On Apology (review)

Written by a leading authority on the psychology of shame and humiliation, this treatment of apology speaks to the pathos of how individuals respond to offenses in civic discourse and interpersonal interaction. Given the growing attention to the rhetoric of apology and reconciliation, Aaron Lazare's inquiry is significant. His approach to the subject lends itself for use in rhetorical analysis, for he treats apology as an act requiring skill, planning, appropriate timing, and ethical consideration of (and dialogue with) the audience. Furthermore, Lazare's study opens wide the possibility that rhetoricians should move away from treating apologies as a form of apologia (self-defense or image restoration), developing instead a critical lens more in keeping with the objectives by which recipients judge apologies: how well they heal the harm done to the offended party and restore the relationship on shared moral ground.

As expected, Lazare's way into the subject of apologies is his interest in psychological well-being. He is impressed with their power to "heal humiliations and grudges, remove the desire for vengeance, and generate forgiveness" in offended parties, while they also "diminish the fear of retaliation and relieve the guilt and shame" felt by offending parties (1). While Lazare notes that the presence of apologies in public life has dramatically increased in the past decade, he does not regard this trend as an unqualified good, for harmful pseudo-apologies abound. He does, however, see the abundance of counterfeits as a testimony to the value of real apologies, which entail the offender's acknowledgment of responsibility for the offense and an expression of regret or remorse to the aggrieved party, often within the context of some form of dialogue or negotiation toward reconciliation.

Lazare identifies four parts of apologizing—acknowledging the offense, explaining it, expressing appropriate attitudes (remorse, forbearance, shame, humility, and sincerity), and reparations—and argues that acknowledgment is the sine qua non of apology. The author holds up Lincoln's second inaugural address as an exemplar of acknowledgment (of the offense of slavery). Lazare stresses that those who apologize must understand and acknowledge the full import of the offense from the victim's perspective—an important corrective to the emphasis on the offender's needs and goals in the apologia approach.

Reparations are a crucial element of current debates about public apologies and reconciliation. Lazare notes that reparations can cut both ways—often essential to an apology's success, but sometimes perceived as "hush money" or a cheapening of the victim's suffering. Another double-edged sword is found in the motivations for apologizing—internal feelings of guilt and shame, and potential external consequences—which can also deter apologizing, depending on the individual and the situation. Lazare identifies another internal motivation that is largely overlooked in rhetoricians' treatments of apology: empathy for the offended party. He proposes significant additional reasons why people do not apologize: some simply do not know how, while others never recognize it as an option. These two claims imply that apology is a complex rhetorical skill that must be actively promoted, learned, and valued within a society.

Lazare argues against the tendency of critics to value internally motivated apologies over those that are externally motivated; for example, he says that the avoidance of conflict or war is a worthy motivation for apology even in the absence of sincere shame, guilt, or empathy. Unfortunately, he equates a preference for internally motivated apologies with valuing "style" over substance. It is hard to see how motivation is reducible to style rather than substance. Conceding that insincere apologies may have some value need not entail placing them on the same level as sincere apologies. Lazare's argument needs greater nuance if it is meant to be persuasive at this point.

Two chapters address the kairos of apology. Lazare regards apologizing in advance as inimical to true apology, at best an expression of empathy without taking responsibility for wrongdoing. However, this assessment would seem to overlook ethical dilemmas in the real world. Doubtless there are cases in which a party...