On Apology by Aaron Lazare
The parties who have been offended have one or more of the following needs they hope will be addressed:
HOW APOLOGIES HEAL
These needs are:
Many offenses are experienced as assaults on the offended party’s self-respect or dignity, and so a successful apology must somehow restore these vital aspects of the self in order to heal.
Here are common situations that create a high risk of causing offense.
A second fundamental need of the offended party that an apology may address is the affirmation of shared values by the offender’s acknowledgment that he or she made a mistake, regrets it, and offers assurance that it will not happen again.
When those who have offended us refuse to acknowledge their behaviors as unacceptable, we may feel we can no longer count on the trustworthiness, predictability, and support that we always took for granted. This uneasiness is especially upsetting if the parties have a close relationship. Because a natural reaction is to distance ourselves from the offending party, the result may be estrangement rather than forgiveness. “How can I ever trust him again? He doesn’t even know that what he did was wrong. Maybe I never really knew him.”
Worse than the failure to apologize are situations in which the offender repeats the offensive behavior and then offers serial apologies or pseudo-apologies that are fraudulent, misleading, and offensive. Under these circumstances, we not only feel that the offenders are not worthy of our trust but that they have treated us as fools, thus humiliating us.
Spouses betrayed by adultery need more than a simple acknowledgment of shared values to meet their needs.
ACKNOWLEGING THE OFFENSE
The most essential part of an effective apology is acknowledging the offense. The reason that this part of the apology can be so challenging is that the acknowledgment may involve as many as four parts:
Lack of forthrightness from the very beginning can prolong the acknowledgment stage, leading people to question the validity of the subsequent apology. First, acknowledgment says to the offended party, “I was wrong,” thus assuring that both parties still share important values. In addition, by acknowledging the offense, the offender says, in effect, “it was not your fault.” If the offenders are to understand the extent of the offenses they have committed, they may need to engage the offended parties in a dialogue, assuring the latter that they have been heard.
The results are failed or pseudo-apologies: apologies that, at best, do not heal the damaged relationship and, at worse, further offend the aggrieved party. I offer these categories to help readers understand why they sometimes experience apologies as disappointing, annoying, insulting, and occasionally amusing. These categories include:
Offering a vague and incomplete acknowledgment
A common reason why an apology fails is that the wrongdoer states the offense in a vague and incomplete manner, such as saying, “I am sorry,” or, “I apologize,” with no further comment. Examples of slightly more detailed but still inadequate apologies include statements such as, “I am sorry for anything (or everything) that I did,” or, “I am sorry for what happened,” or, “I am sorry for all I have done to upset you,” or, “I apologize for what happened yesterday.” Sometimes offenders will offer a vague “I’m sorry” statement of the offense because they are so intimidated by the prospects of the victim’s response that they blurt out, “I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry,” just to placate the unpleasantness of the situation. This apology is meaningless, because the offenders may not even know what offenses they committed or even whether offenses were committed.
Using the passive voice
Another common way of avoiding responsibility for committing an offense is to use the impersonal or passive voice, saying, “it happened,” or “mistakes were made,” rather than, “I did it.
Making the offense conditional
Cardinal Edward Egan, addressing the Catholic Church pedophile crisis, “If in hindsight we also discover that mistakes may have been made as regards prompt removal of priests and assistance to victims, I am deeply sorry.”
Richard Nixon resignation speech, “I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of events that 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 interests of the nation.”
Questioning whether the victim was damaged
The most common forms of acknowledgments use phrases such as, “if you were offended …” or “to the degree that you were offended ….”
“Not everyone would be offended by my behavior. If you have a problem with being so thin-skinned, I will apologize to you because of your need (your weakness) and my generosity. I hope this makes you happy.” Notice how the form of this apology transforms the victim into the cause of the offense and the offender into a blameless and generous benefactor. One readily sees that this failed apology, which is supposed to undo an insult and restore dignity, in fact only inflicts more damage—or as we might say colloquially, it “adds insult to injury.”
Minimizing the offense
Minimizing or questioning whether an offense was even committed is another way to derail an intended apology.
Using the empathic “I’m sorry”
One way to avoid taking responsibility for an offense is to use the phrase “I am sorry” or “I regret” in the empathic sense. Examples of this use of “sorry” would be statements such as “I am sorry that you suffered so much damage,” or “I am sorry you are so upset/ angry with me,” or “I am sorry you had to respond this way,” or “I am sorry we had to bomb your village.”
Apologizing for the wrong offense.
For example, a man is discovered by his wife to be having an extramarital affair. He acknowledges as his offense the emotional pain he caused his wife. His distress over the possible termination of his marriage seems genuine. At some point in their discussion, however, the husband says that he does not think having extramarital affairs is such a terrible thing and that he would not be offended if she did the same. This point of view is the beginning of the end of the marriage. The husband only acknowledges his wife’s distress and not the affair that actually caused the offense.
