Question 1: Role of an Apology
The purpose of an apology is to restore a pre-existing moral order by expunging hurtful effects of previous actions by accounting for what is not alterable. While it may not achieve this, the motivation for a transgressor to apologize includes the need for forgiveness and reconciliation, which makes it possible to paper over the transgressions and bar them from becoming permanent impediments to social relationships. Further, Tavuchis (1991) argues that apologies speak to some things that are larger than any specific betrayal or desire for expediency/reconciliation (p. 6). Social order is hinged on a measure of commitment to norms in respect of behavioral standards and institutional arrangements, many of which are obscured by design or habit (p. 12).
Group affiliations and other relationships are dependent on the knowledge and conformity to these specific and general norms, and thus an apology serves as a sign of such conformity. It shows a painful mindfulness of the personal/societal/group norms that one betrayed, and a commitment to abide by the same in the future. They constitute a form of self-punishment, by which human beings are forced to relive potentially painful experiences that have rendered their claim to a social group questionable. By apologizing, the individual may be forgiven, rehabilitated back into the group and social harmony is therefore restored (p. 9). In addition, an apology is a sensitive indicator of a group member’s (or outsider’s) moral orientation and equally importantly, registers tensions and alterations in public/personal belief systems. An attempt to reclaim group/social membership means that an apology has the role of reaffirming the existence of social norms, to which the offender reaffirms their allegiance (p. 13).
Effectively, while apologies have little consequence in undoing the perceived or actual harm caused by an offender, it has deeper symbolic and ritualistic purposes, formed around socializing people to conform to group/social norms. It is not only a way of social pacification, by giving an account of what can not be changed and thus form the foundation for both the offended party and the offender to deal with it (Tavuchis and Retzinger 1754). However, it appears that according to Tavuchis (1991), the most important role of apologies lies in the offender’s motivation to tender an apology, which includes the possibility of forgiveness and reconciliation (p. 6). Thus, as evidenced in Tavuchis (1991)’s autobiographical introduction, even if an apology has no effect on righting the wrong that has been committed, it has the consequence of wiping the social slate blank, which in turn restores social relationships onto the previous footing.
Even most importantly, however, apologies serve as a way for societies to socialize and reinforce accepted norms, whether explicit or implicit. Weisman (2006) shows how the reparative discourse was used to mobilize feelings to support specific communal visions, and expectation for apologies were resisted or contested by people with varying communal visions (p. 221). Since conduct that is contrary to set group norms puts the offender’s commitment to them, and the group in question, it puts their membership to that group in question. Therefore, an apology is a form of a confession and a loyalty pledge, by which the offender acknowledges their transgressions and re-affirms their commitment to the important values of a group and thus they can be rehabilitated back into the fold. It shows therefore that an apology is not entirely futile, for it has a symbolic value, which societies use for social control.
Question 2: Account and Apology
An empirical study by Jehle (2007) reveals that voluntary (and to a lesser extent coerced) apologies resulted in greater tendency for the offended parties/judges to forgive the transgressor, especially since lack of an apology pointed to a heightened possibility of recidivism (p. 100). This offers a helpful insight in understanding an account and an apology. According to Tavuchis (1991), an account is a justification, excuse, explanation of an offense as either inadvertent or reasonable. The distinction between the two only emerged in modern usage, where excuses/justifications are differentiated from excuses/justifications that are coupled by an expression regret or remorse on the part of the transgressor (p. 17). Transgressions lead to the possibility of retaliation and conflict escalation. An account serves to provide a reason for the transgression and possible escalation, by asking the offended party to understand that the offensive conduct is reasonable and excusable. It diverts attention from the offender to cause-effect relationships that occur by accident, coercion, ignorance and incapacity. Even though the veracity of the account and its ability to excuse the offensive conduct can be countered or questioned (p. 18), it suspends the imperatives of answerability and responsibility (p. 19).
On the other hand, an apology tends to counter the possibility of escalation by pacifying the offended parties. It is in effect, a voluntary admission of fault and lack of defense, explanation, or justification for one’s hurtful actions (or omissions). It is a genuine/authentic expression of regret/remorse (p. 19). It amounts to a scrupulous self-exposure to possible retribution by exchanging potential defenses for unconditional remission (p. 17). An apology is a “special kind of an enacted story whose remedial potential, unlike that of an account, stems from the acceptance of the aggrieved party of an admission of inequity” (p. 18). The difference is apparent in the manner that people manage the risks resulting from their offensive conduct i.e. whether they choose to fight it or plead guilty and throw themselves on the mercy of the offended party.
The difference between an account and an apology negates Tavuchis (1991)’s initial assertion that an apology serves no meaningful purpose. As shown in Jehle (2007) that aggrieved parties are less likely to retribute if offenders apologize, apologies have a critical role in society. As opposed to “self-serving” accounts that tend to excuse the offender’s role in the injury suffered by the victim, and therefore avoid negative consequences, apologies tend to throw the offender on the victim’s mercy. An apology is therefore gauged on its strength as showing the commitment of the offender to the norms that they offended as against an account that shows defiance. It tries to prevent the escalation of conflict and possible retribution, by appealing to that which binds the victim and the offender. He renders the offender morally naked and vulnerable to the possible sanctions. This contrast is also speaking to the role of apology in socializing individuals to groups, and perhaps most importantly, enforcing social/group norms (Jehle 101; Tavuchis 13). By tendering an authentic apology, one shows their regret in offending social/group norms and appeals to the aggrieved party to forgive the transgression, and, therefore, restore the offender’s belongingness to the group.
Works Cited
Helmreich, Jeffrey S. "Does ‘Sorry’ Incriminate? Evidence, Harm and the Protection of Apology ." Cornell Journal of law and Public Policy vol. 21 (2010): 567-107.
Jehle, Alayna. The Impact of Apologies, Accounts, and Remorse on Attributions of Responsibility: Implications for the Legal System. London: ProQuest, 2007. Print.
Tavuchis, Nicholas and Suzanne Retzinger. "Reviewed Work: Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation." American Journal of Sociology Vol. 97, No. 6 (1992): 1754-1756. Web.
Tavuchis, Nicholas. Mea Culpa: A Sociology of Apology and Reconciliation. Seattle: Stanford University Press, 1991. Print.
Weisman, Richard. "Showing Remorse at The TRC: Towards a Constitutive Approach to Reparative Discourse." Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, v.24, no.2 (2006): 221-239. Web.
