Non-apology apology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A non-apology apology is a statement that has the form of an apology but does not express the expected contrition. It is common in both politics and public relations. It most commonly entails the speaker saying that he or she is sorry not for a behavior, statement or misdeed, but rather is sorry only because a person who has been aggrieved is requesting the apology, expressing a grievance, or is threatening some form of retribution or retaliation.

An example of a non-apology apology would be saying "I'm sorry that you feel that way" to someone who has been offended by a statement. This apology does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and additionally, it may be taken as insinuating that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense at the remarks in the first place.

Statements that use the word "sorry" but do not express responsibility for wrongdoing may be meaningful expressions of regret, but such statements can also be used to elicit forgiveness without acknowledging fault.[1]

Legal significance[edit]

United States[edit]

Non-apology apologizers may be trying to avoid litigation that might result from an admission of guilt or responsibility.[2][dead link] Massachusetts and California have laws that prevent a plaintiff from using an apology as evidence of liability.[3] For example, medical doctors may apologize to a patient for a bad outcome knowing the apology cannot be used against them at trial as evidence of negligence. Frequently,[4] these statutes are misunderstood to mean that one is relieved of liability because they have apologized. For example, it has been asserted that the California State Legislature passed a bill in July 2000 relieving people of liability if they express sympathy to someone who was injured in an accident in which they themselves were involved, in the event that such an apology be misconstrued in court as an admission of guilt.[5]

Canada[edit]

In November 2008, the Alberta legislature passed an amendment to the existing Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-18 (the “Act”), geared at protecting apologizing parties from risks of legal liability and loss of insurance coverage. Section 26.1 of the Act provides that an apology does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability.[6]

Examples[edit]

"Mistakes were made"[edit]

The expression "mistakes were made" is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges that a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by using the passive voice. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. An active voice construction would be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent.

The New York Times has called the phrase a "classic Washington linguistic construct." Political consultant William Schneider suggested that this usage be referred to as the "past exonerative" tense,[7] and commentator William Safire has defined the phrase as "[a] passive-evasive way of acknowledging error while distancing the speaker from responsibility for it".[8] While perhaps most famous in politics, the phrase has also been used in business, sports, and entertainment.

The perfect non-apology apology[edit]

Humorist Bruce McCall, in a 2001 New York Times piece entitled "The Perfect Non-apology Apology", defined the term as referring to "sufficiently artful double talk" designed to enable one to "get what you want by seeming to express regret while actually accepting no blame," and suggested some tongue-in-cheek apologies, such as:

Nobody is sorrier than me that the police officer had to spend his valuable time writing out a parking ticket on my car. Though from my personal standpoint I know for a certainty that the meter had not yet expired, please accept my expression of deep regret at this unfortunate incident.[9]

The "if apology"[edit]

Attorney and business ethics expert Lauren Bloom, author of The Art of the Apology, mentions the "if apology" as a favorite of politicians, with lines such as "I apologize if I offended anyone".

One of the first references was in the New York Times by Richard Mooney in his 1992 editorial notebook "If This Sounds Slippery ... How to Apologize And Admit Nothing." This was mainly in regard to Senator Bob Packwood, "Only in the event that someone should choose to take offense, why then he's sorry". Mooney goes on to cite Bill Clinton, who said of Mario Cuomo: "If the remarks on the tape left anyone with the impression that I was disrespectful to either Governor Cuomo or Italian-Americans, then I deeply regret it."

This kind of apology shifts the blame onto the offended party, and denies personal acceptance of wrongdoing, as in "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said". The "if" implies that the apologiser either doesn't even know they did wrong (and did not bother to find out) or else does not acknowledge that they did wrong and so are pretending to apologise because they feel obligated to rather than because they are actually sorry. There is no confirmation that the apologiser actually regrets anything or has learnt anything from what they did that was wrong.

