In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • The Sins of the Nation and the Ritual of Apologies
  • Mark Gibney (bio)
Danielle Celermajer , The Sins of the Nation and the Ritual of Apologies (Cambridge University Press, 2009) 283 pages, ISBN 9780521516693.

Danielle Celermajer's book The Sins of the Nation and the Ritual of Apologies should immediately take its rightful place as one of the most insightful and intelligent treatments of the state apology phenomenon. Celermajer's goal is to develop a theory of political apologies, but the foundation of this theory is not in the political world, but in the religious realm. State apologies represent a form of moral reconstruction, only it is not the individual who is being transformed—or even a collection of individuals who make up a particular state—but the society itself. In a number of ways, this focus on the collective goes against the grain of the past half century or more wherein there has been an increased emphasis on holding individuals accountable for violating international human rights and humanitarian law standards. But as Celermajer points out, state apologies are a way of acknowledging that these proceedings do not subsume the entirety of state responsibility, and that [End Page 566] it is only through an apology that larger, more entrenched patterns of disrespect and the misrecognition of others can be addressed.

Although she bases the state apology phenomenon squarely within religious traditions and practices, Celermajer readily acknowledges that with the exception of the Catholic Church, the institutions that are issuing apologies will almost never invoke any religious basis for doing so, and this is particularly true of those emanating from Western states. Yet, she presents a compelling argument that state apologies have their genesis (so to speak) in religious notions of forgiveness and redemption. Celermajer limits her analysis to Judaism and Christianity (Catholicism in particular), but if she or others were to extend this analysis it is more than likely they would find that nearly all of the world's religions have some component of forgiveness in their belief system. Celermajer's major contribution is in marrying the political, the moral, and the religious, and in doing so she not only helps us to better understand the apology phenomenon itself, but that of the political world more broadly.

Perhaps it is the Chagall re-reation that adorns the book's cover, but Celermajer seems most in her element in discussing Judaism. Yom Kippur—the Day of Atonement—is one of the holiest of all Jewish holidays, but what is essential about this ceremony is that it is a collective effort. Thus, Jews recognize their transgressions against God's law and repent for such—not as individuals but together as God's Chosen People. Although Christianity places more emphasis on the individual, the more important point is the central role of responsibility and redemption, personified in such parables as the story of the Prodigal Son.

Although she traces apology back to its religious roots, Celermajer's focus is on the political world. In her view (certainly one that I share), the political landscape has changed dramatically, as best evidenced by the manner in which states are only now willing to look at their past actions. In her analysis, she echoes Hannah Arendt's idea that the only way that there can be a fundamental change in the political order is through forgiveness.

In the last section of the book Celermajer uses the Australian example as a case study to further illuminate her theory. Celermajer teaches at the University of Sydney and her sensitive recapitulation of the long and winding road leading up to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's dramatic apology in 2008 to the country's Aboriginal people is itself good enough reason to read this book. However, what is particularly useful is the manner in which she analyzes the arguments on both sides. You might recall that Rudd's predecessor, John Howard, repeatedly refused to issue an apology and the rationale was that people living today were not "responsible" for such things as the decades-long policy of removing Aboriginal children from their families in an effort to systematically eliminate the country's "black spot."

Yet, the forces in favor...

pdf

Share