This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln] On: 05 September 2013, At: 23:26 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Southern Communication Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsjc20 Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future: Collective Apologies in the United States, Australia, and Canada Jason A. Edwards a a Department of Communication Studies, Bridgewater State College, Published online: 21 Jan 2010. To cite this article: Jason A. Edwards (2010) Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future: Collective Apologies in the United States, Australia, and Canada, Southern Communication Journal, 75:1, 57-75, DOI: 10.1080/10417940902802605 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417940902802605 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [University of Nebraska, Lincoln]On: 05 September 2013, At: 23:26Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Southern Communication JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rsjc20
Apologizing for the Past for a BetterFuture: Collective Apologies in theUnited States, Australia, and CanadaJason A. Edwards aa Department of Communication Studies, Bridgewater StateCollege,Published online: 21 Jan 2010.
To cite this article: Jason A. Edwards (2010) Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future: CollectiveApologies in the United States, Australia, and Canada, Southern Communication Journal, 75:1,57-75, DOI: 10.1080/10417940902802605
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10417940902802605
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
apologia is delivered as a response to some form of kategoria or accusation of wrong-
doing on one’s personal character or policy choices (Ryan). Within a proximate
period of the accusation, a rhetor responds with an apologia, defined as a ‘‘speech
of self-defense’’ (Ware & Linkugel, 1973, p. 279). Downey (1993) examined the
evolution of the apologia genre and noted that there have been five purposes of
self-defense over the years: exoneration, absolution, sacrifice, service, and deception.
Ultimately, all of those purposes of apologia demonstrate that it is a rhetoric of
self-interest because it is about defending and repairing one’s public image, one’s
ethos (Benoit, 1995; Kruse, 1977; Ware & Linkugel, 1973).
In analyzing how rhetors repair their damaged image, rhetorical scholars have
uncovered a number of different strategies that speakers could use to extricate
themselves from that particular situation. Ware and Linkugel (1973) noted that there
are four strategies—denial, bolstering, differentiation, and transcendence—to repair
one’s ethos. The most comprehensive typology of rhetorical options comes from the
work of William Benoit. Benoit’s (1995) theory of image repair offers a taxonomy of
five broad strategies: denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, corrective
60 The Southern Communication Journal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
action, and mortification. If rhetors use these strategies in an effective way, they may
be able to disentangle themselves from controversy and to minimize the damage to
their image. As a result of this work, scholars have been able to shed considerable
light on speeches of self-defense.
Collective Apology Rhetoric
Different rhetorical characteristics are part of apologies issued for historical wrong-
doing. In this section, I analyze President Clinton, Prime Minister Rudd, and Prime
Minister Harper’s apologies. I work inductively by comparing and contrasting each of
the speeches to discern commonalities as it relates to purposes and components.
Collective Apology: Purpose
The apologies of President Clinton, Prime Minister Rudd, and Prime Minister
Harper contain one overarching purpose: to repair relationships between victimizer
and victim harmed by past wrongdoing. For example, in his 1997 apology for the
Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, American President Bill Clinton (1997) offered an
apology to victims of this policy. Clinton asserted that ‘‘it is only in remembering
that shameful past that we can make amends and repair our nation, but it is in
remembering that past that we can build a better present and future. And without
remembering it, we cannot make amends and we cannot go forward’’ ({ 3). Clinton’s
apology served as a bridge between the past, present, and future. The president
argued that we must remember and admit past wrongdoing in order to repair the
wounds between all affected communities so that the United States could move
forward as one nation. Clinton’s apology laid the groundwork for repairing the
relationship between the American government and the African American
community. By apologizing, Clinton opened a discursive space for the government
to make amends and both communities to ‘‘go forward’’ with their association.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2008) presented an apology to the
Australian Aboriginal community, particularly the ‘‘stolen generations,’’ on February
13, 2008. He stated he was apologizing because:
[T]here comes a time in the history of nations when their peoples must becomefully reconciled to their past if they are to go forward with confidence to embracetheir future. Our nation, Australia, has reached such a time . . . to remove a greatstain from the nation’s soul, and in a true spirit of reconciliation, to open a newchapter in the history of this great land, Australia. ({ 2)
Later, Rudd emphasized that ‘‘today’s apology, however inadequate, is aimed at
righting past wrongs. It is also aimed at building a bridge between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous Australians—a bridge based on real respect rather than a thinly
veiled contempt’’ ({ 19). Similar to Clinton, Rudd’s apology served to ‘‘build a
bridge’’ between the past, present, and future. According to the prime minister,
Australia needed to move forward as one state, one people, but that could only occur
if Australia was ‘‘fully reconciled’’ with its past. Through his apology, Rudd took a
Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future 61
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
giant step forward in reconciling his country toward its past. He recognized the
mistakes made by past governments and implicitly argued his government would
not repeat them. His apology gave ‘‘real respect’’ to the suffering of Australia’s
Aborigines, something that had been lacking from past governments. In doing so,
the prime minister set out to repair communal bonds broken by government policy
and ‘‘open a new chapter’’ in Australia’s history with this minority community.
