Oops and Oy

I’m a fan of Kiva. As a lender, I receive occasional emails from Kiva. Recently, they made a mistake. It wasn’t a big mistake, just a coding error in an email that caused some coding to display in the text. It turns out, the email was a test that was unintentionally sent. Soon after, Kiva sent another email, an apology email.

Let me start by saying that sending an apology email was a nice step. First, it helped ease any fears that recipients may have had (after all, people tend to worry when anything seems out of the ordinary in emails regarding financial matters). Second, it shows that the company takes its responsibility seriously and is transparent about issues.

BP’s Apologia and Visual Rhetoric

Three weeks after the offshore oil rig exploded, the situation is still out of control and oil is still spilling into the waters of the Gulf. Attempts to stop, minimize or even contain the oil have so far failed, leaving many people to point the finger at

Ellen Degeneres Should Not Have Apologized to Apple

Recently, Ellen Degeneres showed a spoof commercial of Apple’s iPhone on her show. The next day, Degeneres issued an apology to Apple during her show, stating:

“I am sorry if I made it look like the iPhone is hard to use. It’s not hard to use. I have an iPhone… I just learned how to text on an iPhone; it’s the only phone that I can text on. I love it. I love my iPad. I love my iPod. I love IHOP, if you have anything to do with that. So everybody at Apple–Steve Jobs, Mr. Macintosh–I apologize. I’m sorry. I love the stuff.”

There are a few interesting points raised by this situation.

First, Degeneres’s apology has likely garnered more attention than her original spoof ad, meaning more people are now aware of the situation and that any negative aspects of the iPhone that were in the spoof have now been seen by an even broader audience. Moreover, Apple’s sensitivity to such insignificant spoofs or opinions may well make the company appear less favorable in the public spotlight than any ad Degeneres could run.

Second, it raises the question: When is a public apology really necessary? What counts as a serious offense? What counts as a spoof? What counts as personal opinion? And should a public apology really be issued just because someone states an unfavorable opinion, review, or spoof?

Finally–and most importantly–unnecessary public apologies (or, at the very least, apologies that are issued for inconsequential statements) actually undermine serious situations as well as the important healing that can come from a public apology.

Apologies are an important part of both personal relationships and of society as a whole. Let’s not water than down or diminish their power by calling for (or offering) apologies every time someone states an opinion or runs a spoof commercial.

It’s a hard line to find and I admit that each act has to be evaluated for the intention as well as the harm it caused. But if we don’t find that balance, apologies (and Saturday Night Live) are in serious trouble.

McCain Defends Immigration Law by Reducing Its Offensiveness

Senator John McCain recently defended Arizona’s immigration law by calling it necessary “to provide its citizens with secure borders.”

In doing so, he employed a strategy of reducing the offensiveness (which is one of five image-repair strategies described by William Benoit). For example, he discussed the act in terms of abstract values and group loyalties (a method known as transcendence) by stating:

“This is a struggle on our side of the border for the fundamental obligation that any government has, and that is to provide its citizens with secure borders. Right now our citizens are not safe.”

In addition, he attacked the law’s accusers by calling into question the Federal government’s lack of action or control over the issue:

“This situation is the worst I’ve ever seen,” declared McCain. “If you don’t like the bill…then carry out the federal responsibilities, which are to secure the border.”

He went on to say: “This is a national security issue where the United States of America has an unsecured border between Arizona and Mexico, which has led to violence.”

The comments were made in defense of the controversial immigration bill that Arizona recently signed into law. According to the law, local police are required to look for, question, and detain any person who appears to be in the United States illegally. Critics of the law argue that it will lead to racial profiling.

The comments from both sides of the controversy call into question some underlying assumptions about America’s values. Put simply, do national security and safety trump personal freedoms, or is it the other way around?

Thoughts?

Roethlisberger is Sorry…But About What?

Recently, a Georgia District Attorney decided not to charge Pittsburgh Steelers Quarterback Ben Roethlisberger with sexual assault, due to a lack of evidence. In announcing the decision, the DA stated that his office was in no way condoning Roethlisberger’s actions by not charging him. The evidence simply wasn’t there to prove criminal activity. That’s very different than saying there was no evidence of wrongdoing.

