A few years back, I tried to winkle out what it really means to apologize, and I worked out that – to me, at least – an apology has at least four parts.
1) You admit you did something wrong.
2) You show that you understand what it was.
Which means, you explain to the person injured just how you think you injured them. Ideally, you attempt to understand and describe how THEY feel you injured them. Part of this demonstration of understanding is that you visibly attempt to match the scale of the original injury with the scale of the apology. In other words, you don’t just say “Hey, my bad,” after you run over somebody’s head with your car.
3) You promise to try very hard not to do it again, ever.
4) You make an effort to fix what you broke.
This last one means you pay for the injury in some real fashion, in an attempt to balance the negative you visited on the victim with some sort of plus. You give back what you took away, or try to return equal measure in some other way.
If the event was a simple insult, this payment might be a matter of just listening to the person you injured, as they express their feelings about the event. If it was some sort of property damage, the payment might be literal payment or replacement of the broken thing.
Some things are beyond payment, of course. If you caused an auto accident that took someone’s life, you at least make an attempt to show the relatives that you understand their loss, that you share some sense of loss yourself. You’re not just walking away free and unaffected afterwards.
Some part of this is what I think of as a “balance of loss” – the victim unconsciously wants to feel that his loss is made up for by some sort of loss on the part of the perpetrator. A Japanese CEO resigning after a disgraceful mistake by his company, even if it wasn’t his mistake, is an expression of balance of loss. The guy who stole your car and wrecked it “apologizes” by suffering a balance of loss in jail.
Politicians and liars are good at all the bullshit variations of apology that amount to loud and lengthy non-apology. Saying “I take full responsibility” is what I call the Presidential BS Non-Apology, for instance, that gives the victims nothing but words. One thing an apology is NOT, in my opinion, is a tool to gain advantage for yourself. You don’t beat your breast in public and get social brownie points for being such a great guy, all the while screwing the victim out of any sense of fairness or restitution, which is what the Presidential BS Non-Apology really is.
So here’s Monique Davis, D-Chicago, a state representative in Illinois, reacting to atheist activist Rob Sherman in the Illinois General Assembly as he attempted to testify before the House State Government Administration Committee on a $1 million grant of public money intended for a private school of Pilgrim Baptist Church. The audiotape of the event sounded pretty nasty. I would characterize her outburst as shouting, possibly even screaming.
Davis: I don’t know what you have against God, but some of us don’t have much against him. We look forward to him and his blessings. And it’s really a tragedy — it’s tragic — when a person who is engaged in anything related to God, they want to fight. They want to fight prayer in school.
I don’t see you (Sherman) fighting guns in school. You know?
I’m trying to understand the philosophy that you want to spread in the state of Illinois. This is the Land of Lincoln. This is the Land of Lincoln where people believe in God, where people believe in protecting their children.… What you have to spew and spread is extremely dangerous, it’s dangerous—
Sherman: What’s dangerous, ma’am?
Davis: It’s dangerous to the progression of this state. And it’s dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists! Now you will go to court to fight kids to have the opportunity to be quiet for a minute. But damn if you’ll go to [court] to fight for them to keep guns out of their hands. I am fed up! Get out of that seat!
Sherman: Thank you for sharing your perspective with me, and I’m sure that if this matter does go to court—
Davis: You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon.
Well, she apologized. Sort of.
… after being on the receiving end of a week’s worth of public criticism, Davis called Sherman yesterday to apologize.
Sherman says Davis told him she “took out her frustrations and emotions on me and that she shouldn’t have done that.” Sherman says Davis’ explanation was “reasonable” and that he forgives her.
According to Sherman and State Rep. Jack Franks … Davis claims her outburst was triggered by learning shortly beforehand … that there’d been another Chicago Public School student killed.
State Rep. Jack Franks was chairing the hearing that day and says Davis’ outburst was uncharacteristic, adding “she was having a bad day.”
Looks to me like this woman fails on 2, 3 and 4. Actually, I’m sort of thinking she also fails on 1.
1. She didn’t really admit she did anything wrong. Sounds more like what she did was tell the guy “You can understand why I did this.” (Kinda like saying “I’m sorry I beat you, Jennie, you know how I get when I drink.”)
2. I don’t get any sense at all, from what I’ve read so far, that she understands what she did, other than yell at some guy in public. I don’t think she has any sense of who and what this person is.
Him forgiving her, considering that she insulted a CLASS of people, doesn’t seem good enough, does it? It’s big-hearted of him; he’s showing real decency by doing it. But if she’d shouted at an individual in a public meeting something like “You Jews are always so stingy with your money and you’re trying to destroy this country,” or “You black people are parasites on the people who built this great state,” (Rep. Davis is herself an African-American) would she get away with a private apology? And would the person she originally insulted be able to accept her apology on behalf of his entire race or culture? I don’t think so.
3. I didn’t hear anything about “I won’t do it again.” In fact, considering that she doesn’t seem to have understood what I think is really at issue, I’m not sure she’s even capable of making such a commitment.
4. Did she fix what she broke? Or at least demonstrate suffering in equal measure with what she caused? Nope and nope.
Monique Davis: Fail.