On July 11, 2008, in a nationally televised ceremony, Canadian Prime Minister
Stephen Harper (2008) apologized to Canada’s indigenous community for its resi-
dential school policy. Harper began his address by immediately announcing that
he was there to ‘‘offer an apology to former students of Indian residential schools.
The treatment of children in Indian residential schools is a sad chapter in our his-
tory’’ ({ 1). Harper recognized that ‘‘an absence of apology has been an impediment
to healing and reconciliation’’ and it was in that spirit that he was issuing a national
mea culpa ({ 6). Like Clinton and Rudd, Harper’s apology was a crossroads of the
past, present, and future. By apologizing, Harper instantly positioned his government
for better relations with Canada’s indigenous populations. Through his apology,
Canada could begin to close one ‘‘sad chapter’’ of history, while also creating a
new beginning between the Canadian government and its First Nations that would
lead to ‘‘healing and reconciliation’’ between both groups.
President Clinton, Prime Minister Rudd, and Prime Minister Harper’s apologies
share two commonalities. First, note the contrition within each address. Not
only did these three leaders apologize, but they made their apologies more than
expressions of regret. Clinton wanted to ‘‘make amends and repair our nation.’’
Rudd stated that his apology was done in the ‘‘true spirit of reconciliation’’ so that
the Australian government could start ‘‘building a bridge between Indigenous and
non-Indigenous’’ people. Harper expressed that the Canadian government’s non-
apology had been an ‘‘impediment to healing and reconciliation.’’ In examining some
collective apologies, Barkan and Karn (2006) observed that ‘‘a sincere expression of
contrition . . . can pave the way for atonement by promoting mutual understanding
and by highlighting the possibilities of peace co-existence’’ (p. 7). Language such
as ‘‘making amends,’’ ‘‘building a bridge,’’ ‘‘repair,’’ ‘‘healing,’’ and ‘‘reconciliation’’
all emphasize and bring home a sincere expression of contrition. All three leaders’ use
of language created an atmosphere of atonement where the dynamic of their relation-
ship could be changed from animosity to one of conciliation and mutual understand-
ing. With their apologies, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper implied that they could reverse
the ‘‘impediment’’ created by their respective governments. For these three leaders,
their apologies were about reconstituting, rebuilding, and strengthening their
relations with their domestic minorities, serving as an important first step toward
‘‘building a bridge’’ to ‘‘reconciliation.’’
Additionally, note how Clinton, Rudd, and Harper’s apologies used the language
of time. These leaders stated they wanted to ‘‘make amends for the past,’’ to remove a
‘‘great stain from the nation’s soul,’’ and to denote a ‘‘sad chapter in our history.’’
These apologies were meditations on past, present, and future relationships with
the African American, Aboriginal, and First Nation communities. By issuing an
62 The Southern Communication Journal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
apology, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper cast their nation’s history in a negative light,
indicating what behaviors should never be repeated and never accepted by any public.
Their apologies were lessons about what nations should not do. Fundamentally, these
leaders were changing how these events would be remembered; they were changing
the dominant perception of history. Accordingly, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper offered
a vision of what should be done. Their apologies created conditions for a new identity
between victimizer and victim. Their orations implicitly signaled a new direction in
interactions with the offended groups.
The power of this new direction can best be summed up by Yamazaki (2005)
who argued that ‘‘in facing the past squarely and understanding its ‘darker’ chap-
ters, the nation can immunize and inoculate itself against repeating the mistakes of
a ‘bad past.’ Thus, apology is a mechanism for claiming a new identity and a new
direction. Although our forefathers did bad things, we are different today and we
can claim a new moral identity’’ (p. 128). The apologies by Clinton, Rudd, and
Harper were the mechanism to offer evidence to the victimized communities, the
entire nation, and the world that the governments they represented were ‘‘different
today’’ than when those atrocities were committed. These three leaders wanted to
‘‘build a better present and future,’’ to open a ‘‘new chapter’’ in their history, and
to remove the ‘‘impediment’’ that long separated communities within their states.
For Clinton, Rudd, and Harper, the relational dynamic between communities
would be altered. No longer would relations be constituted as victimizer=victim,
but their apologies marked new relationships that would be built on common
ground, common interests, common values, and common respect for each other.
By apologizing, these three leaders positioned a ‘‘new moral identity’’ to be created
between their governments and the African American, Aboriginal, and First Nation
communities.
Theoretically, the apologies made by Clinton, Rudd, and Harper were a point of
departure from traditional apologia. Recall that apologia is a speech of self-defense.
