Claiming that offensive language is common only demonstrates that an apology is needed that much more.
That’s the gist of the story out of Wisconsin, where a county supervisor made the following remark during a board meeting: “We jewed ’em down some.”
That was his response when asked about the county’s dealings with a contractor. Chances are he didn’t mean to offend anyone. He may not have even known the implications of what he was saying.
The problem is, now that Read the rest of this entry »
Courtney Love recently issued an apology to Billy Corgan, lead guitarist and songwriter for the Smashing Pumpkins. The apology came after Corgan bashed Love in a Rolling Stones interview.
Love's Facebook Apology (Click to Enlarge)
There are three things that are interesting about this apology. First, it’s a rare case of Love actually taking the high road rather than lashing back. For fans of Love or the music industry in general, this aspect alone makes the situation noteworthy.
Second, the apology doesn’t really address any particular accusation. Instead, it addresses the entire tumultuous relationship between Love and Corgan, from their personal lives to their collaboration as musicians. Typically, we think of apologetic rhetoric as intended to address a specific accusation of wrongdoing. This perspective is derived from Halford Ross Ryan’s (1982) influential essay on the inherent connection between apologia (apology) and kategoria (accusation). As Ryan (1982) explained:
As a response to the accusation, the apology should be discussed in terms of the apologist’s motivation to respond to the accusation, his selection of the issues—for they might differ from the accuser’s issues—and the nature of the supporting materials for the apology…. Hence the critic cannot have a complete understanding of the accusation or apology without treating them both. (p. 254)
While this interplay between accusation and apologetic rhetoric is undoubtedly valuable, it is not enough in this case to analyze Love’s apology. What is needed is a deeper analysis of the context relating to Love and Corgan, as well as Love’s image with her fans.
Finally, Love’s apology is an important example of the use of new media (from websites to social networking sites) to deliver apologies. In this case, Love’s Facebook apology is especially important when we consider whom she is really addressing in her statement. Although she clearly states “Dearest Billy” at the top of the apology, we have to wonder why she chose to deliver the apology on Facebook. Is this really the way that she and Corgan communicate? Or does the use of Facebook have more to do with demonstrating to her fans the “higher road” stance that she is taking towards Corgan?
These questions get at some important research opportunities that exist in seemingly everyday apologies, especially when new media is involved as a public record or delivery mechanism. More research in these areas is definitely warranted by scholars of apologetic rhetoric and crisis management.
Recently, a number of scholars have shifted the study of apologia away from image restoration theories in favor of an apology process that leads toward reconciliation. In doing so, they distinguish between apologies that focus on the needs of the victims and apologiae that focus on the face-saving desire of the rhetor. A critical element in this view of apologetic rhetoric is the belief that the ultimate goal of the exchange is forgiveness and restoration of social harmony (Tavuchis, 1991). This idea is in stark contrast to the image repair position that views apologies as “a rhetoric of failure” in terms of their ability to repair social relationships (Hearit, 2006, p. 17).
This distinction has prompted some scholars to argue for sub-genres of apologia that make room for the reconciliatory goal of apologies. For example, Joy Koesten and Robert Rowland (2004) argued that the rhetoric of atonement should be considered a subgenre of apologia—one that seeks “both forgiveness for a sinful act and restoration of the relationship once the sin has been expiated” (p. 69). Lisa Storm Villadsen (2008) agreed that there is a need for a sub-genre such as rhetoric of atonement; however, she preferred the name official apology because it was a more religiously neutral, inclusive term. Jason Edwards (2005) identified what he called community-focused apologia, which begins the healing process between communities. Finally, although Trudy Govier and Wilhelm Verwoerd (2002) did not mention apologia specifically, they did divide apologies into three forms: a defense, an excuse or account, and a moral apology, which contains an admission of wrongdoing without a justification or excuse (p. 67).
Other scholars have called for an even stronger separation of apology and apologia. For example, John B. Hatch (2003) argued that apologies should not be viewed through the cynical, self-interested lens of apologiae at all. Instead, it should be viewed in relation to forgiveness and reparations as “constituents of reconciliation” (Hatch, 2006b, p. 264). Nick Smith (2008) offered an even more extreme distinction—drawing a line between the ethically ideal categorical apology and the purely instrumental apology (which defines in a way that connotes apologia).
Despite the differences discussed above between apologia and apology, I have argued that future studies can benefit from using an umbrella term that allows for connections to be made and for researchers to influence and shape the work of each other, regardless of which specific term they prefer to analyze. Specifically, I suggested the use of terms such as apologetic rhetoric or apologetic exchanges when the use of a specific term (such as apologia) might inaccurately define the perspective or multiple perspectives under discussion (Towner, 2009). In addition, I argued that rather than referring to Koesten and Rowland’s (2004) rhetoric of atonement, Edwards’s (2005) community-focused apologia, or Burkholder’s (1990) symbolic martyrdom as sub-genres of apologia, we might more accurately label them as sub-genres of apologetic rhetoric or apologetic discourse.
[NOTE: For more information on the specific sources and scholars discussed above, please view the Apologetic Rhetoric Sources page.]
