Torn: Social Expectations Concerning Forgiveness Among Women Who Have Experienced Intrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse.

593296 research-article2015

JIVXXX10.1177/0886260515593296Journal of Interpersonal ViolenceTener and Eisikovits

Article

Torn: Social Expectations Concerning Forgiveness Among Women Who Have Experienced Intrafamilial Child Sexual Abuse

Journal of Interpersonal Violence 1–19 © The Author(s) 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0886260515593296 jiv.sagepub.com

Dafna Tener1 and Zvi Eisikovits2

Abstract The authors examine how women who experienced intrafamilial child sexual abuse (IFCSA) perceive social expectations of society toward forgiveness, how they incorporate IFCSA and reconstruct their life stories in relation to these expectations, and the costs and gains from such reconstructions. This is part of a larger study on the phenomenology of forgiveness for IFCSA among grown women. Twenty Jewish Israeli women who had experienced IFCSA were interviewed in depth. Interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analyses lead to four types of social expectations: forgiveness by forgetting, avenging, family preservation through forgiveness, and satisfying the voyeuristic needs of society, which has limited interest in forgiveness. These contradictory expectations are discussed in light of the cultural context and the experience of the women interviewed. Implications for practice are suggested. Keywords child sexual abuse, adult victims, family issues and mediators

1The

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel of Haifa, Israel

2University

Corresponding Author: Dafna Tener, The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mt Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jiv.sagepub.com at U.A.E University on November 16, 2015

2

Journal of Interpersonal Violence

Over the past three decades, forgiveness in the context of interpersonal relations has been extensively researched, yet this research did not include forgiveness for intrafamilial child sexual abuse (IFCSA), which remains within the realm of taboo (Bass & Davis, 1994; Forward, 1990; S. L. Miller, 2005). Concern has been raised in the clinical and empirical literature about the healing versus hurtful effect of forgiveness among survivors of IFCSA (e.g., Bass & Davis, 1994; O’Leary, 2007). This study is part of a larger qualitative research project conducted by the first author toward a doctoral dissertation, exploring the experience of IFCSA and forgiveness among adult women and the meaning of forgiveness in the lives of these women. Here the women’s perceptions of the expectations of society toward forgiveness for FCSA are examined. We also investigated how these expectations influence their reconstruction of their life stories and what they gain or lose from such reconstructions. The study was based on a qualitative thematic analysis using a basic systematic multistage approach to identify, analyze, describe, and interpret data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). It included 20 women who were interviewed via semistructured interviews. In the course of data analysis, which included deconstruction and reconstruction to detect the main themes, it became apparent that the concept of forgiving IFCSA cannot be separated from social expectations: The women’s narratives concerning forgiveness conformed to how they believed others in society (family, friends, professionals, or the public) expected them to react. Therefore, this study focuses on social expectations about forgiving the perpetrator, as perceived by adult women survivors. The issue of forgiveness for deviant behavior as part of the healing process is becoming an important component of intervention with survivors of intrafamily transgressions (e.g., Hargrave, 2013). Yet forgiveness and social expectations related to IFCSA have not been addressed. This study attempts to examine IFCSA as a case in point to address this theoretical concern. No studies have directly addressed social expectations concerning forgiveness for incest. The literature identifies two interrelated themes that are indirectly relevant to social expectations: (a) Is IFCSA a forgivable offence? and (b) Should reconciliation be part of the forgiveness process for survivors? (e.g., Enright, 2001; Hargrave, 2001; Lamb, 2002; McCullough, Pargament, & Thoresen, 2000; S. L. Miller, 2005). These questions lie at the heart of the brief review below.

Is Incest a Forgivable Offence? Is there such a thing as an unforgivable deed? As part of the forgiveness process described by Enright and colleagues (e.g., Freedman & Enright, 1996), the injured party is capable of transforming anger and resentment toward the


Tener and Eisikovits

3

offender into empathy and compassion, completing the forgiveness process. This definition focuses on emotions, whereas Worthington, Witvliet, Pietrini, and Miller (2007) differentiate between decisional and emotional forgiveness. The former emphasizes the behavioral decision aimed at avoiding an unforgiving stance and expected to lead to behavioral change toward the offender, rather than replacing negative emotions with more positive or at least neutral ones. Irrespective of the kind of forgiveness, there is much ambivalence in the literature regarding the social legitimacy of forgiving perpetrators of sexual offences in childhood. Some suggest that IFCSA should be considered an unforgivable offence. Forward (1990) refers to child sexual abuse (CSA) as an absolute evil. According to Govier (2002), this stand calls for absolute unforgiving: Monstrous deeds create monstrous doers who have no right to be forgiven. This stance represents the moral judgment of outsiders but not necessarily that of survivors. It has been found, for example, that those close to sexually abused survivors were less willing to forgive the abusers than were the survivors themselves, a phenomenon referred to as “third-party forgiveness effect” (Green, Burnette, & Davis, 2008). Others wish to make a distinction between the offense and the offender. Although some offenses may be unforgivable, the offended can forgive the offender as a human being, who is more than the sum of his acts, capable of taking responsibility for them and reforming his behavior (Baumeister, 1997; Fitzgibbons, 1998; Govier, 2002; Robb, 2007). By maintaining the position that IFCSA is unforgivable, abused women may become trapped in the victim state. Yet others maintain that there is no absolute forgiveness or unforgiving for the abuser, but only forgiveness within the specific context of the parties involved (Govier, 2002). According to Hargrave (2001), the current behavior of the offender (whether he continues to injure and abuse or repents and reforms) affects his right to be forgiven. From the survivor’s perspective, the relevance of forgiveness is determined by the effect of the offense on her basic assumptions about life and the future, especially regarding traumatizing acts such as IFCSA (Flanigan, 1998; J. A. Miller, 2009).