After the announcement, Ben Roethlisberger read a brief statement, in which he offered an apology of sorts.

There’s a lot that could be analyzed in this short statement (including the same questions of sincerity, script reading and power that were problematic in Tiger Woods’ apology). But to keep this short, I’ll focus on the biggest issue I see with Roethlisberger’s “apology” – and that is the question of social values.

This is one of the most important underlying aspects of any apology, and it’s even more interesting when the apologist refers to his or her values, as Roethlisberger did near the end of his statement when he said he is committed to showing everyone his “true values.”

Why are Values So Important in Apologies?

The reality is, every apology is a discussion about values. Here’s why. Values help maintain a sense of order in a society. When people implicitly or explicitly accept those values, they are essentially accepting the terms and conditions of membership in that society.

When someone violates one of those values, it upsets that natural order – which results in conflict for the society as well as a sense of guilt and a loss of membership for the individual. To alleviate the conflict and be reaccepted in the group, the offender must expunge the guilt by offering an apology.

Through the apology process, then, people are actually negotiating their values. In other words, they’re making claims about what’s important to them, how they live together, and what they expect from one another.

So when a person offers an apology, that person is actually acknowledging that he should not have broken the value, and that he will live by that value going forward.

What IS Roethlisberger Sorry About Anyway?

With that in mind, let’s look at what Roethlisberger really said in his apology. To quote him, Roethlisberger said that he is “truly sorry for the disappointment and negative attention ” he brought to his family, teammates, the NFL, and others. The good news is, he actually admitted that the “disappointment” and “negative attention” were caused by his actions, rather than the situation. The bad news is, he’s really only saying he’s sorry for the negative attention, not the action that caused that attention. In other words, he’s sorry for the end result, not for the root cause.

To be fair, Roethlisberger does announce that he wants to take steps to earn the trust of his family, teammates, and fans. But without even implicitly acknowledging – let alone explicitly stating – what social values he broke or why they were wrong (i.e., how they hurt others…like, say, the victim), we’re really left wondering whether Roethlisberger is sorry at all or if he’ll refrain from such actions in the future.

The Takeaway Lesson

Before offering or accepting an apology, make sure the focus is on the right issue. Ask yourself: Who was directly and indirectly harmed? And, what is the underlying value that was broken? For example, if a husband apologizes for not doing the dishes, the dishes aren’t really the issue. The deeper issue probably relates to the values of “sharing the burden of household chores” or “respecting your spouse’s time.” Whether you’re the apologizer or the person receiving an apology, make sure the underlying value is the main point of the discussion and of the apology.

Courtney Love’s Facebook Apology

Courtney Love recently issued an apology to Billy Corgan, lead guitarist and songwriter for the Smashing Pumpkins. The apology came after Corgan bashed Love in a Rolling Stones interview.

Love's Facebook Apology (Click to Enlarge)

There are three things that are interesting about this apology. First, it’s a rare case of Love actually taking the high road rather than lashing back. For fans of Love or the music industry in general, this aspect alone makes the situation noteworthy.

Second, the apology doesn’t really address any particular accusation. Instead, it addresses the entire tumultuous relationship between Love and Corgan, from their personal lives to their collaboration as musicians. Typically, we think of apologetic rhetoric as intended to address a specific accusation of wrongdoing. This perspective is derived from Halford Ross Ryan’s (1982) influential essay on the inherent connection between apologia (apology) and kategoria (accusation). As Ryan (1982) explained:

As a response to the accusation, the apology should be discussed in terms of the apologist’s motivation to respond to the accusation, his selection of the issues—for they might differ from the accuser’s issues—and the nature of the supporting materials for the apology…. Hence the critic cannot have a complete understanding of the accusation or apology without treating them both. (p. 254)

While this interplay between accusation and apologetic rhetoric is undoubtedly valuable, it is not enough in this case to analyze Love’s apology. What is needed is a deeper analysis of the context relating to Love and Corgan, as well as Love’s image with her fans.

Finally, Love’s apology is an important example of the use of new media (from websites to social networking sites) to deliver apologies. In this case, Love’s Facebook apology is especially important when we consider whom she is really addressing in her statement. Although she clearly states “Dearest Billy” at the top of the apology, we have to wonder why she chose to deliver the apology on Facebook. Is this really the way that she and Corgan communicate? Or does the use of Facebook have more to do with demonstrating to her fans the “higher road” stance that she is taking towards Corgan?

