By Aaron Lazare
Apologies can restore relationships--but there's a right way and a wrong way to do them
YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY
Then there's the matter of settling
debt. The apology is a reparation of emotional, physical, or
financial debt. The admission of guilt, explanation, and regret are
meant, in part, to repair the damage you did to the person's
self-concept. A well-executed apology may even the score, but
sometimes words are just not enough. An open offer of, "Please let
me know if there is anything I can do?" might be necessary. Some
sort of financial compensation, such as replacing an object you
broke, or reimbursing a friend for a show you couldn't make it to, could
be vital to restoring the relationship. Or, in long-term close
relationships, an unsolicited gift or favor may completely supplant the
verbal apology--every other dimension of the apology may be
implicit.
Reparations are largely symbolic. They are a way of
saying, "I know who you are, what you value, and am thoughtful about
your needs. I owe you." But they don't always have to be genuine to
be meaningful. Say your boss wrongfully accused you in front of the
whole office. A fair reparation would require an apology--in front
of the whole office. His questionable sincerity might be of
secondary importance.
Ultimately, the success of an apology rests
on the dynamics between the two parties, not on a pat recipe. The
apology is an interactive negotiation process in which a deal has to
be struck that is emotionally satisfactory to both involved
parties.
Nor is the need for an apology confined to intimates.
Used strategically, it has great social value within the public
domain. The apology is, after all, a social contract of sorts. It
secures a common moral ground, whether between two people or within a
nation. Present in all societies, the apology is a statement that
the harmony of the group is more important than the victory of the
individual. Take a look at what will certainly go down in history as
one of the world's greatest apologies, F.W. de Klerk's apology to
all South Africans for his party's imposition of apartheid. On
April 29, 1993, during a press conference, de Klerk acknowledged
that apartheid led to forced removals of people from their homes,
restrictions on their freedom and jobs, and attacks on their
dignity.
He explained that the former leaders of the party were
not vicious people and, at the time, it seemed that the policy of
separate nations was better than the colonial policies. "It was not
our intention to deprive people of their rights and to cause misery,
but eventually apartheid led to just that. Insofar as that
occurred, we deeply regret it."
"Deep regret," de Klerk continued, "goes further than just
saying you are sorry. Deep regret says that if I could turn the
clock back, and if I could do anything about it, I would have liked
to have avoided it."
In going on to describe a new National
Party logo, he said: "It is a statement that we have broken with
that which was wrong in the past and are not afraid to say we are
deeply sorry that our past policies were wrong." He promised that
the National Party had scrapped apartheid and opened its doors to
all South Africans.
De Klerk expressed all the same ingredients
and sentiments essential in interpersonal apologies. He enumerated
his offenses and explained why they were made. He assured himself
and others that the party members are not vicious people. Then he
expressed deep regret and offered symbolic reparations in the form
of his public apology itself and the new party logo.
In fact,
as the world becomes a global village, apologies are growing
increasingly important on both national and international levels.
Communications, the media, and travel have drawn the world ever closer
together. Ultimately we all share the same air, oceans, and world
economy. We are all upwind, downstream, over the mountains, or through
the woods from one another. We can't help but be concerned with
Russia's failing economy, Eastern Block toxic waste, Middle Eastern
conflicts, and the rain forest, whether it be for reasons of peace,
fuel, or just plain oxygen.
In this international community, apologies will be vital to
peaceful resolution of conflicts. Within the last several years alone
Nelson Mandela apologized for atrocities committed by the African
National Congress in fighting against apartheid; Exxon for the Valdez
spill; Pope John Paul II "for abuses committed by Christian colonizers
against Indian peoples"; former Japanese Prime Minister Morihiro
Hosokawa for Japanese aggression during World War II; and Russian
President Boris Yeltsin apologized for the massacre of 15,000 Polish
army officers by Soviet forces during World War II. And that's only
the start of it.
But apologies are useful only if done
right. There are in the public arena ample examples of what not to
do--stunning portraits of failed apologies. They typically take the
form of what I call "the pseudoapology"--the offender fails to admit
or take responsibility for what he has done. Recent history
furnishes two classics of the genre.
Reel back to August 8,
1974--President Richard Nixon's resignation speech. "I regret deeply
any injuries that may have been done in the course of events that
have led to this decision. I would say only that if some of my
judgments were wrong, and some were wrong, they were made in what I
believed at the time to be in the best interest of the nation."
Unlike de Klerk, Nixon never acknowledges or specifies his actual
offense, nor does he describe its impact. By glossing over his
wrongdoing he never takes responsibility for it.
Consider,
too, the words of Senator Bob Packwood, who was accused of sexually
harassing at least a dozen women during his tenure in Congress. His
1994 apology outfails even Nixon's: "I'm apologizing for the conduct
that it was alleged that I did." No acceptance of responsibility or
accounting for his alleged offense to be found. An alleged apology,
not even named.
The most common cause of failure in an
apology--or an apology altogether avoided--is the offender's pride.
It's a fear of shame. To apologize, you have to acknowledge that you
made a mistake. You have to admit that you failed to live up to
values like sensitivity, thoughtfulness, faithfulness, fairness, and
honesty. This is an admission that our own self-concept, our story
about ourself, is flawed. To honestly admit what you did and show
regret may stir a profound experience of shame, a public exposure of
weakness. Such an admission is especially difficult to bear when
there was some degree of intention behind the wrongdoing.
Egocentricity
also factors into failed or avoided apologies. The egocentric is
unable to appreciate the suffering of another person; his regret is
that he is no longer liked by the person he offended, not that he
inflicted harm. That sort of apology takes the form of "I am sorry
that you are upset with me" rather than "I am sorry I hurt you." This
offender simply says he is bereft--not guilty, ashamed, or
empathic.
Another reason for failure is that the apology may
trivialize the damage incurred by the wrongdoing--in which case the
apology itself seems offensive. A Japanese-American who was interned
during World War II was offended by the U.S. government's
reparation of $20,000. He said that the government stole four years
of his childhood and now has set the price at $5,000 per year.
Timing
can also doom an apology. For a minor offense such as interrupting
someone during a presentation or accidentally spilling a drink all
over a friend's suit, if you don't apologize right away, the offense
becomes personal and grows in magnitude. For a serious offense,
such as a betrayal of trust or public humiliation, an immediate apology
misses the mark. It demeans the event. Hours, days, weeks, or even
months may go by before both parties can integrate the meaning of
the event and its impact on the relationship. The care and thought
that goes into such apologies dignifies the exchange.
For offenses whose impact is calamitous to individuals, groups,
or nations, the apology may be delayed by decades and offered by
another generation. Case in point: The apologies now being offered
and accepted for apartheid and for events that happened in WWII,
such as the Japanese Imperial Army's apology for kidnapping Asian
women and forcing them into a network of brothels.
Far and
away the biggest stumbling block to apologizing is our belief that
apologizing is a sign of weakness and an admission of guilt. We have
the misguided notion we are better off ignoring or denying our
offenses and hope that no one notices.
In fact the apology is a
show of strength. It is an act of honesty because we admit we did
wrong; an act of generosity, because it restores the self-concept of
those we offended. It offers hope for a renewed relationship and,
who knows, possibly even a strengthened one. The apology is an act
of commitment because it consigns us to working at the relationship
and at our self-development. Finally, the apology is an act of
courage because it subjects us to the emotional distress of shame and
the risk of humiliation, rejection, and retaliation at the hands of
the person we offended.
All dimensions of the apology require strength of character,
including the conviction that, while we expose vulnerable parts of
ourselves, we are still good people.
Another Related Article:
Source :
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar