Tag: Empathy

How we Move Beyond “Woke” and Reclaim Meaningful Conversations

The Power of Labels

Labelling an idea as “woke” can abruptly end conversations. It simplifies complex issues into dismissive categories like irrelevant or extreme. This shortcut undermines meaningful discussion and blocks understanding, creating barriers instead of building bridges.

Why Does This Happen?

  • Cognitive Dissonance: When ideas challenge deeply held beliefs, discomfort often arises. Labelling these ideas as “woke” offers an easy escape from confronting that discomfort, bypassing critical thought.
  • Fear of Change: Change, especially when tied to identity or values, can feel threatening. Dismissing ideas as “woke” can act as a protective reaction, shielding individuals from engaging with perceived challenges to their worldviews.
  • Simplification of Complex Issues: Many ideas dismissed as “woke” address nuanced topics like inequality or privilege. Reducing them to a buzzword eliminates the need to engage with their intricacies, avoiding the hard work of understanding.

How Can We Respond?

  • Stay Curious: Curiosity invites dialogue and defuses tension. Ask questions like:
    • “What specifically about this idea do you find problematic?”
    • “How would you approach this issue differently?”
    • This shifts the focus from the label to the substance of the discussion.
  • Refocus the Conversation: Bring attention back to the core topic rather than the label:
    • “Let’s explore the actual idea instead of getting caught up in terminology.”
  • Find Common Ground: Shared values often exist, even in polarized conversations:
    • “We both seem to value fairness—let’s discuss how we might approach this issue differently.”
  • Model Openness: Set an example by demonstrating a willingness to listen and engage thoughtfully:
    • “I can see why this might be difficult to accept—it took me time to understand as well.”

What’s at Stake?

Over-reliance on dismissive labels like “woke” limits dialogue, perpetuates division, and blocks progress. By avoiding deep engagement, we miss opportunities to:

  • Understand differing perspectives.
  • Foster connections across divides.
  • Develop solutions that consider a broader range of experiences.

A Final Thought

Effective conversations aren’t about winning—they’re about planting seeds of understanding and possibility. While not every conversation will yield immediate change, some may grow in ways you don’t expect. And remember, you might change your mind. Even if you strongly disagree with an idea initially, engaging in respectful dialogue can open your mind to new perspectives and challenge your own assumptions.

Have you faced similar challenges in conversations?

What strategies have worked for you?

Are you open exploring ways to move past dismissive labelling and towards constructive dialogue.

#BeyondWoke #MeaningfulDialogue #BridgingDivides #ChallengeYourBeliefs #BeyondLabels #ConstructiveConversation #OpenMind #CriticalThinking

Navigating Conversations Dismissed as “Woke”

 

In today’s political and cultural discussions, the word “woke” has evolved from a term signifying awareness of social injustices into a divisive label.

The term “WOKE” is often used pejoratively to shut down ideas without engaging with their substance. This shift has significant implications for dialogue, understanding, and meaningful connection.

Here’s how we can navigate conversations where this kind of dismissal arises:

1. A Misunderstood Label

Originally, being “woke” was about staying alert to societal inequalities, a call for empathy and awareness. However, the term has been co-opted and weaponised to ridicule progressive ideas. This misuse undermines the genuine intentions behind the term, turning what could be an invitation to discuss complex issues into a barrier to conversation.

How to address it:
Recognise and clarify the original intent behind the term. For instance, you might say, “I think there’s some misunderstanding here when people talk about being ‘woke,’ they often mean being aware of and addressing societal challenges. Can we explore the specific issue you’re concerned about?”

2. Avoidance of Complexity

Labelling something as “woke” often acts as a shortcut, bypassing the effort it takes to understand or address opposing views. Instead of tackling the nuances of an idea, the label serves to discredit it entirely.

How to address it:
Encourage deeper engagement by asking thoughtful, open-ended questions:

  • “What aspects of this idea do you find challenging or unhelpful?”
  • “Have you considered other perspectives on this issue?”

