As I have continued work on the various expressions of The Ethic of Reflection I have come to believe that it cannot be the final element in our ethical structure.
The reflective element found so powerfully in twelve-step programs includes both a “general” review of behavior (the fourth step) and a periodic review (the tenth step).
These have been used by millions over the years as effective aids in recovery from addictive behaviors of all sorts. And they certainly will be included in our examples of the Ethic of Reflection. But the practitioner’s work does not stop there. In fact, most twelve-step practitioners would argue that these reflective activities are only preparation for the truly powerful work of making amends.
The fifth step acknowledgment of the wrongs found in step four — importantly admitted to oneself, to a higher power and to another human being — is often the most emotionally wrenching and liberating of all the steps. And the ongoing eleventh step amends-making process is credited by many with the ability to maintain the emotional and spiritual balance necessary for continued control over addiction.
Other traditions obviously recognize the power of atonement or amendment-making, of course. The sacrament of confession in Christian tradition, the Jewish laws and rituals of atonement and many others are integral parts of the making-things-right process so necessary to spiritual and emotional balance and growth.
Phil Cousineau has edited a book called “Beyond Forgiveness: Reflections on Atonement” (Wiley, 2011) that contains some excellent essays on the subjects of both forgiveness and atonement. The point is made by many of the authors in that collection that atonement requires action.
Reflection can, and usually is, a strictly internal process. But to right a wrong in most cases requires the involvement of others.
There are exceptions to that, of course. In the amendment-making process of twelve-step programs the practitioner is to “make direct amends to them all except when to do so would injure them or others”.
We cannot indulge our own need for emotional closure at the expense of causing more damage to others.
And, of course, there will be times when circumstances, such as distance or death, prevent the making of direct amends. In such cases amendment can be made to a proxy for the actually-damaged person or via a meaningful ritual of some sort.
The clinical psychologist, Kate Dahlstedt, in her essay in Cousineau’s book makes the important point that for many in our times the psychotherapist often becomes the ear that hears the admissions of wrongdoing. The therapist-patient dynamic is very different from that of a sponsor, spiritual guide or confessor, though, and the implications of that difference need some consideration. But Dahlstedt makes the point clearly that the completion of the process of confronting and responding to our harmful actions requires not only acknowledgement, but also concrete action of rectification.
I use the term rectification without being convinced it is the right word. Restitution might be better. But I resist using reconciliation, which some prefer. I resist because reconciliation seems to imply a positive and forgiving response from the person harmed.
It might be that the priest hearing confession, when absolution is given, is acting in a sense not only on behalf of God but also as proxy for the person wronged. That is: absolution might be seen as making action directly affecting the person wronged unnecessary.
But Jewish tradition and twelve-step programs take a different view. Where direct amends or restitution are possible, they must be offered.
The key issue is that it does not matter if the person harmed accepts the offer of restitution or the apology or other act of rectification. The person we have harmed might be rude, insulting and dismissive of our offer. And that has to be ok.
It is for the penitent to make the appropriate and sincere offer. The rest is out of his hands.
Having become convinced that the atonement step must be an additional part of the structure of our system it’s not clear to me yet whether it should be a part of an overall Ethic of Repair, which would include both the reflection and rectification steps, or whether it should stand on its own. I’m leaning toward the former but more work and thought will be needed to reach a conclusion.
©Charles R. Lightner