Forgiveness in Intimate Relationships

A Psychoanalytic Perspective

Shahrzad Siassi

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• ISBN:
  9780429913860
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psicología
• Subtopic: Historia y teoría en psicología

How can one overcome deeply-held resentment so as to resume or establish a bond with a traumatizing person, mindful that the experience of the self is rooted in the very intimate relationships from which such trauma arose? This book centres on the challenge of forgiveness and recovery from trauma in intimate relationships as viewed psychodynamically in the clinical context. Traumas inflicted by intimates, especially by parents, differ from transgressions and betrayals-however legitimately traumatizing-committed in less psychically-rooted relationships. While some betrayals are in fact not forgivable, what is at issue when parents or other intimates betray is the inevitable yearning for reunion: a wish whose potential fulfillment raises the spectre of re-traumatization and humiliation and is thus fraught with risk.

PART I

FORGIVENESS IN THE CLINICAL SITUATION

CHAPTER ONE

True forgiveness belongs to psychoanalysis

From archaic fantasies of forgiveness to mature forgiveness through mentalisation

Archaic fantasies of atonement-forgiveness

We have seen how self-punishment takes place in the hope of absolution and has its origin in the longing for love. Now I am sure you will share my critical suspicion that the close connection between guilt, atonement and forgiveness, so deeply rooted in our mental life, cannot possibly owe its enormous importance simply to the experiences of the growing child in the course of his training. It is certainly a momentous step when the child begins to grasp the idea of guilt and to experience the peculiar quality of the sense of guilt. But it seems as though he were already prepared for this experience, so as to understand straight away the next conception: that of punishment and expiation and, above all, that of final forgiveness. Our study of melancholia enables us actually to see into the history of this mental structure—a history reaching back to the primal dawn of the mind—and to lay bare the ultimate foundations of experience upon which it is built. Here I may refer to a conclusion which I have already suggested elsewhere [5]. Briefly it is this: that, when the child passes from the period of suckling, he carries with him, indelibly stamped on his mind, a sequence of experiences which later he works over so as to form the connection: guilt-atonement-forgiveness. (Rado, 1928, p. 425)

Almost a decade before Melanie Klein’s introduction of the concept of reparation, Rado, in this passage, by establishing an ingrained link from our earliest days between guilt and forgiveness through the mediation of atonement, places the concept of forgiveness on the psychoanalytic map and takes the first object relational paper of Freud, “Mourning and Melancholia” (Freud, 1916), to a new height. In describing the melancholic, Rado expands on Freud’s notion of the mood reversal of melancholics and points out that the failure of this rebellion against the loss of the object summons into action a new weapon for the ego, the proclamation of guilt for the loss followed by remorseful self-punishment and expiation. Hence, in an attempt to recover the lost object, the melancholic ego begs for forgiveness but this despairing cry for the love of the object is now turned inward as the object, and its love, is transferred to the superego. In its quest for forgiveness, the ego seeks out this love by relying on similar childhood fantasies of self-punishment in order to appease the parents and regain their approval. In doing so, the inwardly drawn narcissistic ego removes itself from the realm of reality and so begins the intrapsychic roots of the quest for forgiveness as it unfolds in the object relational world of the child in his desperate attempt to resume a substantial bond for his emotional survival.

Rado points out that the formation of the superego is based on the child’s attempt to hang on to the desire of carrying within the mind only the good parents and endowing their internal presence with the right to condemn the ego for failure to renounce its angry impulses toward them: “the ego loves the internalized parents just as it loves its ‘good parents’ in reality, but it must not allow itself to hate them like ‘bad parents’, even if they behave like ‘bad parents’” (Rado, 1928, p. 433). Accordingly, while nothing in the internal world of the child—especially negative feelings and fantasies—goes unnoticed by this primitively organised, unevolved, vigilant, judgmental superego, when it comes to the external reality, observations contrary to its demand must be banished. Through its verdict of repression for the ego, the reality is met with blindness, as the ego is commanded to restrict its range of awareness, with the result of a long-lasting regressive scenario of internal distortion. Developmentally, incapable of integrative capacity, every time the child is justifiably frustrated and angry at the parents, the ego has to repress the introjections of the bad object in order to hang on to their conscious positively charged image so that the flow of the proverbial milk is not spoiled by their observed deficiencies/badness. The superego as a distorted representative of the parental authority (since it is also structured by the child’s own projected aggression) sets off the sequence of guilt—of daring to hate and be angry with the very same person on whom the child’s survival depends, self punishment to compensate for the wrong (atonement), and forgiveness in order to regain the lost love. In short, the fantasised image of the parents in the superego, intertwined with the child’s own projection of aggression onto them (to create exaggerated fear for increased control of his id impulses), is experienced as an unmerciful absolute presence that has to be appeased at any rate, so that the flow of fantasised love through forgiveness continues to provide the child with the oxygen his psyche desperately needs for emotional survival.

