Psychotherapy Volume 28/Fall 1991/Number 3 FIVE POINTS ON THE CONSTRUCT OF FORGIVENESS WITHIN PSYCHOTHERAPY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT STUDY GROUP University of Wisconsin—Madison We address five issues about interpersonal forgiveness in psychotherapy, as a response to Worthington and DiBlasio's (1990) thought-provoking article. We argue that therapists must first know the subtleties in the definition of forgiveness, view forgiveness as an unfolding process taking time, direct clients to forgive one issue at a time, be aware of pseudo-forgiveness, and consider whether a client should forgive even when an offender remains unrepentant. Worthington and DiBlasio (1990), in a recent issue of this journal, discussed the important topic of interpersonal forgiveness within psychotherapy. Because of the many new articles on this topic within the helping professions (see, for example, Fitzgibbons, 1986; Hope, 1987) we believe it nec- essary to clarify five points about forgiveness that have emerged in the published literature. Our point is not to criticize but to add understanding about forgiveness so that therapists may provide the best possible service to clients who have forgiveness as a goal. This group consists of the following people, presented in randomized order: Suzanne Freedman, Elizabeth Gassin, Sandra Golden, Gail Hollander, Issidoros Sarinopoulos, Leanne Olson, Ching-ru Wu, Philip Lambert, Robert Enright, and Michael Subkoviak. Funds to one of the authors from a Vilas Associates Award, UW-Madison, were used in the preparation of this manuscript. Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Robert Enright, Department of Educational Psychology, University of Wisconsin—Madison, Madison WI53706-1796. Our first point is that a therapist must have an adequate definition of interpersonal forgiveness before introducing the topic to clients. Table 1 presents five modern philosophers' and psychol- ogists' verbatim statements about person-to-person forgiveness. North's is a relatively complete idea because she sees forgiveness as encompassing five major points: 1) we usually have negative emotions toward another person before we forgive him or her; 2) in forgiving the other we reduce these negative emotions; 3) even though we have a moral right to the resentment, we no longer resent; 4) our new relation with the other is one of love (drawing on the Christian idea of agape); 5) we realize the other person has no moral right to that love, but we nevertheless freely offer it. Downie, too, focuses on agape and a renewed relationship. His point is that the forgiver attempts to remove interpersonal barriers and reestablish trust. The relational quality of forgiveness is clearly evident in both North's and Downie's definitions. Kolnai also emphasizes the theme of love or charity, focusing on the self-sacrificial nature of forgiveness, in deference to the other person, the relationship, and the ethical principle of love. Brandsma and Hope, both practitioners, continue the theme of interpersonal love. They suggest forgiveness can be used in psychological healing and in negotiating interpersonal conflict, in agree- ment with Worthington and DiBlasio. Others state that interpersonal forgiveness is only between people, not between people and inanimate objects and is in the context of deep hurt (Murphy, 1982; Murphy & Hampton, 1988; Smedes, 1984). Our main point is that forgiveness, properly understood, must make room for the client's viewing the other person as worthwhile because he or she is a human being; all human beings are worthy of love in its moral sense. Therapists emphasizing forgiveness in its richest sense must make room for the growth of moral love in the client. A definition that ex- clusively emphasizes forgiveness as the reduction 493