Should Reconciliation Be Part of the Forgiveness Process? This theme consists of expectations about the appropriateness of reconciliation in forgiveness for IFCSA. One common view is that reconciliation (repairing the relationship with the offender) may be physically and psychologically dangerous for women who have experienced IFCSA (Berecz, 2001; Enright, 2001; McCullough, 2001). The preservation or resumption of the relationship with an


4


unrepentant or denying perpetrator may place the woman at risk of repeated assault (McCullough, 2001). It is considered very unlikely that sexual offenders take responsibility, show regret, or feel empathy toward the survivor (Goldstein & Katz-Czerny, 2004; Kearns & Fincham, 2004; Magaletta & Herbst, 2001). It is not surprising that some survivors prefer to keep their distance from the offender or completely sever all relationship with him in adulthood (Helm, Jhonathan, Cook, & Berecz, 2005). Yet, other relationships between the survivors and the abuser continue into adulthood (Middleton, 2013). A less common view in the literature is that reconciliation in cases of IFCSA is the highest level of forgiveness (Hargrave, 2001), as long as it does not endanger the survivor (Madanes, 1990). In this sense, reconciliation is seen as a way of forming a loving and trusting relationship (Hargrave, 2001, 2013) and is contingent on the perpetrator’s admission, remorse, apology, and compensation (e.g., Fincham, Paleari, & Regalia, 2002). Note that authors supporting reconciliation (Hargrave, 2001; Hargrave & Sells, 1997; Madanes, 1990; Veenstra, 1992) may create unrealistic expectations for survivors of IFCSA concerning the perpetrators’ willingness to perform the actions needed to take responsibility for the offence. As noted, the literature on IFCSA and forgiveness reflects ambivalence between not forgiving and reconciliation and between harmfulness and healing. Such ambivalence is associated with a mix of attitudes and expectations about the forgivable nature of IFCSA acts and about how these may affect the survivors’ experiences. In his qualitative study of how women survivors of childhood sexual abuse ascribed meaning to their experiences, Van Niekerk (1999) found that the survivors’ stories reflect the confusion they experienced when faced with attempts to socially reconstruct CSA differently from how they experienced it themselves. As a highly deviant act, IFCSA is likely to be associated with inflexible social norms and expectations to defend social systems from harm. Accordingly, our analysis indicates that social expectations serve as an ongoing context for understanding the survivors’ perspective of forgiving IFCSA. We therefore ask here how women perceive the expectations of society toward forgiveness for IFCSA, how they incorporate IFCSA and reconstruct their life stories in light of these expectations, and what they gain or lose from such reconstructions.

Method Sample The sample consisted of 20 Jewish Israeli women who had experienced IFCSA as children. The women were recruited through organizations treating



5

survivors of sexual abuse and by posting notices on websites specifically aimed at this group. Table 1 contains a summary of the women’s sociodemographic characteristics: The women’s ages ranged from 22 to 65. Ten women had been abused by their fathers, 3 by their brothers, 2 by a brother-in-law or uncle, and 1 by a cousin. Four additional women had been abused by two or three perpetrators from within the family, including 2 who had also been abused by both their mothers and a male family member.

Procedures Face-to-face semistructured interviews were conducted by the first author, who was specifically trained to conduct these interviews. Most interviews took place in the women’s homes or in an alternative location of their choice. The interviews lasted from 1.5 to 3.5 hr. The interview guide covered several content categories, including the IFCSA events (e.g., tell me your story. tell me about the sexual abuse you experienced as a child.); perceptions about the effects of the abuse in the short and long term (How do you think the abuse affected your growing up as a child? How do you think it affects your current life?); the meaning of forgiveness (e.g., What do you think and feel about forgiving your perpetrator?); social expectation concerning forgiveness (e.g., What do you think others, such as other family members, expect with regard to forgiveness?). The interviews were tape-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using software designed for analyzing qualitative research (Atlas ti.5). The interviews were originally conducted in Hebrew, electronically recorded, transcribed verbatim, and were translated to English by a professional language editor. Ethical issues were addressed through the approval process of the university ethics committee: Informed consent from the participants was obtained, and special attention was paid to issues of confidentiality and dignity. Identifying details were removed from the data, and pseudonyms were used instead of actual names. All study participants were asked to view the research report before submission to cross validate the interpretations and to ensure that they cannot be identified from the data or the context. Most participants were in contact with therapeutic agents before the interview, who were known to the researchers at the time of the study and who could be consulted if needed. Trustworthiness (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) was achieved by member check, peer debriefing, and audit trails. Member check involves participants clarifying and elaborating on the interviews, giving examples of their perceptions, and responding to the aggregate findings of the data analysis. About half the


6


Year of Birth

1970 1969 1986 1983 1984 1983 1982 1943 1975 1978 1982 1965 1949 1953 1972 1946 1964 1966 1972 1947

Name (Pseudonyms)

Avishag Hilla Yonah Tami Moran Sharon Einav Naomi Shira Lilach Tali Ella Orit Vered Roni Roz Einat Hadar Niva Rivka

Soviet Union Israel — Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Israel Algeria Israel Israel Israel Israel United States South America Israel

Country of Birth

Table 1. Participant Characteristics.

