With a pseudo-apology, the offender is trying to reap the benefits of apologizing without having actually earned them. People who offer a pseudo-apology are unwilling to take the steps necessary for a genuine apology; that is, they do not acknowledge the offense adequately, or express genuine remorse, or offer appropriate reparations, including a commitment to make changes in the future. These three actions are the price of an effective apology. To undertake them requires honesty, generosity, humility, commitment, courage, and sacrifice.
Aaron Lazare, M.D., is Chancellor and Dean and Professor of Psychiatry, at the University of MA Medical School, but don't let his credentials scare you. His new book On Apology is a very down to earth in depth discussion on a fundamental aspect of human interaction with many examples* supplied to guide the way. The power of apology is found in its "prospect of restored respect, of healed relationships, of civility, and of a clearer sense of morality among individuals and nations who inhabit an ever-shrinking world." And, apologies are valuable to both sides -- the offender and offended.
Apologies have special connections to religion and law. Repentance can be deemed a religious apology with (per Harvey Cox, theologian) remorse, resolution (promise not to do wrong again), restitution (to harmed), and restoration (of offender to community) being its basic components. Components that basically transfer to "secular" apologies as well.
Dr. Lazare also notes that the legal process is a sort of ritual apology as well with components that match those found in the apology process, including an offense, explanation, remorse, reparation, and negotiation. Finally, aspects of apologies, including negotiation, are found in disciplines traditionally thought as not a good fit. For instance, Dr. Lazare has argued negotiations are valuable between doctors and their patients (clients).
The book is rather remarkable about how the author breaks down the apology process into its component parts. One can get lost in the details at times, I guess, but it also makes it easier to understand -- the book's subheadings provide a useful outline. One interesting discussion is the phenomenon of failed apologies, which is broken down into eight examples (you get the idea of the framework of the book! seriously, it's fine). For instance, often no "apology" is really being made -- more of an apologia (justification) or sympathy (without necessarily taking blame). Also, there are weasel words like "if mistakes were made" or "I'm sorry for offending you" (basically apologizing for wrong offense).
It's a great book, very smooth reading too.
[The book also brings up something I believe is the basic wrong related to our ongoing war with Iraq, one that can be said to be a failure to apologize. Dr. Lazare discusses the concept of delayed apologies that are a result of a changing understanding of ethical principles or knowledge. For instance, a child grows up and is sorry that they wrongly bad mouthed a parent, especially after they become parents themselves.
Though it isn't that easy, I would argue that our government and nation can admit that we helped Saddam Hussein and others in Iraq to promote horrible things because we felt it was necessary at the time. Wrongs that we now say partially justify our going to war, especially since the world is different today. The New Republic, which supported the war, basically took this view.
It is much more honest than the administration's path of not admitting to our role in Saddam Hussein's wrongdoing. And, this has led to much disgust as many felt the hypocrisy was blatant. As Dr. Lazare noted, the government likely felt it would cheapen their position if they admitted some fault, even though it might be ultimately in their interests to do so.]
---
* The examples are both simple and profound. One amusing one involved his wife wrongly accusing their daughter of stealing a brownie. He also references a well-known Seinfeld episode. Profound examples include a man tortured in a Japanese P.O.W. camp and one racked with guilt about being involved in the bombing raid connected to the famous picture of the Vietnamese girl running nude after a napalm attack.
I'd add that listening to Yankee player Jason Giambi "apologizing" today would have been a good example of a "pseudo-apology," especially given the real subject (steroid use) was off the table because of legal concerns. I particularly enjoy his emphasis on how much he is working out -- this is supposed to be a special thing? Anyway, the remarks were full with apologies for making trouble and unspecified wrongs. His legal problems make the remarks understandable, but an "apology" it really was not.