The first element in The Ethic of Repair is reflection. Reflection is the process through which we examine our behavior and identify the ways in which we have fallen short; the ways in which we have failed to act in accordance with the Ethics of Restraint and Respect.
Identifying our shortcomings is, itself, a positive and powerful practice. But to accomplish repair, more is needed.
As Philip Cousineau has said:
“While a great deal has been written and published about forgiveness in our time, the idea of moving beyond it to atonement is mostly uncharted territory for modern people.”
But “Without … the opportunity to atone for any hurt we have caused, we remain stuck in the past; we suffer from a kind of “soul rust” and are unable to live fully in the present moment.
Phil Cousineau. Beyond Forgiveness: Reflections on Atonement . Wiley. Kindle Edition.
The point Cousineau makes about forgiveness is a good one. We know, now, that forgiveness itself is a very powerful practice. Much has been written about the forgiveness and reconciliation work done South Africa, in India, in Nepal and Cambodia, in the US with respect to the Native American and African American communities, etc.
As much as forgiveness is understood to have very positive effects on both one who forgives and one who is forgiven. And, as much as reconciliation might be the ultimate desire of an atonement process. For purposes of governing ones’ own behavior, it is atonement, or the making of amends for wrongs done – which I prefer to term Rectification — that is the ultimate controllable practice in the Ethic of Repair.
If I have done harm to another, whether by failure of restraint or failure of respect, and I am serious in my desire to avoid doing harm, my transgression will cause me some discomfort. The discomfort might be very slight, a twinge of regret or embarrassment. Or it might be a gut-wrenching sort of soul-guilt so severe that it shakes me to the core.
Whatever the level of discomfort it causes, its cure is essentially the same. As Cousineau puts it:
“So atonement costs us something—pride, humility, time, money. If it doesn’t involve a sacrifice of some kind, it isn’t real atonement.”
What is the difference between rectification and atonement? Does the difference matter?
Atonement has a strong religious association among those for whom the vicarious atonement doctrine of Christianity is an important belief. It implies guilt and guilt implies at least some level of deliberateness or intentionality.
But I can cause harm for which I might be rightly held responsible without committing any voluntary transgression. And the unintentional harm that I cause is still harm and still requires compensation.
It is in that sense that I think the term rectification is more appropriate. It includes what might be termed atonement for deliberate transgressions as well as restitution for unintentional transgressions. And the distinction is a useful one to maintain.
It should be said, though, that there is a significant difference between feeling guilty for doing intentional harm and feeling responsible for doing unintentional harm. Even though both harms require rectification, the impact of a relief of guilt is likely to be more powerful than the impact of a discharge of responsibility.
So the Ethic of Repair, we will say, is composed of the Ethic of Reflection, which results in the acknowledgment of harm done and the Ethic of Rectification, which requires harm to be made good or cured.
©Charles R. Lightner