REMORSE, EXPLANATIONS AND REPARATIONS
REMORSE
Apologizing is an act of humility since it is an acknowledgment of making a mistake and expressing remorse. Such humility contributes to restoring the dignity of the offended party. Apologizing without humility, and even worse, by expressing arrogance or hubris, transforms the intended apology into an insult. Communicating arrogance suggests a lack of remorse and a belief that the person making the apology is superior to the person receiving it.
Offended parties often regard an apology as unsatisfactory if it does not include an explanation. They view the explanation as part of the debt owed to them. They will make comments such as, “You owe me an explanation,” or, “Please tell me why you did this,” or, “You could at least have had the decency to explain yourself.” These statements suggest that the failure to offer an explanation is often perceived as an inadequate apology or even a further insult.
EXPLANATIONS
Explanations that diminish the seriousness of the offense communicate one or more of four things:
There are many explanations that offenders commonly use in everyday life, in hopes of diminishing their responsibility, but which diminish the apology and even insult the offended parties. I offer the following list of such explanations to alert the reader:
“I just could not help myself.”
“I was not myself.”
“I was careless.”
“I was not thinking straight.”
“I was overtired.”
“I was preoccupied.”
“I was sick.”
“I do not have a good memory.”
“I was being selfish.”
“I was angry at someone else.”
“I was under stress.”
“I did not really mean it.”
“I was only joking.”
“I must have been out of my mind.”
“I had a bad hair day.”
“I am only human.”
“I was drinking.”
“I let my emotions get the best of my judgment.”
“I gave in to an irresistible impulse.”
“I just snapped.”
“I was in love.”
“I was hormonal.”
“The devil made me do it.”
I believe that offenders are best served when they offer no explanations at all, rather than explanations that are dishonest, manipulative, or insulting. The simple message, “I was responsible. I deeply regret it. I have no excuse,” can restore the victim’s dignity and repair damaged pride. In such situations, the offended party realizes that the offender did not shirk responsibility or hide behind a shallow attempt to manipulate the victim.
REPARATIONS
Sometimes reparations can be the dominant feature of the apology, because they completely restore the loss. Examples include replacing or cleaning a garment accidentally stained by a spilled beverage at a party, or replacing a lost item. Offering reparations shows the victim that the offender takes the grievance seriously and is willing to “repair” the harm done.
When the offense is intangible, such as insults or humiliations, reparations may be symbolic in nature, such as buying a drink, treating for dinner, arranging a party in honor of the person, tickets to an event, offering an award, making a donation to a charity. Or the offender can ask, “Is there anything I can do to make it up to you?”
WHY PEOPLE APOLOGIZE
“I FEEL SO GUILTY AND ASHAMED FOR WHAT I DID”
Three psychological ideas or concepts help us understand how our emotions can move us to apologize.
WHY PEOPLE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
The reasons why people do not apologize fall into two categories.
The fears of the other party’s reactions as a result of the apology are illustrated in the following statements:
The first group of offenders fear the recipients of the apologies will lose their regard for them, threaten to or end the relationship, become smug and self-satisfied, feel superior, make a scene, hold a grudge, withhold forgiveness, or dole out punishment, including humiliations. Such offenders convince themselves that if they don’t apologize, the offended parties will be unaware of the offenses committed against them. This is often a false assumption. They further assume that the offended’s responses to the apologies will be punitive, another questionable assumption.
The second group of responses illustrates the feared negative self-image of the person offering the apology, regardless of the reactions of the offended.
The second group of offenders are less concerned with how the offended parties will react to their apologies but are more concerned with feeling weak, incompetent, defeated, guilty, ashamed, emotional, like a loser—in essence losing their self-esteem or their very self. What is striking is that it appears the offenders experience these self-perceptions and emotions as a result of acknowledging them in the apology, not as a result of their behavior. In other words, they believe it may be acceptable to behave in a hurtful manner, but to verbally acknowledge that you have behaved in a hurtful manner makes you a hurtful person.
OTHER REASONS WHY PEOPLE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
THE TIMING OF APOLOGIES
NEGOTIATING APOLOGIES
Much of the content of an apology is negotiable, such as:
The best negotiated apologies result in “win-win” situations for both parties, in contrast to a “zero-sum game” in which one party wins at the expense of the other. Many times, the only way a relationship can continue after a serious offense has occurred is through an apology that results in both parties feeling they have gained something, or at least “enough,” in the end.
THE VALUE OF UNDERSTANDING APOLOGIES AS NEGOTIATIONS
An apology doesn’t mean the dispute is resolved, but it is in most cases a first step, part of the process of negotiation but not the satisfactory end result. Often, lack of apologies, demands for apologies, and the refusal of them all are pre-steps in negotiations, a diplomatic dance that may last for a while, a testimony to the wish and the need of both sides to reach the negotiations stage.
APOLOGY AND FORGIVENESS
In order to provide some clarity to the complex relationship between apology and forgiveness, I organize these interactions into four distinct but familiar categories:
Forgiveness Without Apology
We all know of situations in which offended parties forgive without receiving an apology. Sometimes the offenders are unwilling to acknowledge obvious offenses. Other times, they may believe they had a right to act as they did and that the alleged victims deserved the alleged offenses. In other situations, the offenders may no longer be alive, or their whereabouts may be unknown.
