This has only tangential connection to recent upsetting events in the science fiction community. I mean, it happens to be true of us, but it also happens to be true of everybody, in politics, in media, and in interpersonal relationships.
The Art of the Apology Is Broken Beyond Repair.
It is broken up and down the line.
It is broken at every step of the process, from before the original offense to after the last of its repercussions.
It is broken for all of the participants, including the offender and the offendee.
It is broken to the point where it has lost all usefulness.
In theory, an apology is supposed to be a simple acknowledgment that one has done wrong, coupled with remorse. It may or may not be connected to an offer of expiation, but that is optional. The acknowledgment is the important part. It is useless without sincerity – by which I mean true understanding of the nature of the offense – and it is useless unless it can advance our understanding of one another as human beings.
But it is now dysfunctional at every step.
It is dysfunctional because it has been bargained with, played with, tinkered with for advantage, and gamed, from first to last moment.
It is no longer a means of spreading understanding, but of prolonging misunderstanding.
Manifestations include:
The Pre-emptive Apology. Presented before the original offense, it is an acknowledgment that the offense will cause damage, offered immediately before that offense is committed anyway. “I know it’s rude to park my truck on your flower bed, but I need a place to put my truck,” is worse than just heedlessly parking your truck on the flower bed without understanding that this is a terrible thing to do. In that case, you might just be an inconsiderate jackass, and the pre-emptive apology makes you fully considerate, in that you considered the cost of what you were about to do and did it anyway. Called on it, the offender will often fulminate, “But I apologized! In advance!” But really, the pre-emptive apology is an effort to head off consequences by short-circuiting recriminations in advance. It is a Get Out Of Jail Free card.
The It’s All A Matter of Perception Apology: Frequently used by politicians, this is often phrased as, “If anyone was offended…”, presenting the offense as an accidental result, initiated entirely by those who took offense. A true apology begins with the acknowledgment that one did something offensive, but here, that admission has been rendered entirely passive, something that happened to the offensive party, and not something he actually initiated. You can tell that it is often divorced from any ambitions of better behavior in that the sentence containing the perception apology is all too often followed by another that reiterates the initial wrongdoing. To wit: “Last week I said X; if anyone was offended, I am deeply sorry; however, {equation that equals X}.” Again, the apology is not offered as expiation, but as shield, immediately followed by another body blow to the same bruised region.
The Angry Apology: This is where whatever awful thing is being apologized for is not nearly as offensive, to the offensive party, as the horrible misjustice of being made to apologize for it. Teenagers know this one very well, rolling their eyes while crying, “I said I was sorry, okay?” Again, the apology is not offered in expiation, but as a cancelling force, expected to eliminate any consequences for the original offense. I trashed your house and spray-painted FUCK on your Picasso, but jeez, I said I was sorry, okay? If consequences are still forthcoming, the offending party can only roll his eyes at being so unfairly persecuted. If they are not, he can perform in some equally offensive manner, again, as soon as possible.
The I-Can-Demand-An-Apology-But-Yours-Isn’t-Enough Dynamic: This is the first manifestation where the sin belongs to the injured party. That party claims offense, with or without justification, demands an apology, and receives one – which may well depending on circumstances be an elaborate, flowery, over-the-top acknowledgment that the party responsible for the offense deserves an eternity of punishment for what he’s done. This is usually not called for, but even in such cases no apology will ever be accepted as sufficient; even weeping and rending of clothes will not be enough. Shorn of frills, the process goes: The least you can do is apologize. You know, you’re right, I apologize. Followed by a triumphant, that doesn’t make it better! This becomes easier to understand with the increasing heinousness of the original offense, but the dynamic exists even when the original offense is minor. Regardless of the degree of sin, you will be told that your apology is not enough until the offended party grows weary of torturing you with demands for an even truer apology. Anybody who’s ever offended his mother in a small way is familiar with this.