The primary purpose of issuing one is to repair a rhetor’s individual image. By con-
trast, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper’s purpose was to repair and heal old wounds among
communities that had been wronged by historical injustices. Their apologies
positioned their governments to begin reconciliation. Accordingly, they attempted
to close the chapter on one door of history by opening a new one. Certainly, these
apologies can also help rebuild the national ethos of the United States, Australia,
and Canada, but their primary purpose was to begin rebuilding relationships with
the victimized communities. Therefore, the primary purpose of collective apology
is to about repairing, healing, and rebuilding relationships harmed by historical
injustice.
Collective Apology: Elements
Now that we have examined the purpose of collective apology let us move to the
strategies that make up this discourse. An analysis of Clinton, Rudd, and Harper’s
apologies reveal that they used three common rhetorical strategies: (a) all three
Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future 63
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
leaders acknowledged wrongdoing by their governments; (b) they accepted
responsibility for that wrongdoing and expressed remorse for those actions; (c) all
three rhetors made pledges and=or took actions to make sure similar offenses would
never occur again.
Acknowledgement of Wrongdoing
One strategy in the collective apologies that Clinton, Harper, and Rudd issued was
to acknowledge historical wrongdoing by their governments. Lazare (2004) asserted
acknowledgement of wrongdoing is the most important aspect of an apology
because if a rhetor is not forthcoming with what was done then the sentiment
of the apology seems suspect. In his apology, President Clinton (1997) was clear
that the ‘‘Federal Government orchestrated a study so clearly racist’’ ({ 8).
Hundreds of African American men were ‘‘used in research without knowledge
and consent’’ ({ 4). These men were ‘‘neglected, ignored, and betrayed’’ by the
United States Public Health Service ({ 8). They were ‘‘denied help and they were
lied to by the government.’’ Their ‘‘rights were trampled upon’’ ({ 5). However,
they were not the only the victims of the experiment that suffered but also ‘‘their
wives and children, along with the community in Macon, County, Alabama, the
City of Tuskegee, the fine university there, and the larger African-American
community’’ all were betrayed by the ‘‘The United States Government,’’ who
‘‘did something that was wrong, deeply, profoundly, morally wrong’’ ({ 5). Clinton
clearly indicated that the ‘‘Federal Government’’ was responsible for the harm
created. Its Tuskegee experiment was ‘‘racist’’ policy choice and irreparably harmed
hundreds of African-American men. However, the president went further, arguing
that there was not only one set of victims, but many sets including the men’s
‘‘wives and children,’’ the community of ‘‘Macon County and ‘‘Tuskegee,’’ as well
as the entire ‘‘African-American community.’’ By clearly indicating who was
responsible for this ‘‘racist’’ experiment at Tuskegee and delineating more than
merely one set of victims made Clinton’s apology appear more contrite. It gave
the appearance of true sincerity, making it all the more likely to be accepted by
the African American community.
Australian Prime Minister Rudd (2008) acknowledged crimes committed against
the stolen generations in two ways. First, he told the story of one of its members,
Nanna Nugala Fejo. He discussed how she had been forcibly removed from her
family’s care without warning, without any time to say goodbye. Nanna Fejo’s family
was broken up twice and she never ‘‘saw her mum again’’ ({ 7). Nanna Fejo’s story
put a human face on the suffering of thousands of Aboriginal children at the hands of
the Australian government. Moreover, Rudd quantified the number of stolen
generation victims. As he put it, ‘‘Nanna Fejo’s is just one story. There are thousands,
tens of thousands of them: stories of forced separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children from their mums and dads over the better part of a century’’ ({ 7).
According to Rudd, ‘‘between 1910 and 1970, between 10 and 30 per cent of
Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their mothers and fathers; that as a
64 The Southern Communication Journal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
result, up to 50,000 children were forcibly taken from their families’’ ({ 9). As a
result, these children suffered ‘‘hurt,’’ ‘‘humiliation,’’ ‘‘degradation,’’ and the ‘‘shear
brutality of the act of separating a mother from her children’’ ({ 7). Telling Nanna
Fejo’s story, while also quantifying the larger tragedy, indicated Rudd was fully
disclosing the extent of the injustices caused by past governments. Without the
government hiding any of its crimes, the current Australian government and the
Aboriginal communities could come to a place of negotiation with a clean slate,
which would give their new relationship ‘‘real respect.’’
In his acknowledgement of Canada’s transgressions, Prime Minister Harper (2008)
explained that the ‘‘Indian Residential Schools separated over 150,000 Aboriginal
children from their families and communities’’ ({ 2). Over 132 schools were set up
throughout Canada. The government’s policy was supposed to ‘‘educate Aboriginal
children,’’ so that it could ‘‘assimilate them into the dominant culture,’’ a system
designed to ‘‘kill the Indian in the child’’ ({ 2). In order to accomplish this task,
Harper noted that these children were ‘‘forcibly removed from their homes’’ ({ 3).