In both these situations, the offended parties forgive in order to be freed from anger, resentment, and grudges. In still other situations, the offended parties “forgive” to avoid hearing apologies that may be too painful to bear or that threaten to strengthen or restore the relationships that they wish to avoid.
In such circumstances where there are no apologies, reconciliation is unlikely. The offended party is saying, in effect, “I no longer hate you. Sometimes I even wish you well. But I do not want you in my life or my thoughts because I cannot trust you not to hurt me again.” We refer to this interaction as forgiveness without reconciliation. Or they may be saying, “You made me miserable while you were alive. I am not going to let you torment me from your grave. I will try to remember the good part of our relationship. Rest in peace.”
The forgiving person is only taking care of him or herself, an act involving only one person. In sum, forgiving without an apology, except when the offender is deceased, may be an easy way out of a difficult situation in which so much more could have been accomplished.
No Forgiveness With or Without an Apology
The problem of not forgiving may have nothing to do with the apology itself but with the meaning of forgiveness to the offended party.
Harboring or nursing a grudge makes some people feel strong. Until some resolution is reached, the offended party continues to have power over the offended. Perhaps it is somehow pleasurable to be able to remind the offender of his failings. Or else, the offended party feels that the offending party has not yet suffered enough, and so withholds forgiveness until the score is evened. It may also be that giving up the grudge and forgiving means that now the relationship is restored, with all its earlier problems and demands.
To summarize, the reasons why people fail to forgive despite apologies are:
Forgiveness Followed By Apology
In the third kind of relationship between forgiveness and apology, the offended party initially forgives, or partially forgives, with the hope and expectation that repentance will follow.
A person who is offended has the opportunity to bypass grudges and vengeance and preserve the relationship in some positive ways, while still expressing criticism of the offender. It is also possible to acknowledge hurt feelings and not feign compassion and love. This partial or tentative forgiveness allows the offended party to maintain a position of holding the offender accountable while giving the them the opportunity to apologize.
Apology is Necessary for Forgiveness
How can we forgive people who have betrayed our trust without their apologizing? How can we ever trust them again when they have not acknowledged their offense, shown remorse, and made some kind reparations? Is not our forgiving them under such conditions our abdication of any moral authority? Does not our forgiveness without apology communicate justification of their behaviors toward us?
Why do we need an apology or repentance before we offer forgiveness? The fundamental reason is that the apology meets the psychological needs of the offended party. It restores the damage that was done. It heals a wound that will not heal spontaneously. The apology restores the dignity of the offended party, assures that both parties share the same value system, assures the safety of the offended party, assures the offended party that the offender has suffered, as well as meets several other needs. When these needs are met, the offended party does not have to choose to forgive. The forgiveness comes spontaneously and effortlessly. There is a sudden letting go of the anger, the grudge, and the vengeance. There is often an instant rush of sympathetic and positive feelings toward the offender in response to what is commonly regarded as the gift of the apology.
- the restoration of respect and dignity
- assurances that they and the offender have shared values
- assurances that they were not at fault
- assurances that they are safe from further harm by the offender
- knowledge that the offender has suffered as a result of their offense
- a promise of adequate reparations
- the opportunity to communicate their suffering and other feelings about the offense.
- The first reason is their response to shame, guilt, and empathic regard for those they have offended.
- The second reason is their attempt to restore the relationship and to avoid further damage to the relationship, abandonment, retaliation, or other punishments.
HOW APOLOGIES HEAL
These needs are:
- restoration of self-respect and dignity
- assurance that both parties have shared values
- assurance that the offenses were not their fault
- assurance of safety in their relationships
- reparation for the harm caused by the offense
- having meaningful dialogues with the offenders
Many offenses are experienced as assaults on the offended party’s self-respect or dignity, and so a successful apology must somehow restore these vital aspects of the self in order to heal.
Here are common situations that create a high risk of causing offense.
- Overlooked or taken for granted
- Rejected
- Denied basic social amenities
- Manipulated or treated like an object
- Treated unfairly
- Verbally abused
- Reduced in status or role
- Betrayed
- Falsely accused
- Psychologically or physically threatened
- Physically or sexually abused
- Publicly shamed
- Beliefs or affiliations denigrated
- Boundaries or privacy violated
A second fundamental need of the offended party that an apology may address is the affirmation of shared values by the offender’s acknowledgment that he or she made a mistake, regrets it, and offers assurance that it will not happen again.
- By apologizing, the offending party reaffirms his or her commitment to the rules and values implicit in the relationship by saying, in essence, “I really am the person you thought I was.”
- Trust is thus reestablished, making the relationship safe and predictable once again.
- Such apologies remind us that people can make mistakes and recover from them, that values once ignored can be reestablished, that relationships once damaged can be healed.