These questions get at some important research opportunities that exist in seemingly everyday apologies, especially when new media is involved as a public record or delivery mechanism. More research in these areas is definitely warranted by scholars of apologetic rhetoric and crisis management.

Tiger Woods’ Apology (and the Criticisms)

In late November 2009, reports started to break in the media about Tiger Woods and extramarital affairs. In the ensuing drama, Woods crashed his car into a fire hydrant and a tree at 2:30 in the morning. The media furry and speculation about the accident—and Woods’ affairs—grew. Eventually, Woods admitted the affairs, but refused to comment further—stating that he regretted his “transgressions” and claiming that the situation was ultimately a personal, family matter.

Woods' Website on 12-2-09 (click to enlarge)

As may have been expected, the subject didn’t disappear from the media, and on Friday, February 19, 2010, Woods took the podium to release a statement and apologize.

Shortly after, a transcript of Woods’ statement was also released on his website. (Download a PDF of the transcript.)

Woods' Website on 2-19-10 (click to enlarge)

Since then, numerous pundits and news shows have commented on Woods’ statement—offering their opinions of its success or shortcomings. The following comments differ in that my aim isn’t to evaluate or make claims about the success or failure of his apology. Rather, I intend to examine the statement and explore some of the surrounding issues that Woods’ situation reveals about public apologies.

STATEMENT OF SORROW

By nearly all accounts, any apology must include a statement of sorrow.

For example, Lazare (2004) argued that the apology process includes acknowledging the offense, offering an explanation, communicating remorse, and offering reparations. Marrus (2007) stated that an apology must include an acknowledgment of wrongdoing, acceptance of responsibility, an expression of regret and remorse, and reparation and a commitment to not commit the wrong again. Similarly, Govier (2006) described eight characteristics of a “moral apology”: (1) acknowledging the wrongful act, (2) saying sorry for committing the act, (3) accepting moral responsibility for committing the act, (4) not justifying or excusing the act, (5) inviting forgiveness from the victim, (6) explicitly or implicitly stating that the victim deserved better treatment, (7) reassuring the victim that the harmful act or a similar act will not happen again, and (8) offering amends.

Such statements of sorrow have also been termed mortification (Burke, 1970; Benoit, 1995) in which the accused admits wrongful behavior as well as asks for forgiveness and apologizes.

In looking at Woods’ statement, we see a number of these aspects. Numerous times in the statement, Woods unconditionally admitted that his actions were wrong and accepts personal, direct responsibility for those actions. He also stated multiple times that he was “deeply sorry” for his behavior. Finally, it should be noted that Woods practically went out of his way to state the multiple people and organizations that have been harmed by his actions. This aspect of Woods’ statement helps mend relationships by identifying the victims (Edwards, 2005), reinforcing “the victims’ version of history” (Gibbs, 2008), and indicating that the victim deserved better treatment (Grovier, 2006).

LACK OF EXPLANATION, BOLSTERING, ATTACKING THE MEDIA

Despite the presence of these aspects in Woods’ statement, it wasn’t a perfect apology. For one thing, Woods was reluctant to provide any real explanation, but instead talked in general terms about his “irresponsible and selfish behavior.” This is important because the absence of an explanation can leave many people questioning whether Woods truly understands what actions were wrong and why—not to mention whether he even agrees that they were wrong.

Additionally, there were times throughout the statement where Woods’ comments leaned more towards bolstering (e.g., providing details about the good work that his foundation has done) and attacking the accuser (e.g., scolding the media for the pursuit of him and his family).

SINCERITY

One of the biggest complaints about Woods’ statement was that he read his comments rather than spoke from the heart (as some pundits have complained). Reading, of course, isn’t the real issue. Instead, reading his comments (for many people) is an indication of Woods’ sincerity. If he has to read the words—the thinking goes—he isn’t really feeling them. Not to mention that it reinforces the belief that the entire apology/statement was choreographed by Woods’ public relations people.

Admittedly, Woods covered a number of points in his statement, and since the statement was issued live, he only had one chance to make sure he used the right wording and covered each point. One might ask: Would it be worse to read the statement and appear scripted…or to mis-state or forget something? In some ways, I think either option gives the media more fodder for ongoing coverage of Woods.