They were ‘‘inadequately fed, clothed, and housed’’ ({ 3). They were ‘‘deprived of
the care and nurturing of their parents, grandparents, and communities. First
Nations, Inuit and Metis languages and cultural practices were prohibited in these
schools. Tragically, some of these children died while attending residential schools
and others never returned home’’ ({ 3). Similar to Clinton and Rudd, Harper
noted the large nature of the Canadian government’s transgression. Over ‘‘150,000
Aboriginal children’’ were taken from their families, which would include hundreds
of thousands of other victims. These children were ‘‘forcibly removed’’ and forced to
‘‘assimilate.’’ Some children ‘‘died,’’ while others ‘‘never returned home.’’ Harper
clearly delineated the appalling results of Canada’s residential school policy. By
offering a forthright assessment of Canada’s wrongdoing, Harper gave more reasons
for Canadians to believe the sincerity of his contrition and made it much more likely
that they would accept his apologetic efforts.
Clinton, Rudd, and Harper’s acknowledgement share two commonalities. First, all
three leaders confessed and delineated the injustices committed against their victims.
Negash (2006) termed this accounting of injustices as ‘‘reckoning.’’ Reckoning is
defined as putting the victimizer’s crimes on the historical record in some public
fashion. For example, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission took
testimony from victims of apartheid and from those who participated in black sup-
pression. By confessing and discussing the atrocities committed, both parties—the
injurer and the injured—can take stock of what has been done. In turn, this con-
straint on their relationship can be mitigated and perhaps even removed. President
Clinton fully admitted African Americans had not received the medical care they
needed. Rather, rationalized through the discourse of science, they became human
guinea pigs who were betrayed and grievously wronged by the American government.
Prime Minister Rudd’s recitation of Nanna Fejo’s story crystallized the Stolen
Generation’s suffering into one larger narrative. Her story was indicative of the thou-
sands of children forcibly removed from their homes and their identities essentially
erased, causing irreversible injury to generations of Aborigines. Prime Minister
Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future 65
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Harper used vivid language to describe the suffering of First Nation children in
Canada. They were deprived of adequate, food, shelter, and clothing. They were
denied their language and cultural practices so that they could assimilate faster. By
confessing and discussing the crimes that the American, Australian, and Canadian
governments committed it appears that the apologies of these three leaders were=
are less likely to come into question because the previously unacknowledged past
can no longer haunt the memory of the present. They fully acknowledged the
culpability of their governments. Accordingly, both groups—the injurer and the
injured—can better understand this chapter of the nation’s history and a new one
can begin.
Moreover, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper specified who their victims were. Victims
of historical wrongdoing are ‘‘the ghosts of the past that will not remain in their
graves until their stories are told’’ (Nytagodien & Neal, 2004, p. 468). For Clinton,
the victims were the ‘‘men’’ of the experiment, their ‘‘wives and children,’’ ‘‘the
community in Macon County, Alabama,’’ ‘‘the City of Tuskegee,’’ and the larger
‘‘African-American community.’’ For Rudd, it was ‘‘Nanna Fejo,’’ along with
‘‘thousands, tens of thousands. . . . Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.’’
For Harper, the victims were the ‘‘Aboriginal children’’ of the program and their
‘‘parents, grandparents, and communities.’’ By specifically discussing the injured
parties, each political leader gave voice to the ‘‘ghosts’’ of the past and their des-
cendents. These victims’ stories were finally being told. Their history, in some small
part, was being recovered. Instead of being treated as inferior members of the body
politic, these leaders recognized these victims’ humanity. In acknowledging another
person’s humanity, Shriver (1995) noted that it ‘‘lays a groundwork for both
the construction and repair of any human community’’ (p. 8). By recognizing
the victims of these injustices, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper laid the ‘‘ghosts’’ to rest
and began to ‘‘lay a groundwork’’ with their descendents to repair the communal
bonds of their ‘‘human community.’’
Mortification
A second rhetorical strategy employed by President Clinton and Prime Ministers
Rudd and Harper was the acceptance of responsibility and expression of remorse
for their government’s actions. This strategy is similar to what Burke (1945, 1961)
termed mortification. According to Burke, all human beings, including collectivities,
strive to achieve perfection through the social orders they build. These orders offer
stability. However, when that order is disturbed or imperfect, it becomes a source
of pollution or the more commonly Burkean term, guilt. For Burke, guilt serves as
the basis of drama in social relationships and motivates human behavior. Guilt is
an undesirable state of affairs that can have a debilitating impact upon society includ-
ing harming relationships among various groups (Brummett, 1980; Burke, 1945).