College College Vocational school Vocational school College College College College College College College Paramedical Paramedical College College College High school College College Vocational school

Education Health care Computer designer Currently unemployed Computer advisor Social worker Student Social worker Social worker PhD student Physiotherapist working with children at risk alternative medicine Supervisor for geriatric health care Artist Administration—project director Researcher House mother at home for the aged Practitioner of Alexander method Currently unemployed In charge of school laboratory

Current Job Middle class Middle class Lower class Middle class Middle class Middle class Middle class Middle class Middle class Middle class Lower class Middle class Middle class Lower class Middle class Lower class Lower class Middle class Lower class Middle class

Economic Status Married Married Single Married Single Married Single Married Single Single Single Married Divorced Single Married Divorced Single Divorced Single Married

Family Status

3 3 None 1 None None None 3 None None None 2 4 None None None None 4 None 3

Number of Children


7

participants expressed their desire to peruse the data and react to the themes identified by the authors. The data were sent to them by email, and they responded either orally or in writing. Their comments and reflections on the data were included into the analysis. In nearly all the cases, participants approved the authors’ interpretation and explicitly stated that it was consistent with their experiences. Some clarifications were suggested by the interviewees concerning interpretation of specific sections in the data. These were always included in the analysis. In the course of peer debriefing, the authors, both experienced in the field of sexual abuse and in qualitative research methods, analyzed the data separately and jointly. Peer debriefing was conducted throughout the analysis and took the form of face-to-face meetings and discussions of selected excerpts. The audit trail consisted of detailed documentation kept throughout all stages of the research. Excerpts from the raw data were attached to all interpretations and the peer debriefing process was documented in writing.

Data Analysis The analysis was based on a qualitative thematic analysis approach (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and included several interrelated stages. Before beginning the analysis, the interviews were read several times for the authors to become familiar with the data and to identify initial ideas. In the first stage of the analysis, we entered each interview transcript as a case into the computer program (Atlas ti.5) and performed open coding, which yielded initial categories. More precisely, the cases were broken down into small segments of text, representing discrete “units of meaning,” and each unit was labeled according to its content. In the second stage, the codes were grouped together as initial themes. As the authors read through the cases, some of the themes were removed or changed and additional codes and categories were added. For example, several codes were defined as “social expectations: forget the abuse and move on,” whereas others were defined as “social expectations: don’t forgive the abuse and take revenge.” In the third stage, the themes and subthemes were reviewed and classified by their dimensions and properties (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). For example, the various expectations related to the need to confront, disgrace, or take revenge against the offender were merged and separated from all other expectations concerning forgiveness. The expressions of attitudes resisting forgiveness were grouped together. In the fourth stage, themes were refined, named, and interrelationships between them were suggested (Braun & Clarke, 2006). For example, the previously identified theme was further classified into “There is no forgiveness or pardon for such things: IFCSA as an unforgivable act.” At this stage, the authors


8


referred back to the transcripts when necessary to retrieve additional information needed to develop the categories (Maykut & Morehouse, 1994).

Findings Data analysis yielded four interrelated themes concerning social expectations and forgiveness as perceived by the women: (a) IFCSA is perceived by others as an unforgivable act, and women who have experienced IFCSA are expected to be unforgiving toward the perpetrator; (b) IFCSA should be left in the background of the women’s lives to enable them to forgive (forget the abuse) and move on with their lives; (c) women are expected to forgive to renew or preserve family relations because “blood is thicker than water”; and (d) forgiveness is seen as irrelevant in a society that is interested in gratifying voyeurism. These themes are expanded below, illustrated through representative quotes, and discussed. Note that some of the expectations may overlap to some degree, that is, the same woman may be simultaneously exposed, in her opinion, to more than one expectation.

“There Is No Forgiveness or Pardon for Such Things”: IFCSA as an Unforgivable Act One social expectation that women experienced is that IFCSA and its consequences are severe to a degree that leaves no place for forgiveness. Women receive the societal message that the offender should be punished for his deeds by legal means, and the survivor or others must take revenge. This is illustrated in the following quote from Sharon,1 a young woman in her 20s, who had been sexually abused by a cousin. When I got married my mom decided she didn’t want him to be at my wedding . . . Now our family number forty people. You just don’t do that, I mean if that’s the price to avoid a family upheaval then let him come, what do I care . . . My mother she keeps trying to find a way to get even . . . so not inviting him to the wedding means what? That it will all disappear?

