The Martin family wasn’t too happy about Zimmerman’s apology. So, what is an apology? Why apologize? Is it necessary, if so, when, to whom, how?
What does an apology mean?
At its core, an apology is an admission of responsibility for a wrong committed, a hurt caused: “I did wrong. I caused harm that, but for me, would otherwise not have happened.”
What a genuine apology is not is a platform to excuse or defend one’s self. Neither is an apology a demand for forgiveness. Giving an apology does not release one from the consequence of being responsible or from being held accountable for the wrong that has been done.
So why apologize?
We apologize in order to take ownership and to acknowledge that we have erred, to admit that we are the cause of another person’s hurt or harm, to admit that we are in the wrong. At its core it is admitting that we have wrongly hurt, harmed, or offended another.
Thus, giving an apology is a small step toward correcting or helping to bring healing to the pain that was caused. It is a significant step because personal recognition of responsibility for causing harm is essential in order to try to “make things right.” By apologizing, one is taking ownership and accepting responsibility for causing harm and therefore admitting obligation: “I did you wrong; therefore, I owe you. I am in your debt.” It is an open and vulnerable step toward the injured party rather than a closed defensive step away from the injured party. It is a step that ideally seeks to restore and/or offer a form of restitution (understanding that the consequences of some wrongful actions can never ever be fully restored—in this life).
How does one receive an apology?
Most likely the recipient of an apology will wonder: First, is the apology sincere? That is, is the person doing the apologizing truly accepting and taking responsibility for a “harm done,” or is this person merely trying to “get off the hook” and evade real accountability for doing harm and trying to escape its consequence? And secondly the recipient will most likely ask him/herself, “Am I obligated to forgive this person just because he/she has apologized?”
As to the second question, the answer is no. The recipient of an apology is in no way obligated by the apology. The recipient of an apology never owes the apologizer absolution or forgiveness for the harm that was done him or her, simply because an apology was given. Forgiveness is always the prerogative of the person that has been harmed and never the right of the person doing the apologizing. Though forgiveness is in fact good for the person doing the forgiving, it is not necessarily so for the person being forgiven. Thus, the person receiving the apology never “owes” the apologizer forgiveness.
On the other hand, the offender is in debt to the one offended and owes him/her the following: (1) open and sincere honesty (2) acceptance of responsibility, an admittance of doing wrong (3) if requested, an explanation of some kind without excusing or defending one’s self (why did you say/do…), and most significantly (4) a willingness to accept the just consequences for the wrong committed.
Thus, a truly sincere apology never means, “I am sorry that you [the hurt or offended one] have taken my word or action the wrong way and have misconstrued my behavior.” Neither does a sincere apology mean, “I had my reasons, and so I’m not really at fault here, but since you are offended, I apologize.”
Are apologies important?
Yes, sincere apologies are significant and necessary. By contrast, consider a non-apology? A non-apology is an unwillingness to take ownership. By refusing to apologize, the offender is not only rejecting any responsibility for harm that he or she has done but is unwilling to even acknowledge that any wrong has been committed in the first place? A non-apology is a declaration of innocence saying in effect, I have done no wrong and harmed no one. Likewise, insincere apologies are deceitful and manipulative, putting on an appearance of remorse while seeking to avoid real accountability.
But a sincere apology is an important first step in “making things right,” a step toward taking “restorative action” for a wrong that has been committed. And as such, it can be a first small step toward regaining one’s integrity. It all comes down to authenticity: Is it real, genuine, sincere? And that is a question of motive, only the heart can answer.
People took sides on this issue without hearing and seeing all the evidence. Sound bites and video were taken out of context to sell more print. We love gossip and the press does what ever it takes to get it to us. Zimmerman should have hired a PR firm to help him rehearse his apology, over and over, to have the best effect. Or could it be that George saw Treyvons mother and had over whelming compassion for for her, in the heat of the moment? We can only judge what we see, but it hard to know what is truly in a mans heart.
ReplyDeleteDanny~