Web viewThrough the analysis of these discourses, it is my ... the word “sorry” has a ... victimage occurs when an individual encounters guilt and attempts to

Running head: VIOLATING THE NORMS OF THE APOLOGETIC SCRIPT

Crying and Transparency: Violating the Norms of the Apologetic Script

James R. Briscoe

University of Memphis

1

VIOLATING THE NORMS OF THE APOLOGETIC SCRIPT

Abstract

All forms of discourse follow constructed parameters based upon the socio-

cultural setting the discourse is presented within. Examples of this include when an

individual asks another individual how he or she is feeling. The expected and typical

response is “fine” or “good.” Previous interdisciplinary examinations have illustrated and

provided evidence as to why rhetorical constructs are followed. When the parameters of

discourse are violated, the intended audience is forced to make an evaluation/response

that is atypical of similar non-violated rhetorical situations. As a result, the rhetorical

exchange between the audience and the rhetor becomes unpredictable. One area of

society where violations seldom occur is in political communication, specifically

apologies made by political figures. When an individual is elected to political office,

much of the rhetorical exchanges this individual will encounter will attempt to follow

appropriate protocols or scripts. The apology is no different. Numerous political

apologies have been examined within the rhetorical genre of apologia throughout history.

As a result, typologies, frameworks and theories have been identified and constructed in

an attempt to explain and understand this form of discourse. However, few examinations

attempt to discuss the existence or nature of the apologetic script and the potential

consequences if the script of apology is deviated or violated. This manuscript analyzes

two scandals in which politicians violated the sociocultural parameters of the apology.

These rhetorical addresses surprised their intended audiences who in turn provided

evaluations/responses that surprised political pundits and critics alike.

Key words: Apologia, scripts, apology script, political communication

2


Crying and Transparency: Violating the Norms of the Apologetic Script

Whether it is a family or an entire society, there are shared rhetorical values that

are inherent within social constructs that develop over time. This can be seen across the

world in various forms of rhetorical discourse from salutations to eulogies. Each society

therefore has thus created and recognized these rhetorical “scripts” that allow each

individual to operate appropriately within the boundaries of each script. The purpose of

these anticipated scripts is to provide a framework whereby discourse may be

communicated more effectively, free from chaos and misunderstanding. As such,

dependent upon the rhetorical situation, the rhetorical script within that situation changes.

When an individual or audience moves from one rhetorical situation to the next, the

constructs of the scripts become subconsciously acknowledged, enabling all who are

engaged in that particular discourse to have a series of expectations or beliefs in the

discourse that is being exchanged. This is practiced daily worldwide and is probably best

seen in one of the most common rhetorical exchanges: the apology. All communities

have expectations with the apologetic script. In its simplest form, an accusation is

charged, and an individual has to account for his or her actions that have been deemed

offensive. The result of which is the exchange of apologia discourse. While the

motivations of the audience and apologist may differ greatly, both parties have a general

understanding and expectation of the constructs of the apologetic address and as such

anticipate various elements of the rhetorical address. However, what happens when the

apologetic script is violated, and how does such a violation affect the expectations of

those engaged in that particular form of rhetorical discourse?

3


While some rhetorical scholars acknowledge the existence of the apologetic

script, previous apologia scholarship does not account for violations of the apologetic

script and their associated consequences. As a result, deviations and any associated

strategies that assist an apologist in violating the norms and expectations of the apology

are relatively unknown. This study therefore attempts to examine two addresses in which

the apologetic script was violated and their associated outcomes and reactions.

The Formulation and Adherence to the Apologetic Script

Previous rhetorical examinations of apologies have primarily examined the

rhetorical strategies used by accused individuals in their associated attempts to “save,”

“repair,” “restore,” or “reconstruct” his or her public image or identity. According to

rhetorical scholar James Murphy, previous “studies into apologies…have by and large,

been couched in speech act theory.”1 The results of these studies have created an

overabundance of proposed frameworks and typologies of accounts that attempt to

describe or identify the generic elements of the rhetorical situation of apologia addresses.

This acknowledgement of previous examinations, however, is not an attempt to negate

the value of previous apologetic studies, but rather is a justification for my intervention

into the discipline and this area of inquiry.