Consequently, guilt must be expunged. One of the ways that individuals or com-
munities can expunge this guilt is through mortification. Mortification involves a
form of self-sacrifice. The individual or community makes a symbolic offering that
66 The Southern Communication Journal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
will appease society and restore the social order. This symbolic offering then purifies
the social order, redemption is achieved, and stability is restored. By accepting
responsibility for their government’s actions and expressing remorse for that
behavior, President Clinton, and Prime Ministers Rudd and Harper attempted to
redeem their symbolic universe.
President Clinton (1997) accepted responsibility for the American government’s
actions by stating that the survivors of the Tuskegee experiment were a ‘‘living link’’
to a time that we ‘‘dare not forget’’ because ‘‘our Nation failed to live up to its ideals,
when our Nation broke the trust with our people’’ ({ 3). He explained that the
United States Public Health Service had betrayed the men of the syphilis experiment
and the African American community. The president explicitly admitted that the
‘‘United States Government did something that was completely wrong, deeply,
profoundly, morally wrong’’ ({ 5). He observed that ‘‘what the United States
Government did was shameful’’ ({ 6). Moreover, the president expressed remorse
for the government’s actions by using the words ‘‘apologize,’’ ‘‘sorry,’’ or ‘‘apology’’
eight times. The example below is representative of Clinton’s remorse. He stated:
On behalf of the American people, what the United States Government did wasshameful, and I am sorry. The American people are sorry—for the loss, for theyears of hurt. You did nothing wrong, but you were grievously wronged. Iapologize, and I am sorry that this apology has been so long in coming. ({ 5–6)
Here, Clinton accepted responsibility and expressed remorse for all Americans.
Considering the U.S. president is the only public office that can be elected by all eli-
gible, he is the singular symbolic voice of the American republic. Only he has the
mandate to speak for the entire populace. Thus, when Clinton stated that
the ‘‘American people are sorry’’ he spoke for all Americans. Through his apology,
Clinton began the process of purifying and redeeming the government’s symbolic
relationship with the African American community. The apology stabilized the
present relationship so that a stronger one could be built in the near future.
Australian Prime Minister Rudd (2008) also squarely laid the blame for the stolen
generations on shoulders of the Australian government. He asserted that it was ‘‘the
laws that our parliaments enacted that made the stolen generations possible. We,
the parliaments of the nation, are ultimately responsible, not those who gave effect
to our laws’’ ({ 14). Because of these past policies, the prime minister used words
like ‘‘apology,’’ ‘‘sorry,’’ and ‘‘apologize’’ over 20 times. One paradigmatic example
of his regret stands out. Rudd stated:
To the stolen generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia. I amsorry. On behalf of the government of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of theparliament of Australia, I am sorry. I offer you this apology without qualification.We apologize for the hurt, the pain, and suffering that we, the parliament, havecaused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted. We apologize forthe indignity, the degradation, and the humiliation these laws embodied. ({ 15)
Like Clinton, Rudd spoke on behalf of all Australians. Statements such as ‘‘the laws
that our parliaments enacted that made the stolen generations possible,’’ ‘‘I offer you
Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future 67
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
this apology without qualification,’’ and using the word ‘‘apology’’ over 20 times only
heightened Rudd’s contrition. The amount of remorse offered makes it difficult
for any critic to argue that the Prime Minister and by extension the Australian
government was not sincere in his apology. As a result, Rudd symbolically purged
the guilt from Australia’s social order, while positioning his government to build a
new relationship with Australia’s Aborigines.
Prime Minister Harper (2008) also accepted responsibility for Canada’s actions
by using the rhetorical figure of anaphora. Anaphora is a repetition of a word
or phrase at the beginning of a phrase, clause, or line (Tuman, 2008). It serves
to clarify and emphasize certain aspects of a rhetor’s discourse. Harper stated,
‘‘the government now recognizes that the consequences of the Indian Residential
Schools policy was profoundly negative and has had a lasting impact on Aboriginal
culture, heritage, and language’’ ({ 4). The prime minister then repeated the phrase
‘‘the government now recognizes’’ and its variant ‘‘we recognize’’ five times to
accept responsibility for five different consequences of the residential school policy.
For example, Harper stated, ‘‘we now recognize that it was wrong to separate
children from their families and we apologize for having done this’’ ({ 7). Conco-
mitantly, Harper apologized for the government’s actions. He used the words
‘‘apology,’’ ‘‘sorry,’’ and ‘‘apologize’’ 12 times, with five of those expressions done
in five different languages. As he told his Canadian audience, ‘‘on behalf of the
government of Canada and all Canadians, I stand before you, in this Chamber,
so central to our life as a country, to apologize to Aboriginal peoples for Canada’s
role in the Indian Residential School System’’ ({ 6). As we saw with Clinton and
Rudd, Harper spoke on behalf of all Canadians. His use of anaphora made it clear
his government fully recognized its responsibility for the harm its residential
school policy caused. By accepting responsibility and expressing remorse for his
government’s actions, Harper moved to redeem Canada and to create positive
associations between his government and its First Nations.
