Official Apologies in the Aftermath of Political Violence

Verdeja, Ernesto

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9973.2010.01649.x

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In the literature, only “scant conceptual analysis [is] available” (Celermajer, , p. 3). In this concise body of literature, just a handful of theories are widely replicated, especially the monograph of sociologist Nicholas Tavuchis who has many followers (e.g., Augoustinos, LeCouteur, & Fogarty, ; Blatz, Schumann, & Ross, ; Borneman, ; Brown, ; Cohen, ; Corntassel & Holder, ; De Greiff, ; Digeser, ; Edwards, ; Gibbs, ; Govier & Verwoerd, ; Hatch, ; Josephs, ; Kampf, , ; Marrus, ; Naido, ; Short, ; Starzyk, Blatz, & Ross, ; Taft, ; Thompson, ; Verdeja, ; Vines, ). This article focuses on dominant theories, such as Tavuchis's, thereby neglecting contributions that have had little following.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance

Cels

2014

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, state leaders have increasingly apologized for historical wrongdoing. This article argues that there are scant conceptual tools available in current apology theory to capture the meanings of such political apologies. Salient theories treat apologies predominantly as "speech acts," and this perspective produces frameworks of analysis that are preoccupied with linguistic features (e.g., the phrasing of the utterance of the apologizer). This article points to the limitations of this approach by arguing that dramaturgical aspects of performance are equally important. Political apologies are frequently offered during public ceremonies. Reactions in their aftermath indicate that the setup of those ceremonies matter to the victims, who, as primary addressees, assign meanings to the act. Current apology theory, however, gives little consideration to this observation. "What is said" matters most; "where and how it is said" is being neglected. The article concludes with a proposal for future research, which includes the reimagining of political apology as "performance" -a concept that gives credence to both formal speech and dramaturgy.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance

Cels

2014

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As is now widely accepted within the domain of political philosophy, public apologies are an important component of any effort at reparation. Far from being ‘mere symbols’, extraneous to the pursuit of justice, they underpin the whole work of moral repair by providing a public acknowledgment of wrongdoing and a commitment to ensure that it never happens again (Thompson, 2008; Govier and Verwoerd, 2002; Verdeja, 2010; Mihai, 2013 ). If nothing else, however, the prominence of the purification motif in the Apology ought to give us pause for thought.…”

Section: Reconciliation the History Wars And The Apologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Understood in ideal terms, the ethical core of a political apology resides in the promise of ‘never again’. This, as Verdeja points out, ‘means that the apology is not fully instantiated when it is given’ – it lives on, indefinitely as it were, in the form of a commitment to a certain way of being and relating in the future (Verdeja, 2010: 567). Aboriginal people were thus quite within their rights to withhold their acceptance of the Apology until such time as Australia took the necessary steps to reconstitute itself.…”

Section: The Apology Transcendence and Narcissistic Fusionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A reconciliation most desirable: Shame, narcissism, justice and apology

Muldoon

2017

International Political Science Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper seeks to draw attention to the narcissistic dimensions of the reconciliation movement in Australia and, more specifically, to the way in which the desire to ‘make innocent’ compromises the attempt to ‘make amends’ and construct a just polity. Building upon some early work by Anthony Moran (1998) and Elizabeth Povinelli (1998), it sets out to defend two claims: firstly, that the intensity of the desire for reconciliation in Australia (and conceivably in other settler colonial states as well) is attributable to the sense of shame arising from the collapse of the national ego ideal; and secondly, that the real target of the reparative efforts undertaken under the auspices of reconciliation is the healing of the ‘narcissistic injury’ inflicted by the failure of the assimilation project and the assertion of Aboriginal separateness.

show abstract

“…Many works reflect the influence of religious perspectives in their understanding of what reconciliation means. Usually, this influence takes the form of references to elements such as forgiveness (Brewer et al, 2010;Chan and Arvey, 2011;David and Choi, 2006;Mukashema and Mullet, 2012;Staub et al, 2005;Tam and Hewstone, 2008;Worthington and Aten, 2010), apologies (Gibson, 2006;Rigney, 2012;Staub, 2006;Verdeja, 2010), repentance (Amstutz, 2006;Lederach, 1999), or guilt (Behrendt and Ben-Ari, 2012;Lu 2008;Wüstenberg, 2009); or direct advocacy for a role for religious leaders in reconciliation processes (Clark, 2010;Horn, 2010).…”

Section: Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Reconciliation: A comprehensive framework for empirical analysis

Rettberg

Ugarriza

2016

Security Dialogue

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There appears to be a rift between the theoretical and normative understandings of what reconciliation means and offers, and what people expect to happen in postconflict scenarios. Here we present a conceptual framework that captures the definitional diversity surrounding the concept of reconciliation and then operationalizes it in order to analyze responses from postconflict populations. The illustrative application of our framework to responses from a representative survey of 1,843 Colombian citizens reveals that people’s convictions are just as diverse as scholars’. Nevertheless, significant proportions of respondents seem to understand reconciliation to be primarily a psychological and political process which aims to achieve the re-establishment of quotidian or day-to-day relations and cooperation; which should be preceded by the cessation of violence, dialogue, goodwill, and attitudinal and emotional change; and which should be accompanied by social welfare and security. It is noteworthy that understandings of reconciliation as a process mediated by justice, truth, and memory are scarce. The application of this framework will help to reveal differences between hopes and promises, and inform scholarly work and policymaking that is more realistically rooted.

show abstract

Official Apologies in the Aftermath of Political Violence

Cited by 18 publications

References 20 publications

Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance

Interpreting Political Apologies: The Neglected Role of Performance

A reconciliation most desirable: Shame, narcissism, justice and apology

Reconciliation: A comprehensive framework for empirical analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About