The Greek word apologia, according to Isocrates, means “a defense speech.” He explains that Gorgias claimed to have written an encomium about Helen, a formal expression of praise, but that “he has actually spoken a defense (apologia) for what she did” (10.14). An apologia was a justification or explanation of one’s actions in the event that those alleged actions unintentionally hurt or offended another. Aristotle places apologia, defense, in opposition to kategoria, accusation, as the two categories of forensic speaking. Apologia can also be connected to the Greek word apologue, meaning “appeasing and persuading the rude or ignorant through comparisons made in the form of a fable.”_ The OED makes this link, which may help explain the evolution of the classical definition of apologia toward our colloquial use of the term apology.
An apology (a term usually mistakenly used interchangeably with apologia) is “the pleading off from a charge or imputation...; defense of a person or vindication of an institution, etc., from accusation or aspersion.”_ While an apology may offer justification for one’s actions, it is an act of contrition, supplication or appeasement (relating it to the term apologue). An admission of guilt, often an apology’s purpose is to beg forgiveness for some transgression. So, the term makes the very interesting move from a statement of self-defense to one of confession.
In contemporary communication studies apologia is a genre unto itself, referring to the statement made by an individual or organization after a crisis of some kind. The rhetorical act may or may not contain an apology. According to a classic article on apologia, the defining factors of verbal self-defense are denial, bolstering, differentiation and transcendence._ Since 1973, genre criticism has gained prominence in the field of rhetoric, as have apologia studies. Oratory by public figures is analyzed using Ware & Linkugel’s method or some variation of it, such as Hearit’s social legitimacy theory as applied to the Exxon oil spill crisis in 1989._ Critics find it useful to classify rhetorical acts by genre, something the ancient Greek thinkers, with their rhetorical categories and taxonomies, already knew.
1 Burton, Gideon O. Silva Rhetoricae. Brigham Young University. Accessed 3/5/07 at http://humanities.byu.edu/rhetoric/silva.htm_2 Oxford English Dictionary. Accessed 3/5/07 at http://dictionary.oed.com_3 Ware, B.L. and Wil A. Linkugel. (1973) “They spoke in defense of themselves: on the generic criticism of apologia.” The Quarterly Journal of Speech, 53, 279-289._4 Hearit, Keith Michael. (1995). “‘Mistakes were made’: organizations, apologia and crises of social legitmacy.” Communication Studies, 46, 1-16._
4 comments:
Dani,
I find your analysis very interesting. It is very odd that we have come to use the term apology to describe something that it is not. To truly be sorry and ask forgiveness of something would never entail a justification or defense--apologia-- for what was done. To do so would be quite contrary to asking forgiveness. I think would be quite fascinating to find out why this shift takes place.
I would have to figure out exactly when the definition makes the move from defense to supplication to relate it to social/cultural movements of the time, which is probably the place to find the answer to the why question. I think maybe it just happens in the translation from the Greek 'apologia' to the English 'apology.' If so, talk about lost in translation...
I found your analysis of the historical and contemporary use of apologia to be quite fascinating. It drove me to seek out Bill Clinton's speech to the American public about the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Here, he provided both justification for his actions and expressed remorse.
Providing justification for our actions, I believe, is stemmed from maintaining positive "face" (how we present ourselves in social situations and how our audience reacts to our interactions). I can imagine that this desire to maintain our face is even stronger when one is in a position of leadership that constitutes constant public scrutiny (as was President Clinton).
I'm hard pressed to believe that justification and "to be truly sorry" for our actions were ever incongruent. Don't we have a natural desire to be viewed favorably by the community in which we live?
Bill's speech: http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-sp1.html
I'm glad I understand the difference between the etymology of apology and apologia. I think it's harder to confuse them in your head if you know more about them. This reminds me of a group called The Yes Men. Wikipedia said, "The Yes Men are a group of culture jamming activists who practice what they call "identity correction" by pretending to be powerful people and spokespersons for prominent organizations." By identity correction, The Yes Men mean they bring out the aspects of an organization they feel are unethical and highlight them in their impersonations. Often times this highlighting takes the form of apologia.
Again, from Wikipedia, "On December 3, 2004, the twentieth anniversary of the Bhopal disaster, Andy Bichlbaum [4] appeared on BBC World as "Jude Finisterra", a Dow Chemical spokesman. Dow is the owner of Union Carbide, the company responsible for the chemical disaster which killed thousands and left over 120,000 requiring lifelong care… "Finisterra" went on the news to claim that Dow planned to liquidate Union Carbide and use the resulting $12 billion to pay for medical care, clean up the site, and fund research into the hazards of other Dow products. After two hours of wide coverage, Dow issued a press release denying the statement, ensuring even greater coverage of the phony news of a cleanup."
The Yes Men invented an apologia for a third party, and by the rejection of the apologia by the third party, the party must create apologia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men#Dow_Chemical
love, your friend,
Stephanie
Post a Comment