Clinton, Rudd, and Harper’s mortification share certain commonalities. The
United States, Australia, and Canada all had ‘‘guilt’’ within their social orders, caused
by the injustices past governments incurred on their minority communities. It was a
guilt that created a stain on the state’s relations with those groups. All three leaders
offered unequivocal apologies in order to remove this stain from their social orders.
They each presented their apology as official representatives and leaders of
their national communities, which, in that moment made them the United States,
Australia, and Canada. Consequently, their symbolic offering purged the guilt from
their social orders, creating conditions to repair and build new associations with
the African American, Aboriginal, and Canadian Indian communities.
Not only did President Clinton, Prime Minister Rudd, and Prime Minister
Harper’s mortification share striking commonalities but it also provided the opport-
unity for each leader to redefine their histories with these groups. Recall that collec-
tive apologies serve as meditations on the past, present, and future relationships of
communities. By accepting responsibility for the injustices caused by their govern-
ments, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper engaged in, what Janack (1999) termed, dystalgia.
68 The Southern Communication Journal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Dystalgia is where the rhetor depicts the past in a negative light so that it will not be
used as a guide for decision making in the present. According to Clinton, Rudd,
and Harper, the policies instituted by past American, Australian, and Canadian
governments should be viewed as aberrations. These historical mistakes instructed
present and future generations of what not to do when building and strengthening
communal ties.
At the same time, Clinton viewed his apology as the opportunity for the
American and African American communities to ‘‘build a better present and a
better future’’ and ‘‘move forward together’’ ({ 3, { 9). Prime Minister Rudd
viewed his apology as the chance for the Australian government to start a ‘‘new
chapter,’’ a ‘‘new beginning,’’ and a ‘‘new partnership with the Aboriginal
community ({ 2, { 17, and { 18). Prime Minister Harper viewed his apology as
a positive step in building a ‘‘new relationship between Aboriginal peoples and
other Canadians,’’ where both communities could ‘‘move forward together’’
({ 11). By wanting to create a ‘‘new beginning’’ and ‘‘move forward together,’’
Clinton, Rudd, and Harper signaled they were distancing themselves from the
mindset of their predecessors. They explicitly wanted to lay the groundwork for
a new relationship with the African American, Aboriginal, and Canadian First
Nation populations and by doing so they each showed their respective populations
how associations can be created and repaired. They became standard bearers for
future leaders in the United States, Australia, and Canada to emulate when building
relationships with these communities.
Corrective Action
Finally, Clinton, Rudd, and Harper pledged specific actions that would prevent
recurrences of the problem. This strategy is similar to what Benoit (1995) calls cor-
rective action. Corrective action involves a rhetor describing what actions one will
take so that problems do not reoccur. President Clinton (1997) pledged several
actions to ‘‘ensure that medical research practices are sound and ethical and that
researchers work more closely with communities’’ ({ 9). The president directed
the Department of Health and Human Services to award a planning grant to the
Tuskegee Institute to establish a center for bioethical research. Further, he ordered
the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, to issue a report that
could ‘‘best involve communities, especially minority communities, in research and
health care’’ so they can get the treatment that is needed ({ 12). As he further
noted, ‘‘every American group must be involved in medical research in ways that
are positive. We have put the curse behind us; now we must bring the benefits
to all Americans’’ ({ 12). He also ordered Secretary Shalala to create new materials
that would strengthen training in bioethics. Clinton also pledged that his adminis-
tration would grant postgraduate fellowships to train bioethicists within the African
American community. Finally, he extended the charter of the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission to strengthen guidelines for research on human subjects.
Note again Clinton’s use of time. His pledges of action were a guarantee that there
Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future 69
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
would never be a repeat of the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment; thereby, closing one
chapter in American medical history. More importantly, however, Clinton implied
that a new chapter would be opened in governmental medical research. Minority
communities would gain access to cutting edge research more so than ever before
so that research could bring ‘‘benefits to all Americans.’’ Clinton’s corrective action
suggested a new rapport could be constructed between the American government
and the African American community.