Still, a middle ground may have helped Woods better demonstrate his sincerity. Perhaps reading a short statement and then talking from the heart. Perhaps not including so many points that the statement took more than 13 minutes to deliver. Perhaps making use of his website and social networking to expand on some points. And perhaps not mentioning indirectly related items, such as media speculation about performance enhancing drugs.

PARTICIPATION

An interesting criticism about Woods’ statement is that it was not a press conference. That is, media cameras were limited and no questions were taken. A number of sports writers and media personalities have since complained that some of Woods’ comments went unchallenged or that they were not able to explore the car crash or the number of transgressions.

While Woods made an attempt to quell such inquiries by stating that the details were a personal matter for him and his wife to discuss, the criticism about the lack of questions brings up the issue of participation—particularly third-party participation.

In my dissertation (as well as in articles and blog posts), I have noted how current European/American-based theories of apologetic rhetoric often view third-party participation as a hindrance to the apology process. For example, even Tavuchis (1991)—who described the Many to Many apology—ultimately argued that “it is precisely in such public confrontations that the negative implications of apology are likely to manifest themselves” (p. 122). In fact, Tavuchis (1991) went so far as to argue that third-party participation “typically militates against a mutually acceptable and morally satisfying resolution insofar as it interferes with the normal unfolding of the process or shifts the grounds of discourse so as to include other issues” (p. 51).

My own research into apologetic exchanges in Rwanda identified that such third-party participation is not only accepted, it is expected. I argue that the Woods’ situation highlights the need for more research into third-party participation in public apologies.

POWER

Another notable criticism of Woods’ statement was that it was tightly controlled. As I stated above, the cameras were limited and questions were not allowed. While these criticisms relate to participation, they also highlight the importance of power in apologetic rhetoric.

Acts of wrongdoing include an underlying element of the perpetrator disrespecting other people (Thompson, 2008). Therefore, an important element of an apology is the re-balancing of that power. As Pablo de Greiff (2008) noted, an apology “puts the offender in a position of vulnerability, and therefore redraws the balance of power” (p. 129). This redrawing of power is “at the heart of the healing process” (Lazare, 1995, p. 42). Through the apologetic process, there is a reversal of power in which the victim is temporarily in a position of power, of being able to accept or not accept the apology.

Unfortunately, Woods’ tight control of his statement’s delivery—in combination with his history of remaining private and tightly controlling his image and the media’s access to him and his family—likely left many people in the media and in the television audience to believe that Woods was once again refusing to relinquish power and truly put himself at the mercy of the public. Even if he said the right things and even if he had demonstrated sincere remorse, his inability to relinquish power would probably have been enough to undermine his apology. Power is that important of an element.

MANNER AND CONTENT

Ultimately, Hearit (2006) argued that analysis (and evaluation) of apologetic rhetoric comes down to two elements: the manner and the content.

In terms of the content, an apology should: acknowledge wrongdoing, accept responsibility, express regret, identify with the victims, ask for forgiveness, seek reconciliation, disclose relevant information, provide an explanation that addresses the victims’ questions and concerns, and offer corrective actions and compensation. For the most part, Woods’ statement met many of these elements (with the exception of disclosing detailed information about his marital transgressions—and one has to question whether those details really are a matter for the public to hear).

In terms of the manner, however, apologies should be truthful, sincere, timely, and voluntary. In Woods’ case, these are the elements he is being most criticized for—including taking much too long to issue an apology and being insincere when he finally stepped forward to deliver one.

An interesting future study that might result from this situation would be to test an audience’s evaluation of the visual performance of the apology versus the actual wording of Woods’ statement. By this I mean testing one group’s opinion of Woods and his apology after they watch a video of his statement, and then comparing that to the opinion of another group that is only given access to the transcript.

I, for one, would be interested in hearing the results of such a study.

Cultural Expectations and Apologies in Gacaca Trials

As part of any analysis of apologetic rhetoric, I argue that we must first consider how the cultural context influences and shapes accusations and apologies. Although I don’t have the room in this post for an in-depth discussion of Rwandan culture, I would like to offer a very brief discussion of what Rwandans expect from apologies and how that impacts not only the rhetoric in gacaca trials, but also how we go about analyzing those exchanges.