Within this sequence one is faced with the inevitability of intrapsychic conflict stemming from the child’s need for control and the limitations of his immature ego. Wumser’s (2007) notion of the superego as the secularisation of the idea of godhead, with an internal conscience and unconscious presence dictating absolute demands, is a telling description of the mythical-magical quality of this archaic world of persecutory guilt and the necessity of self-punishment for absolution. Consequently, the sequence of guilt, atonement, and forgiveness is an omnipotent manoeuvre of the ego at the behest of the superego to safeguard a wish-fulfilling fantasy that precludes reality, a repetition compulsion, unconsciously motivated and outside the realm of reality and genuine love.

It is easy to detect the Fairbairnian ring of this conceptualisation as one is reminded of the continued attachment of abused children soaking up the badness in their masochistic attachment to abusive parents. It appears that when reality has not much to offer to offset this internal archaic solution in dealing with the conflict between love and aggression, the real traumatic abusive parental interactions with the child constantly reactivates and corroborates this sequence to the point of becoming the child’s actual reality confirming his inner badness and unworthiness of love. Therefore, the impact of the trauma is not processed on the basis of reality and its egregiousness but, according to this ever present archaic scenario of a hardened superego, vis-à-vis the child’s desperate dependency needs, dictating a solution that gives him a sense of fantasy control through self punishment. For the child, being anchored in an abusive relationship is better than being a leaf in the wind. Subsequently, in case of transgression from the verdict of “thou shall not hate your parents”, the guilt stems from the wrath of the superego for ego’s failure to keep the id reaction to parental aggression away from damaging the false image of the good parents. In these extreme cases of massive dissociation, where the link to the object is attacked, we encounter the abnormal superego full of hate watching the ego from a higher place without any understanding or attempt to know, but interested only in destroying the link between the self and the object (O’Shaughnessy, 1999), a terrifying superego that, unlike an internal object set to diminish anxiety, magnifies it (Money-Kyrle, 1968).

Nevertheless, what is remarkable about this “guilt-punishment-forgiveness” pattern is its broad explanatory power for important object relational interactions and how it serves as a bridge between the intrapsychic and interpersonal perspectives on conflict and processing of trauma. This sequence might be considered as the Freudian rejoinder to a Kleinian perspective on how the internal world is populated and organised through an inherent, irreducible link among aggression, guilt, self-punishment, and forgiveness.

Rado describes the process of internalisation of penance and forgiveness as a way for the child to win the love of parents by unconsciously producing their anticipated punishment vis-à-vis the aggressive self in need of forgiveness. As self-punishment propelled by guilt becomes part and parcel of infantile relation to internal objects, the close link in the sequence of guilt, atonement, and forgiveness becomes deeply rooted in the mind. Rado sees this drama of narcissistic turning away from reality and replacement of external objects with internal psychic institutions in the sequence of guilt, atonement, and forgiveness, preconditioned by another sequence in the infant’s life, that of the infant experience of “rage, hunger, drinking at the mother’s breast” (Rado, 1928). He argues that the explosive rage of a hungry infant becomes the prototype of all other forms of aggressive reactions to frustration and subsequently becomes the primal mechanism of self-punishment. This is a sequence of aggressive protest against the torments of hunger that is nevertheless followed, unfailingly, by a blissful experience of gratification at the breast; therefore, the repeated experience of this sequence provides the child with another experience—that of forgiving love and, certainly, of the very first experience of hope. Through her life sustaining function, impervious to the child’s aggression, the mother offers hope in reality, and, in contrast to his unforgiving internal world dominated by an archaic superego, communicates the prospect of a forgiving world, the antithesis of his tormented internal world of frustration and helplessness. This sequence of extreme frustration for the frail ego of the child followed by a blissful experience in reality is responsible for mitigating the egregious effect of fantasy guilt, fantasy atonement, and illusions of forgiveness.

