Revenge: It's Not Just for Villains

And also... forgiveness: it's not just for saints.

We've all been there—that moment when someone we care about deeply hurts us. Maybe they betrayed our trust, said something cutting, or simply weren't there when we needed them most. In close relationships, wounds are inevitable.¹

But what do we do with these hurts? Should we plot our revenge? Or do we take the high road and forgive?

These aren't simple questions with easy answers. And it’s made yet more complicated by many of the myths we’ve all heard:

• "Revenge is inherently destructive."

• "Forgiveness is for chumps."

• "You must choose one or the other."

The truth? These good-and-evil views that we often accept as gospel truth simply don't hold up under scrutiny. Revenge and forgiveness, as it turns out, are dishes best served complicated.

In his fascinating book, Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct, recognized authority on revenge and forgiveness, Michael E. McCullough shares empirical research ranging from evolutionary science to animal studies to fancy computational modeling. There are many take-home messages, but my favorite two are:

1. Revenge and forgiveness are both natural human drives with evolutionary and social functions.

2. Rather than seeing revenge and forgiveness as being in opposition to one another (an either/or binary), we are better off seeing them as natural and healthy counterparts (the nondual view).²³

By appreciating the underlying functions of these innate drives and seeing beyond false binaries, we can develop a more nuanced understanding of these powerful responses to harm. And when we embrace the complexity of our revenge and forgiveness instincts, we gain valuable insights into how we might make respond after we have been harmed.

---

Why we should be grateful for our revenge instinct.

You may have been told that “bad” people are vengeful, while “good” people naturally forgive. Yet revenge has important evolutionary functions. That is, it’s wired into us all, and for good reason. McCullough explains:

… The propensity for revenge may have been selected because it helped to deter individuals who aggressed against ancestral humans from harming them a second time. Second, revenge may have deterred would-be aggressors in the first place. Third, revenge may have been useful for punishing (and reforming) members of social groups to which our ancestors belonged when those members failed to “pitch in” and make appropriate contributions to the common good.

Why forgiveness isn’t for chumps.

You might believe that forgiving people who do bad things makes you weak, or else that it gives bad people free rein to continue to do terrible things. But forgiveness, like revenge, has important functions. If we couldn’t forgive people who behaved in harmful ways, relationships would be doomed (society would be extra doomed).

None of us needs to further than the “man in the mirror”⁴ when we consider the need for forgiveness. I mean, let’s face it, who among us hasn’t needed to be forgiven for transgressions at one time or another? But it’s bigger than the small things you or I might have done⁵ —we need forgiveness if we are to have any hopes of sustainable relationships or a sustainable society. In McCullough’s words:

Forgiveness is an evolutionarily vital part of this ethical package because there has to be a way to restore people to good standing so that they’ll be motivated to return to cooperation with all of the other cooperators in the population. If forgiveness weren’t available, the average gains of cooperation would slowly decline in the population with each successive generation.”

How to choose between instincts.

So, let’s say we accept that humans have both a drive for revenge and a drive for forgiveness and that these drives each help us as individuals and as a collective. It still leaves us with a big question about what to do in the face of being harmed. Which impulse do we follow: Revenge or forgiveness? McCullough offers a helpful answer.

Whether we’re motivated to seek revenge or to forgive depends on who does the harming, as well as on the advantages and disadvantages associated with both of these options.

That is, the decision about revenge or forgiveness depends on context—on the relationship we have with the harmer, and on the various costs and benefits associated with either revenge or forgiveness. Context also informs the qualities of the revenge we take or the forgiveness we offer, as in, how strong your vengeful action may be or how quickly you decide to let go of anger.

McCullough offers important insights into when forgiveness makes sense:

“… there are three psychological conditions that activate the forgiveness instinct: (1) careworthiness (people forgive transgressors whom they view as appropriate targets for their kindness and compassion); (2) expected value (people forgive transgressors who, they think, might be valuable to them in the future; and (3) safety (people forgive transgressors whom they perceive as being unwilling and unable to harm them again).

But let’s say the conditions aren’t right for forgiveness, and we thus consider taking vengeful action. How can we prioritize respect and dignity (for ourselves and also for the other side) while also engaging in the kind of retaliation for harmful actions that keep people who have transgressed in check? McCullough’s thoughts:

We must remember that in many circumstances, people really, truly don’t need an eye for an eye to give up their desire for retaliation: sometimes, half an eye, or even just a sincere apology, some public shaming, a credible pledge not to repeat the behavior and a meaningful attempt at compensation will suffice. Justice short of revenge is a price that most people are willing to pay for peace.

A final thought: While revenge has an important place in relationships and in society, our interconnectedness as humans may more regularly prioritize forgiveness over retaliation. As McCullough writes:

When we’re harmed by strangers and long-standing enemies, we tend to favor revenge as a problem-solving strategy. When we’re harmed by friends, cooperation partners, and family members, we tend to favor forgiveness… However, as Darwin acknowledged more than a century ago, the march of civilization brings with it a gradual shift of more and more of the people on the planet into our “friends and neighbors” piles, leaving fewer and fewer of them in our “strangers and enemies pile.”

How have cultural or religious messages shaped your beliefs about revenge and forgiveness?

How has revenge helped you create more safety or recover from harms?

How might viewing revenge and forgiveness as complementary natural drives rather than opposites change how you process relationship hurts?

If you found this post useful, please hit ♡ or share it with someone you care about!

---

Further Relational Riffs Reading…

If Peace is Better Than War...

What Prevents Us from Deeply Understanding People We Love?

1. As McCullough notes in the book, many (most?) relationship wounds are “oops” events. We are harmed not because someone intended to do so, but rather by accident, as a reaction to harm they experienced at our hands (often by accident), or by happenstance. If we couldn’t navigate through hurts caused by “oops” moments, we’d all be in trouble.

2. Non-dual thinking seems to be the safe bet when it comes to humans, doesn’t it?

3. If you love non-dual thinking as much as I do, may I recommend a few Taoist texts, including the Tao te Ching, Alan Watt’s The Watercourse Way, and Benjamin Hoff’s The Tao of Pooh. And if you’re after something more scientific, I highly recommend Wendy Smith and Marianne Lewis’s Both/And Thinking.

4. Will you, too, have Michael Jackson’s Man in the Mirror stuck in your head for the rest of the day? In case it’s not stuck in your head yet, you’re welcome for the link.

5. As you can see, I’m making a big assuming any transgressions committed by any readers of this Substack are of the easily forgivable variety. I’m sure I’m right.