Forgiveness is a powerful tool for emotional healing, but it should not come at the cost of personal boundaries or accountability.
Forgiveness is often viewed as a noble act, a virtue that allows individuals to release resentment and move forward. Mahatma Gandhi once said, “The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong.” This perspective on forgiveness was instilled in me from a young age by my mother, who taught us to consider both the good and bad qualities of others. She encouraged us to be forgiving, especially when the good outweighed the bad. However, as I matured, I began to understand that unconditional forgiveness is not always a virtue. In fact, it can sometimes be misinterpreted as weakness, particularly in situations involving bullying or abuse.
In light of these realizations, I embarked on a journey to explore the concept of forgiveness more deeply. I believe it is essential for individuals to develop their own guidelines for forgiveness, as each person’s experiences and feelings are unique.
At its core, forgiveness is about letting go—not denying the harm done. It involves releasing feelings of resentment, bitterness, and the desire for revenge. The Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley defines forgiveness as “a conscious, deliberate decision to release feelings of resentment or vengeance toward a person or group who has harmed you, regardless of whether they actually deserve your forgiveness.” This definition highlights that forgiveness does not mean forgetting the harm done or condoning the actions that caused it. Instead, it allows individuals to maintain strong boundaries while moving forward.
Psychologists often differentiate between decisional forgiveness, which is the choice not to retaliate, and emotional forgiveness, which involves replacing negative feelings with more positive or compassionate ones. This distinction is crucial, as it is possible to decide to forgive even when emotions have not yet caught up.
The importance of forgiveness extends beyond moral considerations; it has tangible physiological and psychological benefits. Research conducted by the American Psychological Association indicates that forgiveness interventions can reduce anxiety, depression, and stress while enhancing relationships and overall life satisfaction. Furthermore, forgiveness is linked to lower blood pressure and healthier heart-rate patterns, as it diminishes rumination and hostility.
According to a 2020 report by the John Templeton Foundation titled “The Science of Forgiveness,” structured forgiveness programs, such as the REACH model developed by Dr. Everett Worthington, have been shown to reduce anger and emotional distress. Ultimately, forgiving others can facilitate personal healing, as holding onto grudges primarily harms the individual who harbors them.
It is essential to note that forgiveness is not a substitute for justice. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services emphasizes that bullying should be addressed through reporting and accountability rather than silent endurance. Similarly, restorative justice practices aim to combine empathy with consequences to prevent further harm. Therefore, the most effective approach to forgiveness involves a balance of compassion and accountability.
When considering whether forgiveness should be conditional, it is important to distinguish between personal forgiveness and relational forgiveness. Inner forgiveness, which is an emotional release, can be unconditional; it can occur even if the offender never apologizes. In contrast, relational forgiveness, which involves rebuilding trust, must be conditional upon an apology, changed behavior, and clear boundaries. This nuanced understanding helps prevent what psychologists refer to as “cheap forgiveness,” where reconciliation occurs without accountability.
Dr. Everett Worthington’s REACH model is one of the most researched frameworks for forgiveness. It consists of five tenets: Recall the hurt honestly, Empathize with the offender, Altruistic gift (remember times you were forgiven), Commit to the decision to forgive, and Hold on to that decision. Another approach, the Process Model developed by Catholic psychologist Robert Enright, outlines four phases of forgiveness: uncovering anger, deciding to forgive, working on forgiveness, and discovering release from emotional confinement. Both models emphasize that forgiveness is a gradual, personal process that is healthiest when it arises from strength rather than guilt.
From a societal perspective, forgiveness operates within power dynamics. Pressuring individuals who are less powerful—such as students, employees, or victims—to forgive prematurely can reinforce existing inequalities. Sociologists advocate for procedural justice, which involves fair rules, transparent consequences, and community support systems. Modern restorative justice practices combine forgiveness with accountability, allowing victims and offenders to engage in mediation, discuss the harm caused, and create restitution plans. Research indicates that such programs effectively reduce re-offending when apologies and behavioral changes are genuine.
Philosophers have long debated the nature of forgiveness. Immanuel Kant argued that punishment should be based solely on the fact that a crime was committed, emphasizing the need for pure retribution that aligns with the offender’s moral culpability. Hannah Arendt suggested that forgiveness allows individuals to break the cycle of retaliation, offering a chance for a better future while still demanding accountability. Friedrich Nietzsche, on the other hand, contended that what people often label as “forgiveness” is merely forgetting, viewing it as a sign of mental weakness rather than moral strength. He argued that those who harbor resentment are not being honest with themselves, rendering their forgiveness inauthentic.
The consistent lesson from these philosophical discussions is that forgiveness is virtuous only when rooted in courage and truth, never in denial or fear. Indian philosophy adds another layer to this understanding. In the Bhagavad Gītā, kṣamā (forgiveness) is regarded as a divine quality. Lord Krishna emphasizes that while forgiveness is a virtue, it must coexist with the fulfillment of one’s duties, reminding us that forgiveness and action can go hand in hand.
For young people navigating the complexities of forgiveness, several practical guidelines can be beneficial. It is important not to rush the process; allowing oneself to feel anger before attempting forgiveness is crucial, as premature forgiveness can feel forced or insincere. Distinguishing between safety and spirituality is vital; if someone continues to harm you, it may be necessary to distance yourself before deciding on forgiveness. Reviewing the REACH model can provide a structured approach to forgiveness, and seeking support from mentors, friends, or counselors can facilitate healing. Setting boundaries is essential, as forgiveness does not mean exposing oneself to further harm. Additionally, self-forgiveness—acknowledging one’s own mistakes without self-hatred—is equally important. Practicing small acts of forgiveness in daily life can help build emotional resilience.
Ultimately, forgiveness is both an art and a discipline. For young individuals, learning to forgive early can prevent years of emotional burden. However, it is crucial to maintain a balance: forgive to reclaim your peace, not to please others; forgive internally while demanding accountability externally; and forgive from a position of strength, not submission. Remember that forgiveness does not negate your worth; it is a pathway to freedom.
Forgiveness is not the end of justice; rather, it marks the beginning of liberation.
According to India Currents.