Page 140 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 5

A Portrait of a Christian Psychologist: Paul C. Vitz

and may indicate more negative justice judg- remorse (sorrow) and humility. We agree with
ments when in a negative affective state. (van Enright about his concept of pseudo-self-for-
den Bos, 2003) giveness and believe it answers our narcissistic
criticisms of self-forgiveness, but not those with
The influence of affective state is crucial to un- respect to splitting and conflict of judgment.
derstanding the dangers intrinsic to the concept Also, we believe that both self-forgiveness and
of conflict of interest. pseudo-self-forgiveness are terms to be avoided
Self-Isolation and narcissistic preoccupation for other reasons noted below. To illuminate
It is not surprising that self-forgiveness theories our position more concretely we present the
have developed in the present cultural period following interpretations and a case history.
with its very strong emphasis on the autono-
mous and narcissistic individual. A natural ex- Origins of Residual Negative Feelings
pression of understanding the autonomous self As mentioned earlier, the most important re-
as the basic psychological model of the person ason behind the use of self-forgiveness is the
is the development of a self-forgiveness model persisting “bad” or “negative” feelings within
since for many the burden of most psychologi- the client. Often such negative feelings remain
cal activity is assumed to rest on the self. This even when the person is forgiven by others, or
widespread understanding was labeled “The in spite of attempts at reparation.
Culture of Narcissism” (Lasch, 1978.) More re- For the self-forgiveness therapist, these persi-
cent descriptions of this phenomenon include: sting negative feelings are interpreted as evi-
Twenge, 2006, Vaknin, 2007, Twenge & Camp- dence that the client has not forgiven the self.
bell, 2009. The ignoring of social duties and of This conclusion is reached by the clinician and
interpersonal relationships is a common cha- often by the client as well because there is ap-
racteristic of narcissistic persons and one rein- parently no one left to forgive the self or becau-
forced by the self-forgiveness process. It allows se the client believes he or she does not need
one to escape dealing with the opinions, judg- or cannot seek forgiveness from angry or dead
ments and values of others. Self-forgiveness, in others. These negative feelings can be experi-
short, can allow people to rationalize avoiding ences of loneliness, sadness, depression, self-
the more difficult task of actually talking with hate and condemnation and they are the major
the offended other. It is easier and simpler to re- clinical expressions resulting in self-forgiveness
duce a problem to one of “self-help” and to deny therapy. These are very real types of suffering
our need for relationship with others. and rightly cry out for an answer. It is the con-
With respect to the narcissistic issues raised here tention here, however, that such painful feelings
the theorist Enright (personal communication persist because of reasons other than a failure to
November 19, 2008) generally agrees with their forgive the self.
interpretation but he describes narcissistic re-
sponses as pseudo or false self-forgiveness. (The The shoulds and the musts: Horney and Ellis
possibility of pseudo-self-forgiveness is also Efforts to resolve negative feelings can be very
discussed by Hall & Fincham, 2005.) An impor- difficult when the client believes he or she
tant marker of pseudo-self-forgiveness would “must” be morally perfect or at least very good,
be the failure to make amends to others, inclu- “must” be successful or “should” be indepen-
ding God, and sometimes to the community for dent of others. Such self-created standards of
the violation of a standard. Making amends is worth are often lauded within society. For such
a good index to the presence of humility in a a self-oriented or autonomous individual, of-
person and is an antidote to narcissistic self- ten the “bad” self is deemed “bad” because the
deception. This point is made by Fisher & Ex- person’s own standards of self worth have been
line (2006) who found egotism was associated violated or not achieved. The client is strugg-
with reluctance to accept responsibility and that ling with a tyranny of “shoulds”, as identified in
those who accepted responsibility for their of- Karen Horney’s description of the client’s inner
fense showed more pro-social responses such as conflict with self-chosen and extremely ideali-

140