Linguistic and Political Analysis of Political Apologies

Coby W. Dillard

Norfolk State University

“When I first posted on Facebook, I reacted to an article and I quickly judged the two

ladies in a way that I would never have wanted to be judged myself as a teenager. After

many hours of prayer, talking to my parents, and re-reading my words online I can see

more clearly just how hurtful my words were. Please know, those judgmental feelings

truly have no place in my heart. Furthermore, I’d like to apologize to all of those who I

have hurt and offended with my words, and I pledge to learn and grow (and I assure you

I have) from this experience.”1

This apology comes from Elizabeth Lauten, communications director for Rep. Stephen

Fincher (R-TN) as a result of comments she made about Malia and Sasha Obama, daughters of

President Obama. Lauten described the daughters as “classless” and suggested that they “dress

like [they] deserve respect, not a spot at a bar,” based on their appearance at the president’s

annual Thanksgiving address and turkey pardoning.

Lauten’s words are an example of a political apology, an act in which “politicians profess

to take responsibility for their own or their party/government wrongdoings, express their sorrow

or regret, and explain their actions (Kokoza, 2014, p. 75).” Described as “symbolic acts of public

proclamation of sorrow and regret…aimed at restoring public equilibrium” (Kokoza, 2014, p.

75), the political apology is a tactic used by politicians and those in the public eye to show a

degree of remorse for an act or action without necessarily taking full accountability for them.

Despite their increased usage, the act of political apology is rarely researched, mostly

because little understanding exists of what differentiates political apologies from other apologies.

While not necessarily ideologically driven, the debate of which political ideology is more

1 “Twitter hits back at GOP staffer who called Sasha and Malia Obama 'classless' with pictures of Jenna Bush and the sarcastic hash tag #classy.” MaillOnline, November 29, 2014

accepting of the act contributes to their misunderstanding as a speech act. For these reasons, the

study of political apologies is a necessary undertaking.

Defining the Apology and Political Apologies

In analyzing apologies, there is a formal and a functional approach.

The formal approach to analyzing apologies involves establishing, through word phrases

(lexemes) that an apology is taking place. One of the key indicators of the presence of an

apology is the presence of lexemes that communicate the expressions to apologize, to be sorry,

to forgive, to excuse, and to pardon. These performative verbs indicate a certain type of action,

and also communicate the intention behind an act of speech in a concise way. Other indicators of

an apology’s presence are an explanation of the conflict that necessitates the apology, and

lexemes that acknowledge guilt and remorse as well as responsibility.

The functional approach to analyzing apologies examines their effectiveness as acts of

communication. According to Goffman (1971), the apology is “a gesture through which an

individual splits himself into two parts, the part that is guilty of an offense, and the part that

associates itself from the delinct and affirms the belief in the offended.” In this duality, the

apologizer shows sympathy with those he offended, and also casts himself as contrite and

reconcilable to the offended society.

A political apology is on that “takes place in the public domain where the apologizer is a

prominent”-by position or social prestige-“political figure, and the offended is the audience at

large (Kokoza, 2014, p. 76).” The act itself is often highly choreographed; taking place in a

media outlet that is sympathetic to the apologizer or his political ideology. For a political

apology to be viewed as sincere, it must contain usage of the performative verb lexemes above,

as well as an acknowledgment of guilt, remorse, and responsibility. Consider their presence in

this example, given by President Obama in response to those who lost their individual healthcare

coverage as a result of insurance changes in the Affordable Care Act (with emphasis added):

“I am sorry that they, you know, are finding themselves in this situation, based on

assurances they got from me,” Obama said in an interview with NBC News. “We’ve got

to work hard to make sure that they know we hear them and that we’re going to do

everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position as a

consequence of this.”2

In this example, President Obama uses performative verbs (I am sorry), offers an explanation of

the circumstances necessitating the apology and accepts responsibility for it (based on

assurances they received from me).

President Obama’s apology is an example of a personal political apology, one of the three

types of political apologies. In this type, the politician not only acknowledges a wrong, but

accepts personal responsibility for it. Explicit statements of guilt-being embarrassed,

disappointed, or humiliated-convey the politician’s internalization of the effects of the wrong.

In an institutionalized political apology, a politician also acknowledges a wrongdoing and

accepts responsibility; he does so, however, only as a representative of an institution or branch of

government. With this, the politician is able to shift blame from himself as an individual to the

collective society. In 2009, Norfolk Mayor Paul Fraim offered this institutionalized apology to

the now-adult schoolchildren whose were shut out of public schools during Massive Resistance:

“It is fitting on this 50th anniversary of the end of Massive Resistance, as mayor of the

city of Norfolk, that I take this opportunity to express my profound regret to the Norfolk

2 “President Obama apologizes to Americans who are losing their health insurance,” Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2013

17, their family members and to the African American community of Norfolk for the

wrongs committed against you and for all you suffered through these difficult times,"

Fraim said. “It is my hope that we can now write the final chapter of a tragic and

shameful period in our city's history."3

Fraim accepts the opportunity to “express regret,” rather than accept responsibility, which he

cannot do on his own behalf. He also shifts the blame for Massive Resistance from himself to

unknown individuals who “committed wrongs.” To conclude, he offers a metaphor of Massive

Resistance as a “tragic and shameful” book, on which the “final chapter” is being written; this

allows him to further dissociate himself and make an emotional appeal to move from the event to

a new (and presumably better) future.

