NOTES ON APOLOGIES
Apologies are one of the great healers of interpersonal wounds. It is a great misfortune that the art of apologizing is so widely misunderstood.
The first, and perhaps the most grievous misunderstanding results from the confusion over when apologies are required. Here is a simple example: “Paul! That hurt your sister! I want you to apologize to her.” Paul: “Why? I didn’t do anything wrong!” Paul is complaining that his parent has accused him of doing something wrong, and since he did not (at least in his view), no apology is required. Apologies, however, do not presume someone has done something wrong. Apologies are required because someone has been injured in some way. The apology acknowledges the injury, whether physical or mental, and affirms both regret and the intention not to cause further injury. Paul, learning from his parent, will, in the best of circumstances, be able to say, “Ginny, I’m sorry I hurt you. I didn’t mean to and I won’t do it again.” Paul need not feel he is a bad boy who has done something “wrong,” but he does need to affirm he had a hand in hurting his sister, and that is something not permitted in healthy family life. Having some hand in causing distress matters, whether intentional or not. This distress is relieved by a good apology. Our intention is a side issue. A benign intention may mitigate the wound, but it does not diminish the need to acknowledge it and express regret. Being “wrong” or not, has no place in determining the need to apologize.
The injured party determines the need for an apology, not the offending party. In recalling my own years tormenting my own little sister, I believe I often complained, “But that shouldn’t hurt her! I only touched her!” In other words, I should be the one to assess whether she was injured or not. I was wrong. The offended party determines whether there has been some offence. Only the offended person can know if they have been hurt.
Or was I wrong after all? As a general principle, it is always the one suffering distress who is best suited to know whether they have been hurt or not (meaning upset, wounded, bothered, put out, offended, and so on).*
However, there are false claims of injury as well as genuine claims, and these present a problem. What if I did “just touch her?” at which point, she hollered, “Mom, he’s trying to hurt me!” Well, it is possible that she suspected there was worse to come and was seeking a refuge prior to the escalation. Or, it may be that she took some pleasure in seeing her older brother reprimanded. In the first case, her complaint is legitimate, although perhaps badly articulated. She lives in fear of her sibling’s torments, a legitimate complaint certainly, but confusing when she complains she has been hurt before it has actually happened. A more complex investigation, perhaps by the wise parent in this case, is required. The tormenter (me, in this example) must understand the complaint: “You make your sister live with the worry that you are going to hurt her. Your teasing her is mean. Your need to apologize, and stop doing it.” Being an ethical sibling, I would then acknowledge my offense, take responsibility for it, and issue an appropriate apology, easing my sister’s apprehensions. “I’m sorry I make you worry I’m going to hurt you. I will really try to stop doing that.” Well, that’s the best case.
But, we’re not done. What about the second case in which my sister’s complaint is falsified? She is neither hurt, nor is she in fear of being hurt. She is simply calling on parental disapproval of me for he own reasons. In the legal universe, this is a serious problem: say a man was in a mild fender-bender and complains of debilitating neck injuries that prevent him from working. He sues for damages and collects disability. But his claims of injury are spurious and without merit. He is cheating the system. Of course, the requirement in such situations must be to determine the legitimacy of the claim of injury. Legal machinery and review boards try to achieve this in these sorts of cases, but what can be done in interpersonal disputes?
The skepticism must be expressed. Care to avoid the immediate conclusion that the complaining person is lying are wise to avoid. Were I to have loudly exclaimed after my sister’s complaint, “You’re lying!” we would have made little progress in resolving the dispute. Were I to have said (as I hope I may have, although I’m doubtful), “I’m having a hard time believing that little gesture could really have hurt you much,” then we might have had a chance. Our mother would have had the unenviable task of discovering the truth. Wise parents usually split the difference: “I don’t think your brother really hurt you, but I know he sometimes does. I want you to stop complaining when you’re not really hurt. And I want you to stop doing anything to hurt your sister; either her feelings or in any other way.” Not an entirely bad outcome. Both parties bear, and hopefully acknowledge some responsibility. When this responsibility is genuinely taken up, social healing occurs. Really useful apologies depend on this: genuine acceptance of responsibility.
Suppose we consider somewhat more mature players? Let’s suppose members of a social group, like a bridge club that gathers every six weeks, also meet occasionally for other social events. One member has a birthday and has invited ten of the twelve members for a party. The couple left out feels injured and expresses their dismay. Social wounds of this sort are commonplace and frequently go unrepaired. The sidelined couple will often feel as though it is wiser to hold their tongue, suspecting they will not receive satisfaction. In the worst case, they might be lied to, as in, “the invitation must have been lost in the mail.” [the email!?] Or, they will hear a flimsy excuse, such as, “we meant to, but our house just wasn’t big enough for everyone with our kids there also.”
Of course, the birthday couple made a genuinely hurtful choice. A group that gathers regularly will presume that everyone will, at a minimum, be informed when a gathering of any sort is planned. The birthday couple snubbed one other couple and communicated an unwelcoming message. Hurtful. Can an apology have any utility here? Yes, without question. The need is urgent if the group is to survive. Two criteria must be satisfied. First, no apology can accomplish much unless the offense given is fully understood and acknowledgedby whoever has given offense. Saying, “I’m sorry if that hurt your feelings,” is worthless and likely therefore to give further offense. The offender, in order to offer a truly healing apology, must show a complete and thorough understanding of the injury. In this, they affirm they know the harm they have caused and accept responsibility for it. Dodges like, “Oh, for God’s sake, it’s such a little thing,” fail in this regard and deepen the wound. Responses like this blame the victim in order to spare the responsible parties and they worsen the situation. Saying, “Oh, I’m mortified! We must have made you feel so horrible, as though we didn’t want you. That was unacceptably rude of us and I hope you’ll be able to forgive us,” begin to sound more satisfying.