- We breathe easier knowing that our original estimation of the offending party was correct after all: Our trust was not misplaced.
When those who have offended us refuse to acknowledge their behaviors as unacceptable, we may feel we can no longer count on the trustworthiness, predictability, and support that we always took for granted. This uneasiness is especially upsetting if the parties have a close relationship. Because a natural reaction is to distance ourselves from the offending party, the result may be estrangement rather than forgiveness. “How can I ever trust him again? He doesn’t even know that what he did was wrong. Maybe I never really knew him.”
Worse than the failure to apologize are situations in which the offender repeats the offensive behavior and then offers serial apologies or pseudo-apologies that are fraudulent, misleading, and offensive. Under these circumstances, we not only feel that the offenders are not worthy of our trust but that they have treated us as fools, thus humiliating us.
Spouses betrayed by adultery need more than a simple acknowledgment of shared values to meet their needs.
- They will need to know
- the nature of their spouses’ adulterous relationships
- the history of previous adulterous relationships
- an understanding of the spouses’ beliefs about marital fidelity
- and an understanding of why their marriage apparently failed
- Can the spouse be trusted?
- Was the affair private or do others know?
- Do the victims have the power to change the relationship or are they powerless?
- This additional information gives the offended parties the knowledge necessary to make a well-grounded decision either to terminate or repair the relationship.
ACKNOWLEGING THE OFFENSE
The most essential part of an effective apology is acknowledging the offense. The reason that this part of the apology can be so challenging is that the acknowledgment may involve as many as four parts:
- correctly identifying the party or parties responsible for the grievance, as well as the party or parties to whom the apology is owed
- acknowledging the offending behaviors in adequate detail
- recognizing the impact these behaviors had on the victim(s)
- confirming that the grievance was a violation of the social or moral contract between the parties.
Lack of forthrightness from the very beginning can prolong the acknowledgment stage, leading people to question the validity of the subsequent apology. First, acknowledgment says to the offended party, “I was wrong,” thus assuring that both parties still share important values. In addition, by acknowledging the offense, the offender says, in effect, “it was not your fault.” If the offenders are to understand the extent of the offenses they have committed, they may need to engage the offended parties in a dialogue, assuring the latter that they have been heard.
The results are failed or pseudo-apologies: apologies that, at best, do not heal the damaged relationship and, at worse, further offend the aggrieved party. I offer these categories to help readers understand why they sometimes experience apologies as disappointing, annoying, insulting, and occasionally amusing. These categories include:
Offering a vague and incomplete acknowledgment
A common reason why an apology fails is that the wrongdoer states the offense in a vague and incomplete manner, such as saying, “I am sorry,” or, “I apologize,” with no further comment. Examples of slightly more detailed but still inadequate apologies include statements such as, “I am sorry for anything (or everything) that I did,” or, “I am sorry for what happened,” or, “I am sorry for all I have done to upset you,” or, “I apologize for what happened yesterday.” Sometimes offenders will offer a vague “I’m sorry” statement of the offense because they are so intimidated by the prospects of the victim’s response that they blurt out, “I am sorry, I am sorry, I am sorry,” just to placate the unpleasantness of the situation. This apology is meaningless, because the offenders may not even know what offenses they committed or even whether offenses were committed.
Using the passive voice
Another common way of avoiding responsibility for committing an offense is to use the impersonal or passive voice, saying, “it happened,” or “mistakes were made,” rather than, “I did it.
Making the offense conditional
Cardinal Edward Egan, addressing the Catholic Church pedophile crisis, “If in hindsight we also discover that mistakes may have been made as regards prompt removal of priests and assistance to victims, I am deeply sorry.”
Richard Nixon resignation speech, “I regret deeply any injuries that may have been done in the course of events that 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 interests of the nation.”
Questioning whether the victim was damaged
The most common forms of acknowledgments use phrases such as, “if you were offended …” or “to the degree that you were offended ….”
“Not everyone would be offended by my behavior. If you have a problem with being so thin-skinned, I will apologize to you because of your need (your weakness) and my generosity. I hope this makes you happy.” Notice how the form of this apology transforms the victim into the cause of the offense and the offender into a blameless and generous benefactor. One readily sees that this failed apology, which is supposed to undo an insult and restore dignity, in fact only inflicts more damage—or as we might say colloquially, it “adds insult to injury.”
Minimizing the offense
Minimizing or questioning whether an offense was even committed is another way to derail an intended apology.
Using the empathic “I’m sorry”
One way to avoid taking responsibility for an offense is to use the phrase “I am sorry” or “I regret” in the empathic sense. Examples of this use of “sorry” would be statements such as “I am sorry that you suffered so much damage,” or “I am sorry you are so upset/ angry with me,” or “I am sorry you had to respond this way,” or “I am sorry we had to bomb your village.”
Apologizing for the wrong offense.