Prime Minister Rudd (2008) pledged his ‘‘new beginning’’ would entail a national
goal of having every Aboriginal child enrolled in early childhood education programs
to provide future opportunities in the Australian economy. Rudd also stated that he
would create a ‘‘war cabinet’’ to discuss parts of Indigenous policy ({ 21). This cabi-
net would ‘‘develop and implement—to begin with—an effective housing strategy for
remote communities over the next five years’’ ({ 21). This new policy, along with
others, provided a ‘‘new partnership’’ for closing the poverty gap between Aborigines
and Australians ({ 21). Similar to Clinton, Rudd’s programs were meant to close one
chapter of relations between the Australian government and Aborigines and open
another one. Rudd went so far as to declare that he would convene a ‘‘war cabinet’’
to deal with Indigenous policy. War cabinets are formed to lead countries through
times of great trial, conflict, and struggle. A war cabinet’s energies are singularly dedi-
cated to overcome some kind of great trial, conflict, and=or struggle. Rudd’s use ofthe phrase ‘‘war cabinet’’ implied that fostering a new relationship between his
government and Australia’s Aborigines would be one of his top priorities. For the
one of the few times in Australia’s history, the needs of Australia’s Aborigines would
take center stage, suggesting that reconciliation and rapprochement could occur
between these publics.
Prime Minister Harper (2008) pointed out how his government had already
enacted actions that would ensure corrective action was underway. He spoke of
the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement that had been in place for
almost a year. In the summer of 2007, the Canadian government struck an accord
with Canada’s First Nations that provided monetary payments to survivors of the
residential schools but, more importantly, established a truth and reconciliation com-
mission over the policy. According to Harper, ‘‘this commission presents a unique
opportunity to educate all Canadians on the Indian Residential Schools System. It
will be a positive step forward in forging a new relationship . . . a relationship based
on knowledge of a shared history . . . that will contribute to a stronger Canada for
all us’’ ({ 11). Similar to Clinton and Rudd’s corrective action, Harper’s establish-
ment of a truth and reconciliation commission, along with the eventual work that
it would perform, functioned to close one chapter of Canada’s historical relationship
with First Nations, while creating a new one that would construct a ‘‘stronger
Canada’’ overall.
Ultimately, all three leaders produced policies they asserted would help to rectify
and repair the legacy of damage done by historical injustices, but it was the ends of
those new policies that were of the utmost importance. According to Clinton, his
directives would help to ‘‘put the curse behind us,’’ while at the same time his policies
70 The Southern Communication Journal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
would allow ‘‘every American group,’’ including ‘‘minority communities,’’ to receive
the benefits of medical research. Prime Minister Rudd stated that his corrective
action offered a ‘‘new beginning’’ and a ‘‘new partnership’’ in Australian-Aboriginal
relations. Prime Minister Harper stated that the truth and reconciliation commission
was going to be a key toward ‘‘forging a new relationship’’ between all Canadians. For
Clinton, Rudd, and Harper, the ends of their corrective action facilitates repairing
broken communal bonds but also assists in forging future relationships based on
mutual interests and respect. The corrective action of Clinton, Rudd, and Harper,
when taken together with acknowledgement of wrongdoing and mortification, rein-
forced their ability to begin the healing and reconciliation among all victimized com-
munities.
Implications
In this article, I explored the collective apologies of U.S. President Bill Clinton,
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen
Harper. From those speeches, I can now offer a tentative theory of collective apology.
The purpose of these apologies is to begin healing the fractured relationship amongst
groups harmed by historical injustice. In turn, this healing process lays the ground-
work for a new identity to be forged between the parties. Moreover, three rhetorical
strategies will be employed by rhetors. First, collective apologies acknowledge that
wrongdoing has been committed by discussing the crimes committed and who the
victims of those crimes were. Second, they contain an admittance of responsibility
for those crimes and express remorse for them being committed. Finally, they offer
solutions to rectify and repair damage these injustices created. These components
are geared toward an offending community apologizing for its past for a better future
with offended parties. From this we can offer implications for collective apologies and
directions for further research.
First, this analysis demonstrates that there are clear differences between the genres
of apologia and collective apology. One difference is the proximity of the offense that
generates an apologia or a collective apology. With an apologia, there is typically some
kind of kategoria that precedes the need for self-defense discourse. They are, as Ryan
(1982) suggested, a speech set. That kategoria, however, occurs within a close period
of time of the apologia. Apologia are not issued for events that occurred years,
decades, even centuries earlier but are usually produced within a short period of
the offending behavior. Collective apologies, however, are not part of a speech set.
There appears to be no proximate period of time needed for an apology. President
Clinton, Prime Minister Rudd, and Prime Minister Harper all expressed remorse
for government transgressions that occurred decades earlier. Thus, a collective
apology can be generated without kategoria and are offered for injuries caused within
the distant past.
A second difference between the two genres is purpose. Rhetors who use apologia
are attempting to defend=repair their own ethos. Their focus is to extricate them-
selves or the organizations they represent out of that particular situation. Rhetors
Apologizing for the Past for a Better Future 71
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
who deliver a collective apology are not trying to defend their own self-interest;
rather they are working for the larger interest of the community they represent. Their
focus is on repairing relationships damaged by past injustices.