Whereas the primitive wish for forgiveness through any means, including self-punishment, is rooted in the cycle of guilt and atonement, the repeat experience of hunger and rage, followed by the gratifying experience of satiation at the breast, transforms the aggression of the child, as well as the interaction between mother and child, into an experience that not only fulfils his biological needs but, just as importantly, his psychological wellbeing through a loving bond that contains and metabolises his anger, meets his wish for security, trust, and warmth, and satisfies his relational and narcissistic longings. Most importantly, the repeat experience of reappearance of the mother and the blissful experience at the breast that Rado calls alimentary orgasm (the precursor of genital orgasm) in response to the child’s torment of hunger, heralds the experience of hope not only for his biological survival but for a new emotional capacity to mitigate the brutal cycle of guilt-self-punishment-forgiveness orchestrated by his sadistic superego. The holding, containing, loving, and forgiving presence of the mother, ending the child’s suffering rather than retaliating, becomes a model in reality of a new sequence of hope-genuine love-true forgiveness, nowhere better symbolised than in the eternal image of the child at the mother’s breast, as in the Madonna and child, a radiant symbol of forgiving love and hope of absolution, a powerful construct in the higher layers of the mental life of humanity that is cogently articulated by Rado.

Since the psyche’s impotent search for atonement and forgiveness in a primitive fashion is as old as the experience of guilt, like any infantile fantasy of emotional survival this powerful sequence becomes ingrained in the mind and, in times of crisis and threats of loss, it becomes an everpresent regressed fantasy of redemption. The long-lasting, flagrant, and destructive impact and repercussion of this phenomenon is observable at many levels of development, not least in one’s ability to integrate the good and the bad aspects of the self and the object, the compromise of the synthetic ability of the ego interfering with self and other understanding (through empathy), one’s ability to create meaning by making the incomprehensible comprehensible, in short, the mentalisation capacity of the ego.

The implication of the foregoing for the intrapsychic and interpersonal dynamics of the concept of forgiveness in psychoanalysis is clear: namely, that, in the earliest stages of development, the fate of the introjection and projection of the child’s aggression is contingent upon the overall balance of the caretaking environment as a forgiving/understanding or chaotic presence in the formation of the child’s intrapsychic experience of forgiveness. The question is whether the unconscious sequence of guilt, punishment, forgiveness wins the day and dominates the intrapsychic world of the child or the repeat experience of maternal availability, in another sequence of hunger and rage followed by hope and satiation in reality, offsets its impact. It is in this crucible that, through the maternal perpetual presence, the child can counteract the internal drama with a reality-based succession of hope-love-forgiveness, that is, hope for an end to the suffering (initially hunger), love for being understood and not retaliated against, and forgiveness as the seal to protect the bond on which the child’s emotional as well as biological needs rely. In short, the vicissitudes of forgiveness are intrinsically linked with the development and analysis of the superego.

Considering that regardless of degree, we all carry the residue of this early archaic unforgiving superego with a need for self punishment perpetuated by the mechanisms of projection and introjections and the self-fulfilling scenario of shame and guilt, the psychoanalytic field becomes the arena through which the unconscious, incomprehensible operation of the relentless cycle of guilt-atonement-forgiveness can be transformed into a cycle of hope-love-and genuine forgiveness of self and others. Through the uncovering of the ravages of the antiquated but timeless mode of relating to self and others, the roots of the state of unforgiveness as the result of the operation of primitive and purely narcissistic defences can also unravel.

While the unevolved sequence of guilt-atonement-forgiveness is intrinsically linked to the archaic, barely evolved sadistic superego, the development of a forgiving attitude is the hallmark of an evolved benign adult superego and the possibility of this evolution in its most thorough and genuine fashion falls in the domain of psychoanalysis. The intense interactions within the transference-countertransference field, as well as the extra-transferential work on past traumatisation and conflicts, allow access to hope and forgiveness, first manifested in the softening of the superego on the model of the tolerant and accepting analyst. Only then can the patient, within the context of being heard, understood, and witnessed, access and process old defences to overcome his psychic investment in maintaining false representations. As he develops a more balanced assessment of self and others and becomes less preoccupied with egotistical and narcissistic demands of his ego ideal, he finds access to the hope that the world is not as unforgiving as his fantasies, and he will be able to conjure up, and increasingly rely on, the symbolic image of the mother’s perpetual presence and sustenance that validates the new sequence of hope-love-forgiveness; that is, positive developmental experiences become more accessible and no longer repressed under massive primitive defences. Nowhere other than in the domain of psychoanalysis, can one experience the unique and powerful setting that is conducive to deep comprehension and full grasp of the interplay of the web of the dialectic relationship between the omnipotence of responsibility and powerlessness. Thus, the evolution of selfforgiveness and its impact on forgiveness of others is contingent upon the evolution of the superego.