For example, a man is discovered by his wife to be having an extramarital affair. He acknowledges as his offense the emotional pain he caused his wife. His distress over the possible termination of his marriage seems genuine. At some point in their discussion, however, the husband says that he does not think having extramarital affairs is such a terrible thing and that he would not be offended if she did the same. This point of view is the beginning of the end of the marriage. The husband only acknowledges his wife’s distress and not the affair that actually caused the offense.
REMORSE, EXPLANATIONS AND REPARATIONS
REMORSE
Apologizing is an act of humility since it is an acknowledgment of making a mistake and expressing remorse. Such humility contributes to restoring the dignity of the offended party. Apologizing without humility, and even worse, by expressing arrogance or hubris, transforms the intended apology into an insult. Communicating arrogance suggests a lack of remorse and a belief that the person making the apology is superior to the person receiving it.
Offended parties often regard an apology as unsatisfactory if it does not include an explanation. They view the explanation as part of the debt owed to them. They will make comments such as, “You owe me an explanation,” or, “Please tell me why you did this,” or, “You could at least have had the decency to explain yourself.” These statements suggest that the failure to offer an explanation is often perceived as an inadequate apology or even a further insult.
EXPLANATIONS
Explanations that diminish the seriousness of the offense communicate one or more of four things:
- the grievance was not intentional and therefore not personal
- the behavior is not indicative of the “real self of the offender
- the victim is blameless
- similar grievances are unlikely to recur because of the uniqueness of the circumstances. Victims assess these matters in considering whether they will accept the apology, forgive the offender, and reconcile the relationship.
There are many explanations that offenders commonly use in everyday life, in hopes of diminishing their responsibility, but which diminish the apology and even insult the offended parties. I offer the following list of such explanations to alert the reader:
“I just could not help myself.”
“I was not myself.”
“I was careless.”
“I was not thinking straight.”
“I was overtired.”
“I was preoccupied.”
“I was sick.”
“I do not have a good memory.”
“I was being selfish.”
“I was angry at someone else.”
“I was under stress.”
“I did not really mean it.”
“I was only joking.”
“I must have been out of my mind.”
“I had a bad hair day.”
“I am only human.”
“I was drinking.”
“I let my emotions get the best of my judgment.”
“I gave in to an irresistible impulse.”
“I just snapped.”
“I was in love.”
“I was hormonal.”
“The devil made me do it.”
I believe that offenders are best served when they offer no explanations at all, rather than explanations that are dishonest, manipulative, or insulting. The simple message, “I was responsible. I deeply regret it. I have no excuse,” can restore the victim’s dignity and repair damaged pride. In such situations, the offended party realizes that the offender did not shirk responsibility or hide behind a shallow attempt to manipulate the victim.
REPARATIONS
Sometimes reparations can be the dominant feature of the apology, because they completely restore the loss. Examples include replacing or cleaning a garment accidentally stained by a spilled beverage at a party, or replacing a lost item. Offering reparations shows the victim that the offender takes the grievance seriously and is willing to “repair” the harm done.
When the offense is intangible, such as insults or humiliations, reparations may be symbolic in nature, such as buying a drink, treating for dinner, arranging a party in honor of the person, tickets to an event, offering an award, making a donation to a charity. Or the offender can ask, “Is there anything I can do to make it up to you?”
WHY PEOPLE APOLOGIZE
“I FEEL SO GUILTY AND ASHAMED FOR WHAT I DID”
Three psychological ideas or concepts help us understand how our emotions can move us to apologize.
- The first is empathy, a person’s ability to be aware of and understand how another person thinks and feels.
- The second concept is guilt, the capacity to apply standards of right and wrong to our behavior toward others and to punish ourselves emotionally when we hurt others. These guilt experiences can be constructive because they push us to acknowledge culpability and subsequently to attempt to repair the damage we have done, often by means of apologies.
- The third concept is shame, an emotional reaction to the experience of failing to live up to one’s image of oneself. Although guilt and shame seem closely allied, one difference between them is that guilt usually attaches to a specific instance of wrongdoing toward another (“ I feel guilt because I did not keep my promise to you”), whereas shame appears to be a response to a more general judgment about the self (“ I am ashamed that I seem unable to do the things I say I will do”). A common response to guilt is to make amends, whereas the most common response to shame is to hide—to avoid contact or to turn away with body posture. People who are shamed, however, often try to restore themselves to good standing in the eyes of themselves and others.
WHY PEOPLE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
The reasons why people do not apologize fall into two categories.
- Fear of the reactions of the people to whom they apologize
- Embarrassed or ashamed of the image they would have of themselves
The fears of the other party’s reactions as a result of the apology are illustrated in the following statements:
- “They might decide to end the relationship right on the spot.”
- “They would change their regard for me.”
- “They would feel superior to me.”
- “The punishment that I would receive could be quite severe.”
- “I would just be opening myself up for hurt. Once, when I apologized to my mother, she told me I should be more than sorry for what I did and that I better never do that again.”
- “My friend would become smug and self-satisfied that she was right and I was wrong. I do not believe I could bear such a reaction.”
- “I might never be forgiven.”