These questions prompt reflection and can steer the conversation towards a more meaningful exchange.

3. Polarisation and Defensiveness

Using “woke” as a derogatory term often reflects defensiveness or an unwillingness to consider ideas outside one’s ideological comfort zone. This dynamic increases polarisation, fostering an “us versus them” mentality that hinders understanding.

How to address it:
Acknowledge the defensiveness without escalating it. You might say, “I understand why this topic might feel polarising. What do you think is at the heart of the disagreement?” This can create a space for empathy and shared values to emerge.

4. Erosion of Dialogue

When terms like “woke” are used dismissively, they derail conversations and reduce opportunities for genuine connection. Instead of discussing the core ideas, the focus shifts to the emotional weight or connotations of the label itself.

How to address it:
Shift the focus back to the issue at hand. For example:

  • “Rather than focusing on labels, I’d like to hear more about your specific concerns regarding this topic.”
  • “Can we move past the term and discuss the underlying problem?”

5. Reframing the Conversation

Reframing is a powerful tool for navigating dismissive language. By steering the dialogue back to the issue itself, you can encourage critical thinking and engagement.

Sample reframes:

  • “What part of this perspective do you think is worth exploring further?”
  • “Do you think there’s common ground we can build on here?”

This approach not only de-escalates tensions but also invites collaboration and mutual understanding.

Why It Matters

Dismissing ideas as “woke” isn’t just a linguistic choice, it reflects broader trends in how we approach disagreement. By refusing to engage deeply, we miss opportunities for growth, compromise, and progress. Navigating these conversations with curiosity and care can help bridge divides and foster a culture of respectful dialogue.

A Call to Action
When faced with dismissive labelling, consider this: Every conversation is an opportunity to connect and learn. By resisting the temptation to retreat or retaliate, we can model the kind of meaningful discourse we wish to see.

Have you encountered this dynamic in your own conversations?

How do you respond when someone uses terms like “woke” to dismiss opposing views?

#woke #dialogue #polarisation #socialjustice #complexity #meaningfulconversation #curiosity #empathy #reframing #debate

How Do We Select Team Players and Identify True Collaborators for Leadership Opportunities

Selecting the right individuals for leadership roles, scholarships, and other significant opportunities is a challenging yet crucial task. Over my 15 years on various selection panels, I’ve encountered a recurring challenge: differentiating between applicants seeking personal career enhancement and those genuinely driven by a desire to be part of a team that makes a difference. Here are some insights and tips on identifying true team players:

Understanding the Importance of Teamwork

Individual commitment to a group effort—that is what makes a team work, a company work, a society work, a civilization work.” — Vince Lombardi

Teamwork is not just a buzzword; it’s a fundamental aspect of achieving collective success. As Helen Keller famously said, “Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.” This quote encapsulates the essence of teamwork and the incredible potential that lies in collaborative efforts.

Key Qualities to Look For

  1. Demonstrated History of Collaboration: Look for candidates who have a proven track record of working well in teams. This can be evidenced through their involvement in group projects, team sports, community service, or collaborative academic work.
  2. Communication Skills: Effective team players are also excellent communicators. They listen actively, articulate their ideas clearly, and provide constructive feedback. During interviews, pay attention to how candidates interact with you and others.
  3. Empathy and Respect: True collaborators respect diverse perspectives and show empathy towards their peers. They understand that every team member brings unique strengths and viewpoints, which can enhance the overall performance of the group.
  4. Willingness to Share Credit: A strong indicator of a team player is their willingness to share credit for successes. Look for candidates who use “we” instead of “I” when discussing their achievements, indicating their recognition of collective efforts.
  5. Problem-Solving Orientation: Team players are often solution-oriented and willing to go the extra mile to help their team succeed. They approach challenges with a collaborative mindset, seeking input from others and working together to find the best solutions.