In January 2009, I conducted field research in Kigali, Rwanda to help uncover how and why Rwandans apologize. Based on the interview and focus group discussions as well as the answers participants gave to the role-play interview questions, four common characteristics of a successful apology became evident: (1) a detailed narrative of the crime or offense, (2) a statement of sorrow combined with a request for forgiveness, (3) the demonstration of sincerity and heart-felt remorse, and (4) reparations (either symbolic or real).

One of the most distinct elements of Rwandan apologetic rhetoric is the importance of a detailed narrative of the offense or crime. According to the participants’ comments, rather than simply stating that an act was wrong, the apologist must explain in detail what happened, when it happened, and why it happened.

In addition to a detailed narrative of the wrongful act, the interview and focus group research uncovered a strong reliance on third-party participation. This aspect of third-party participation echoes, to some extent, Howard-Hassmann and Lombardo’s (2008) finding that apologies are often delivered publicly in African societies to acknowledge the crime or offense and to set the public record straight. For example, one participant who was quoted by Howard-Hassmann and Lombardo (2008) stated that “if there were witnesses to his misdeed, he might apologize in front of them, in front of village elders, or in front of the entire community” (p. 222).

These cultural expectations shape the setting and apologetic rhetoric of gacaca trials. In addition, these elements are evident in the structure of gacaca trials as well as the documentation. For instance, the gacaca trials are designed for community members to come forward and participate as witnesses, victims, and judges who not only attend and listen but actively participate and shape the narrative and, ultimately, the apology that the perpetrator delivers. Additionally, as I discuss below, a detailed narrative of each crime is recorded in official court documents in the form of a lengthy written explanation of the “details of how each crime was committed.”

In that sense, one should not analyze the apologetic rhetoric or the documents of gacaca trials without also considering the cultural setting and expectations from which they are derived.

RSA Presentation Proposals

I submitted the following proposals to present at the Rhetoric Society of America (RSA) conference in Minneapolis in May 2010. The first proposal was submitted as part of a panel on the intersection of religion, politics, and economics in Pope Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate. The second proposal was submitted as an individual proposal.

PROPOSAL ONE:

Title: Charity in Truth: A Righteous Rhetorical Vision of Economics and Technology

Abstract:

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict’s call for a new economic order puts forth a rhetorical vision that emphasizes humanness, morality and social justice. Often, such rhetorical visions can be categorized in one of three competing explanations of reality: pragmatic (valuing expediency, utility, and efficiency), social (valuing trust, caring, and relationships) or righteous (differentiating between right and wrong, moral and immoral, just and unjust).

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict denounces the pragmatic vision and instead puts forth a rhetorical vision that at times appears social—focusing on love, charity, and “human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity.” However, such social references mainly function to establish charity as an important element in human relations as well as to position financial markets and technology as human realities with moral consequences, leading to a righteous rhetorical vision that asserts a higher calling for economics.

As the encyclical progresses, charity is transformed into a sanctioning agent used to demarcate moral economic policies and technological means from the immoral or unjust, turning Benedicts argument to his righteous rhetorical themes. These themes vilify unconstrained markets and purely technological progress as insufficient at best and destructive at worst.

The righteous themes not only become warrants in Pope Benedict’s argument for a new economic order, but also coalesce to construct a symbolic reality that explains today’s global recession and economic crisis.

This proposal was based on an early blog post that I revised and tightened.

PROPOSAL TWO:

Title: Politicizing Abstract Values Through Apologia: The Identical, Yet Contrastive Rhetoric of Representative Joe Wilson and the Dixie Chicks

Abstract:

On September 9, South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson interrupted President Obama by shouting “You lie!” during the President’s speech to a joint session of Congress. Those two words set off a firestorm, as media pundits called Wilson’s outburst uncivil and House Democrats rebuked Wilson’s comment as a “breach of decorum” that “degraded the proceedings of the joint session, to the discredit of the House.”

After initially issuing an apologetic statement, Wilson transitioned from regret to defiance through public statements, an online video, web text and traditional media interviews in which he claimed he was “under attack by the liberals” and that he would “not be muzzled.”

