrick, Clyde, and Susan Hendrick. 1986. “A Theory and Method of Love.” Jour-

nal of Personality and Social Psychology 50:392–402.

Hewstone, Miles, Ed Cairns, Alberto Voci, Juergen Hamberger, and Ulrike Niens.

2006. “Intergroup Contact, Forgiveness, and Experience of ‘The Troubles’ in

Northern Ireland.” Journal of Social Issues 62:99–120.

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

American Sociologist 36:66–87.

Kanyangara, Patrick, Bernard Rime, Pierre Philippot, and Vincent Yzerbyt. 2007.

“Collective Rituals, Emotional Climate, and Intergroup Perception: Participation

in ‘Gacaca’ Tribunals and Assimilation of the Rwandan Genocide.” Journal of Social

Issues 63:387–403.

Koenig, Harold G. 2001. Handbook of Religion and Health. New York: Oxford Uni-

versity Press.

———. 2002. Spirituality in Patient Care: Why, How, When, and What. Philadelphia:

Templeton Foundation Press.

Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1984. The Psychology of Moral Development New York: Harper

and Row.

Kowal, Z., M. Tomashek, and M. Zurowski. N.d. “Ukraine and Poland Reconciled.”

Retrieved May 18, 2006 (www.kirche-in-not.org/ut%20unum%20sint1.htm).

Lazare, Aaron. 2004. On Apology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Luskin, Fred. 2001. Forgive for Good. San Francisco: Harper.

———. 2004. “The Choice to Forgive.” Greater Good, September 13–15.

McCullough, Michael E., Kenneth I. Pargament, and Carl E. Thoresen (eds.). 2000.

Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Guilford Press.

McCullough, Michael E., Everett L. Worthington Jr., and Kenneth C. Rachal. 1997.

“Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships [Interpersonal Relations and

Group Processes].” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73(2):321–336.

McNamara, Marilyn, and Mandeep Dhami. 2003. “The Role of Apology in Re-

storative Justice from Victims’ and Offenders’ Perspectives.” Institute for Dispute

Resolution and Department of Psychology. Retrieved July 1, 2007 (www.sfu.ca/cfrj

/fulltext/mcnamara.pdf).

390 Chapter 21

Oliner, Samuel P. 2005. “Altruism, Forgiveness, Empathy, and Intergroup Apology.”

Humboldt Journal of Social Relations 29(2):8–39.

Oliner, Samuel P., and Pearl M. Oliner. 1988. The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers of

Jews in Nazi Europe. New York: Free Press.

Oliner, Samuel P. and Piotr Olaf Zylicz. 2008. Altruism, Intergroup Apology, Forgive-

ness, and Reconciliation. St. Paul, MN: Paragon House.

Ornish, Dean. 1998. Love and Survival: The Scientific Basis for the Healing Power of

Intimacy. New York: HarperColllins.

Post, Stephen (ed.). 2007. Altruism and Health: Perspectives from Empirical Research.

Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Rushton, J. Phillippe, R. D. Chrisjohn, and G. Fekken. 1981. “The Altruistic Person-

ality and the Self-Report Altruism Scale.” Pp. 293–302 in Personality and Individual

Differences. London: Pergamon Press.

Schimmel, Solomon. 2002. Wounds Not Healed by Time. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Smedes, Lewis B. 1996. The Art of Forgiving: When You Need to Forgive and Don’t Know

How. New York: Ballantine Books.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. 1954. The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors, and Techniques

of Moral Transformation. Boston: Beacon Press.

Stringer, Ernest. 1999. Action Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Sullivan, Dennis, and Larry Tifft. 2001. Restorative Justice: Healing the Foundations of

Our Everyday Lives. Monsey, NY: Willow Tree Press.

Tavuchis, Nicholas. 1991. Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Stan-

ford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Tutu, Desmond. 1999. No Future without Forgiveness. New York: First Image Books.

Umbreit, Mark. 1995. “The Development and Impact of Victim-Offender Mediation

in the United States.” Mediation Quarterly 12:263–276.

Underwood, Lynn G. 1999. “Health Research: Report of the Fetzer Institute and

National Institute on Aging Working Group.” Pp. 11–18 in Multidimensional Mea-

surement of Religiousness and Spirituality. Fetzer Institute. Kalamazoo, MI: Fetzer

Institute Publications.

Wilson, William J. 1998. “Engaging Publics in Sociological Dialogue through the

Media.” Contemporary Sociology 27:435–438.

Worthington, Everett L., Jr. 1998. “Interpersonal Forgiving in Close Relationships.”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:21–336.

391

Burawoy’s “For Public Sociology” (2005) traces the many diverse ways in

which our discipline can encompass public sociologies. Burawoy insists

that there are many diverse publics all welcome to the task he calls for. He

argues that it is necessary to recognize and accommodate the fact of many

different norms and aspirations, and that while we may disagree with many

of these, we cannot and do not want to suppress them, no matter how

distasteful some might seem. He organizes his argument in eleven theses

which together constitute an intelligent and generous map of the project of

developing public sociology.

And yet, strengthening and developing public sociology may well entail

going beyond the fact of a multiplicity of different publics and different

public sociologies. Thus in the field where I do research, globalization, it

is critical to reject some of the most developed and strongest positions in

the public imaginary if we intend to produce an alternative narrative—one

that enables those who now seem utterly powerless confronted with the

new global actors. In this context, the project of a public sociology entails

the work of developing such an alternative narrative, and this work entails

destroying some of the core propositions of the dominant public narrative.

It is not a matter of additions and corrections and welcoming a pluralism of

opinions, but rather a frontal attack on that dominant public perspective.

Here I will examine one particular aspect of this larger project. It is that

national states and citizens, both still largely confined to the nation-state

for most of their powers and rights, can be significant actors in an increas-

ingly global world, and that they can be so through the use of national

instruments. Critical here is that neither states nor citizens depend on the

existence of some putative global state to become such global actors, nor

391

A Public Sociology for

a Global Age:

Recovering the Political

Saskia Sassen