Atonement as repetition compulsion

In the following vignette, the imprint and perpetual reverberation of the guilt-atonement-forgiveness of the archaic mind, reinforced by an unprocessed traumatic event related to parental failure, is evident. The role of the psychoanalytic method of inquiry is the main outlet of discovery and understanding of the ravages of early, far-reaching impressions that shape self-perception and of object relationships that lead to forgiveness.

In the second year of three times a week analysis, Ms. M, a depressed married woman in her late thirties, started the session by criticising herself. Her history included a series of careers which, after experiencing remarkable success, she abandoned because she was “burned out”. In the most recent five years, however, she has been at home raising her children. Now, with both children on the same school schedule, she felt pressured to consider employment to improve the family’s financial situation. As she tried to figure out a new career, she was at a loss to think of anything that she’d be good at, despite her business savvy and successful work history. She felt paralysed and kept berating herself for not having the commitment and the discipline of her older brother, who had both a successful career and a productive life. By comparison, she felt that her life was wasted; she was unable to appreciate herself or her work and had lost all confidence in her potential. As she continued disparaging herself, I asked her about her relentless self-deprecation and what appeared to be a perverse need to strip herself of any positive attributes, and added that she seemed at home with this negative evaluation of herself. She suddenly blurted out: “If all your life you were perceived and treated as a murderer and you had to live with that identity, there wouldn’t be much to feel positive about!” She proceeded to share a traumatic story that had not surfaced at any point in our work up to that moment.

When M was about two or three years old, on one occasion her father, who had a habit of hiking in the woods, brought home two baby rabbits that apparently had lost their mother and were abandoned. He gave one to M and the other one to her older brother. M was so enamoured by the cuteness and cuddliness of the rabbit that in her excitement she literally squeezed the rabbit to death. When the little rabbit stopped moving and breathing, all of a sudden her family rushed to it and told her that she had killed the rabbit. Her older brother called her stupid and kept yelling, “You killed the poor rabbit.” As she looked at the lifeless unresponsive body of the rabbit as her father took it away, she was shocked and confused about what had just happened. Her parents did not say much, but her brother relentlessly badgered her. When his rabbit died some time later, he lashed out at M again for being responsible for this new death, saying his rabbit died of lovesickness and loneliness after what she had done. He never forgot this episode and made sure M did not forget it either. As much as she fought her brother, she could not help but believe everything he had said about her and felt terribly guilty about the “double murder” that she, in her heart, believed she had committed. She came to see herself as someone stupid and dangerous whose love, instead of soothing, could kill. Not only did the parents not seem to care or show any concern about M’s state of mind following this trauma, but her mother found the story quite funny and, on different occasions, for many years shared it with friends and relatives. For added effect, she did not hesitate to mention another accident that occurred around the same time, that of her “klutzy daughter” stepping on a turtle and crushing its shell, thinking it was a stone. M saw this as a constant reminder of her dangerous stupidity and clumsiness, and it further sealed her shame and guilt-ridden image of herself as an animal killer.

Feeling dismayed by M’s terribly painful experience at such a young age and at the total insensitivity with which she was treated, I remarked: “Your mother with her relentless recounting of the story trivialised your truly painful experience of guilt and shame. Perhaps by not sharing it with me until now you were seeking respite from it, but maybe despite your extreme remorse over what had happened, a part of you has joined your mother in trivialising its impact on you.” M started experiencing her anger and asked, “Why didn’t they watch me? Why did they let me squeeze her to death? Why didn’t they stop me and take it away? What were they thinking? Why wouldn’t they stop my brother from calling me a murderer, never letting me forget?” Then she asked, “Isn’t this emblematic of everything else they neglected to do as parents? Who would be so insensitive? In fact, I wonder if my mom let me kill the rabbit so she would be rid of it. She did not like animals in the house.”

As I listened to her, I was also very cognisant of the fact that throughout her childhood and adolescence, M had become a child of nature, wandering in the wild and always bringing home little birds with broken wings or abandoned baby animals in need of care. Indeed, she had told me that she was known in her neighbourhood as the little animal doctor to whom all the other kids would bring their pets. Unfortunately, her ambition to become a veterinarian had failed because she lacked the necessary discipline and commitment. I was very much familiar with this positive side of her that she had shared with me and, up till now, had seen it as a loving peculiarity of hers, without any awareness of how it had come about and that it might have had defensive purposes. So I reminded her of this and wondered how she understood it. Ignoring my hint, and without making any connection to her trauma, she elaborated on her extreme car...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
• INTRODUCTION
• PART I: FORGIVENESS IN THE CLINICAL SITUATION
• PART II: SELF-FORGIVENESS IN ART
• EPILOGUE
• REFERENCES
• INDEX