Accounts, as identified by previous scholars, are statements provided by an

apologist that attempts “to explain unanticipated or untoward behavior.”2 While rhetorical

scholars generally accept this definition of accounts, the typology/formation of the

account continues to be a source of controversy within apologia examination. According

to rhetorical scholar Erving Goffman, the creation of an apologetic account can be

1 James Murphy, “Revisiting the Apology as a Speech Act,” Journal of Language and Politics 14, no. 2 (2015): 175.2 Marvin Scott and Stanford Lyman, “Accounts,” American Sociological Review 33, no. 1 (1968): 46-62.

4


systemically documented through four phases: a challenge, an offering,

acceptance/rejection, and gratitude.3 Thus, the “scripts of expectations” of an apology by

both parties can be traced from the inception of an accusation to the conclusion and

acceptance/rejection of the apology. While this is simplistic in its rhetorical formulation,

some scholars believe Goffman’s typology overcomplicates or inaccurately represents by

in large what occurs in the formation of an apologetic account. Richard Buttny argues

that an apologetic episode occurs in three steps: problematic event, an account by those

held responsible, and an evaluation of the explanation. Where Buttny differs from

Goffman is the apologetic formulation does not have to primarily be based upon an

accusation or a reproach. Victims may not know of the offensive act until the offender

provides a statement describing it, or the victim may choose not to reproach the offender

at all, but rather wait until the explanation for the offensive act is given.4 Rhetorical

scholars Michael Cody and M. McLaughlin echoed this assertion, believing that an

apologetic sequence follows: a request for repair, a remedy offered, and an

acknowledgement of the offering.5 Further complicating this rhetorical act, rhetorical

scholar Peter Schonbach believed that an apologetic situation does not necessarily have to

start with an offense but can do so with a failure as well, allowing for a broader scope of

what rhetorical acts are considered within the realm of apologetic discourse.6 Focusing

primarily on the accused individual, psychology scholar Aaron Lazare believed that the

apologetic process could be divided into four parts: acknowledgement of the offense, the 3 Erving Goffman, Interaction Ritual: Essays in Face-To-Face Behavior (Chicago: Aldine, 1967), 4-45.4 Richard Buttny, “Sequence and Practical Reasoning in Accounts Episodes,” Communication Quarterly 35, no. 1 (1987): 77.5 Michael Cody and M. McLaughlin, “Models for the Sequential Construction of Accounting Episodes: Situational and Interactional Constraints on Message Selection and Evaluation,” in Sequence and Pattern in Communication Behavior, ed. Richard Street and Joseph Capella (London: E. Arnold, 1985), 39.6 Peter Schonbach, “A Category System for Account Phases,” European Journal of Social Psychology 10, no. 2 (1980).

5


explanation, behaviors exhibiting levels of shame, and reparations.7 For Lazare, the

“importance of each part—even the necessity of each part—varies from apology to

apology depending on the situation.”8

Yet while these scholars’ examinations have primarily focused on the apologist

and the script that involves the accused and the audience, the scholarship has

consequently overlooked a key element that creates the apologetic exigence: the

accusation or attack. According to rhetorical scholar Halford Ryan, in order for scholars

to understand apologia more completely, rhetorical scholarship must “treat accusation

and apology as a speech set.”9 Understanding the discourse of attack and defense as a

speech set allows greater insights into the potential motivations and selection of issues of

those who attack and allows rhetorical scholars a greater ability to assess the apologetic

response.10 The acknowledgement of such a speech set reinforces the existence of the

apologetic script. This form is important for rhetorical scholars to understand as it

provides insights into the apologetic form, which is the precursor to the apologetic script.

According to rhetorical scholar William Benoit, while previous apologetic

scholarship “may not agree on whether it is the problematic event or a reproach…which

constitutes the initial part of” an apologetic sequence, as this simple review illustrates, the

majority of scholars do agree on a universal form or script for apologetic discourse.11 The

process of the apologetic script is as follows: “a person commits…an act that appears

7 Aaron Lazare, On Apology (North Carolina: Oxford, 2005), 34-358 Ibid., 35.9 Halford Ryan, “Kategoria and Apologia: On Their Rhetorical Criticism as a Speech Set,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 254.10 Ibid.11 William Benoit, Accounts, Excuses, and Apologies: A theory of Image Restoration Strategies (Albany: State of New York Press, 1995) 39.

