While much has been written on
the power and impact of apologies (including at least two books with ”power”
and ”apology” in their titles), there are few attempts to treat apology as a
phenomenon in a comprehensive way. Interestingly, there appear to be many more
books on forgiving (especially in its religious implications) than there
are on the act that usually prompts forgiveness. Aaron Lazare has made an
excellent attempt at filling that gap. His On Apology is not likely to
be the last word on its subject, but it is an intelligent, wide-ranging, and
thought-provoking jumping-off point, and will surely be required reading for
those who pursue this line in the future.

Lazare, a psychiatrist and Dean
of the University of Massachusetts Medical School, gives a theoretical
treatment of apologizing and apologies that emphasizes the mental states they
arise from, and evoke, in giver and recipient. He also attempts a brief
sociology of apologies, discussing their role in social interactions and
rituals, and he works in a theory of apologies – what constitutes an apology
and why; how apologies differ from explanations or pseudo-apologies; and, how
the information, moral and social status indicators, and speaker’s affect
conveyed in an apology, determine its validity and lead to acceptance or
rejection.

Lazare begins by noting what he
claims is the ”growing importance” of apologies: their more-frequent
appearance in news media from sources — especially men and powerful public
figures — who once would have been expected never to impugn their own social
standing by apologizing for anything. Lazare traces this pattern to larger
social trends, including the advent of the year 2000 — ”a time for new
beginnings, (…) soul searching and moral reckoning” — an increased
sensitivity to cultural relations resulting from political and economic
globalization, and the continued entry of women, with their perceived greater
emphasis on personal relations, into the public sphere. While that may all seem
rather too pat, Lazare offers intriguing analyses of apologies in a variety of
personal and public contexts. He also notes gendered and cultural differences
in willingness to apologize, ways of apologizing, and the significance of
apologies.

The most original contribution
in this book is Lazare’s theory of apologies. An apology, he claims, serves a variety
of purposes for the recipient:

·        
Restoration of self-respect and dignity

·        
Assurance that both parties have shared values

·        
Assurance that the offenses were not the victim’s fault

·        
Assurance of safety in the relationship between offender and
victim

·        
Seeing the offender suffer

·        
Reparations for the harm caused by the offense

·        
Allowing for meaningful dialogue between offender and victim.

In short, apologies restore a moral balance between offender
and victim (by forcing the offender to acknowledge guilt for the offense being
apologized for, and, by way of the embarrassment or ”loss of face” associated
with apologizing, serving as a form of punishment), and renew the relationship
between the two (by assuring the victim that the offense is not likely to be
repeated, and by removing resentment at unrecompensed harm on the part of the
victim). A valid apology contains most or all of the elements above; acceptance
of an apology usually requires that the purposes the victim values most,
whether it is re-assurance, restoration of dignity or retribution, are served
adequately in the victim’s opinion.

This scheme also accounts for the
common phenomenon of ”pseudo-apologies” — the kind of self-serving
statements that seek to gain the offender a reprieve from the consequences of
their actions without doing true penance (”I’m sorry if anyone
misunderstood me…”). Offenders use them to plausibly simulate
apologizing and thus earn forgiveness; victims reject them because they do not
effectively serve the purposes of a true apology.

The bulk of the book is a
step-by-step discourse on different facets of the phenomenology of apologies:
why people apologize, why they do not, when apologies are given and how that effects
their fulfillment of the purposes listed above. One interesting feature is what
Lazare terms the ”negotiation of apologies”: incidents in which an offense is
committed, and then an apology is carefully crafted to serve important purposes
for both victim and recipient. Examples include diplomatic apologies, which
often ”express regrets” without explicitly acknowledging that the speaker’s
nation is at fault, or mutual apologies, in which both sides admit fault where
neither would have done so unilaterally. Under an intuitive view of apologies
as a kind of emotional peace offering, such clearly manipulated confessions
would seem to be valueless, but negotiated apologies can surely serve many
purposes on Lazare’s roster of elements; here again Lazare’s theory makes sense
out of practices that would otherwise seem inexplicable.

Lazare has a penchant for sweeping
generalizations, but he also works them into compelling explanations of how
apologies mediate relationships endangered by malfeasance. His treatment of
apologies will be rich fodder for anyone similarly interested in explaining and
elucidating their functions; it could as easily be used by those needing to
apologize as a roadmap out of the doghouse. The book is richly larded with
examples illustrating the many types of apologies discussed. They not only give
weight to his discussion of the process of apology, but offer productive source
material for critical readers.

On Apology is a fascinating
and intriguing book. Lazare has contributed a provocative general theory of
apologies, and offered useful guidance both for scholars of the subject and for
those interested in giving, receiving, or evaluating apologies in real-world
situations. The book is recommended to anyone interested in pursuing this
subject in a serious way.

 

© 2006 Kevin T. Keith

 

Kevin T. Keith, M.A., City College, CUNY

Categories: Ethics, Philosophical