During chapters 5-7, Brennan talks about negative affects and life drives (living attention). I agreed with Professor Davis when she said in class that in order to break away from negative affects, and get attuned with the life drive, we have to get over the self. This applies to the fact that Brennan says that the best way to stop the negativity loop is to love and forgive others. I know many find the process of forgiveness painful and difficult. And some may even believe that people should not be forgiven for their mistakes. But the way Brennan describes forgiveness sheds new light on the topic. She writes “This is why the act of real forgiveness can be entirely selfish. The forgiver is the beneficiary, insofar as he or she is then free of transmitting a negative affect and so free from attracting more of the same (ch.6, pg.133).” Instead of looking at forgiveness as something that we have to do, people can see it as a advantage toward themselves. Because when you stop having negative affects, you become less reciprocal towards getting them. And when you discontinue the negativity, you experience joy and love for yourself. As Brennan says “there is no better escape, no clearer path to freedom. There is also no better revenge (ch.12, pg. 134).”
Another point that I thought was interesting was when Professor Davis mentioned that Brennan’s theory may not be realistic in real life. Because there are situations where you can show love to someone, but it is not reciprocated. I have been in a position where I was mad at someone, and they tried to be sweet and loving towards me. I didn't end up feeling loving; I was actually more annoyed towards them because I thought they were being sarcastic. So while Brennan’s theory would be ideal, we do have to think of the realistic qualities it has in a modern society.
I was pretty stunned when I saw Brennan's comment that, in speaking of forgiveness, "There is also no better revenge" (134). Brennan spends the preceding page talking about how to combat the "revengeful constellation" though "the principle of forgiveness." (133). She seems to advocate us all adopting an attitude of forgiveness, ethics, and discerning our negative affects instead of dumping them on others. She goes on, discussing how this will create a more "desirable" world where "the negative affects" are diminished.
ReplyDeleteBut to forgive merely for the sake of revenge seems too disingenuous (or insincere) to accomplish what she seeks. She says that the people who are dumping their negative affects on us "count on an aggressive response" and that to refuse it "may irritate the projector unmercifully" (because they can't dump their affect) 134. So by denying them the response we are getting our revenge. But this, in itself, seems a retributive action, not one aimed at purifying ourselves of the negativity. Insofar as you seek to harm someone, and use your attention to do so, it seems clear that you are transferring (in a very conscious way) a negative affect onto them through your lack of the elicited response.
If we forgive people just to get revenge, I would posit that we are perpetuating negativity in ourselves and in others (though admittedly in a cleverly convoluted way).
"Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness."
Martin Luther King, Jr.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour second paragraph is what I found interesting. I remember Professor Davis talking about it and I felt the same way. It brought me back to my days of babysitting. A kid lost his pacifier and wouldn't stop crying, I bought a new one, but the kid knew this wasn't the original pacifier and kept bawling his eyes out. This situation is a little different, but the emotional connection to the original pacifier cannot be made up with a brand new one. It shows that our minds can be set on certain emotions and many things will not change that emotion even if its a fitting substitute.
ReplyDeleteI too found Brennan’s definition of forgiveness interesting. Brennan asserts that forgiveness is for the benefit of the person doing the forgiving, not the person being forgiven. The person who is being forgiven may never know that he/she has been forgiven. But by forgiving someone, the person doing the forgiving lets go of his/her grudge, eliminates his/her negative affects, and feels better. Hence, forgiveness is for the benefit of the forgiver, not the forgivee. When you think of forgiveness in this way, it makes forgiveness seem really easy to give.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure why Brennan continues on to talk about forgiveness as a form of revenge. By denying the forgivee an expected aggressive reaction (anger), we are getting revenge, Brennan believes. I’m not sure I’d agree.
I feel like Brennan's idea of forgiveness contrasts somewhat with her beliefs about self-containment. If the person forgiving is the one that really benefits, that being a selfish action, is one not attending to the self? So is that really moving past the self or is that embracing it? Is selfishness not associated with the death drive? More importantly, what she says about forgiveness basically being unexpected revenge for the person being forgiven, because they expect anger, seems kind of odd. This also reminds me a lot of what Massumi says about interruptions in expectations. Perhaps it is affective revenge because the person being forgiven is expecting one thing but end up getting another and that is what really makes their skin react, thus, that is what is affective. But is revenge not associated with the death drive for Brennan? It seems like this is a very negative thing, and even if forgiveness may be, to her, a way of reconnecting with the life drive, isn't somehow emitting a form of revenge still a way of being connected to the death drive?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, forgiving someone in order to disconnect from the negative affect in order to not contribute to negative affects that may be imbibed by others can be seen as a selfless act. But Brennan emphasizes its importance as a "path to freedom" for the person doing the forgiving, not necessarily the other people that won't be affected by it.
As for actually forgiving people, I certainly feel better when I forgive people for things. I think this is because I don't think about them as much, or at least, when thinking of that person, I feel more at peace with my own thoughts and feelings towards them once I have forgiven them, as opposed to not forgiving them and revisiting built up anger and frustration every time I think of them. I don't forgive people for their benefit - I do it for mine.