6


undesirable to another person or persons.”12 This results in a “reproach or request for a

repair.”13 Due to the offensive nature of the act or the reproach, itself “provokes a

response,” known as the “actor’s account.”14 The account is “evaluated by the person or

persons to whom it was issued.” If successful, the “offending actor may offer thanks for

acceptance of the account.”15

While this apologetic script may seem simplistic, it must be remembered “an

apology is remarkably complex and yet simple and straightforward at the same time.”16

Numerous variables affect the apologetic script, which include but are not limited to the

delivery of an apology and areas of the script the apologist may need to emphasize. The

culturally constructed script of an apology allows apologists and their associated

audiences appropriate parameters to act apologetically. Examples of the practice of the

apologetic script can be seen daily throughout society but within this manuscript, we will

analyze political instances and practices of the apologetic script.

One historical example is the “Checkers Speech” delivered by Republican vice-

presidential candidate Richard Nixon. Nixon was accused by his opponents of using

campaign funds inappropriately, in which he gave gifts and trips to friends and close

acquaintances. The charges of a “millionaire’s club” negatively affected the image of the

Republican ticket as well as Nixon himself.17 To end such speculations, Nixon gave a

televised address in an attempt to answer these questions. During his address, Nixon

discussed his use of the funds and framed his actions as justified within the bounds of the

12 Ibid13 Ibid.14 Ibid.15 Ibid.16 Lazare, On Apology, 23.17 L.W. Rosenfield, “A Case Study in Speech Criticism: The Nixon-Truman Analog,” Speech Monographs 35, no. 4 (1968): 436.

7


law. Additionally he attacked his accusers and asked the audience to support him, the

Republican party, and presidential candidate Dwight D. Eisenhower. The public accepted

his address and justifications and by in large dismissed the accusations.18 The public

evaluated his apology according to their conscience and cultural standards, resulting in

the decision to accept his apology and grant forgiveness. Thus, this example illustrates

the apologetic script. This script illustrates the proper order and framework in which

apologies are constructed and carried out. While again it seems mundane, this historical

example illustrates how individuals adhere to its parameters.

Another more recent example illustrates the apologetic script executed in a more

complex manner. In the middle of his second term as President of the United States, Bill

Clinton was accused of participating in an illicit affair with a White House intern. Clinton

vehemently denied these claims multiple times. Yet again, as evidence began to mount,

Clinton’s claims of denial began to fall apart. Eventually Clinton admitted to his

participation in an affair with the intern. Clinton would go on, multiple times, to admit his

inappropriate behavior, but addressed the situation in multiple instances. One example of

these addresses includes Clinton using religious metaphors that illustrate his state of

sorrow and his process in obtaining forgiveness from the public.19 Ultimately the public

forgave Clinton for his personal character shortcomings. This example provides a recent

illustration of the apologetic script being used publicly and followed directly. Again, as

demonstrated by these two historical accounts, the apologetic script is as follows: an

accusation is stated, the accused at some point responds to the exigence, eventually the

18 Ibid.,19 Lee, R. E., & Barton, M. H., (2003). Clinton’s rhetoric of contrition. In R. E. Denton & R. Holloway (Eds.), Images, scandal and communication strategies of the Clinton presidency (pp. 219-246). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

8


accused addresses his or her role in the accusation, and the audience evaluates the

apology according to their consciences.

As previously discussed, the apologetic script that is constructed within society is

strictly adhered to and evaluated as such. Whether the apologists are individuals, groups

or corporations, the apologetic script governs the apologetic discourse that occurs and

ultimately influences how apologies are perceived and assessed. However, what if an

apology deviates from the apologetic script? More so, what if the apology that is

delivered violates the social constructs of apologetic scripts? How will this affect the

audience’s ability to gauge and evaluate an apology? This hypothetical situation does

occur but does so rarely. Few scholars have examined such occurrences and even fewer

attempt to explain or understand the rhetorical strategies and potential consequences that

may occur. However, these occurrences, albeit rare, are found within apologetic

addresses. The goal of this examination is to explore two recent “apologetic” addresses

that deviate or break away from the rhetorical scripts and tradition of apologia. Through

the analysis of these discourses, it is my hope to draw additional insight into the

apologetic script in an effort to expand and problematize our understandings of apologia.