In a previous portion of the interview, Sharon described her attempts to disclose the abuse early on, but her mother disregarded her attempts. Her mother, however, became vengeful toward the perpetrator in her daughter’s adulthood. Sharon perceives both reactions as detrimental. Although she attempts to relegate the abuse to the background, her mother keeps bringing it into the forefront of her life by banishing the perpetrator from family events. In Sharon’s view, this reaction stems from the mother’s own need to



9

cope with the abuse she herself had suffered as a child and not out of concern for her daughter’s well-being. Sharon finds her mother’s response offensive. Another example of social expectation not to forgive is illustrated in the following quote from Tami, in her 20s, who had been abused by her father: I can tell you, my friends don’t think about it in terms of me having to forgive. It’s more that I should put him in jail already, and that’s that. And this is how the topic will come to a closure, not through forgiveness. Interviewer: And what do you think about putting him in jail? Tami: I don’t have the strength for that, and no interest in it.

Tami’s friends unanimously conform to a specific societal expectation that IFCSA should be punished rather than forgiven. This attitude may be rooted in cultural traditions going back to the Bible, where IFCSA is cited as one of three offences punishable by death. The social expectation is that the perpetrator of IFCSA pays for his deeds in accordance with the needs of both society and the survivor. The belief that a single, definitive act will bring closure to the offense of IFCSA is emotional and does not take into account the complex meaning of the experience (e.g., the survivor’s contradictory emotions toward the offender). The assumption that indicting the offender meets the survivor’s needs and desires is not supported by her description of her experience. When prompted by the interviewer, Tami responded that she has neither the strength nor the desire to engage in legal action, which might result in ostracism by her family, revealing testimony, and social stigma—as she indicated elsewhere in the interview, similarly to other informants.

“Forget It All and Move On”: IFCSA as an Offence That Should Be Forgotten and Forgiven This theme contradicts the previous expectation, and nearly all participants mentioned it in different variations. The women perceived that they were expected to exclude the assault from their lives and be able to forgive by forgetting or excusing the offender. Ella, in her forties, was abused by her father. She disclosed the abuse to her mother as an adult: She knows . . . I told her what I had with him. And when I talked to her, he overheard the conversations . . . and all the time I kept hearing him saying to her “tell her she must forget it all and move on . . . tell her she must forget and move on . . .”


10


Ella’s perpetrator does not deny the abuse. Instead, he pleads that it took place too long ago to retain any relevance. He enlists the support of his wife for his position, expecting the social pressure to produce the desirable result and make the abuse irrelevant, and as such forgettable. Following disclosure of sexual abuse by her brother, 6 years her senior, Roni, in her 30s, described the same social expectations as framed by her therapist in the family therapy sessions: In family therapy, which they forced us all to attend, they asked me and my brother to come to a separate session. In that session, we were supposed to tell what happened between us . . . and we did, more or less. I told what happened and he said it was play. And then the therapist told us to ask one another for forgiveness and shake hands so we could move on with the family therapy. At this point I said: “I don’t understand why I should ask his forgiveness and why should I shake his hand?” Like . . . what is going on here? “Do you really believe that that’s it? After this session, we will continue with the family therapy and our family will be wonderful and amazing?” Like, “Hey, what is going on with you?” And I refused. My brother, of course, began by asking for my forgiveness, but I said “No!” What in my account made you think that I have to ask him for forgiveness?…” And then the therapist said: “No, it’s not that . . . we just want to settle things. Each one of us described what happened and that was it. OK, let’s move on.” And I said, “OK, I have nothing else to say,” and I got up and left. I stopped the session in the middle . . . and that is how it ended.

In this instance, Roni perceived the family therapist’s expectation of forgiveness as coercive. The therapist’s message was that the assault was mutual, which did not correspond to her perception of herself as a survivor and of her brother as perpetrator. She saw forgiveness as favoring the offender (“My brother, of course, began . . .”) by absolving him of the main portion of his responsibility, which is why he welcomed the possibility of forgiveness. For herself, Roni perceived forgiveness as pseudoforgiveness, which did not reflect the fundamental process and would not change the relationship with her brother or promote a process of recovery within the family. The therapist, as a social agent, called for “encapsulation” of the assault by isolating it, disconnecting it from day-to-day life, and setting it aside by means of rituals stressing mutual forgiveness. Roni’s response was firm resistance.

“Blood Is Thicker Than Water”: Forgiveness as a Way of Renewing or Preserving Family Relationships Another perceived social expectation is the use of forgiveness as a means of preserving or renewing the women’s relationships with the family. The



11

women perceive that society expects them to acknowledge family integrity as a higher value; society considers choosing to sever relations with their family, which is the customary behavior of survivors of IFCSA, an extreme and unacceptable reaction. Women are expected to forgive the perpetrators to enable restoration of normal family relations. Moran, in her 20s, was abused by her father. In the following excerpt, she described one of the few subsequent occasions on which she met him, at her sister’s wedding: I didn’t want to come to the wedding at all . . . My dad was there . . . and it was terrible . . . I looked at my mother and I knew that even though she’s not talking about it, maybe something is going through her head. I didn’t look at my dad at all. And when the guests arrived it was really difficult to pretend everything was OK. Everybody was standing under the canopy and I was standing far away, and my grandma kept saying “go, go, go, go,” and I didn’t want to stand next to my dad . . . and for me, I wished to die that very minute . . .

