Sorry

**LHC** · 02-09-20, 07:49

Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post

There are four types of apology, as I see it.

1. I did something shameful and I acknowledge it and regret it. I don't think one person can apologise on behalf of another and be sincere.

2. I acknowledge that something done by someone else - often in the past - was shameful, and I regret that it happened. If genuinely said it's all that can amount to an apology for (say) slavery, colonialism, religious fervour, antisemitism and the like.

3. I regret that you are offended by [insert issue]. Implied is - don't be so sensitive and grow up.

4. I regret that I have been found out.

A few years ago (8-10?) the press started on Richard Dawkins to apologise because a direct ancestor had owned slaves about 1720. Having said that he loathed slavery (but refusing to apologise for someone in the early 18th century) he pointed out that a conservative estimate for the number of direct descendants living now might be 1,400. Presumably the other 1,399 should also apologise.

With regard to your example 3, I have previously been in the position where someone has completely misunderstood and misinterpreted something I have said, and been offended by what they thought I said, rather than what I did say. In those circumstances I think it is reasonable to explain the error, and also to confirm that there was no intention to offend. This type of apology has, I think, been devalued by its overuse by politicians and others to make a non-apology which, as you say, is intended to put the blame on the offended rather than the offender.

I suspect as well that businesses and institutions are often reluctant to issue genuine apologies in the mistaken belief that by doing so, they might be admitting liability for their error.

**oddoneout** · 02-09-20, 07:53

Originally posted by Pulcinella View Post

Isn't that more usually: We would like to apologise, but we're not going to?

The 'not going to' is a given, but it is the use of 'would like to' that for me adds the insult, since it is so obviously a lie(a habit now endorsed by the current government it would seem). I understand how that wording might have come about(not accepting responsibility for a problem being the main consideration I would think), but that doesn't make it any less unpalatable.

**Padraig** · 02-09-20, 09:44

From, 'Say you're sorry', as children are often made to do, to issuing a ministerial statement apologising after a public outcry, it's hard to find a genuine apology. Does the following link come near?

Richard Moore: Soldier who blinded schoolboy says 'sorry'

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-foyle-west-53985472

Richard Moore and the soldier who shot him, Charles Inness, became friends after meeting in 2007.

**burning dog** · 02-09-20, 11:12

Originally posted by Pabmusic View Post

There are four types of apology, as I see it.

A few years ago (8-10?) the press started on Richard Dawkins to apologise because a direct ancestor had owned slaves about 1720. Having said that he loathed slavery (but refusing to apologise for someone in the early 18th century) he pointed out that a conservative estimate for the number of direct descendants living now might be 1,400. Presumably the other 1,399 should also apologise.

He most likely had several campaigners against slavery in his ancestry as well...

I think people expect contrition in an apology when they are too often offered sympathy or even empathy eg. "I understand how awful it feels to be offended or hurt."

**french frank** · 02-09-20, 11:26

Originally posted by Padraig View Post

From, 'Say you're sorry', as children are often made to do, to issuing a ministerial statement apologising after a public outcry, it's hard to find a genuine apology. Does the following link come near?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northe...-west-53985472

It suggests that the best outcome lies in the relationship between the two parties; one says, privately, one-to-one, that s/he is sorry, and the other party accepts and forgives. But for that the word 'apology' itself doesn't seem adequate (expression of sincere regret?).

What is the difference if the second party takes the view that any apology is inadequate, not acceptable and therefore impossible? It certainly seems to make one person's 'apology' on behalf of one group (government, organisation) to another group very difficult. How do you demonstrate the strength of your feelings of regret if the putative recipient declines it? What of 'restitution'? "Here, take this cheque for £10,000" means nothing if the sum can be easily afforded. Fascinating question, Padraig.

Add to burning dog: 'Contrition' is a good word. But can you be contrite if you never intended the injury/offence?

**burning dog** · 02-09-20, 11:35

Originally posted by french frank View Post

But can you be contrite if you never intended the injury/offence?

Often not, but in the case of gross incompetence or neglect? More than likely what the Government, Public Institution or Corporation is guilty of.

Humility is something missing from a lot of politicians apologies.

**Padraig** · 02-09-20, 13:37

Originally posted by french frank View Post

Add to burning dog: 'Contrition' is a good word. But can you be contrite if you never intended the injury/offence?

One thing about contrition is that, according to my early upbringing, it requires you not only to be sorry for your misdemeanor, but to resolve never to do it again; your future actions therefore will determine the sincerity of your initial apology. Bang goes many a statement of contrition.