Transparency and Confusion

The following addresses are what I believe to be violations or deviations of the

apologetic script. For each individual I will provide a brief background and attempt to

describe the rhetorical situation and any other factors that may have influenced the

individual’s exigency. Following my descriptions of the addresses, I will analyze and

discuss the potential implications when violations of the apologetic script occur.

9


Gia Arnold

At 24 years-old and a married mother of three young children, Gia Arnold was the

youngest Republican primary candidate for the State Senate of New York in 2014.

Endorsed by Republicans and the Tea Party, Arnold was the only woman in the primary

race for the nomination and had positioned herself as a libertarian conservative.20 After

months of aggressive campaigning, Arnold delivered an address in early August that no

one expected:

I have made personal decisions that have ultimately resulted in the necessity of my stepping down from the campaign. I participated in an extramarital affair beginning in August of this year. It was an excuse for an escape from an already declining marriage. I cannot regret the decisions I have made but I can admit to being happier presently than before. It is for my ex-husband, my children, my family and friends that I must publicly admit to my actions as I believe honesty and integrity are of upmost importance in life.21

While Arnold suspended her candidacy, she did not entirely withdraw from the race

leaving her name on the ballot with hopes of serving if she would still be elected.22

A week later however, Arnold had a change of heart. In a news release, Arnold

announced that she is “reconsidering her withdrawal from the campaign” due to an

“outpouring of public support” she had received after announcing that she would stop

campaigning. She stated:

To say that I am overwhelmed by the outpouring of support and well wishes would be an understatement. When I made my announcement last week, I never fathomed the hundreds of texts, calls and emails that I received, almost all of which called for me to stay in this race and fight what truth, honesty and what is right for our senate district. For me, telling the truth and being honest with my

20 Damien Gayle, “Young, married GOP New York Senate candidate, 24, abruptly steps down from race as she confesses to starting affair days ago,” Daily Mall (2014): http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2724674/Young-married-New-York-Senate-candidate-abruptly-steps-race-confesses-starting-affair-just-days-ago.html.21 Ibid.22 Glenn Blain, “New York State Senate Candidate Halts Her Campaign Because Of Recent Extramarital Affair,” Daily News (2014): http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/state-senate-candidate-niagara-falls-backs-race-extramarital-affair-blog-entry-1.1902009.

10


supporters and the citizens is the most important aspect of running for and representing the people, even if it means losing some support and not helping myself. 23

Eventually, Arnold would lose the race for her party’s nomination for State Senate;

however, she currently is still involved in the political arena where she resides.

Mark Sanford

South Carolina Republican Governor Mark Sanford went on an undisclosed trip

in 2009. Between June 18 and June 24, the location and whereabouts of the Governor

were unknown to the public, his staff members, and especially his family. As each day

passed the media coverage and speculation increased as to what Sanford was doing or

where exactly he was. On June 24, after Sanford was spotted at Hartsfield-Jackson

Atlanta International Airport, he held a press conference with his staff members present.

Sanford’s address during this time was confusing as he shared various anecdotes and, at

one point, went off topic and eventually began crying before sharing where he had been

or what he had been doing. Eventually Sanford shared that he had been participating in an

extramarital affair, stating:

And so the bottom line is this: I have been unfaithful to my wife. I developed a relationship with a—what started out as a dear, dear friend from Argentina. It began very innocently, as I suspect many of these things do, in just a causal email back and forth, in advice on one’s life there and advice here.24

Later in his address, Sanford would announce his resignation from the Republican

Governors Association, but when members of the press asked Sanford if he would resign

from his position he chose not to answer and left the press conference. While the state

23 Harold McNeil, “Gia Arnold back in State Senate Republican Primary race after Admitting to Affair,” The Buffalo News (2014): http://www.buffalonews.com/city-region/elections/gia-arnold-back-in-state-senate-republican-primary-race-after-admitting-to-affair-20140822.24 Mark Sanford, “Mark Sanford’s Press Briefing,” The New York Times (2009); http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/us/24text-sanford.html?_r=0.

11


legislature attempted to impeach Sanford, as he would not resign from his position, the

impeachment attempt was abandoned in acceptance that his elected term in office was

ending shortly.