The family event described by Moran evokes ambivalent feelings: The need to remain close to the family clashes with the need to maintain distance from the perpetrator. Moran, like most survivors, could not celebrate with her family without meeting the perpetrator. Associating with the family necessarily entails associating with the perpetrator. Not attending her sister’s wedding would have been a declaration of intent toward the perpetrator and the family as a whole. Her ambivalence at the wedding ceremony is illustrated by her grandmother’s pleas to “go, go, go, go” (meaning to move closer to the canopy under which the family was assembled), but in Moran’s experience, proximity to the family and to the perpetrator means danger. She chose to keep a safe distance, despite family expectations and pressure. With the other family members united under the canopy, she was left alone, feeling lonely and homeless. It was obvious to the family members that the family event should have priority over her personal pain and suffering. Roni, in her 30s, who chose to sever relations with her family in adulthood, described the societal reaction to her decision: And lots of people ask me . . . “But family is family; you don’t give up on them. Forgive them.” And in my head I often keep in mind that before they die I should do some sort of sulha (reconciliation). But for me . . . in my daily life, they don’t exist at all . . . It’s really hard to explain it, but they just don’t exist. I don’t even consider them as part of my life. They are just not there. But then when I face this question and people say “OK, but some day you’ll meet them, you’ll talk to them, you’ll forgive them. You can’t let them die without achieving closure between you.” And I . . . don’t . . . I just wait for the phone call that will tell me that they died, and that it’s over, and that I don’t need to complete this journey with them.


12


Traditional family values stand in stark contrast with the entrenched taboo of IFCSA in the “blood is thicker than water” metaphor. A well-entrenched Israeli social norm is that family members should be close to each other (Lavee & Katz, 2003; Toren, 2003). Breaking a family relationship is considered an extreme and unexpected step, and the social expectation is to attempt to restore severed relationships. Indeed, the most frequently mentioned justification for forgiving stems from the view that close relationships are too important to give up (Younger, Piferi, Jobe, & Lawler, 2004). Additional expressions of similar values are present in such statements by interviewees as “family is family,” “you don’t choose your family,” and “there is nothing like family.” As opposed to the previous expectation described above, which was broad and socially based, this last message is more interpersonal and aimed directly at the survivor. It is possible that such expectations result from outsiders’ lack of knowledge of the details of the sexual abuse, but however inaccurate they may be, they continue to exert great pressure on the women. For Roni, it appears that the only way to avoid obeying the social dictum of family reunification is to patiently await her parents’ deaths, which, in her perception, appears to be the Solution.

“The Eternal Victim”: The Malignance of IFCSA In this variation, IFCSA is perceived by society as creating permanent psychological damage, and women who do not fit into the expected victim schema of lifelong suffering, are immediately labeled as deviant. Those who cope are paradoxically cast into a deviant role. Wishing to forgive the perpetrator may be perceived as part of the coping process and, as such, casts suspicion on the woman as overdramatizing: “If you are forgiving, he didn’t really hurt you or it was probably not such a serious offense.” Hila, in her 40s, abused by her father, said, What I know is that forgiveness helped me and I’m not sure that society is interested in whether it helps me or not. Interviewer: So what are they interested in? Hila: They are interested in hearing the details. To know what happened. To hear about the enormity of the disaster that happened to me. That’s how I see it. In all the stories about this kind of abuse, they try to lap up all the . . . details; they make it dirty, sensational. That’s what I don’t like. And they never tell the success stories. They never broadcast the optimism in the “in spite of it all.” There are lots of women who carried on in spite of what happened to them.



13

Publicize that, too. And I really think I made it clear to you that forgiveness did help me, and I think it’s important to emphasize that.

Hila criticizes the social expectation of being labeled the eternal victim. Along these lines, she also feels society expects “pornographic” IFCSA stories as a means of satisfying voyeuristic needs. She believes society is more interested in the sordid details or the destructive ways in which IFCSA affects women’s lives. They want to see grim movies, in which sex and suffering intertwine into a sad tale.

Discussion Recovery by adult survivors of CSA is of major social and clinical concern. Recovery is an extremely complex and multidimensional process (e.g., Banyard & Williams, 2007), involving the social expectations attached to it. One structural component of recovery relates to societal responses to disclosure and to seeking and receiving social support from others (Draucker et al., 2011; Phanichrat & Townshend, 2010). We believe that relating to social expectations from survivors of sexual abuse should be an inherent component in the recovery process. The female survivors of IFCSA interviewed here live in a constant contradiction between social expectations and their inner experiences. Contradictions and ambiguity arise in general beliefs about CSA. For instance, using a Google search to identify myths about CSA, Cromer and Goldsmith (2010) found that some people did not perceive CSA as harmful, whereas others perceived an exaggerated harm. Expectations from victims of many sorts of injury typically involve forgiveness, usually considered a desirable response to interpersonal transgressions (e.g., Hargrave, 2013; Jampolsky, 2011). However, with CSA, beliefs about forgiving are contradictory and ambiguous. The opposing views could result from IFCSA posing a major threat to the “just world view” (Cromer & Goldsmith, 2010). Similarly, opposing expectations from victims of IFCSA appear to derive from society’s attempt to cover all possibilities of avoiding the unbearable threat of IFCSA. This appears to place women survivors in the difficult position of having to bridge or integrate contradictory social expectations with their inner experience, a process that can only develop and be maintained in supportive interaction with others (Baumeister, 2010). The women interviewed here perceived social expectations (of family members, formal and informal systems, and the media) as both contradictory (e.g., forget and move on as opposed to seeking vengeance) and inadequate (e.g., society focuses on the graphic details of the abuse even though some of