Gareth Evans[edit]

On July 24, 1991, The New York Times stated that Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans had offered the prime minister of Malaysia "what might best be described as a non-apology apology" for what the Malaysian government regarded as an insulting portrayal of Malaysia in an Australian television series, Embassy.[10]

Speaking to journalists, Mr Evans said he had "wanted to acknowledge fault where such acknowledgment is appropriate."

Criticism of the meme[edit]

Typologies of apology note that apologies cover a range of situations and degrees of regret, remorse, and contrition, and that success is to be gauged by the result of the apology rather than the degree of contrition involved. Deborah Levi offers the following possibilities:[11]

  • Tactical apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology that is rhetorical and strategic—and not necessary heartfelt
  • Explanation apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology that is merely a gesture that is meant to counter an accusation of wrongdoing. In fact, it may be used to defend the actions of the accused
  • Formalistic apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology after being admonished to do so by an authority figure—who may also be the individual who suffered the wrongdoing
  • Happy ending apology—when a person accused of wrongdoing fully acknowledges responsibility for the wrongdoing and is genuinely remorseful

While the non-apology apology is clearly unsuited to situations where an expression of remorse, contrition, and future change are obviously desirable (e.g. the "happy ending" apology), it may prove extremely useful in situations where little can be done to assuage the apparent offence or prevent its repetition, as when an airline apologises for a delay, in the full knowledge that a future repetition is inevitable. Such tactical apologies may have beneficial effects simply through the validation of the emotions of the offended party: they answer the basic human need for disagreeable emotions to be recognised and acknowledged as important, while protecting the apparently offending party from an expression of remorse.[12] Negotiators often use this tactic to calm tense situations: "an apology can defuse emotions effectively, even when you do not acknowledge personal responsibility for the action or admit an intention to harm. An apology may be one of the least costly and most rewarding investments you can make."[13]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Lazare, Aaron (2005). On Apology. Oxford University Press. p. 99. ISBN 978-0-19-518911-7. Retrieved 3 October 2012. 
  2. ^ Apology Statutes: A 22 State Survey
  3. ^ Frieswick, Kris (1 May 2001). "Say You’re Sorry". CFO. Retrieved 26 February 2014. 
  4. ^ Bartolomei, Matt; Black, Robin. "Apologies in the World of Litigation". Hill, Adams, Hall & Scheiffelin, P.A. Archived from the original on 1 June 2006. Retrieved 26 February 2014. 
  5. ^ "Why Is It So Hard to Apologize?". Watchtower.org. 1 November 2002. Archived from the original on 24 July 2003. Retrieved 26 February 2014. 
  6. ^ Curial, Brian; Chau, Maria; Thomson, Miller (3 June 2010). "I'm Sorry (Please Don't Sue Me)" (PDF). Miller Thomson. Retrieved 26 February 2014. 
  7. ^ Broder, John M. (13 March 2007). "Familiar Fallback for Officials: 'Mistakes Were Made'". The New York Times (New York). Retrieved 2007-03-20. 
  8. ^ Safire, William (2008). Safire's Political Dictionary. Oxford University Press. p. 431. ISBN 9780195343342. 
  9. ^ McCall, Bruce (22 April 2002). "The Perfect Non-Apology Apology". The New York Times (New York). Retrieved 26 February 2014. 
  10. ^ Shenon, Philip (24 July 1991). "Cliffhanger Down Under: A Soap Opera Huff". The New York Times (New York). Retrieved 26 February 2014. 
  11. ^ Grigsby, R. Kevin (June 2007). "The Fine Art of Apology: When, Why, and How to Say ‘I’m Sorry’". International Journal of Healthcare & Humanities: 4–5. 
  12. ^ Winch, Guy (18 June 2011). "The Antidote to Anger and Frustration". Psychology Today. Retrieved 2012-07-18. 
  13. ^ Fisher, Roger; Ury, William L. Getting to YES: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. New York: Penguin Book. ISBN 9780140157352. OCLC 24318769.