The final type of political apology is the political non-apology, which, according to

Lazare:

offers a vague and incomplete acknowledgement of the offense, uses the passive voice,

makes the ostensible offense conditional, questions whether the victim has been harmed

or damaged, minimizes the offense, uses the empathetic “I’m sorry,” apologizes to the

wrong person, or apologizes for the wrong offense (Eisenger, 2011, p. 137).

Political non-apologies are infamous for their use of phrases such as “mistakes were made” and

apologies “to anyone who may have been offended.” Then-newly elected Gov. Bob McDonnell

offered this apology after omitting slavery as one of the causes of the Civil War in his 2010

Confederate History Month proclamation: "The failure to include any reference to slavery was a

mistake, and for that I apologize to any fellow Virginian who has been offended or

disappointed."4 McDonnell does not accept personal responsibility for the omission, although he

3 “Kaine, Fraim apologize for Massive Resistance.” Virginian-Pilot, February 3, 20094 “McDonnell's statement on Confederate History Month.” Virginian Pilot, April 7, 2010

does acknowledge that it happened. The apology is conditioned upon someone actually being

offended by the omission; if you were not, the apology is moot. While McDonnell did work to

right the wrong by amending his proclamation to include slavery, his apology did little to

communicate a true sense of regret.

The (Political) Ideology of Apology

The three dominant Western political traditions-socialism, conservatism, and liberalism-

place different value on apologies; this value is contingent on the compatibility of the ideology

with the act of apology.

Socialism, according to Cunningham (2011, p. 117) is “an ideology which [is] concerned

with the construction of a new society born of an Enlightenment faith in reason and progress;”

one that seeks to move towards a future that is largely distinct and separate from the past it arises

from. Because the act of apology is a reminder of a past grievance, it does not advance the goal

of moving toward a new society. Also, because socialism is a more materialistic political

ideology, apologies are viewed as more symbolic,, unless they are tied to a material form of

compensation or reparation for the wrong.

Liberalism also possesses an incompatibility with the act of apology. The focus on

individualism and individual autonomy makes the concept of sharing responsibility for a wrong

difficult, because “an autonomous individual could [not] be held responsible for what s/he had

not done” (Cunningham, 2011, p. 118), even if responsibility and/or regret are expressed on their

behalf as part of an institutionalized apology. Individualism further complicates the act of

apology in liberalism because it would extend the effects of the grievance to generations who are

decades-or possibly centuries-removed from its most harmful effects.

“Of the three major ideological traditions…the conservative one is most compatible with

the concept of the apology” (Cunningham, 2011, p. 119). This is due to conservatism’s focus on

the past as something worthy to be honored and remembered; in conservatism, “history is central

to…conceptualizations of what a society is and how the current individuals and subjects in it

understand themselves” (Cunningham, 2011, p. 119). In the opposite of the liberal view,

conservative communities often argue that the effects of a grievance extend to future generations

regardless of how far they are removed from the original offense.

Despite conservatism’s seeming acceptance of the act of apology, it is often those on the

political “right”-who are often identified as “conservative”-who are the staunchest critics of

apologies. Because the apology challenges, either directly or indirectly, a nationalist narrative

that elevates the state to supremacy, any apology that addresses wrongs by that state can

negatively effect the view of the state as an infallible power. “Liberals,” or those residing on the

political “left,” are often more accepting of the act of apology when offered as a redress of

generational wrongs.

Elizabeth Lauten: Apology or Non?

Having defined the act of apology and types of political apologies, as well as examining

some of the political motivations behind them, we can now classify and analyze the apology by

Lauten that opened this essay.

A formal analysis of Lauten’s words places them squarely within the realm of a sincere

apology. The performative phrase “to apologize” is present in her statement. Functionally, she

shows herself as reconcilable to society by pledging “to learn and grow”-and assuring the public

that she has-“from this experience.”

However, by definition of the types of political apologies, Lauten’s words are an example

of a non-apology. Instead of speaking directly to the most offended party-the president and his

family-Lauten apologies to those unnamed individuals “who [she] has hurt or offended by [her]

words.”

References

Cunningham, M. (2011, February). The ideolgical location of the apology. Journal of Political

Ideologies, 16(1), pp. 115-122.

Eisenger, R. (2011, March). The Political Non-Apology. Society, 48(2), pp. 136-141.

Goffman, E. (1976). Relations in Public. HarperCollins. Retrieved December 5, 2014, from

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jds/Gffmn1-Lect6.htm

Kokoza, T. (2014). Cognitive and Structural-Semantic Parameters of Political Apology in the

Media. Bulletin of the University of Luhansk, 3, pp. 75-81.