Breaking the Tradition of the Apologetic Script

Sanford and Arnold’s addresses merit rhetorical analysis for multiple purposes, as

these addresses are complicated in nature and yet unique in political discourse. While it is

common for a politician to be attacked by opponents or accusers on matters of policy or

character, it is rare to see a politician apologize without evidence compelling or forcing

him or her to do so even when accused, and even rarer that a politician will admit such

faults without any implications of wrongdoing. However, Arnold and Sanford provided

unique apologetic addresses that deviated from the public norms and expectations of the

apologetic script. As such, this analysis will assist apologia and related research in

fostering a greater understanding of the apologetic script and any associated rhetorical

strategies. Breaking the constructs of the apologetic script warrant examination as the

violation of rhetorical norms is uncommon and their potential successes or strategies are

relatively unknown.

Both individuals analyzed within this study framed their addresses as an apology

in an attempt, as the old adage says, to “air their dirty laundry.” Yet this is a deviation

from the apologetic script. As previously discussed, one of the primary components of

the apologetic script is for the apologist to address an accusation. To qualify this

argument however, it is acknowledged that an individual or entity is not necessarily

needed to make or provide an accusation for the apologetic script to begin. As Benoit

suggests, “it is […] possible that there is no clear accusation. The accusation can arise

12


generally in the media for example, rather than from a rhetor’s explicit kategoria.”25

Simply put, all that is needed is speculation for an exigency to exist and the apologetic

script to begin. This is true in Sanford’s address as his departure was cause for the media

to begin questioning his whereabouts and the nature of his reasoning for his

disappearance. However, this does not answer why Sanford was compelled to become

completely transparent about the unknown extramarital affair. He had numerous

opportunities to mislead the media and general public by focusing solely on the questions

of his whereabouts not his activities. This runs against the traditional apologetic script as

Ware and Linkugal believe that “in a rhetorical situation as complex as that of accusation

and response, a speaker would be expected to attempt to change the meaning of some, but

not all, cognitive elements in the minds of the audience.”26 Additionally, previous

scholars such as Sharon Downey suggest that an address is not “apologetic if it does not

consistently follow the recurrent theme of accusation.”27 This is not to negate the fact that

previous research does show that the presence of an apology can create a more favorable

impression of the actor (than no apology), but rather problematizes our understanding of

the apologetic address.28 Similarly, Arnold’s address complicates the notion of the

apologetic script further as no exigency, speculations, or accusations compelled her to

engage in the apologetic script. Rather, on her own testament and free will, she

voluntarily provided this information but attempted to do so in an apologetic manner.

Voluntarily apologizing without any accusation in a preemptive style problematizes the

25 Benoit, Image Restoration, 85.26 B.L. Ware and Wil Linkugal, “They Spoke in Defense of Themselves: On the Generic Criticism of Apologia,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 59, no. 3 (1983): 282.27 Sharon Downey, “The Evolution of the Rhetorical Genre of Apologia,” Western Journal of Communication 57, no. 1 (1993): 42.28 Benoit, Image Restoration.

13


role of the apologist and the audience in the apologetic script. Without an accuser or

exigency requiring the apologist to defend him or herself, the apologetic script potentially

becomes mute within the public address, thus rendering the audience into a probable

convoluted state of mind. While some scholars argue that a preemptive address such as

Arnold’s limits her choices of apologetic strategies, other scholars such as Benoit believe

a preemptive apologetic act does not affect these choices of strategies.29 However, Benoit

does qualify this assertion by acknowledging that “by ‘responding’ to anticipated

accusations rather than actual ones…the relationship between attack and defense

[becomes complicated thanks to the rhetor].”30 Thus, creating and providing a response to

an anticipated or unprovoked attack deviates from the constructs of the apologetic script

and has unforeseen potential consequences for the apologist and the audience.

Additionally, both of these individuals attempted to frame their addresses as

apologies. I use the term “frame” as both individuals stated within their respected

addresses “I apologize” to illustrate their apologetic demeanor and mindset. Yet, based

upon our historical understanding of the term apology, this term was used incorrectly and

may have been used in a strategic manner. According to scholar John Kador, an

appropriate apology is delivered when an individual acknowledges the offensive act he or

she has committed and attempts to restore the trust that was broken.31 Kador argues that

when an individual uses an apology they commonly use the phrases “I am sorry” or “I

apologize.” According to Kador, the phrase “I am sorry” is the correct terminology to

illustrate true sorrow whereas the phrase “I apologize” is not demonstrative of sorrow at

29 Ibid., 85.30 Ibid., 85.31 John Kador, Effective Apology, Mending Fences, Building Bridges and Restoring Trust, (San Francisco: Berrett Koehler Publications, 2009) 85.