Finally, there are differences in the strategies used by those who issue apologia
and those who issue a collective apology. In the study of apologia, scholars have
introduced a number of options that rhetors may use to defend their ethos.
Benoit’s (1995) theory of image repair alone contains 17 different options that
speakers can use to defend themselves. By contrast, this analysis reveals that col-
lective apologists do not appear to have various rhetorical options at their dis-
posal. There are three rhetorical strategies that are part of the actual apology
and it appears all three should be present for it to be a full apology. The collective
apologist faces a situation where he or she is trying to repair damaged communal
bonds. Their apologies are a bearing of an offending community’s soul. Thus,
there is no need for the collective apologist to use strategies like denial or
reducing offensiveness. Those strategies would undermine the purpose of the
apology. Accordingly, the rhetorical strategies used by the collective apologist
are narrower in scope. This does not mean that additional components could
not be added to this theory through further research, but those components
should complement the larger goal to repair and change the relational dynamic
among communities.
A second implication of this analysis is that it has import for the larger subject of
reconciliation. In 2003, Eric Doxtader outlined the important concept of reconcili-
ation. He argued that reconciliation is both a ‘‘call for rhetoric and a form of rhetori-
cal activity’’ (p. 268). Doxtader challenged rhetorical scholars to look at the concept
in more detail. Since 2003, a number of scholars, including Hatch (2003, 2006), have
explored this subject further. Based on that research, as well as the research here,
there may be a need for a larger theory of reconciliation. Collective apologies are
merely one aspect of the reconciliation process. There are other rhetorical aspects
of the reconciliation process, such as forgiveness, that need to be further theorized.
Hatch (2003) explained that forgiveness is a natural part of the reconciliation process.
If one community does not accept an apology from another then there can certainly
be no long-term reconciliation. However, there has been little theoretical exploration
of the subject in rhetorical studies.
Other rhetorical acts within the reconciliation process may be reparations of some
kind that are considered by some to be an important part of the reconciliation pro-
cess. Reparations, according to Torpey (2006), do not have to mean some form of
monetary payment. Rather, it can be a variety of actions and gestures taken by the
offending party to reinforce the initial expressions of regret. What specific items con-
stitute reparations and their effects still need more exploration. Reconciliation does
not come from one rhetorical act. It is a process that takes time and effort on both
sides to truly build deep communal bonds. I call upon rhetorical scholars to trace
longitudinally the development of the reconciliation process and to focus on forgive-
ness, reparations, as well as other aspects that could lead to the development of an
overall theory of reconciliation.
72 The Southern Communication Journal
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f N
ebra
ska,
Lin
coln
] at
23:
26 0
5 Se
ptem
ber
2013
Finally, I noted that collective apologists revised the historical record of their
nations when they discussed past injuries committed by their governments. This his-
torical revision could certainly be part of a larger discussion on collective memory
within collective apologies. Tsosie (2006) argued that many apologies for historical
wrongdoing are part and parcel a nation’s collective memory. Future research should
focus on the rhetorical dynamics of collective memory within collective apologies and
what they may add to the genre.
As the world continues to march toward greater interdependence the likelihood of
increased interaction inevitably brings past wrongdoing back into present-day con-
versation. Apologies for historical wrongdoing will continue to be an important rhe-
torical phenomenon as communities interrogate their past, determine its effects of
the present and attempt to move forward into the future. Conversations about the
efficacy of apologies for historical transgressions should continue as communities
attempt to heal wounds caused by their ancestors.
Notes
[1] For a comprehensive listing of apologetic remarks see http://reserve.mg2.org/apologies.htm.
You can also visit the Political Apologies and Reparations Web site maintained by Wilfred
Laurier, University in Canada. There, scholars may attempt to find the texts of the apologies
and=or various accounts of those apologies http://political-apologies.wlu.ca/about.php.[2] There were a number of different labels given to these apologies. Edwards (2005) coined
the term community-focused apologies. Gibney and Roxstrom (2001) named them state
apologies. Hatch (2006) called them reconciliation apologies. Tavuchis (1991) labeled these
apologies as the ‘‘many to the many.’’ Trouillot (2002) referenced them as historical
apologies. Other scholars simply referred to them as public apologies. Throughout this
article, I use the term collective apology in reference to these rhetorical acts.
References
Achter, P. J. (2000). Narrative, intertextuality, and apologia in contemporary political scandals. The
Southern Communication Journal, 65, 318–333.
Barkan, E. (2000). The guilt of nations: Restitution and negotiating historical injustices. Baltimore:
Johns Hopkins University Press.
Barkan, E., & Karn, A. (2006). Group apology as an ethical imperative. In E. Barkan & A. Karn