Despite the politically divisive tone and situation, Wilson’s apologetic rhetoric actually shares a number of similarities with that of the ideologically opposed Dixie Chicks. Both spoke out against a sitting President and were denounced for their comments, including the timing and location in which they were made. Both initially issued an apology before taking a defiant stance. Both ultimately relied on a strategy of transcendence, claiming they were courageously speaking out against a wrong and, therefore, refused to be silenced by their enemy’s attacks.

The more important—perhaps, ironic—similarity between the Dixie Chicks’ apologia and Wilson’s apologia is that they both based their transcendence on the values of “freedom of speech” and “dissent.” In that sense, Wilson employed the same rhetorical strategy and argument that conservatives denounced the Dixie Chicks for using. Conversely, the same values that many liberals applauded the Dixie Chicks for upholding were argued by someone across the aisle.

This situation provides an opportunity to examine how nearly identical rhetorical stances can result in opposition and division when the claims not only overlap but compete to concretize—and politicize—abstract values as rhetors attempt to legitimize their own actions.

This proposal was based on early blog post that I tightened while adding the final point regarding concretization.

Joe Wilson: The Conservative Version of the Dixie Chicks?

If you didn’t know it before, you probably know Joe Wilson’s name now. Just a few days ago, Wilson interrupted President Obama by shouting “You lie!” during the President’s speech to a joint session of Congress.

As I’ve watched the story develop, I’ve been struck by a number of similarities between this situation and the situation faced by the Dixie Chicks a few years ago.

I understand that neither conservatives nor liberals will be happy or probably agree with such a comparison, but let’s take a second to look at what happened:

• Both spoke out against a sitting President
• Both initially tried to calm the storm with an attempt at apologizing
• Both turned from a stance of regret to defiance within days of the event
• Both ultimately relied on a strategy of “transcendence” which shifts the focus away from the particulars of a situation to larger, conceptual ideals that the audience views favorably. In doing so, they attempt to change the meaning of the event or act and transform how people understands it (Ware and Linkugel 280).
• Finally, both grounded that strategy of transcendence on the position that they are courageously speaking out against wrongs and refuse to be silenced by their enemy’s attacks

In the following paragraphs, I’ll talk about these similarities in more detail. In the end, I’ll offer a brief discussion about what such examples of apologia really mean to our larger society.

INITIAL ATTEMPT TO APOLOGIZE

Like the Dixie Chicks, Joe Wilson’s statement was immediately denounced. In Wilson’s case, politicians and media pundit from both sides of the aisle called Wilson’s outburst inappropriate, if not disrespectful and uncivil.

Also like the Dixie Chicks, Wilson was quick to offer a seemingly apologetic statement. He even posted it on his Facebook page.

Joe Wilson FaceBook post

Let’s look at the similarities between those initial attempts at apologizing.

Natalie Maines, lead singer of the Dixie Chicks, initially apologized for saying she was ashamed that President Bush was from Texas, stating “I feel the president is ignoring the opinion of many in the U.S. and alienating the rest of the world. My comments were made in frustration, and one of the privileges of being an American is you are free to voice your own point of view.”

Similarly, Wilson initially stated: “I let my emotions get the best of me when listening to the President’s remarks regarding the coverage of illegal immigrants in the health care bill. While I disagree with the President’s statement, my comments were inappropriate and regrettable. I extend sincere apologies to the President for this lack of civility.” Two days later, she added, “I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful.”

Although both statements indicate a belief that they feel the presidents are wrong, we see some signs of what William Benoit termed mortification, in which the accused “offers a sacrifice of self, an acceptance of wrong-doing” (Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies, p. 18).

The admittance of wrongdoing in both cases, however, focuses on the way in which the accused parties stated their opposition to the presidents—rather than admitting that the accused parties were wrong in their assessments.

FROM REGRET TO DEFIANCE

A second similarity between Wilson’s situation and the Dixie Chicks’ situation is that the initial attempts at apologizing did little to subdue the storm. As a result, both the Dixie Chicks and Wilson responded with defiant stances that attacked their accusers.

For example, in an interview with Diane Sawyer, Maines stated: “The wording I used, the way I said it, that was disrespectful. Am I sorry that I asked questions, and that I don’t just follow? No.” When questioned further by Sawyer, Maines went on to say, “I feel regret for, you know, the choice of words or the non-choice of words. Am I sorry I said that? Yes. Am I sorry I spoke out? No.”