14


the women are striving to relegate them to the background in an attempt to heal the wounds). Therefore, the women are torn between attempting to belong and failing to do so. The contradictions between their emotions and the expectations from them put them at a loss, alienated and distanced from the social world, in constant threat of being socially marginalized (Gibson & Hartshorne, 1996; Tener, 2010), and at risk of major damage to their psychological well-being (Hasnain & Kumar, 2006; Sigurdardottir & Halldorsdottir, 2013). The women are thus in a no-win situation. They need to decide between relinquishing their inner self and gaining social approval or being true to themselves and facing social rejection. For example, belonging to the family at any cost often entails proximity to the perpetrator, whose stance is expected to be one of condemnation and punishment. Spilling out the detailed story of their abuse opposes the demand to forget it all and move on. The social expectations concerning IFCSA and forgiveness must also be understood in the cultural context of the participants. The women in this study live in Israeli society, which is patriarchal and family centered (Birenbaum-Carmeli, 2009). Israeli society sees the family as the critical unit (e.g., Girsh, 2014) due to the influence of religion and tradition on social processes. Also, Israel is a state under siege, constantly faced with threats to its security; this situation reinforces the individual’s need for close personal relations (Peres & Katz, 1980). Under such conditions, IFCSA is perceived as undermining the sense of home, not only for the survivor but also for society at large, and as such as disturbing the social order. Thus, thinking about IFCSA is intolerable, not only for a specific family but also for the society as a whole. Although there is extensive cultural variation in specific family patterns in Israel due to many different immigration backgrounds, as well as a highly diverse cultural scene (DellaPergola, 2009), the centrality of marriage, parenthood, family size, and close relations between the generations prevails (DellaPergola, 2009; Lavee & Katz, 2003). Participants in this study, who were socialized in this cultural context, are expected by immediate family members, relatives, acquaintances, and society at large to aspire to a close and intimate relationship with their family of origin. These are seen as necessary for a normative identity. Forgiveness is perceived as a means of preserving or repairing a damaged relationship. This leaves little tolerance for women who want to distance themselves from their family or from specific family members to protect themselves or overcome the trauma of IFCSA. Social expectations relating to IFCSA and forgiveness are further affected by the religious context in Israel. The women interviewed were Jewish Israelis. Judaism does not necessarily encourage women to forgive childhood



15

sexual abuse. It recognizes three conditions for unforgivable offenses: those that are too severe, those where the survivor refuses to forgive, and those where the perpetrator is unrepentant (Rye et al., 2000). The Bible regards IFCSA as “murder of the soul,” one of few offenses punishable by death (Alasti, 2007). Therefore, it seems that the definition of IFCSA in Judaism is that it is too severe an offense to be forgiven. As well, most perpetrators of IFCSA express no remorse (Goldstein & Katz-Czerny, 2004; Magaletta & Herbst, 2001). Although forgiveness is a central theme in most cultures (McCullough & Worthington, 1999; Rye et al., 2000), there are differences among religions. Judaism and Jewish culture differ from Christianity, which requires unconditional forgiveness, independent of the perpetrator’s repentance (Cohen, Malka, Rozin, & Cherfas, 2006). In a series of studies on differences in attitudes toward forgiveness among Jews and Protestants (Cohen et al., 2006), Jews were found to hold a stronger belief than Protestants that there are unforgivable offenses even after neutralizing such variables as tendencies toward forgiveness and degrees of religiosity. It is possible that IFCSA, in which threat emerges within the family itself, is intolerable. Israeli society, with its family-centered characteristics, appears interested in isolating and encapsulating IFCSA to protect itself. Despite growing public awareness, society keeps the full meaning of the experience of IFCSA away from full public recognition to ward off the potential danger to the centrality of family. Instead, it provides a one-dimensional, isolated social script with rigid social expectations of either forgiving or avenging, but in all cases, of getting over it to preserve social order.

Practical Implications Professionals working with female survivors of IFCSA may have to deal with the concept of forgiveness during treatment. It seems necessary, therefore, to consider the inseparable connection between forgiveness and social expectations about forgiveness. The survivors’ yearning for social recognition and belonging leads to susceptibility to social expectations concerning forgiveness. Given how contradictory these expectations are, therapists must ask themselves the following questions: (a) Does the survivor aspire to forgive to leave the assault behind or to please others and respond to social pressure? (b) Is she avoiding forgiveness because IFCSA is expected to be perceived as an unforgivable act? (c) Is she asking to forgive to preserve family relations and responds to social pressure for family unity? Therapists should also be aware of the survivor’s religious-cultural context and of the way it affects her forgiveness experience.


16


Professionals need to address their own personal and professional attitudes toward forgiveness. They may find themselves encouraging the survivor to forgive based on their personal belief in the social expectation to forget or excuse the offence and move on. At the same time, as forgiveness is perceived to be a social expectation, the survivor may wish to forgive to please the professional rather than out of internal motivation. A forgiveness process should therefore be encouraged only after carefully weighing all perspectives that have been addressed in therapy and that may be of benefit to the woman. The obligation of the therapist to meet social expectations is not a valid factor for encouraging forgiveness. One must provide clients with the options arising from forgiving or not forgiving and explain the advantages and disadvantages of each option, so that women could make informed choices that would balance their needs and their rights and create a sense of empowerment. Inherent in the strengths of the current research are its limitations: The research is based on the women’s own subjective perspectives of social expectations concerning forgiveness. Further research, interviewing additional protagonists in the survivor’s environment, including family members, professionals, and lay people, is needed to enable a more complex view of the various social expectations, and their interpretation by the participants, in this sociopsychological drama. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note 1.