- “Apologizing gives someone else the god-like power to forgive you.”
- “She might make a scene, especially in public.”
- “She might never want to see me again.”
- “He might hold a grudge, just waiting for the opportunity to get even.”
- “My professor might publicly humiliate me in front of my friends.”
- “You never know how the other person will react.”
The first group of offenders fear the recipients of the apologies will lose their regard for them, threaten to or end the relationship, become smug and self-satisfied, feel superior, make a scene, hold a grudge, withhold forgiveness, or dole out punishment, including humiliations. Such offenders convince themselves that if they don’t apologize, the offended parties will be unaware of the offenses committed against them. This is often a false assumption. They further assume that the offended’s responses to the apologies will be punitive, another questionable assumption.
The second group of responses illustrates the feared negative self-image of the person offering the apology, regardless of the reactions of the offended.
- “It makes me feel weak to apologize.”
- “Apologizing is an admission of fault, an example of incompetence, an example of below-expected performance, an acknowledgment of a mistake someone else would have to repair, a mistake that could damage a patient. I couldn’t stand to think of myself as incompetent.”
- “Our general practice as human beings is to define our self or ego in terms of who we are, what we have, etc. We try to protect that mental image because we have no other structure to our mind. Emotions are one of the most powerful forms of this experience. When we are angry, hurt, or sad, we are loath to give up that emotion because it serves to define us in that moment. It is fuel for the fire. I would say this is the crux of the difficulty in apologizing: We feel that by apologizing, we will lose ground, lose our self-image, lose our ‘self.’”
- “It is difficult to apologize because it is giving in to the other person and that makes you feel as if you lost.”
- “It is difficult to apologize because I might show hidden inner emotions like sadness or anger and start to cry. I might then be perceived as weak.”
- “A lot of people like to hide their feelings, and saying ‘sorry’ shows they do have feelings.”
- “In order to apologize you have to show emotion in order for people to believe you.”
- “Saying ‘I am sorry’ is difficult because of the shame it brings. It forces the reality that I am capable of hurting someone and doing something wrong. With that realization comes guilt.”
- “When you say you are sorry, you are likely to take a battering to your self-esteem.”
- “It is difficult to apologize because it is hard to swallow one’s pride. A person wants to feel right, and apologizing is another way of admitting that you are wrong.”
- “It is hard to apologize because you know you let the other person down or made them feel sad. You feel so bad about it that it is hard to say.”
- “When you apologize, you let your guard down and you are like a soldier going into battle without armor or a gun. I feel that when you say you are sorry, you are opening your inner self up and your guard is let down. You are more likely to take a battering to your self-esteem.”
The second group of offenders are less concerned with how the offended parties will react to their apologies but are more concerned with feeling weak, incompetent, defeated, guilty, ashamed, emotional, like a loser—in essence losing their self-esteem or their very self. What is striking is that it appears the offenders experience these self-perceptions and emotions as a result of acknowledging them in the apology, not as a result of their behavior. In other words, they believe it may be acceptable to behave in a hurtful manner, but to verbally acknowledge that you have behaved in a hurtful manner makes you a hurtful person.
OTHER REASONS WHY PEOPLE DO NOT APOLOGIZE
- A common reason why people fail to apologize is their lack of awareness that their behavior offended the other person. Some of these offenders may be described as extremely self-centered. They may ultimately apologize out of regret that they are no longer liked, in good favor, or admired by the offended party. Hence, the apology, after they learn of the offense, takes the form of “I am sorry that you are upset with me” rather than “I am sorry that I hurt you.” Their “sorry” is a childlike afterthought.
- Sometimes, the so-called failure to apologize is not the result of the insensitivity of the offender but the oversensitivity of the offended party who expects an apology. The offenders may be unaware of what they have done. This happens when in the relationship between those in positions of power and those with lesser power. Someone may be offended by not being invited to a particular event, by having a relative or friend fail to come to certain important events, by having a guest wear inappropriate dress, or by receiving inappropriate gifts. In all of these situations, one party may be unaware that another party is offended and therefore does not consider offering an apology. It would seem reasonable for the offended party to inform the other of the offense. There are several reasons why this may not occur.
- The offended parties run the risk of appearing weak or thin-skinned for feeling so offended.
- They may feel that if the offenders really cared they would know what they did and the impact it made without having to be told.
- They may feel justified and morally superior in observing the other’s offense, thereby providing justification for maintaining distance in the relationship.
- The offended party, instead of accusing the offender of insensitivity, can say, “I was bothered [troubled] [upset] by something that you did [said].”
- Instead of acknowledging being embarrassed, one can talk about an embarrassing moment.
- Instead of acknowledging being insulted or being offended, one can speak of the insulting remark or offensive comments.
- There are people who offend in order to create distance from others they perceive as getting too close or making too many demands on the relationship. This may also be an attempt to gain power and keep the other off balance. Sarcastic and insulting behavior, offensive language, and attacking cherished beliefs offends the other, thereby enhancing power and creating distance. These offenders have no regrets.