14


all.32 Reinforcing this argument, Kador draws from the origins of the words apology and

sorry. According to Kador, the word “sorry” has a Germanic root meaning “to be sore”

where the word “apologize” originated from the Greek word apologia which means “a

story of defense.”33 Using this evidence, it is logical to assume that an individual who

says “I am sorry” is truly penitent and a person who says “I apologize” is unapologetic.

While some critics may argue this is as nonsensical, others see the argument’s merit and

even allude to the danger of being “rhetorically confused” or tricked. According to

Lazare, “The remorse and regret conveyed by the words ‘I’m sorry’ imply a willingness

to change, a promise of forbearance, and an implicit agreement to accept all the

consequences, social, legal, and otherwise, that flow from having committed the

wrongful act.”34 Additionally, these connotative meanings of apology may have

unintended negative consequences as Lazare argues:

One result of this dual meaning of “apologize” is that when your friend simply says “I apologize,” you have no idea whether you received an apology or a perfunctory “sorry about that” with no acknowledgement that an offense was committed or that remorse was offered.35

While the apologist may believe that the public may be fooled by these “pseudo-

apologies,” according to Lazare they “at best, do not heal the damaged relationship and,

at worse, further offend the aggrieved party.”36 This reinforces the original purpose of

apology according to rhetorical scholar Lee Taft who asserts that “apology leads to

healing because through apologetic discourse there is a restoration of moral balance—

32 Ibid., 86.33 Ibid.34 Lee Taft, “The Commodification of Apology,” The Yale Law Journal Company Inc. 109, no. 5 (2000): Taft, 1140.35 Lazare, On Apology, 26.36 Ibid., 85.

15


more specifically, a restoration of an equality of regard.”37 For Taft, the use of sorrow is

foundational within the apologetic script as “at minimum, sociologists and psychologists

agree that an apology must have as its centerpiece an expression of sorrow and regret.”38

This is can only be “accomplished…by a precise formula in which the offender

acknowledges through speech and the legitimacy of the violated rule, admits fault for its

violation and expresses genuine remorse and regret for the harm caused by his [or her]

violation.”39 Both Arnold and Stanford framed their addresses as apologies using the

apologetic script and yet both used the phrase “I apologize” rather than “I am sorry” to

express their sorrow. Reinforcing this perception of their lack of sorrow, both individuals

did not once admit that they had made mistakes, but rather instead, believed in and

justified their decisions. This can be seen in Arnold’s address as she stated that she

“cannot regret the decisions I have made.”40 However, she does qualify this justification

by asserting “but I can admit to being happier presently than before.”41 Arnold’s lack of

regret coupled with her “apology” potentially frames Arnold’s address as unapologetic,

further problematizing the apologetic script she is using. Similarly, Sanford not once

expresses any form of regret or sorrow textually in his address even though he

acknowledges the hurt he has caused by saying:

Recently over this last year [the affair] developed into something much more than that. And as a consequence, I hurt her. I hurt you all. I hurt my wife. I hurt my boys. I hurt friends like Tom Davis. I hurt a lot of different folks. And all I can say is that I apologize.42

37 Taft, The Commodification of Apology, 1137.38 Ibid., 1140.39 Ibid.40 Gayle, Confesses to Affair41 Ibid.42 Sanford, Mark Sanford Transcript.

16


If an apologist is attempting to deliver an apologetic address, a key factor in attempting to

persuade the audience to forgive is to express sorrow and remorse, not just stating facts

but more so a recognition of how they hurt or offended others. Rhetorical scholars refer

to this apologetic strategy as atonement rhetoric, explaining that “atonement rhetoric does

not ‘restore’ the image directly but admits that sinful behavior has occurred in an attempt

to gain forgiveness and long-term image restoration.”43 In order to “atone” for one’s sins

within the apologetic script, the individual is required to illustrate an appropriate level of

sorrow and suffering that correlates with the level of harm inflicted. If done correctly, the

audience will “judge someone authentically sorry for their actions when it is clear they

have suffered for their sin.”44 Thus, a level of suffering is needed to be shown or

emulated within the apologetic script; however, “if a person does not prove that he or she

has suffered the [apology] will not be perceived as genuine.”45 A violation of this

requisite of apologetic script may result in a rejected apology. Both Arnold and Sanford

violated this requirement of the apologetic scrip, but they only did so textually within

their discourse. To make up for this violation Arnold and Sanford turned to other means

to illustrate their level of sorrow: emotion and victimage.

