Thanks, but no thanks: against apologetic politics

My dad phoned me this afternoon. He read me a letter he had gotten from the Congress of Neurological Surgeons. The letter apologized for offending some people who had written in opposition to Salman Rushdie's speaking at the Congress's annual meeting. I don't have a copy of the letter. So, my diatribe is based in my biased memory.

As I recall, the gist of the letter was something to the effect of, gee, we didn't intend to offend anyone, this is about art and creativity and the advancement of knowledge, so, gee, sorry if you are offended. It took no moral or political stance; there was no intention of offending anyone, so, really, no one should look at it as anything more than an invitation to an important offer--after all, Rushdie was recently knighted for his creativity. This was an apology without responsibility. The authors of the letter took no responsibility for the fact that Rushdie was being invited precisely because of his political position and that inviting him is necessarily a divisive political act. Rather, they issued a letter that seemed like something written by a committee. It seemed like a turd.

Apologetic politics seems to have the following structure. A group making a claim to a violation of fundamental rights--typically human rights insofar as part of the reason for an apology rather than, say, a criminal or civil judgment seems to be that the overall problem is that the afflicted group had no recognized rights at the time of the crime--demands of institution X an apology. The institution could be a person (usually a political of public figure), a discipline, university, corporation, or state. In demanding the apology, the group is knocking institution X off its high horse; it is removing its claim to legitimacy, undermining its moral basis (to this extent, apologetic politics relies on the logic of publicity and shaming I critique in Publicity's Secret).

This undermining seems also to help establish that the aggrieved group counts or matters, that crimes against them are actually crimes, that they are not simply homines sacri, property, or animals. In a way, it's as if there is a primary or primal store of moral worth and that the raising up of the aggrieved and afflicted can only occur if the some of the moral worth institution X flows away from it and to them. Less extremely, we can say that the afflicted group is committed to a vision of themselves in the future that demands acknowledgement that harms against them in the past were harms, that they were wrong, that they were crimes.

Governments and companies, particularly those with knowledge of basic public relations skill, have developed effective ways of responding to and defanging demands for apologies. They can respond to the letter of the demand--apologize--by not only retaining their moral position but by shielding it. Unfortunately, this shielding, in its very efficacy, ends up staining and soiling everything it touches. Its like some kind of super-adhesive excrement that one can never quite wipe off.

How do they do? As I've already suggested, they do it by displacing the problem onto the feelings of those who claim or ask for an apology. The issue is how they feel about the crime, not the crime. Gee, sorry you feel so badly about slavery, forced prostitution, the holocaust, being called a fag or a water-buffalo. So, they apologize, but take no responsibility. They apologize, performatively giving in or submitting, even as the content of their utterance has no effect on their position of enunciation, as it would and should were they actually apologizing or playing the political game that those demanding the apology are trying to get them to play.

Apologetic politics is a dead end for the left. It's suitable only to those who want to maintain, vigorously, the status quo. Perhaps, after all, the Congress of Neurological Surgeons' letter hit precisely the right note.  But, that's a shame, especially if we want doctors to have clean hands.

Comments

[khalid mir]

Good post, Jodi.
I think you're quite right: there is a tendency to say: "I'm sorry that YOU feel offended" or "I'm sorry that you are hurt". Blair is master of apologising without apologising.

But I'd also look at it the other way. Why is everyone so offended (or so easily offended) nowadays)? One only has to disagree with someone's views to be subject to a diatribe or stream of abuse whereas in former times one would often hear: let's agree to disagree or , I hear where you're coming from, and so on.

I mean, if Rushdie is asked to speak why is that "politically divisive"? If he is given a knighthood why are people offended?

So, I wouldn't look at just how power displaces genuine reflection (and apolgies) but why there is a demand for them in the first place...how the system actually encourages people to whinge about *everything*, to inflate every small issue into something of monumental importance.

Example: the veil and Jack Straw (if you followed it). This is about freedom,"our way of life". No, muslims are deeply offended by his comments and demand an apology. And all the time the fundamental issue of the lack of economic, political and social justice for women is displaced.

To be offended by small matters is really an infantilizing of the public (in my opinion).