Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press CHAPTER 11 Apologies An apology is meant to counteract an insult,to help undo the offense and re- store harmony.This chapter will discuss how apologies work,how they are con- nected to honor and face,and how they use symbolism.International apologies often show flaws that would never be tolerated in apologies between friends.The chapter will argue that this difference is due to the decreased importance of communication of attitudes and feelings in the international context and the greater importance ofhonor and face. The Relationship ofApologies to Face and Honor Apologies are linked to honor and face in several ways.When we feel someone owes us an apology,our honor prompts us to demand it.The apology satisfies the needs ofhonor by helping to right the offense,and failure to deliver it can even be taken as a challenge.When we are in the wrong ourselves, our own honor calls on us to make an apology.In 1995 while the Japanese Diet was de- bating an apology for the country’s actions in World War II,the Chinese news- paper People’s Dailyurged an apology,stating,“there is no greater sin than not to admit a fault,and there is no greater disgrace than not to realize the need for shame”(quoted in Japan Economic Newswire,March 23,1995). Conversely,if making an apology would serve our practical ends,but we feel we do not owe one,then honor calls on us to refuse to apologize.During the 1980 hostage crisis,Iran demanded that President Carter apologize for the United States’involvement with the shah,but Carter would not,on the grounds of America’s “honor and integrity” (New York Times, September 19, 1980). Other administration officials talked about avoiding “self-abasement”and “ab- ject apology.” Though apologizing can be the honorable thing to do,it means admitting 177 Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press 178 Honor,Symbols,and War that we were wrong and on that account losing face.It can generate common expectations that others will take us less seriously.The quests for honor and face are in conflict here,and the fact that we are willing to sacrifice face helps prove that we are sincere,in the fashion of costly signaling.After the Irangate affair, Ronald Reagan made an apology for the actions ofhis administration but leav- ened it with expressions ofself-tolerance:“By the time you reach my age,you’ve made plenty ofmistakes ifyou’ve lived your life properly.So you learn.You put things in perspective”(New York Times,March 5,1987,quoted in Abadi 1990). The face involved in apologizing depends on the culture,but even for a Western leader his stance seemed at odds with the expectation that one takes full re- sponsibility.That means accepting all the consequences,including the appro- priate loss offace. A Budget ofInternational Apologies To examine how international apologies work,121 apology incidents between 1980 and 1995 were assembled from the Nexis database ofnewspaper articles. An apology incident means either a full apology or something weaker,like an expression ofregret for a deed,or a demand for an apology,or a refusal to apol- ogize.1The database was not restricted to apologies between governments,but the incident had to involve interstate relations.The actors themselves had to make an explicit reference to apologizing or had to use some related term— words or symbolic actions that newswriters interpreted as apologies were not included because their real meaning was uncertain. Table 3 has some major categories ofoffenses and some examples.It shows that the offenses generating apologies can be of very different degrees of seri- ousness.We say that we “owe”an apology,but it is not like a banknote offixed value.Our cost is in proportion to what we are admitting to.When the sin is small,like misplaying the other’s national anthem at a ceremony,leaders apol- ogize readily, as in the perfunctory “I’m sorry”or “Excuse me”when people bump into each other on the street (Abadi 1990).This is simply a reassurance that the event was a mistake and not a manifestation ofone’s attitude.The apol- ogy is announced to the world as well as to the offended party,so that the slight will not cause the offended party to lose face generally. In other cases,the demand for the apology was strongly felt,as in the de- 1.The Nexis database was searched for the wordsapologyor apologizeused at least twice in an entry,in conjunction with some word suggesting an international context,such as embassy, premier,president,prime minister,secretary ofstate,minister offoreign affairs,or foreign minister.The great bulk ofthe returned articles were false alarms. Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press TABLE 3. Categories ofInternational Apology Incidents from News Reports, 1980–95 (with counts and examples) A. Major,protracted acts ofviolence or abuses ofrights (21 apology incidents) Individual European nations apologize for complicity in the Holocaust. Japanese officials apologize for offenses during World War II and colonial rule. Russia apologizes for the detention ofJapanese POWs after World War II (February 1991). B. Protracted policies not included in A but harmful to another state (9) U.S.expresses deep regret to France for shielding war criminal Klaus Barbie from French prosecuters (August 1983). Belgium apologizes for refusing to send arms to its 1991 GulfWar allies (June 1993). Kuwait continues demands that countries supporting Iraq in the GulfWar apologize. C. Specific acts ofviolence or threats by a state against another state’s institutions or functionaries (24) Cuba apologizes for its planes sinking a Bahamian patrol boat (May 1980). Nigeria demands that Cameroon apologize for killing Nigerian soldiers in a border incident (May 1981). Saddam Hussein apologizes to U.S.for missile attack on the USS Stark (May 1987). D. Specific nonverbal abuse or violence by another state toward another’s citizens who are not functionaries (10) Argentina apologizes for detention and abuse ofU.S.and British reporters (May 1981). U.S.secretly apologizes to Canada for CIA-run LSD experiments in Canada (January 1984). E. Specific violations ofsovereignty (18) Various countries apologize for unintended overflights,border crossings by troops,or ships entering another’s waters. France apologizes to Switzerland for anti-Greenpeace agents forging Swiss passports (November 1985). U.S.apologizes for forcibly entering the Nicaraguan embassy during the invasion ofPanama (December 1989). Netherlands demands a South African apology for police entering its embassy to seize a fugitive (July 1985). F. Offensive words and statements (23) Greece apologizes for its foreign minister calling Germany a “giant with bestial force and a childlike brain”(December 1993). (continued) Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press 180 Honor,Symbols,and War TABLE 3—Continued U.S.apologizes for accusing Philippian president Aquino ofgun smuggling (September 1989). Malaysian representative “explains”its error to Indonesia in running a TV documentary on East Timor (September 1992). Japanese police officials apologize to Pakistan’s embassy for a police training manual derogatory to Pakistanis (December 1989). U.S.State Department apologizes to Arab countries for use ofthe term Abscam (“Arab scam”) in a probe ofofficial corruption (February 1980). G. Specific acts ofviolence by one’s citizens or those in one’s domain,not one’s functionaries,against another state (4) Various countries apologize for demonstrators attacking foreign embassies or consulates on their territories. In an open letter,King Hussein apologizes to Syria for the presence in Jordan of the Moslem Brotherhood,“outlaws committing crimes and sowing seeds of division among people”(November 1985). H. Lapses ofetiquette or protocol (8) Premier Yeltsin apologizes for canceled visits to Japan (July 1993). President Bush apologizes for Marine honor guard carrying the Canadian flag upside down at a World Series game (October 1992). The U.S.ambassador to Britian apologizes for President Reagan announcing his address to Parliament before Prime Minister Thatcher had informed Parliament ofthe plan (March 1982). I. Unintentional damage or loss ofproperty (4) The U.N.apologizes to Japan for losing a pocket watch recording the time of A-bomb explosion from a display (October 1989). Soviet Union apologizes for fighter crashing in a Belgian town (July 1989). bate about Japanese actions in World War II.This involved admitting a serious fault,renouncing one’s past behavior and declaring that one has accepted the other’s moral position. The database suggests that demands for apologies are often expressed in the vocabulary ofrights,honor,or face,rather than interests.Instead ofsaying that an action did it harm,a nation calls it an interference in domestic affairs.There were many apologies for symbolic violations ofsovereignty,like overflights or abuse of another country’s citizens which are offenses connected with the metaphorical world ofhonor and face.Apologies were seldom given for cutting foreign aid or raising tariffs.These acts may have caused greater injury but did not fit the script ofan attack on a point ofhonor. Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press Apologies 181 A natural question is whether some nations are more ready to apologize than others.Anthropologists have classified societies as guilt based or shame based,and it would be interesting to see ifthis distinction has consequences in international affairs. The database shows apologies from every region, with many from Asian countries,but one cannot draw a conclusion.Many variables are uncontrolled,such as how extensively the press reported a country’s activi- ties in general or how much that country was involved in conflictual interac- tions or how many deeds the country had to apologize for. How International Apologies Differ from Interpersonal Ones The apology events in the database differ from interpersonal apologies.This sec- tion will state how,then analyze the differing purposes ofinterpersonal and in- ternational apologies to generate an explanation. The first difference is that many international apologies seem insincere be- cause they are delivered under pressure.An interpersonal apology is a commit- ment,but it will be seen that like most speech acts,it also contains an assertion ofa fact.It asserts that one feels regret.Ifsomeone were forced to make it,the sincerity ofthe assertion would be in doubt.For some reason,this does not mat- ter much on the international level,where apologies are negotiated,even co- erced,but are still taken as important,as ifuttering the words had significance in itself. A second oddity about international apologizing is the lack ofexplicit for- giving.In everyday affairs the two acts are linked—an apology that does not achieve forgiveness is a partial failure.2An international recipient,however,will “note the apology”and state that it is “satisfied with the explanation given”or “considers the matter closed,”but no statement of forgiveness appears in the database. The third feature is that international apologies are often from or to third parties.Britain was asked to apologize for expelling the Acadians,which hap- pened centuries ago,and Japan for mistreating Koreans during its colonial rule. Some philosophers and ethicists have debated whether an apology can be de- livered to a third party and whether forgiveness can come from one. Simon Wiesenthal (1972) narrates an experience in a Nazi concentration camp.He was working in a military hospital,and a nurse called him to the bed ofa young SS 2.Forgiving is in part asserting that there was a wrong,so to avoid putting a potential for- giver in this position,we sometimes apologize in terms ofasking for an acceptance—“Would you please accept my apology for”such and such. Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press 182 Honor,Symbols,and War officer.The officer confessed that he had taken part in a massacre ofJews,that he knew he was dying,and that he wished to receive the forgiveness of a Jew. Wiesenthal listened to the story but left the room without a word.He was not sure that he had acted correctly,but when he related the event to fellow inmates, they were adamant that he would have had no right to forgive the crime since he was not in a position to speak for its victims. Most accounts ofapologies,including the one to be offered here,agree that one must deliver the apology to the offended party.To a secondary degree,an offense against one member ofa group is an offense against all the others,and on this account Wiesenthal did have something to forgive.However,he was not in a position to forgive the primary offense.In the Catholic tradition also,when God forgives our sins against others,this can be interpreted as God forgiving the aspect ofthe sin in which it was an offense against God,as a violation ofour duty of obedience,or it could be God pardoning us,as an authority who can waive punishment.We still owe an apology to the person offended.Whatever holds for person-to-person and even person-to-God relations, international apologizers seem to be free ofthis constraint. A Prototypical Scenario ofApologizing To explain these differences,the first step will be to develop a theory of inter- personal apologies.Then it can be seen which ofits elements change in the in- ternational setting.Apologies have a prototypical scenario (chap.3),an expected TABLE 4. The Prototypical Scenario for Apologizing Initial situation X and Y are friends; X performs an action that is wrong because it offends or injures Y. Resentment phase Y expresses resentment against the offense or injury and demands an apology. Apology phase X feels remorse for the action; X apologizes; X promises to mitigate the damage. Forgiveness phase Y accepts the apology or forgives X; X tries to mitigate the damage; X and Y’s friendship is restored. Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press Apologies 183 script,as shown in table 4.The three elements in the list are the expression of resentment,the apology,and the expression offorgiveness.3 Resenting Resentment is more than anger.I resent someone’s action only if my anger is based on moral grounds.Ifsomeone beats me in a competition I might be an- gry,but ifI believed they had cheated I would resent it.A second difference with anger is that I can resent an injustice only ifit was done to me.Moral anger over an offense against someone else is indignation(Golding 1985).Resentment is thus partly cognitive;it is an emotion including supporting reasons. Y’s expression ofresentment against X is a communicative act,a directive, whose illocutionary point is to get X to do something.Y wants X to declare on the record that X did A and that A was morally wrong because it harmed or of- fended Y.An expression ofresentment thus presumes certain facts about the sit- uation,its so-called preparatory conditions (Searle and Vanderveken 1985).It presumes that X really did A and that A really was morally wrong because ofthe harm to Y. Apologizing In an apology the offender puts his or her fault and feelings ofremorse on the record.Remorse means the feeling that one should not have done it—it is more than regret,which is simply the wish that one had not done it.As defined in chapter 9,putting something on the record means communicating with the goal that the sending ofthe message becomes common belief.A touch or a wink may be enough in some circumstances,but to apologize with just a phrase like “I’m only human”would undermine the point.People often insist on special marker words like “I apologize.”Putting an apology on the record is required because it is more than a transfer ofinformation.It involves matters offace and honor.If one backs away from the apology in the future,it should be at a significant loss ofcredibility. D:X’s apologyto Y for action A is a communicative act from X to Y 3.Philosophy is the discipline that has paid most attention to forgiving,and the account here is most influenced by Haber (1991).His analysis is less religiously oriented than some others,and he looks at forgiving not as a mental state but as a speech act,in line with the general approach of this book.I have modified his treatment in the direction ofDownie’s definition (1965) and the speech act theory ofSearle and Vanderveken (1985). Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press 184 Honor,Symbols,and War meaning that X did A,that A caused Y harm or risk and on that account that it was wrong,and that X feels remorse for it. The definition implies that an apology complies with all the directives in the expression ofresentment;it does everything that was called for.Turning this around,an expression ofresentment is a demand for an apology.An apology is not defined here as a request for the victim’s forgiveness,but it changes the vic- tim’s expectations in such a way as to make it more attractive for that person to forgive.Ifthe offender has admitted the fault,there is less chance ofrecurrence and less need to continue to hold the deed against the offender. Forgiving Some writers have defined forgiveness as an expression ofone’s feelings,a state- ment that one has overcome the emotion ofresentment.In my account it is a commissive, in particular, a promise. When Y forgives X for action A, Y is promising to no longer harbor resentment against X because ofA.This sounds like a promise to avoid a certain mental feeling,and some philosophers have taken this position,but the interpretation here is different.Y is promising not to use X’s misdeed as a moral reasonfor future actions against X,that is,to give up certain considerations as justifications for action against X.In normal cir- cumstances,the victim would owe the offender X fair treatment based on the respect due to other persons,but after the misdeed A,Y’s justified resentment allows Y to act otherwise.4For Y to forgive X at some later point is to promise to no longer make X a moral exception on the grounds ofthe offense A. A case posed by Haber has John offending his friend Mary.He borrows her book and keeps it even though she continually asks him for it.John finally re- turns it and apologizes to her,and she tells him that she forgives him.Months later,John asks Mary for help,but she refuses,citing the wrong he did to her be- fore.John reminds her that she forgave him.Ifforgiving were just an expression ofher feeling at the time,Mary could reply,“Well,that was how I felt then,but not now.”However,John is right.Refusing him as a moral response to his past offense is breaking her promise. Forgiving is not forgetting,and Mary did not oblige herselfto wipe John’s action offthe record.Ifhe wanted to borrow another book,she could decline on the grounds that he has a bad habit ofnot returning books.This would not 4.The next chapter will discuss a concept of norms in which violating a norm obligates others to adopt a response that is usually counternormative. Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press Apologies 185 be breaking the promise involved in forgiving, since her motive for refusing would not be resentment.To forgive something is to waive the past only as a moral justification. An expression ofresentment,it was argued,is a demand for an apology.Is an apology simply a request for forgiveness? Not in this definition,since it can succeed even ifit does not generate forgiveness.However,the relationship be- tween the two acts is very close.An apology prepares the ground for the speech act of forgiveness. Certain assumptions are necessary for forgiveness—harm and responsibility—and the apology puts them on the record.This is an im- portant move,since for Y to express forgiveness to an X who has not apologized is in effect to accuse. A Partial Order for Partial Apologies To deliver a full apology, one must satisfy all the elements of the definition. However, many international apologies are partial, and the database shows which elements tend to be absent. Regretting versus Apologizing An example ofa partial apology is Emperor Hirohito’s September 1984 careful statement to South Korean president Chun concerning Japan’s colonial rule:“it is indeed regrettable that there was an unfortunate past between us for a period in this century,and I believe it should not be repeated”(Time,September 17, 1984).A full apology as defined needs an acknowledgment ofthe harm done to Y,the moral wrong involved in the action,and X’s responsibility for it.The em- peror’s statement did only one of these—it only acknowledged harm.Prime Minister Nakasone’s statement on the same occasion was interpreted as going farther, since it moved from impersonality to naming Japan as the actor. It regretted that “Japan brought to bear great sufferings upon your country and its people”during the colonial period (Economist,September 15,1984).It seems like a short step from this to admitting the deed was morally wrong, but both statements appear phrased to avoid doing this,so both fall short of full apologies. The gap between what was called for and what Japan delivered was the dif- ference between expressing regret and apologizing.In 1988,after a U.S.cruiser shot down an Iranian Airbus in the Persian Gulf,President Reagan sent a note of“deep regret”but not an apology.In 1985,after an EgyptAir 737 carrying hi- jackers was forced to land by U.S.fighters,U.S.Envoy John Whitehead said,“we Honor, Symbols, and War Barry O'Neill http://www.press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=14453 The University of Michigan Press 186 Honor,Symbols,and War very much regret that developments took the course they did.”To regret some- thing is to wish that one had not done it.Mr.Whitehead expressed less than re- gret,wishing only that it had not been necessary to do it.An apology requires accepting moralblame,going beyond lament or regret to remorse. A Guttman Partial Order Expressing only regret is one way to semiapologize,and there are others.In fact, partial apologies can be partially ordered,in that performing one element is in effect performing certain others,or implying willingness to do so.A partial or- der suggested by the data is shown in figure 25.It can be called a Guttman par- tial order,an extension ofthe standard technique ofGuttman scaling,or “scalo- gram analysis.”Regular Guttman scaling applies to a group ofactors and a list ofbehaviors,based on whether each actor engaged in each behavior.A classic study (Stouffer et al.1950;Coombs 1964) investigated the reactions ofsoldiers before a World War II battle,as they approached a Pacific island in landing craft. They suffered various symptoms from the ride and their fear ofthe imminent combat:upset stomachs,dizziness,vomiting,and so on.These symptoms could be ordered top to bottom so that a soldier exhibiting one symptom generally ex- hibited all the ones below.This pattern was not perfect,in that some soldiers ex- hibited a more severe symptom but skipped a lesser one.However,an ordering ofthe symptoms was found that minimized the total discrepancies ofthis kind. The method simultaneously produced a ranking ofsoldiers and symptoms.The orders stated which symptoms were most severe and which soldiers were most prone to symptoms,without an a priori judgment by the researcher.5 The soldiers correspond to nations engaged in apology incidents,and their fear behaviors correspond to the different elements that appear in an apology act—whether restitution was offered, whether moral responsibility was ex- pressed,and so forth.A full Guttman scale would not work,the data indicate, but the method can be weakened to require that the behaviors follow a partial order.The one shown in figure 25 fits fairly well and indicates,for example,that nations that regretted an action would be willing to acknowledge that they did it or were ipso facto acknowledging that.The difference between this and a full Guttman scale is the existence here ofpairs ofactions that have no implication in either direction.A nation may be willing to punish the guilty but not offer restitution or vice versa. 5.Ifone represents the data as a matrix of0s and 1s,which mean,respectively,engaging or not engaging in the behavior,then a Guttman scale is a reordering ofthe rows and columns so that all the 1s lie in a triangle in the upper right.