- Most readers suspect or realize they have at times inadvertently offended others. They often consider making apologies but seem incapable of doing so. I believe such people would do well to explore the forces that hold them back.
- Is it a fear of the responses of the other parties?
- Is it losing or giving up power to the other parties?
- Is it the shame of apologizing or the idea that expressing fearful emotions makes us lesser people?
- Is it the concern of acknowledging to the aggrieved parties more than they already know?
- We can surmise what personality traits in people make it particularly difficult for them to apologize:
- They need to be in firm control of interpersonal situations.
- They need to be in control of their emotions.
- They need to feel right or morally superior most of the time; they believe they rarely make mistakes.
- They assume the world is hostile and that relationships are inherently dangerous.
- In contrast, people who find it easy to apologize accept sharing control of interpersonal situations and enjoy relationships with others.
- They accept, respect, and even enjoy their emotions.
- They can acknowledge their vulnerabilities, weaknesses, and flaws while constantly trying to improve.
- They believe they are reasonable and decent people and assume that others share these traits.
- When they apologize, they are merely admitting they made a mistake. Such an admission is not a threat so long as they feel good about themselves and feel that they are not a mistake.
- A final reason why offenders do not apologize even though they regret committing an offense and want to heal the relationship is that they do not know how to apologize, or they never thought of an apology as an option for dealing with their hurtful behaviors. In other words, apology has not been a skill set with which the offender is familiar, either in its structure or application.
THE TIMING OF APOLOGIES
- “IT ISN’T PERSONAL” - The offending party in nonpersonal offenses should apologize immediately, clearly communicate that the offense was accidental, and offer meaningful reparation when feasible.
- “IF I APOLOGIZE IMMEDIATELY, I DO NOT HAVE TO HEAR HOW UPSET YOU ARE” - At times, apologies are offered before the offended parties understand the full meaning of the offense, or before they have had an opportunity to express how they feel about the offense.
- APOLOGIES FOR SERIOUS PERSONAL OFFENSES TAKE TIME - Doing so may communicate to the offended party that the offender does not realize the impact of the behavior, is trying to get off too quickly and too easily, or is fearful of the emotions of the offended party and does not value the relationship. If, for example, a person discovered by a spouse to be unfaithful in marriage acknowledges committing the misdeed, expresses regret, offers an explanation, and promises a gift for reparation, all within minutes of the accusation, the marriage is in serious trouble—if that is the end of the apology. The offended party often needs days, weeks, or longer to understand and psychologically assimilate what happened. If the relationship is to continue, both parties may need to meet on several occasions for varying periods of time and in designated places (e.g., a quiet place away from the children or at a psychotherapist’s office) to discuss and understand the meaning of what happened, the explanations of the offending party, the appropriate reparations, and the future of the relationship. In other words, if a meaningful relationship is to have any chance of being restored following a serious personal offense, the apology must be a complex process conducted over time.
- BEING UNAVAILABLE TO ACCEPT AN APOLOGY - Another way in which timing affects the apology process occurs when the offended party refuses to or is unavailable to accept the apology at the time it is first offered. This practice enables that party to inflict suffering on the offender by denying him or her the desired outcome (such as relief of guilt or restoration of the relationship). It further transfers power to the party who felt powerless. In private apologies, the offended party refuses to meet with and talk to the offender until they are “good and ready.”
- THE FAILURE TO APOLOGIZE IN GOOD TIME IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT NOT ALL IS LOST - When important grievances, both in private and public apologies, are not settled within days, weeks, or months, the relationship can be at risk for permanent damage or even rupture.
- When apologies are not forthcoming, both parties may create their own stories that justify their behaviors.
- The aggrieved parties may say that the offending parties are insensitive, uncaring, and even cruel, that they are not the people they thought they knew.
- The offenders may say that the aggrieved parties are too sensitive, too demanding, too rigid, too unreasonable, and too unforgiving, that they are not the people they thought they knew.
- Both parties seek out others to justify their positions.
- Both parties may say that it is just as well the relationship ended, despite their nagging sense that the conflict resulting in the ruptured relationship could have been avoided or resolved.
NEGOTIATING APOLOGIES
Much of the content of an apology is negotiable, such as:
- who should apologize to whom?
- how much responsibility the offender and offended each accepts for causing the grievance
- the specificity with which the offender acknowledges the offense
- whether mitigating explanations are acceptable
- how much remorse, shame, humility, and sincerity the offender must communicate
- the amount of suffering the offender must bear
- the acceptability of reparations to the offended parties
- the timing of the apology (when, how often, and how long the two parties must meet)
- the opportunity of the offended parties to verbalize their suffering
- the degree to which the offended parties are willing to accept that their needs have been adequately met so that they can offer forgiveness.
The best negotiated apologies result in “win-win” situations for both parties, in contrast to a “zero-sum game” in which one party wins at the expense of the other. Many times, the only way a relationship can continue after a serious offense has occurred is through an apology that results in both parties feeling they have gained something, or at least “enough,” in the end.