“None of us is as smart as all of us.” — Ken Blanchard

Identifying Genuine Team Players

To identify candidates who genuinely want to be part of a team that makes a difference, consider the following strategies:

  1. Behavioral Interviews: Ask candidates about past experiences where they worked in a team. Questions like, “Can you describe a time when you had to collaborate with others to achieve a goal?” can reveal much about their teamwork abilities.
  2. Scenario-Based Questions: Present hypothetical scenarios that require teamwork to resolve. Observe how candidates propose to handle these situations and how they incorporate others’ input into their solutions.
  3. References and Recommendations: Seek feedback from previous supervisors, mentors, or team members who can provide insights into the candidate’s ability to work collaboratively.
  4. Group Activities: If possible, include group activities or projects as part of the selection process. This allows you to observe candidates in action and see how they interact with others in real-time.

Selecting individuals who are true team players requires a keen eye and thoughtful consideration. By focusing on their past behaviours, communication skills, empathy, and problem-solving abilities, you can identify candidates who are not only looking to advance their careers but are also committed to making a meaningful impact as part of a team. Remember, together, we can achieve so much more.

#Teamwork #Collaboration #Leadership #TeamPlayer #GroupEffort #Empathy #CommunicationSkills #ProblemSolving #TogetherWeAchieveMore #CommunityImpact #LeadershipOpportunities #SelectionProcess #TeamSuccess #BritishEnglish #MakingADifference #CollectiveEffort #WorkingTogether

Reflecting on Toxic Language and the Importance of Encouraging Critical and Creative Thinking

Its very windy at my place and has been for 48 hours. As often happens here in paradise that means no power, no water and no coffee 😢

All day yesterday my power supplier told me the power would be on in 3 hours This happened 4 times The 5th time they told me it would be 18 hours Keep your fingers crossed for me and my 37 neighbours. I am cold, hungry and caffeine deprived

My first world problems have given me plenty of time to catch up on world news It’s depressing stuff ( world news that is) This thought provoking article in The Conversation today “Scholars like Jonathan Turley argue, “We are living through an age of rage. It is not our first, but it may be the most dangerous such period in our history.” got my thinking about the importance and legacy of the programs I helped design and deliver that focus on empowering young people.

These programs aim to help them investigate the world, appreciate different perspectives, communicate confidently in an informed and respectful way, and take action on issues that matter to them and their communities. Watching young people grow into thoughtful, engaged, and compassionate individuals is immensely rewarding. These programs not only equip them with critical and creative thinking skills but also foster a sense of responsibility and active citizenship.

The use of toxic language in public discourse is more than just a matter of poor etiquette; it has real and dangerous consequences. As highlighted in a recent discussion on The Conversation about the harmful effects of such language, there is a clear link between the words we use and the actions they inspire. When public figures resort to derogatory, inflammatory, and divisive language, it not only degrades the quality of our conversations but can also incite violence and deepen societal rifts.

The Dangers of Toxic Language

Toxic language fosters an environment of hostility and mistrust. It polarizes communities by framing disagreements as personal attacks rather than opportunities for constructive dialogue. This type of rhetoric can escalate tensions and lead to real-world consequences, including violence, as people feel emboldened to act on the inflammatory messages they hear from leaders and influencers.

Moreover, toxic language undermines the fundamental principles of democracy. A healthy democratic society relies on respectful and open discourse, where differing viewpoints can be debated without fear of retribution or degradation. When public figures use toxic language, it sends a message that bullying and aggression are acceptable means of achieving one’s goals, thereby eroding the very fabric of democratic engagement.

Encouraging Critical and Creative Thinking in Young People

In this context, it becomes all the more crucial to encourage young people to be critical and creative thinkers.

