"I don't care about an apology," said Angela Burt-Murray, editor in chief of Essence magazine. "You're not a child on the playground. You're an adult who needs to take responsibility for his actions. And there need to be consequences."
This, to me, is an instant gratification culture gone mad. To Burt-Murray, I ask, What qualifies as 'taking responsibility' for the words one has spoken? In my mind, taking responsibility usually means righting whatever wrongs have been inflicted on others, and accepting the consequences you have created for yourself. When the wrongful act is speech, and when the wrong inflicted is offense, what means other than an apology is needed to right it? It's not like there is a physical injury to remedy by, say, paying someone's medical bills, or property damage to be remedied by replacing or repairing said property. And to the extent that the wrong inflicted is a harmful idea propagated through society, what remedy besides negating that idea is necessary? For most speech-related "offenses," a public mea culpa should right the wrongs caused.
Which brings me to consequences... Apparently, when Burt-Murray says "consequences," she means artificial rather than natural. After all, the natural consequences are the harms caused by the conduct, both to the individual and the injured. In this case, the consequences are Imus' humiliation, a loss of audience and revenue for his program, private offense, and, perhaps, a public harm flowing through the marketplace of ideas. Now, in the case that the offender is able to remedy the harm caused to others, what role do artificial consequences have to play? I argue none. The function of artificial consequences should be, to borrow economic lingo, to internalize externalities. If it was the case that someone committed a wrong upon others that s/he did not, or could not, remedy his/herself, then artificial consequences should be imposed to close the gap (E.g., an action in tort against someone who did not pay up). By forcing would-be wrongful actors to pay face the costs of their actions, the wrongful conduct is deterred. That should be enough. Going beyond that level of consequence is simply vindictive, and that's why this comment bothers me. It isn't about righting a wrong--by definition, it's punitive. And when the implied consequence sought is the termination of one's employment, the punishment quite simply does not fit the "crime," so this is outside the realm of deterrence. It's being done just to hurt him. It's anger, not reason.
Cohen was careful to note that there ARE times when apologies are meaningful. When you're in a fight, for example, and you say something hurtful at the height of passion, your apology means something.
Or when your apology has real meaning, such as recent official apologies for slavery by the Virginia Legislature and the North Carolina Senate.
Or when the person apologizing shows real, undeniable remorse and a clear intention never to repeat a similar offense again. Few people believe that about Imus, Cohen says.
This snip came after a few paragraphs about how meaningless public apologies are. The last part of this almost makes sense, but I question why it is only an "intention" of not repeating the conduct that is necessary. A meaningful apology to me is one that leaves the injured person with no doubt that the conduct will not occur again. After all, the recipient has an interest in preventing harm to him/herself, but has no interest in a 3rd party's mental state. With this criticism in mind, I'll now go to the beginning of these remarks.
The examples of meaningful apologies this guy gives are bunk. An apology for something done at the height of passion will be meaningless in most situations. Take Michael "Kramer" Richards, for example. Looking at his breakdown/rant, it's hard not to conclude that those were his true feelings that came out, and that he was suppressing them in public until the "real Kramer" broke through the shell. We don't consider him to be genuinely remorseful, because we think he really meant what he said. We also don't have any confidence that he won't engage in any racist conduct in the future for the same reason. Your typical domestic "fight" isn't much different--those are suppressed feelings coming out too. The speaker might be sorry about having said what he/she did, but a retraction of the statement itself would be a lie in the vast majority of cases.
And as for an official apology from a legislative body, all I can say is 'what the hell are you smoking?' How can the public remarks of any politician be understood to be 'genuine remorse' rather than political interest? How can any person be genuinely remorseful about something someone else did? What meaning does an assurance that something won't happen again mean when the people we did it are long dead, and the legal system that permitted it had been altered long ago? To quote an old chain letter, "he's not familiar with the problem."
As for myself, I think that the public apology deserves to have a role in our society, especially since so many of the harms society gripes about are emotional, rather than tangible. Emotional harms can't be remedied by compensation, nor can they be remedied by revenge. If an emotional harm is significant enough for us to pay attention, the best that can be done is for us to have an assurance that it won't happen again. Having a public apology to "dissect" for significance and sincerity is the best way to get that assurance.
(But as for conduct resulting in tangible harms, then yes, talk is cheap. Pay up.)
No comments:
Post a Comment