Mistakes Were Made - Carol Tavris [95]
The third strategy, when the perpetrators’ backs were to the wall and they could not deny or minimize responsibility, was to admit they had done something wrong and hurtful, and then try to get rid of the episode as fast as possible. Whether they accepted the blame or not, most perpetrators, eager to exorcise their dissonant feelings of guilt, bracketed the event off in time. They were far more likely than victims to describe the episode as an isolated incident that was now over and done with, that was not typical of them, that had no lasting negative consequences, and that certainly had no implications for the present. Many even told stories with happy endings that provided a reassuring sense of closure, along the lines of “everything is fine now, there was no damage to the relationship; in fact, today we are good friends.”
For their part, the victims had a rather different take on the perpetrators’ justifications, which might be summarized as “Oh, yeah? No damage? Good friends? Tell it to the marines.” Perpetrators may be motivated to get over the episode quickly and give it closure, but victims have long memories; an event that is trivial and forgettable to the former may be a source of lifelong rage to the latter. Only one of the sixty-three victim stories described the perpetrator as having been justified in behaving as he did, and none thought the perpetrators’ actions “could not be helped.” Accordingly, most victims reported lasting negative consequences of the rift or quarrel. More than half said it had seriously damaged the relationship. They reported continuing hostility, loss of trust, unresolved negative feelings, or even the end of the former friendship, which they apparently neglected to tell the perpetrator.
Moreover, whereas the perpetrators thought their behavior made sense at the time, many victims said they were unable to make sense of the perpetrators’ intentions, even long after the event. “Why did he do that?” “What was she thinking?” The incomprehensibility of the perpetrator’s motives is a central aspect of the victim identity and the victim story. “Not only did he do that terrible thing; he doesn’t even understand that it is a terrible thing!” “Why can’t she admit how cruelly she treated me?”
One reason he doesn’t understand and she can’t admit it is that perpetrators are preoccupied with justifying what they did, but another reason is that they really do not know how the victim feels. Many victims initially stifle their anger, nursing their wounds and brooding about what to do. They ruminate about their pain or grievances for months, sometimes for years, and sometimes for decades. One man we know told us that after eighteen years of marriage, his wife announced “out of the blue, at breakfast,” that she wanted a divorce. “I tried to find out what I’d done wrong,” he said, “and I told her I wanted to make amends, but there were eighteen years of dustballs under the bed.” That wife brooded for eighteen years; the Iranians brooded for twenty-six years. By the time many victims get around to expressing their pain and anger, especially over events that the perpetrators have wrapped up and forgotten, perpetrators are baffled. No wonder most thought their victims’ anger was an over-reaction, though