To protect the privacy of the participants, we use pseudonyms.

References Alasti, S. (2007). Comparative study of stoning punishment in the religions of Islam and Judaism. Justice Policy Journal, 4(1), 1-38. Banyard, V. L., & Williams, L. M. (2007). Women’s voices on recovery: A multimethod study of the complexity of recovery from child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 31(3), 275-290. Bass, E., & Davis, L. (1994). The courage to heal. New York, NY: Harper Perennial. Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Evil: Inside human violence and cruelty. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman.



17

Baumeister, R. F. (2010). The self. In R. F. Baumeister & E. J. Finkel (Eds.), Advanced social psychology: The state of the science (pp. 139-175). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Berecz, J. M. (2001). All that glitters is not gold: Bad forgiveness in counseling and preaching. Pastoral Psychology, 49, 253-275. Birenbaum-Carmeli, D. (2009). The politics of “The Natural Family” in Israel: State policy and kinship ideologies. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 1018-1024. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101. Cohen, A. B., Malka, A., Rozin, P., & Cherfas, L. (2006). Religion and unforgivable offenses. Journal of Personality, 74, 85-118. Cromer, L. D., & Goldsmith, R. E. (2010). Child sexual abuse myths: Attitudes, beliefs, and individual differences. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(6), 618-647. DellaPergola, S. (2009). Actual, intended, and appropriate family size among Jews in Israel. Contemporary Jewry, 29, 127-152. Draucker, C. B., Martsolf, D. S., Roller, C., Knapik, G., Ross, R., & Stidham, A. W. (2011). Healing from childhood sexual abuse: A theoretical model. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 20(4), 435-466. Enright, R. D. (2001). Forgiveness is a choice. Washington, DC: APA Life Tools. Fincham, F. D., Paleari, F. G., & Regalia, C. (2002). Forgiveness in marriage: The role of relationship quality, attributions, and empathy. Personal Relationships, 9, 27-37. Fitzgibbons, R. (1998). Anger and the healing power of forgiveness: A psychiatrist’s view. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 63-74). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Flanigan, B. (1998). Forgivers and the unforgiveable. In R. D. Enright & J. North (Eds.), Exploring forgiveness (pp. 95-105). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Forward, S. (1990). Toxic parents: Overcoming their hurtful legacy and reclaiming your life. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Matar. Freedman, S. R., & Enright, R. D. (1996). Forgiveness as an intervention goal with incest survivors. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 983-992. Gibson, R. L., & Hartshorne, T. S. (1996). Childhood sexual abuse and adult loneliness and network orientation. Child Abuse & Neglect, 20, 1087-1093. Girsh, Y. (2014). The (late?) modern family: The family’s significance for adolescents in Germany and Israel. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 863-870. Goldstein, A., & Katz-Czerny, J. (2004). Treating families who have undergone incest. In Z. Seligman & Z. Solomon (Eds.), Critical and clinical perspective on incest (pp. 278-302). Tel-Aviv, Israel: Hakibbutz Hmeuchad. Govier, T. (2002). Forgiveness and revenge. London, England: Routledge. Green, J. D., Burnette, J. L., & Davis, J. L. (2008). Third party forgiveness: (Not) forgiving your close other’s betrayer. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 407-418.


18


Hargrave, T. D. (2001). Forgiving the devil: Coming to terms with damaged relationship. Phoenix, AZ: Seig, Tucker & Theisen. Hargrave, T. D. (2013). Families and forgiveness: Healing wounds in the intergener: Healing wounds in the intergenerational family. New York, NY: Routledge. Hargrave, T. D., & Sells, J. N. (1997). The development of a forgiveness scale. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 23, 41-62. Hasnain, N., & Kumar, D. (2006). Psychological well-being of women reporting sexual abuse in childhood. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 32, 16-20. Helm, H. W., Jhonathan, J. R., Cook, R., & Berecz, J. M. (2005). The implications of conjunctive and disjunctive forgiveness for sexual abuse. Pastoral Psychology, 54, 23-34. Jampolsky, G. G. (2011). Forgiveness: The greatest healer of all. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. Kearns, J. N., & Fincham, F. D. (2004). A prototype analysis of forgiveness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 838-855. Lamb, S. (2002). Women, abuse and forgiveness: A special case. In S. Lamb & J. G. Murphy (Eds.), Before forgiving (pp.155-171). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lavee, Y., & Katz, R. (2003). The family in Israel: Between tradition and modernity. Marriage & Family Review, 35, 193-217. Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Madanes, C. (1990). Sex, love, and violence: Strategies for transformation. New York, NY: W.W. Norton. Magaletta, P. R., & Herbst, D. P. (2001). Fathering from prison: Common struggle and successful solution. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 38, 88-96. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. London, England: Falmer Press. McCullough, M. E. (2001). Forgiveness as human strength: Theory, measurement and links to well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 19, 43-55. McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (2000). The psychology of forgiveness: History, conceptual issues, and overview. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 1-14). New York, NY: Guilford Press. McCullough, M. E., & Worthington, E. L. (1999). Religion and the forgiving personality. Journal of Personality, 67, 1141-1164. Middleton, W. (2013). Parent–child incest that extends into adulthood: A survey of international press reports, 2007–2011. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 14, 184-197. Miller, J. A. (2009). The trauma of evil and the traumatological conception of forgiveness. Continental Philosophy Review, 42, 401-419. Miller, S. L. (2005). Victims as offenders: The paradox of women’s violence in relationships. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University. O’Leary, B. A. (2007). Critical literature analysis on female childhood sexual abuse: Exploration on the concept of forgiveness in the healing process (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (3281203).