Wilson makes a similar transition. The day after the event—in fact, the morning after issuing his apology—Wilson embedded a YouTube video on his website http://www.joewilsonforcongress.com.

Joe Wilson's Campaign Website

In the text next to the embedded video, Wilson states, “I should not have disrespected the President during his speech. But I am not sorry for fighting back against the dangerous policies of liberal Democrats. I will not back down.”

TRANSCENDENCE

In their transitions from regret to defiance, we see elements of transcendence in both the Dixie Chicks’ and Wilson’s rhetorical strategies.

In their 1973 essay, B.L Ware and Wil A. Linkugel described transcendence as a strategy of apologia that shifts the focus away from the particulars of a situation to larger, conceptual ideals that the audience views favorably. By shifting from the specific to the abstract, the strategy of transcendence attempts to change the meaning of the event or act, to transform how the audience situates and, therefore, understands it.

For Burke, transcendence involves seeing an act not as an instance of wrongdoing or as a crime, but rather as a pursuit of a higher goal; moreover, this link not only legitimizes the pursuit—i.e., the act—but also dispels any accusation of wrongdoing related to it (Burke 187-189).

In short, the rhetorical force of transcendence is that the act is linked and legitimized by the higher-order, abstract value.

SPEAKING OUT AGAINST WRONGS, REFUSING TO BE SILENCED, NOT BACKING DOWN

The similarities between the Dixie Chicks and Wilson don’t simply end with them both turning to a strategy of transcendence. That’s because both accused parties relied on the same transcendence.

Specifically, both the Dixie Chicks and Wilson legitimize their comments against a sitting President as an act of speaking out against wrongs and as refusing to be silenced.

For example, in April 2003, Maines stated “People think this’ll scare us and shut us up and it’s gonna do the opposite.”

Additionally, Maines’ band members Emily Robison and Martie Maguire also positioned Maines’ comment as an act of speaking out against wrong. Robison stated “here we were on the brink of war, and you are unpatriotic if you dissent” and “dissent was not even an option in our country anymore and to me that’s very un-American”

Maguire defended Maines by saying: “I think she had a right to speak out, whether it was popular or not. And I’m kind of proud of the fact that she was speaking out when it wasn’t the most popular thing to do.”

Once again, the similarity is uncanny, as the text next to Wilson’s video reads:

“I’ve been under attack by the liberals for months and they’ve done everything they can to quiet my very vocal opposition to more government interference in Americans’ lives. Now, it’s gotten even worse, but I will not stop fighting against their policies that will only lead to more government interference, more spending, and higher deficits.”

Moreover, Wilson states in his YouTube video that liberals “want to silence anyone who speaks out against” them and that he  “will not be muzzled.”

Finally, both the Dixie Chicks and Wilson solidify their positions by stating they will not back down.

The Dixie Chicks’ made this statement through the lyrics of their hit song Not Ready to Make Nice, in which they say “I’m not ready to back down.” Wilson, on the other hand, uses almost the exact same wording on his campaign website, stating “I will not back down.”

FINAL WORDS

In describing the specific details above, I’ve made a case that Joe Wilson’s apologia is not only similar but nearly identical to that of the Dixie Chicks just a few years ago.

As such, it is worth pointing out that the underlying foundation for these similar strategies of transcendence is the values of freedom of speech and dissent. In that sense, the final similarity—some might say, irony—between the Dixie Chicks’ apologia and Wilson’s apologia is that they both defend their actions as patriotic.

In doing so, they both challenge audiences to consider what it means to be patriotic and American today—that is, they implicitly ask whether speaking out or supporting the President is an act of patriotism and an American value.

Regardless of how individuals choose to answer when faced with this false dichotomy, it’s worth pointing out to staunch Republicans that Wilson is employing the same rhetorical strategy and argument that conservatives denounced the Dixie Chicks for using. Additionally, to today’s Democratic supporters of President Obama it must be noted that the same values many of them applauded the Dixie Chicks for upholding are now being argued by the man across the aisle.

Perhaps somewhere in there, there is room for compromise and agreement.

