Public Apologies (a.k.a When Politicians Attack)

I really hope this linking thing works.

So, public apologies have been in fashion in politics and government for the last few decades. Some of the ones that Robin Lakoff lists in her book include apologies from former president Bush (for Japanese internment during WWII) and Pope John Paul II (for failure to act in the face of anti-Semitic Vichy laws, also during WWII), as well as the governments of South Africa (apartheid), Great Britain (potato famine), and Switzerland (evil Nazis).

It's nice to see that people are so sorry for everything that they should be sorry for. What's far more interesting, though, is looking at the motives that are behind these public apologies. This article by John Borneman states the public apologies are a form of "performative redress," that is, they acknowledge that the wrongdoer and the victim are equal. Borneman believes that public apologies are done for selfless reasons out of sheer altruism.

There is another theory, though, and one that gives far less credit to the wrongdoer. William L. Benoit wrote a book called Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A Theory of Image Restoration Strategies (I get excited just hearing the title). Benoit proposes that people (especially politicians) make public apologies in order to help themselves through "image restoration." By "shouldering the blame" for some heinous incident and being man enough to own up to it, the apologizers attempt to improve their image in the eyes of the public. Imagine, a politician who only wants to help himself. Ludicrous.

Which of these theories is more accurate? The paper will include in-depth analyses of several incidents, including the Scopes trial, Exxon-Valdez oil spill, and Wiesel v. Regan. The analyses will look at the incidents, the accusations (kategoria), and the apologies (apologia) that followed, if any did.