Here’s why:

  1. Building Resilience Against Manipulation: Critical thinking skills help young people analyse and evaluate information more effectively. By teaching them to question sources, check facts, and understand different perspectives, we empower them to resist manipulation by toxic rhetoric.
  2. Fostering Empathy and Understanding: Encouraging creative thinking promotes empathy and open-mindedness. Creative individuals are often better at seeing things from multiple perspectives and finding common ground, which is essential in countering divisive language.
  3. Promoting Constructive Dialogue: When young people are taught to think critically and creatively, they are better equipped to engage in constructive dialogue. They learn to express their ideas clearly and respectfully, listen to others, and collaborate on solutions to common problems.
  4. Preparing Future Leaders: Today’s young people are tomorrow’s leaders. By nurturing their ability to think independently and creatively, we are preparing them to lead with integrity, respect, and a commitment to fostering inclusive and healthy discourse.
  5. Strengthening Democracy: A democracy thrives on the active participation of well-informed and thoughtful citizens. By encouraging young people to develop these skills, we contribute to a more robust and resilient democratic society.

I am incredibly proud of the programs I have helped design and deliver that focus on empowering young people. These programs aim to help them investigate the world, appreciate different perspectives, communicate confidently in an informed and respectful way, and take action on issues that matter to them and their communities. Watching young people grow into thoughtful, engaged, and compassionate individuals is immensely rewarding. These programs not only equip them with critical and creative thinking skills but also foster a sense of responsibility and active citizenship.

The impact of toxic language in public discourse is profound and far-reaching. It is imperative that we address and counteract this trend by fostering a culture of respect and critical engagement. Encouraging young people to be critical and creative thinkers is a vital part of this effort. By equipping them with the tools to analyse, empathize, and engage constructively, we can help build a society where respectful and meaningful dialogue prevails over divisive and harmful rhetoric.

We can all commit to nurturing these values in our young people, ensuring that they are prepared to lead with wisdom and compassion

#CriticalThinking #CreativeThinking #YouthEmpowerment #SocialJustice #ToxicLanguage #CommunityEngagement #RespectfulDialogue #Leadership #Empathy #ActiveCitizenship

 

How to Express Your Opinions Respectfully – A Guide for Assertive Communication

Introduction
Respectful communication is one of the most talked-about challenges in both online spaces and community meetings. Whether it’s a heated Facebook thread or a passionate debate at the local precinct meeting, the way we express our views can either build bridges or burn them. That’s why this article by communications specialist Alex Reed, “How to Express Your Opinions Respectfully – A Guide for Assertive Communication,” continues to resonate. It’s a practical and timely resource for anyone who wants to speak up, without shutting others down.

……………..

“Speaking your mind needn’t be a battle. Let’s explore how to share your opinions in a way that’s heard and respected, not just loud.”

In today’s polarised world, expressing your opinions can sometimes feel like stepping into a minefield. However, articulating your thoughts assertively and respectfully is key to fostering understanding and maintaining healthy relationships, both personally and professionally. Here’s a straightforward guide to help you communicate your views without sparking confrontation.

Understand Your Intent

Before you speak, take a moment to understand why you want to share your opinion. Is it to inform, persuade, or understand a different viewpoint? Knowing your intent can help shape how you present your opinion.

Be Clear and Concise

Clarity and brevity are your allies. Articulate your thoughts clearly without overloading on information. Aim to convey your main points succinctly to avoid misunderstandings that might lead to defensiveness from others.

Use “I” Statements

Start your sentences with “I think”, “I feel”, or “I believe”. These phrases make it clear that you are speaking from your personal perspective, which can reduce the perceived aggressiveness of your statements and prevent the listener from feeling attacked.

Listen Actively

Respectful dialogue is a two-way street. Show the same level of respect you expect in return. Listen actively to others’ points of view without interrupting. This not only shows respect but also gives you insights into how your views might be received.

Agree to Disagree

Remember, it’s perfectly fine not to reach a consensus. Being able to respectfully agree to disagree is a hallmark of mature communication. It demonstrates your willingness to accept differing opinions.

Avoid Emotional Language

Keep your language neutral. Avoid charged or emotional words that might provoke a defensive response. Focus on factual information and rational arguments rather than letting emotions steer the conversation.

Practice Empathy

Try to see the issue from the other person’s perspective. This doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but understanding where they’re coming from can help you frame your opinion in a way that respects their feelings and perspectives.