Both Arnold and Sanford used emotion and victimage but in different ways within

their addresses. While Arnold did not express emotion physically, during her address she

stated that her affair was “an excuse for an escape from an already declining marriage,”

alluding to a sense of urgency with a tone of desperation.46 Furthermore, while she does

admit she does not regret her actions, she admits her responsibility, stating, “I must

43 Joy Koesten and Robert Rowland, “The Rhetoric of Atonement,” Communication Studies 55 no. 1 (2004): 69.44 Ibid., 74.45 Ibid.46 Gayle, Confesses to Affair.

17


publicly admit to my actions as I believe honesty and integrity are of upmost importance

in life.”47 Arnold, taking ownership for her actions while qualifying her motivations,

alludes to a level of victimage. Arnold had to “escape” her “declining” situation.

According to Klope, drawing from the works of Burke, victimage occurs when an

individual encounters guilt and attempts to shift the guilt “from its possessor to a hapless

scape goat: the ‘vessel’ of certain unwanted evils.”48 By accomplishing this, the apologist

hopes to become blameless or the victim and gain sympathy from the audience. Arnold’s

rhetorical address introduces victimage to the apologetic script, thus convoluting the

constructs of the apologetic script and subsequently persuading the audience to feel

sympathetic for Arnold. Likewise, Sanford uses emotion and victimage. A brief

examination of Sanford’s transcript yields evidence to two interesting findings. First,

most of Sanford’s address is filled with utterances such as “uh”, “um,” and “ah.” The

reason for these utterances is unknown; however, they are quite frequent and at times

occur at increments of every other word. These utterances interrupt the flow of the

apologetic script adding a sense of confusion and chaos as to what Sanford is attempting

to convey. Additionally, Sanford’s organization of the apology further complicated his

address as he began his speech by asking where a staffer was followed by sharing

anecdotes of his personal life growing up in the Appalachian mountains and then

discussing friendships with various individuals to whom he both owes gratitude and an

apology. It is not until over five minutes (halfway through) his address before Sanford

actually states and discusses the offensive act he is responsible for perpetuating.

Additionally at one point during his address, Sanford becomes emotional and starts

47 Ibid.48 David Klope, “Defusing a Foreign Policy Crisis: Myth and Victimage in Reagan’s 1983 Lebanon/Grenada Address,” Western Journal of Speech Communication 50, no. 4 (1986): 337.

18


crying, though this is early in the address and prior to him actually admitting what he had

done wrong. These factors mentioned and discussed here violate the norms of the

apologetic script as they allude to his potential incoherency. This is reinforced by

Sanford’s request from the media to afford him a level of privacy, stating, “I would just

ask for a zone of privacy, if not for me, for [my wife] and the boys…as we go through

this process of working through this.”49 By grouping himself with those whom he had

hurt, Sanford is attempting to make himself appear as a victim as well.

Apologia, Apologies, or Epidictic Addresses?

This examination attempted to analyze two separate but similar “apologetic”

addresses by two individuals. These addresses were unique to apologia discourse as their

construction and deliverance deviated from the parameters of the apologetic script. As

such, both individuals created their own exigencies in distinct ways to “apologize” and

take action for behavior they believed was offensive. This “preemptive apology” violated

the constructs of the apologetic script, the results of which could not be generalized or

assumed by the apologists. Both individuals, after their addresses, experienced some form

of “success” despite their apologies. Within a week of her address, Arnold announced

that she would begin campaigning again after receiving “outpouring support.” While

Arnold did lose in the primary race, she is still involved with local politics in her area and

at times is a guest political analyst for the local news. While the state senate attempted to

impeach Sanford, he was ultimately allowed to serve out the remainder of his term

despite mixed criticism from his constituents. In 2013, an emergency election was held

for Sanford’s former congressional seat. Sanford not only campaigned and won but also

was reelected a year later and still serves as Senator as of this examination. It can be

49 Sanford, Mark Sanford Transcript.

19


insinuated that the people of his state accepted his “apology” and forgave him even

though Sanford was not required, by the parameters of the apologetic script, to apologize.