19

Peres, I., & Katz, R. (1980). Family and familiarity in Israel. Megamot: Behavioral Science Quarterly, 26, 37-55. Phanichrat, T., & Townshend, J. M. (2010). Coping strategies used by survivors of childhood sexual abuse on the journey to recovery. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 19(1), 62-78. Robb, H. B. (2007). Treating anger with forgiveness may sometimes require reconciliation. Journal of Rational-Emotive & Cognitive-Behavior, 25, 65-75. Rye, M. S., Pargament, K. I., Ali, M. A., Beck, G. L., Dorff, E. N., Hallisey, C., . . . Williams, G. (2000). Religious perspective on forgiveness. In M. E. McCullough, K. I. Pargament, & C. E. Thoresen (Eds.), Forgiveness: Theory, research and practice (pp. 17-40). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sigurdardottir, S., & Halldorsdottir, S. (2013). Repressed and silent suffering: Consequences of childhood sexual abuse for women’s health and well-being. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27, 422-432. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tener, D. (2010). Between me and them: Forgiving incest? (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Haifa, Israel. Toren, N. (2003). Tradition and transition: Family change in Israel. Gender Issues, 21(2), 60-76. Van Niekerk, R. L. (1999). The double bind between individual and social constructions in female survivors of sexual abuse: A qualitative study (Unpublished Master’s dissertation). Rand Afikaans University, Johannesburg. Veenstra, G. (1992). Psychological concepts of forgiveness. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 11, 160-169. Worthington, E. L., Jr., Witvliet, C. V. O., Pietrini, P., & Miller, A. J. (2007). Forgiveness, health, and well-being: A review of evidence for emotional versus decisional forgiveness, dispositional forgivingness, and reduced unforgiveness. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 30, 291-302. Younger, J. W., Piferi, R. L., Jobe, R. L, & Lawler, K. A. (2004). Dimensions of forgiveness: The views of laypersons. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 21, 837-855.

Author Biographies Dafna Tener, PhD, is a lecturer at The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She has been studying child sexual abuse since 2006 and is engaged in various studies on the phenomena such as incestuous relationships, statutory victimization, and online sexual victimization. Zvi Eisikovits, PhD, is a professor of social welfare at the University of Haifa and director of the Center for the Study of Society. He is a nationally and internationally known expert in interpersonal violence and in the use of qualitative research methods in studying abuse and neglect.


Intrafamilial child sexual abuse treatment: prosecution following expulsion.

Self-esteem, anxiety, and loneliness in preadolescent girls who have experienced sexual abuse.

Caring for Women Who Have Experienced Female Genital Cutting.

Alcohol myopia and sexual abdication among women: examining the moderating effect of child sexual abuse.

Who Improved in a Trauma Intervention for HIV-Positive Women with Child Sexual Abuse Histories?

Stigma, sexual health, and human rights among women who have sex with women in Lesotho.

The life course of women who have experienced abuse - a life chart study in general psychiatric care.

Child sexual abuse.

Child sexual abuse research knowledge among child abuse professionals and laypersons.

Long-term effects of intrafamilial sexual abuse in childhood.

Social networking smartphone applications and sexual health outcomes among men who have sex with men.

Sexual health status of women who have regular sexual relations with men who have sex with men in mainland China.

Hypermasculinity and Sexual Risk Among Black and White Men Who Have Sex With Men and Women.

Patterns of child sexual abuse knowledge among professionals.

Child sexual abuse and premarital intercourse among high-risk adolescents.

"Systemic trauma": the impact on parents whose children have experienced sexual abuse.

Barriers to HIV Medication Adherence: Examining Distinct Anxiety and Depression Symptoms among Women Living with HIV Who Experienced Childhood Sexual Abuse.

Consequences of child sexual abuse.

Predictors of HIV Sexual Risk Behavior among Men Who Have Sex with Men, Men Who Have Sex with Men and Women, and Transgender Women.

Social Support for Women Who Have Undergone Bariatric Surgery.

Depression and Self-Rated Health Among Rural Women Who Experienced Adolescent Dating Abuse: A Mixed Methods Study.

Perinatal outcomes in a subsequent pregnancy among women who have experienced recurrent miscarriage: a retrospective cohort study.

A Training Course for Psychologists: Learning to Assess (Alleged) Sexual Abuse Among Victims and Perpetrators Who Have Intellectual Disabilities.

Women who sexually abuse children.