Stay Calm

Maintain your composure, even if the discussion gets heated. Keeping your cool helps keep the conversation productive and prevents it from turning into a conflict.

Expressing your opinions respectfully is not about diluting your message but about communicating it in a way that encourages dialogue and understanding. By being clear, using “I” statements, listening actively, and practicing empathy, you can make sure your voice is heard without stepping on toes. So the next time you have an opinion to share, remember these tips, and turn every conversation into an opportunity for growth and connection.

These practices not only enhance your ability to communicate effectively but also help create an environment where all voices can be heard and respected.

#RespectfulDialogue #AssertiveCommunication #HealthyConversations #ExpressYourself #ActiveListening #EmpathyMatters #CommunicationSkills

 

How to Shift from Personal Attacks to Issue-Focused Discussions

“Transform your conversations: Learn how to move from personal attacks to productive, issue-focused discussions for more constructive and meaningful interactions.”

In our fast-paced digital world, conversations can quickly escalate into personal attacks, especially on social media where anonymity and physical distance make it easy to forget there’s a real person behind the screen. However, focusing on the issue rather than the person not only leads to more productive discussions but also helps maintain healthy relationships. Here’s how we can cultivate a more respectful and constructive dialogue.

Understanding Active Listening

Active listening is a key skill in transforming our conversations. It involves giving full attention to the speaker, understanding their message, and responding thoughtfully. By practicing active listening, we can foster a more respectful atmosphere where each person feels heard and valued, thereby reducing the likelihood of personal attacks.

The Importance of Constructive Communication

Educating ourselves and others on constructive communication is crucial. This includes using “I” statements that focus on our own experiences rather than making accusatory or generalized statements about others. For example, saying “I feel overlooked when my points are not considered” instead of “You never listen to me!” can shift the tone of the conversation.

Fostering Empathy

Empathy can dramatically change the way we interact with others. Trying to see the situation from another person’s perspective can reduce defensive reactions and help us focus on the real issues at hand. Empathy leads to understanding, and understanding opens the door to resolving conflicts.

Setting Clear Rules

In any environment, especially online, clear communication guidelines can help steer conversations towards issue-based discussions. Platforms that enforce these rules consistently create safer spaces for everyone involved, allowing for more meaningful exchanges.

The Role of Moderators

Online forums and discussion groups benefit greatly from moderators who can keep conversations on track. These individuals play a crucial role in guiding discussions back to the main issues and stepping in when personal attacks occur.

Encouraging Fact-based Discussions

Promoting discussions based on facts rather than opinions helps keep conversations objective. Encouraging participants to provide evidence for their claims can lead to more grounded and less emotionally charged discussions.

Focusing on the issue rather than the person is crucial for productive dialogue and maintaining positive relationships. By practicing active listening, fostering empathy, and following clear communication rules, we can transform our interactions into constructive and respectful exchanges. Implementing these strategies not only enhances our personal conversations but also improves the overall quality of discourse in any setting.

#ConstructiveDialogue #ActiveListening #EmpathyInConversations #HealthyDiscussions #CommunicationSkills #ResolveConflicts #FocusOnTheIssue

By adopting these strategies, we can all contribute to creating more respectful and productive environments, both online and in person, enhancing our interactions and understanding across various platforms and situations.

You can find all our posts on Digital Literacy here 

Could empathy and compassionate curiosity be the silver bullet?

Today I am reposting a blog I did for Action4AgricultureChat to allow me to  also repost this wonderful post from The Ethics Centre “I’m sorry *if* I offended you”: How to apologise better in an emotionally avoidant world

I recently signed up for a workshop with Amy Gallo,  an international expert in dealing with difficult people

If we are honest with ourselves we can all be difficult to deal with if some-one touches the wrong buttons at the wrong time.