THE VALUE OF UNDERSTANDING APOLOGIES AS NEGOTIATIONS
- Find out whether you fully understand the meaning of the offense.
- Has the offended party had an opportunity to tell you how upset the offense made her or him feel?
- Does the offended party need more time to assimilate what happened?
- Are reparations required?
- Were yours appropriate?
- Do you feel humbled and remorseful?
- Was your apology offensive in any way?
An apology doesn’t mean the dispute is resolved, but it is in most cases a first step, part of the process of negotiation but not the satisfactory end result. Often, lack of apologies, demands for apologies, and the refusal of them all are pre-steps in negotiations, a diplomatic dance that may last for a while, a testimony to the wish and the need of both sides to reach the negotiations stage.
APOLOGY AND FORGIVENESS
In order to provide some clarity to the complex relationship between apology and forgiveness, I organize these interactions into four distinct but familiar categories:
- forgiveness without apology
- no forgiveness regardless of the apology
- forgive ness that precedes apology
- apology that precedes forgiveness.
Forgiveness Without Apology
We all know of situations in which offended parties forgive without receiving an apology. Sometimes the offenders are unwilling to acknowledge obvious offenses. Other times, they may believe they had a right to act as they did and that the alleged victims deserved the alleged offenses. In other situations, the offenders may no longer be alive, or their whereabouts may be unknown.
In both these situations, the offended parties forgive in order to be freed from anger, resentment, and grudges. In still other situations, the offended parties “forgive” to avoid hearing apologies that may be too painful to bear or that threaten to strengthen or restore the relationships that they wish to avoid.
In such circumstances where there are no apologies, reconciliation is unlikely. The offended party is saying, in effect, “I no longer hate you. Sometimes I even wish you well. But I do not want you in my life or my thoughts because I cannot trust you not to hurt me again.” We refer to this interaction as forgiveness without reconciliation. Or they may be saying, “You made me miserable while you were alive. I am not going to let you torment me from your grave. I will try to remember the good part of our relationship. Rest in peace.”
The forgiving person is only taking care of him or herself, an act involving only one person. In sum, forgiving without an apology, except when the offender is deceased, may be an easy way out of a difficult situation in which so much more could have been accomplished.
No Forgiveness With or Without an Apology
The problem of not forgiving may have nothing to do with the apology itself but with the meaning of forgiveness to the offended party.
- For instance, forgiving may cause multiple fears in the offended party: fear of appearing weak, giving in, being an easy mark, being prone to being taken advantage of, or letting the offender off too easily.
- The offended party may not want to acknowledge that the offender had the power to hurt, and forgiving is an acknowledgment of that power.
- The offended party can avoid having to forgive by denying that an offense even occurred. The offended party says, in effect, “There is no need for you to apologize. It was nothing. There is nothing to forgive.”
Harboring or nursing a grudge makes some people feel strong. Until some resolution is reached, the offended party continues to have power over the offended. Perhaps it is somehow pleasurable to be able to remind the offender of his failings. Or else, the offended party feels that the offending party has not yet suffered enough, and so withholds forgiveness until the score is evened. It may also be that giving up the grudge and forgiving means that now the relationship is restored, with all its earlier problems and demands.
To summarize, the reasons why people fail to forgive despite apologies are:
- the apology fails to meet the needs of the offended party
- forgiveness makes the offended party feel weak, whereas harboring the grudge provides the offended party with the sense of strength
- the offense is regarded as too great to forgive or the forgiveness belongs to the victims or to God.
Forgiveness Followed By Apology
In the third kind of relationship between forgiveness and apology, the offended party initially forgives, or partially forgives, with the hope and expectation that repentance will follow.
A person who is offended has the opportunity to bypass grudges and vengeance and preserve the relationship in some positive ways, while still expressing criticism of the offender. It is also possible to acknowledge hurt feelings and not feign compassion and love. This partial or tentative forgiveness allows the offended party to maintain a position of holding the offender accountable while giving the them the opportunity to apologize.
Apology is Necessary for Forgiveness
How can we forgive people who have betrayed our trust without their apologizing? How can we ever trust them again when they have not acknowledged their offense, shown remorse, and made some kind reparations? Is not our forgiving them under such conditions our abdication of any moral authority? Does not our forgiveness without apology communicate justification of their behaviors toward us?
Why do we need an apology or repentance before we offer forgiveness? The fundamental reason is that the apology meets the psychological needs of the offended party. It restores the damage that was done. It heals a wound that will not heal spontaneously. The apology restores the dignity of the offended party, assures that both parties share the same value system, assures the safety of the offended party, assures the offended party that the offender has suffered, as well as meets several other needs. When these needs are met, the offended party does not have to choose to forgive. The forgiveness comes spontaneously and effortlessly. There is a sudden letting go of the anger, the grudge, and the vengeance. There is often an instant rush of sympathetic and positive feelings toward the offender in response to what is commonly regarded as the gift of the apology.