A non-apology, sometimes called a backhanded apology, empty apology, nonpology, or fauxpology, is a statement in the form of an apology that does not express remorse for what was done or said, or assigns fault to those ostensibly receiving the apology. It is common in politics and public relations. For instance, saying "I'm sorry you feel that way" to someone who has been offended by a statement is a non-apology apology. It does not admit there was anything wrong with the remarks made, and blames the recipient by implying they were overly sensitive or took offense for irrational reasons. Another form of non-apology does not apologize directly to the injured or insulted party, but generically "to anyone who might have been offended". Statements of pseudo-apology that do not communicate responsibility for words or deeds may be meaningful expressions of regret, but such statements can also be used to elicit forgiveness without acknowledging fault.
As a tactic Typologies of apology note they cover a range of situations and degrees of regret, remorse, and contrition, and that success is to be gauged by the result of the apology rather than the degree of contrition involved. Deborah Levi offers the following possibilities:
Tactical apology when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology that is rhetorical and strategic—and not necessarily heartfelt Explanation apology when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology that is merely a gesture that is meant to counter an accusation of wrongdoing; in fact, it may be used to defend the actions of the accused Formalistic apology when a person accused of wrongdoing offers an apology after being admonished to do so by an authority figure—who may also be the individual who suffered the wrongdoing Happy ending apology when a person accused of wrongdoing fully acknowledges responsibility for the wrongdoing and is genuinely remorseful While the non-apology apology is clearly unsuited to situations where an expression of remorse, contrition, and future change are obviously desirable (e.g. the "happy ending" apology), it may prove extremely useful in situations where little can be done to assuage the apparent offence or prevent its repetition, as when an airline apologises for a delay, in the full knowledge that a future repetition is inevitable. Such tactical apologies may have beneficial effects simply through the validation of the emotions of the offended party: they answer the basic human need for disagreeable emotions to be recognised and acknowledged as important, while protecting the apparently offending party from an expression of remorse. Negotiators often use this tactic to calm tense situations: "an apology can defuse emotions effectively, even when you do not acknowledge personal responsibility for the action or admit an intention to harm. An apology may be one of the least costly and most rewarding investments you can make."
Legal significance
United States Non-apology apologizers may be trying to avoid litigation that might result from an admission of guilt or responsibility. Many states, including Massachusetts and California, have laws to prevent a plaintiff from using an apology as evidence of liability. For example, a medical doctor may apologize to a patient for a bad outcome without fearing the apology can be used against them at trial as evidence of negligence.
Canada In November 2008, the Alberta legislature passed an amendment to the existing Alberta Evidence Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. A-18, geared at protecting apologizing parties from risks of legal liability and loss of insurance coverage. Section 26.1 of the Act provides that an apology does not constitute an express or implied admission of fault or liability. British Columbia passed similar legislation in 2006, being the Apology Act, S.B.C. 2006, c. 19.
Examples
"Mistakes were made" The expression "mistakes were made" is commonly used as a rhetorical device, whereby a speaker acknowledges a situation was handled poorly or inappropriately but seeks to evade any direct admission or accusation of responsibility by using the passive voice. The acknowledgement of "mistakes" is framed in an abstract sense with no direct reference to who made the mistakes. An active voice construction would be along the lines of "I made mistakes" or "John Doe made mistakes." The speaker neither accepts personal responsibility nor accuses anyone else. The word "mistakes" also does not imply intent. The New York Times has called the phrase a "classic Washington linguistic construct". Political consultant William Schneider suggested this usage be referred to as the "past exonerative" tense, and commentator William Safire has defined the phrase as "[a] passive-evasive way of acknowledging error while distancing the speaker from responsibility for it". A commentator at NPR declared this expression to be "the king of non-apologies". While perhaps most famous in politics, the phrase has also been used in business, sports, and entertainment.
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