Likewise the willingness of Republican Primary voters in the district to have Arnold as a

political figure in their area insinuates a level of forgiveness has been given. The results

of these addresses beg the question as to whether these addresses are generic to apologia.

This is important to understand as rhetorical scholar Noreen Kruse argues that apologetic

addresses are “an ethical defense” but we:

Should not assume, then, that simply because a work provides a defense, or because it incorporates the terminology of [apologia] that the item is an example of the apologia. When ‘apologia’ becomes synonymous with ‘justification’ or ‘defense,’ then anything that can be justified or defended might loosely be termed apologia.50

Such addresses may follow a form of literary generic classification that illustrates the

“form” of apologia and the “spirit” of apologia, allowing rhetorical scholars to examine

the apologetic elements within addresses that may not adhere to the apologetic script of

the genre.51 This acknowledgement enables scholars to examine forms of discourse that

may not “fit” the apologetic script but are apologetic by nature.

Yet, even with this understanding of the “spirit” of an apology, the explanation as

to the audience’s reaction to the apology despite the violation of the script is

unaccounted. According to psychology scholar Bruce Darby, Arnold and Sanford may

have succeeded rhetorically because “the apology-forgiveness [script] is such an

ingrained aspect of

50 Noreen Kruse, “The Scope of Apologetic Discourse: Establishing Generic Parameters,” Southern Speech Communication Journal 46, no. 3 (1981).51 Ibid., 289-290.

20


social life that an apology automatically improves the actor’s social position. Apologies

may thus evoke an unthinking, scripted reaction.”52 Furthermore:

An actor’s reputation, apology and expression of remorse are all important factors in observer’s reactions to transgressions. Apologies taken at face value...lessened the actor’s social predicament, reducing punishments and making the actor seem more likely. The apology-forgiveness sequence may be such a familiar script that its appearance automatically benefits the actor.53

To put it simply, Arnold and Sanford may have succeeded for two reasons. The first is

that these addresses were not merely apologies but rather confessions that were

voluntarily disclosed. It may be safe to assume that the audience is more forgiving when

the course of an apology is voluntarily provided rather than forced. Second, by choosing

to break the apologetic script and manipulating the audience’s perception of the

apologetic script both Arnold and Sanford garnered the sympathy and forgiveness that

they had sought to obtain. However, this may only be done cautiously as rhetorical

scholar Lisa Villadsen believes that “if the speaker ignores or violates the norms and

values of the listeners, the apology may be judged empty or disingenuous and speaker’s

mandate null.”54 Future scholarship on similar apologetic addresses will assist in the

generalization of these theories.

We may never fully understand why Arnold and Sanford chose to divulge their

private sins in public discourse. Whether they are deemed as successes or failures is

difficult to gauge as both individuals received public support after their addresses but

differed in that Arnold was not elected while Sanford subsequently was elected to the

Senate years later. According to rhetorical scholar Walter Fisher, “participants in a

52 Bruce Darby, “Children’s Reactions to Transgressions: Effects of the Actor’s Apology, Reputation and Remorse,” British Journal of Social Psychology 28, no. 4 (1989): 361.53 Ibid., 362.54 Lisa Villadsen, “Speaking on Behalf of Others: Rhetorical Agency and Epideictic Functions in Official Apologies,” Rhetoric Society Quarterly 38 no. 1 (2008): 34.

21


democratic situation must recognize that human beings are fallible.”55 This

acknowledgement, in correlation with these violations of the apologetic script may have

reminded the public’s perception to recognize that politicians are far from perfect and

scandals do occur, but that honesty may deserve the reward of the restoration of trust, no

matter how emotional or transparent the address is.

55 Walter Fisher, “A Motive View of Communication,” Quarterly Journal of Speech 56 no. 2 (1970): 133.

22

Documents

Web viewThrough the analysis of these discourses, it is my ... the word “sorry” has a ... victimage occurs when an individual encounters guilt and attempts to