Non-apology apology
A non-apology apology is a statement in the apparent form of an apology that is actually nothing of the sort. Non-apology apologies are a common gambit in politics and public relations.
Examples
An example of a non-apology apology is to say "I'm sorry if you were offended by my remarks", to someone who has been offended. This not only does not admit that there was anything wrong with the remarks made, it also subtly insinuates that the person taking offense was excessively thin-skinned or irrational in taking offense in the remarks in the first place.
Because there is no admission of guilt or responsibility, non-apology apologists are frequently motivated by the desire to avoid litigation. Many states have passed legislation that prevents a plaintiff from using an apology as evidence of liability. 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, 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.[1] Misunderstandings of this law are common.
"The Perfect Non-apology Apology"
Humorist Bruce McCall, in a 2001 New York Times piece titled "The Perfect Non-apology Apology," defined the term as referring to "sufficiently artful double talk" to enable you 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.
George Allen
U.S. senator George Allen, called Shekar Ramanuja Sidarth, a young staffer from an opponent's campaign, "Macaca". Senator Allen then apologized to the staffer, not for the slur, but for offending the man. According to Ramanuja, the apology was something like "I'm sorry. I didn't realize that I offended you," as opposed to "I'm sorry. I said something offensive."[2]
Pope Benedict XVI
In September, 2006, Pope Benedict XVI, after quoting an ancient text critical of Islam, made a similar non-apology. Rather than retracting his remarks, the Pope expressed regret for the reaction to his comments, and a statement from the Vatican indicated that he "sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions".[3]
See also
References
- ^ Watchtower staff writer (2002). "Why Is It So Hard to Apologize?" Watchtower.org (accessed March 1, 2007)
- ^ Ruben Navarrette Jr., "Offense taken, but not for name-calling", San Diego Union-Tribune, August 31, 2006
- ^ Pope 'sorry' for offence to Islam BBC News
- McCall, Bruce (2001), "The Perfect Non-apology Apology," The New York Times April 22, 2001, p. 2
- Shenon, Philip (1991) "Cliffhanger Down Under: A Soap Opera Huff," July 24, 1991, p. A10