Charity in Truth: A Righteous Rhetorical Vision of Economics and Technology

Although I don’t always mention social justice and ethics explicitly, these concepts are at the heart of many topics that I study, including apologies as well as the use of new media to deliver product recall and safety information.

In this post, I focus on a slightly different topic—that is, Pope Benedict’s Caritas in Veritate. However, based on the Pope’s focus on the morality of economics and technology, this topic not only fits my research interests in terms of social justice and ethics, but also in terms of the role technology plays in our society’s growth and development.

BACKGROUND

On July 7, 2009, Pope Benedict XVI published Caritas in Veritate (meaning: Charity in Truth). In the encyclical, Pope Benedict presents a “vision of a new economic order” and “a rethinking of how economic life is organized” (De Souza, 2009). While the letter focused heavily on the global recession, its broader message addressed the issues of social justice and morality that are reflected in our economic policies and technical aspirations.

METHOD

Using Fantasy Theme Analysis, we can examine these ideas in more detail and uncover the underlying vision they promote. This method of rhetorical analysis is based on Ernest Bormann’s theory of symbolic convergence and is ideal for examining how common themes reflect rhetorical visions of heroes and villains, values and beliefs, and symbolic reality.

ANALYSIS

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict’s call for a new economic order puts forth a rhetorical vision that emphasizes humanness, morality and social justice.

Often these rhetorical visions can be categorized in one of three competing explanations of reality: pragmatic (valuing expediency, utility, and efficiency), social (valuing trust, caring, and relationships) or righteous (differentiating between right and wrong, moral and immoral, just and unjust).

In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict denounces a “pragmatic” vision of economic growth and activity by criticizing the negative aspects of capitalistic competition, commercial logic, and technocratic utility.

Instead, he puts forth a rhetorical vision that at times appears “social”—focusing on love, charity, and “human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity” (36). However, such social references mainly function to establish charity as an important element in human relations as well as to position financial markets and technology as human realities with moral consequences.

Ultimately, the rhetoric of Caritas in Veritate reveals a “righteous” rhetorical vision that chronicles immoral market activity and asserts a higher calling for economics.

As the encyclical progresses, charity is transformed from a dramatis personae or character in early social themes (such as charity as love, grace, and humanity) into a sanctioning agent that is used to delineate moral economic policies and uses of technology from those deemed immoral or unjust in Pope Benedict’s righteous rhetorical themes. These themes vilify free markets and purely technological progress as insufficient at best and destructive at worst.

In the end, the righteous themes not only become warrants in Pope Benedict’s argument for a new economic order, but also coalesce to construct a symbolic reality that explains today’s global recession and economic crisis.

Hearit’s Three-Act Play and Ideal Apologia

In “Crisis Management by Apology,” Keith Michael Hearit argues that an apologetic exchange can be viewed as a three-act play or ritual consisting of: an act, a charge of wrongdoing, and a defense. A critical element of this three-act play is the idea of guilt. In essence, the charge of wrongdoing is an assertion that an individual or organization has violated “some cherished social value” and, therefore, must purge the guilt of this violation and seek restoration into the community in the final act: the apologia.

Hearit also lays out a method for ethically judging the apologetic decisions of individuals and organizations. This method is based on two aspects of apologetic discourse: (1) the manner and (2) the content. In terms of the manner, Hearit asserts that, ideally, an ethical apologia is truthful, sincere, timely, and voluntary. It also addresses all stakeholders and is performed in an appropriate context (p. 64). However, in terms of the content, an ethical apologia should acknowledge wrongdoing, accept responsibility, express regret, identify with the victims, ask for forgiveness, seek reconciliation, disclose relevant information, provide an explanation that addresses the victims’ questions and concerns, and offer corrective actions and compensation.

It is worth noting that these characteristics describe the ideal or paradigm case of an ethical apologia. Therefore, an apologia that fails to meet one or several aspects is not necessarily unethical. Rather, it may be less ethical than the ideal, but still judged “ethically acceptable.” Moreover, there are at least five circumstances “that could justify departures from the paradigm case while still retaining the essential ethical character of an apologia.” These circumstances include: catastrophic financial losses, grave liability issues, a “moral learning curve,” questions over full-disclosure, and even situations where confidentiality or discretion are expected.