I manage a capability building program for young people who are “doers” and changemakers

I often find myself fielding calls asking for advice on how to handle people who are resistant to change

The first thing I say is “This is not my area of expertise”

Whilst I have done multiple workshops across the world with world class experts like Amy. Its one thing to learn the theory, its another to put into into practice, another to find safe spaces to practice it and the mega important one finding the role models in the Compassion Curiosity Framework space  that you can surround yourself with, learn from and channel when you need to

What my years of training has allowed me to do is identify the people who do it well and they make my heart sing

I saw an extraordinary example when I watched Series 12 Episode 2 of Call the Midwife recently

This 4 min video collates the scenes that I am referring to. Watch how Sister Julienne role models the Compassionate Curiosity Framework ( hear Kwame Christian talk about the framework here )

1. Acknowledging emotion

2. Getting curious with compassion

3. Engaging in joint problem solving

what an ideal time to extract this from Sarah Wilson The Ethics Centre post 

What *if* we offend or harm unintentionally?

I was presented with the above ethical quandary while writing this. Someone on social media commented that she’d wanted to approach me recently but felt she couldn’t because she had two kids in tow at the time. She figured I’d judge her for being a “procreator” given my climate activism work and anti-consumption stance. It was an unfortunate assumption. I had only last week written about how bringing population growth into the climate crisis blame-fest is wrong, ethically and factually (it’s not how many we are, it’s how we live). 

Of course, her self-conscious pain was real. But did I need to repent if I’d done nothing wrong, and certainly not intentionally (indeed, I’d not acted, in bad faith or otherwise). 

I decided there was still a very good opportunity to switch out an “if” for a “that”. I replied: “I’m sorry that you felt….”. And I was. I didn’t want her to have that impression of judgement from another, nor to feel so self-conscious. I was sorry in the broad sense of feeling bad for her. Feeling sorry can be a sense of tapping into a collective regret for the way things are, even if you are not directly responsible. 

The real opportunity here was to take on responsibility for healing any hurt, and to speed it up. If I’d listed out and justified why this person was mistaken (wrong) in feeling as she did, I’d have also missed an opportunity to be raw and open to the broader pain of the human condition. 

Doing good apology is essentially an act in correctly apportioning the tasks required to get the outcome that we are all after, which, for most adults, is growth, intimacy and expansion. Ruttenberg makes the point that some indigenous cultures work to this (more mature) style of repentance (as opposed to cheap grace), as well as various radical restorative justice movements. I note that the authors and elders who contributed to the Uluru Statement from the Heart often remind us that the document is an invitation to all Australians to grow into our next era.  

and to help us all do it better – the full post from The Ethics Centre

“I’m sorry *if* I offended you”: How to apologise better in an emotionally avoidant world

BY SARAH WILSON 8 DEC 2022

As we gear up for a referendum on a Voice to Parliament next year, I’ve been wondering if we need to have a better look at the way we say sorry.

We live in a highly binary and individualistic world that struggles to repent well. Yet we are increasingly aware of – and flummoxed by – bad faith efforts at the gesture.  

Witness the fallout from former Prime Minister Scott Morrisons’ baffling response speech to being censured last week in which he refused to apologise to the nation. I reckon we ache to do better; we want true healing. 

We could start with looking at the way we so often insist on whacking the Almighty Absolving Qualifier “if” when we issue an “I’m sorry”. I’m sorry if you’re offended/upset/angry. We go and plug one in where a perfectly good “that” would do a far better job.  

But an “if” negates any repentant intent. Actually, worse. It gaslights. It puts up for dispute whether the hurt or offence is actually being felt and whether it is legitimate. Attention switches to the victim’s authenticity and their right to feel injured. Did you actually get hurt? Hmmm…. 

Things get even more disconcerting when the quasi-apologiser thinks they have done something gallant with their qualified “I’m sorry”. And will gaslight you again if you pull them up on the flimsiness of it. What, so you can’t even accept an apology!  

I had a rich, senior businessmen do the if-sorry job on me recently. “I’m sorry if you’re angry,” he said in a really rather small human way. Rather than standing there miffed, I replied, “Great! Yep, you definitely fucked up. And so I’m definitely and rightly angry. Now that’s established, sure, I’ll take on that you’d like to repent.” 