The I-Can-Demand-An-Apology-But-Will-Never-Give-One-And-Never-Accept-One Dynamic: This is a related phenomenon to the previous listing, in which the offended party cannot and will not accept any responsibility for a mutual dispute, saying, “I would be more than happy to apologize if I was wrong,” which somehow never ever happens. In such relationships, the offended party can last years without ever being in error. Imagine that. The current controversy in the SF community is led by an individual who has actually come out and told his followers, in as many words, that they should never apologize at any point no matter how excessive their behavior might have been, because that’s surrender and the point is to gain as much ground as possible. He has come out and said this. He has also simultaneously demanded apology for one offense or another an almost daily basis. Here, apology is used primarily as a tool to back the other party further and further away from his previous position, capturing territory but never at any point acknowledging any point on which ground might be given. One manifestation of this is insisting that everybody on the other side apologize for and disavow every regrettable thing ever said by any ally, no matter how tangential, while simultaneously saying, “I’m not responsible for everything everybody on my side does!” Apology is here a military strategy, not an attempt at understanding.
The I-Can-Demand-An-Apology-While-Indulging-In-Equivalent-Behavior-Apology: Otherwise known as the Torgersen, this is best summarized as “X needs to apologize for tarring everybody on my side with the same brush, which is the way those SJWs and CHORFS always behave.” This manifests without any self-awareness or sense of irony. Again, this is about gaining ground, not achieving understanding.
The Demand For Apology After An Apology Is Already Given Dynamic: X does something clearly wrong, X acknowledges it and sincerely apologizes for it, but the offense will be brought up again the next time anybody has a beef to pick with X. In any discussion where it is then brought up that X did in fact apologize, and actually apologize, the discussion circles back to whether he should apologize, even though he already did. No subsequent virtues demonstrated by X, no matter how much time passes, are ever recognized in this dynamic; no apologies are ever ceded as genuine. The argument returns to the premise that X has “never apologized.”X might rescue a busload of orphans from going over a ravine, but the original sin remains recent, always the magnet that draws the attention of those who would rather chew that cud than discuss anything else. This can go on for decades. It happens in marriages, where a fight over remembering to close the kitchen cabinets in 2015 will inevitably rope in offenses committed, apologized for, and dealt with in 1998, because nothing’s ever really forgiven, just stacked away in a deeper part of the armory. The apology is continually re-purposed as a non-event. It never happened. Therefore another apology is demanded.
The Personal Destruction Apology: in which the apology is seen as the first step toward eradicating the offender from the face of the Earth. To wit: X does something wrong and apologizes for it. This is not enough. She must be ostracized. She must be deprived of employment. She must be banished. If the consequences that X faces for her offense are defined as Y, the punishment the demander of the apology will accept is somehow always Y Plus Something. If it was Y Plus Something to start with, it will always be Y Plus Something Plus Something More. More nails must always be applied to the cross.
The Mystery Apology: X has done something wrong. Y is infuriated. X has no idea why. He begs for an explanation of the offense, so he can apologize. This is the way he should act. He did something unthinking and desires education. This is how people learn and improve. However, to Y, part of the problem is that X cannot already see what he has done wrong. If X doesn’t know, Y is not about to explain it to him. X is reduced to guessing. Every wrong guess digs the hole deeper, but “I give up,” or “Give me a clue, at least,” are equally heinous offenses. This frequently happens between the sexes, which perceive things differently and frequently can benefit from more communication, but must instead deal with if you don’t know what you’ve done wrong, I’m not about to tell you. Note: when I say, “between the sexes,” I tend to mean that women do it to men. If men do it to women or if gay people torture each other this way, I don’t have the personal experience to know it, and I apologize for not knowing it. But that apology is of course not sufficient; I should have known before I even said it. You can’t win.
The Apology as Post-Hoc Escape Hatch: This is the same thing as the Pre-Emptive Apology, except applied after the fact, as a sort of catch-all attempt to escape from consequences. In short, your house may be a pile of smoking rubble, and the guy who caused it will snort, “I said I was sorry,” a statement which is somehow never quite the same thing as actually being sorry, or offering restitution. I said I was sorry is in the case supposed to mean you must not express any resentment of what I’ve done. Again, it’s a Get-Put-of-Jail-Free card.
The Withheld Apology: Two people agree that they’re both wrong and should apologize for mutual offenses. One apologizes. The other triumphantly reneges. This is apology as a game of chicken.
There are more, but I believe I have made the point. The art of apology, one of the social inventions that makes peace and progress a possibility, is irrevocably broken. At every point up and down the line, it has been gamed and co-opted as a means of keeping arguments going, inflicting deeper wounds, and inflicting more damage.
I am truly sorry about that. I really am.