Second, a meaningful apology must be credible. The last expression of remorse sounds credible, but it offers no alternative explanation for the snub that is the problem in the first place, so it falls short. Regret means something, but it explains nothing. Regret alone fails to assume sufficient responsibility. Why was the snub carried out at all? Let’s imagine: suppose the host says, “Honestly, Louise, the last time we were together, I thought you were so furious with me [for something], I just got so angry myself, I didn’t want to see you for a while. Not having you to the birthday was an immature way to handle it though, and I’m very regretful and ashamed of myself. I apologize to you.” Now we’re getting somewhere. Louise may not be satisfied yet, but hopefully we can feel as though we are making progress.
This example raises a common problem. It’s a serious one because it tends to affect people who are close to one another, who have long histories and are important in each other’s lives. Oddly, then good apologies are frequently more problematic between intimates than they are between people who are not close. Have you noticed how easy it is, and how easily people seem to apologize for small slights in public? We back up a step in the theatre lobby and bump into someone standing behind us. Perhaps they spill a bit of their wine. “Oh! Excuse me! I’m awfully sorry!” comes easily enough to most of us. Perhaps even, “Let me replace your wine,” which makes our effort to make amends even better. Our offer is generously refused and the other party says, “Please don’t worry about it. This lobby is just too small for all of us.” All parties are again comfortable. With our birthday couple, having snubbed their friends, but having also acknowledged their childish retaliation for an earlier fight, we discover history looms over the slight. The hurtful act was retaliatory. It expressed anger over an earlier grievance: Louise’s anger at the host when they last got together. People close to one another frequently have a backlog of complaints, expressed and unexpressed; known and unknown. In the worst of circumstances these unresolved complaints can pile up and accumulate, and then be expressed in passive, sarcastic, or unintelligible ways. Marriages end this way. Business partners contact lawyers owing to unresolved injuries. Old injuries, historic grievances, infect current injuries. A wife complains, in strong language filled with accusation, “You haven’t listened to me for ten years! You’re so selfish, no one could live with you!” Her husband is stunned. Not only is he aware that she is angry that he didn’t listen to something proximate, but apparently he has been offending her for many years. A husband says to his spouse, “I work as hard as I can, and you never appreciate anything I do. You just ride me for being inadequate for not bringing home enough! You have no respect! I’ve had it!”
These are dangerous moments. The previously contained grievances behave like water building to dangerous levels behind a fragile dam. When the dam gives way, serious harm may ensue in the flood of emotion released. How can we avoid an outraged response? Such as, “I never knew you had such a terrible impression of me.” Responses like this, reflexive often in the moment, can easily lead to escalations and a sense that the partner has concealed a demeaning opinion that could shatter the trust in the relationship. In the best of all worlds, the accused has access to curiosity: “Is it really true that you have felt that I haven’t listened to you for many years? I never knew that. I’m very concerned about that.” This is very difficult for someone who feels vulnerable and misunderstood, but it is, nevertheless, extremely valuable. And it must be sustained. The wife may retort: “I’ve told you this about a thousand times!”
“Bullshit!” is best restrained in favor of, “Then I have to understand I have not paid enough attention. I am sorry.” A willingness to acknowledge that you have played some part in the current distress of your partner nearly always tends to relax the strains of the moment. Remember, apologies are notabout being wrong. They are about understanding we have somehow caused hurt.
In the instance of the wife complaining her husband does not listen, a wise husband must appreciate his wife is telling him something important about her ownexperience. She is not, despite her accusatory language, in charge of defining his worth as a person, something that would pressure him to defend himself. She is declaring she is injured. Well, let’s then get to the bottom of this. Let’s remedy the situation.
For our husband who feels disrespected, the ideal wife must struggle then to appreciate how this has come about. She may feel that this is a chronic problem of his in multiple circumstances and that she has nothing to do with it. This does not obviate the need for patient and sympathetic inquiry. No apology will accomplish much until there is sturdy evidence that the offender has understoodthe complaint.
Even severe wounds can respond to patient and sympathetic concern. People freed from the worry that having somehow contributed to causing an injury condemns them to being bad people, and who are openly willing to take on whatever responsibility they can, will heal many interpersonal wounds.
#################
* Consider an example: you joke with an acquaintance that his mother must have had some difficult trait that influenced him in some way. You are lighthearted and teasing. You were not aware his mother had passed away two weeks earlier, and his sudden sorrow and distress confuses you. He explains his recent loss and you are suddenly horrified by your insensitivity and beg his forgiveness. You cannot know what may cause pain to another person simply from the knowledge of the dialogue. Internal matters known only to the injured party are always in play. In this instance, the wound is fresh and easy to empathize with. In other circumstances when the wound is old history, perhaps the mother was murdered when this man was a child, we may still cause him great pain in this example. The wound is no less real because its existence could not be suspected by the offending person. Only the sufferer is in a position to determine its presence.