I heard a well-known doctor on the radio the other morning very consciously (it seemed) drop the if from the equation when he had to apologise for making remarks about a minority group (in error) in a previous broadcast. “I’m sorry I said those things. I was wrong. I’m not going to justify myself. There are no excuses. I was in the wrong,” he said. It was a good, textbook apology and he probably wouldn’t land in trouble for it. 

But, and it immediately begs, is that the point of an apology? 

For the wrongdoer to stay out of trouble? For them to neatly right a wrong by going through a small moment of awkward, vulnerable exposure? 

What about the victim? Where do they sit in apologies?

I recall listening to a radio discussion where all this was dissected. The point that grabbed me at the time was this: In our culture, the responsibility of ensuring that an apology is effective in bringing closure to a conflict mostly rests on the victim, the person being apologised to. No matter the calibre of the apology, it’s up to the person who has been wronged to be all “that’s ok, we’re sweet” about things. They are effectively responsible for making the perpetrator feel OK in their awkward vulnerable moment. (And to keep the pain shortlived.) 

And so a successful apology rests in the victim’s readiness to forgive. 

Which is all the wrong way around. At an individual-to-individual level it’s cheap grace. The wrongdoer gets absolved with so little accountability involved. 

At a macro level, say with injuries like racism or sexism, we can see the setup is about a minority class forgiving, or bowing once again, to the powerful. 

I managed to find the expert who’d led the discussion –  Rabbi Danya Ruttenberg, a New York-based Rabbi and scholar who’s written a book on the matter, On Repentance and Repair: Making Amends in an Unapologetic World, a title that says it all, right? 

Ruttenberg argues we are doing apologies inadequately and in a way that fails to repair the damage done precisely because we privilege forgiveness over repentance. 

So how to apologise like you mean it

Drawing on the 12th Century philosopher Maimonides, Ruttenberg sets out five steps to a proper apology. 

1. Confession

The wrongdoer fully owns that they did something wrong. There’s to be no blabbing of great intentions, or how “circumstances” conspired; no “if” qualifiers. You did harm, own it! Ideally, she says, the confession is done publicly.

2. Start to Change

Next, you the work to educate yourself, get therapy etc. Like, demonstrate you’re in the process of shifting your ways. You’re talk and trousers! 

3. Make amends

But do so with the victim’s needs in mind. What would make them feel like some kind of repair was happening? Cash? Donate to a charity they care about? 

4. OK, now we get to the apology!

The point of having the apology sitting right down at Step 4 is so that by the time the words “I’m sorry” are uttered, we, as the perpetrator, are engaged and own things. The responsibility is firmly with us, not the victim. By this late stage in the repenting process we are alive to how the victim felt and genuinely want them to feel seen. It’s not a ticking of a box kinda thing. Plus, we’ve taken the responsibility for bringing about closure, or healing, out of the victim’s hands. 

 5. Don’t do it again

OK, so this is a critical final step. But there’s a much better chance the injury won’t be repeated if the person who did the harm has complete the preceding four steps, according to Ruttenberg and Maimonides. 

Does forgiveness have to happen?

I went and read some related essays by Rabbi Ruttenberg just now. The other point that she makes is that whether or not the victim forgives the perpetrator is moot. When you apologise like you mean it (as per the five steps), I guestimate that 90 per cent of the healing required for closure has been done by the perpetrator. And it happens regardless of whether the harmed party forgives, because the harm-doer sat in the issue and committed to change. The spiritual or emotional or psychological shift has already occurred. 

I should think that, looking at it from a victim-centric perspective, this opened space allows the harmed party to feel more comfortable to forgive, should they choose to.

It’s a win-win, regardless of whether the aggrieved waves the forgiveness stick. 

(The Rabbi notes that in Judaism, as opposed to Christianity, there is no compulsion for the harmed party to forgive.)