Conversing About Public Apology Communication Behavior in Politics

Brett Bricker, Ph.D., is an Associate Specialist — Debate Coach at the University of Kansas and talks about research findings regarding public apology.

Public apologies are often deemed socially necessary, yet only sometimes offered and rarely done thoughtfully and successfully.

The expectation, decision making about how apologies are made, and their quality have been deemed worthy of academic research and analysis to gain greater understanding.

Brett Bricker, Ph.D., teaches Communication Studies at the University of Kansas as an Associate Specialist — debate coach and his academic work primarily focuses on public apology.

He has long collaborated on this special study with Jacob Justice, Ph.D., an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication and the Director of Forensics in the Department of Writing and Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi.

The reasons for the need to study the topic is clear.

“Rhetorical scholars have focused on apology for centuries because it has outsized importance both socially and interpersonally,” Bricker says.

“As people, we hurt others, feel shame and reconcile. Public figures commit the same wrongs. They let down their constituents, violate social norms and seek a path to rehabilitate their reputation among relevant audiences.”

He points out that what is learned proves beneficial.

“Academics provided valuable contributions to understanding and navigating this complex rhetorical situation. Some scholars provide ‘how-to’ guidance for apology. They help chart the most effective path to reconciliation,” Bricker states.

There has been an evolution of apology.

“Other scholars chart how apology has changed over time,” Bricker explains. “For example, apology has become less apologetic and more driven by vitriolic denial.”

This is vital to understand.

“This is important because it gives us valuable clues about how (communicators) understand and interact with their audiences,” Bricker says. “In a sense, we learn what (communicators) value by charting their response to accusations of misbehavior.

“We’ve learned that in the political atmosphere, apologists are likely to target their apologies to their own political base,” Bricker states.

In addition to focusing the apology less towards those in need of it and expecting it, he says another common response is denial.

“They are more likely to deny wrongdoing, even when faced with extremely credible evidence to the contrary,” Bricker says.

Additionally problematic is how supporters of the accused can act out against the those bringing forth claims of misconduct or crimes.

“We’ve also learned that social networks play a strong role in the evolving narrative of apology. In the case of Roy Moore, some of the most ludicrous and dangerous descriptions of his victims were happening among his followers on social media, not by Moore himself,” Bricker says.

The research of his and Justice has looked into, “how society reintegrates, through apology, those ostracized for their misbehavior.”

The findings are illuminating.

“When someone violates an expectation of a community, that community is faced with two choices: excommunication or reintegration,” Bricker explains.

“Excommunication requires no reconciliation, thus no apology. If a CEO of a business harasses a co-worker and is fired, that business — a community in a sense — is made whole by that firing. A message is communicated that the community is not one that supports harassment, and the remaining members of that community can bond around that shared identity,” he states.

If that separation doesn’t happen, there is still a difficult task at hand.

“If excommunication is not chosen as the response, then the community must find a way to reintegrate without too much discordance,” Bricker adds. “In our view, (in this case) apology is absolutely central to that process.”

Jacob Justice, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication and the Director of Forensics in the Department of Writing and Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi.

There have been surprises along the way in the research.

“There are two things that are surprising to us,” says Justice. “‘Violation of an expectation of a community’ sometimes requires a lot.”

“The Senate confirmation hearings of (Supreme Court Justice nominee) Brett Kavanaugh demonstrated that he violated the behavior of what most, we hope, would expect from a Supreme Court justice. A former president of the United States found it appropriate to “grab em by the pussy,” he adds.

How could such details becoming public not require more remorse proved puzzling to many in the media and public. Bricker and Justice didn’t find it making much sense either.

“It is surprising that these actions and statements did not require genuine apology,” Justice states, explaining, “because the relevant community — establishment republicans, or Trump’s base — did not seek to excommunicate Trump or Kavanaugh.”

This brings up the point of social punishment.

“These findings map in interesting ways onto contemporary debates about ‘cancel culture,’” Justice says. “Those who rail against the ubiquitousness of cancel culture build their arguments on a kernel of truth.”

This social tool is becoming better understood.

“We, as a society, have not found a great way to handle reconciliation of aggrieving parties,” Justice says. “So, ‘canceling’ them is a common outcome.”

He is quick to point out that the popular phrasing does not always mean that those suffering from it have made concerted efforts to make ‘right’ in the unspoken social contract when offenses have taken place.

“That said, many who are ‘cancelled’ do not perform even the most basic gestures of genuine reconciliation,” Justice says. “So, it is unclear that they are deserving of any more generosity than they have received.”

Bricker states that there is a contradiction taking place, where an assumption has been made, “that image repair requires putting oneself through this rigor of admission and reconciliation,” when instead it is, “becoming much more common for people to engage in denial and to blame the victim instead of seeking any personal reparation for one’s own wrongdoing.

“There is no more mea culpa,” he adds. “There’s just his conspiratorial attack, saying the victims are wrong and lying and because of the other things that I can do for you politically, you should support me and my story.”

Regardless of the additional damage done to victims, as well as what is normally viewed as contemptible poor form, this behavior seems to be sufficiently effective. While this can create hopelessness as well as anger, Bricker sees encouraging work being done.

“There are some interesting projects in the prison abolition movement that are helping adult men talk about their crimes and guiding them to act ethically towards those that they’ve hurt,” he says. “There’s an absolutely fabulous teacher at K.U., Dr. Meggie Mapes, doing work on this front.”

When it comes to public apology and politics, Bricker is less enthused.

“Politically, we seem to be headed in the wrong direction,” he laments. “Society is becoming more and more polarized (and) the ability to speak solely to one’s base is becoming easier.”

Bricker does have ideas.

“Lots would need to change: we need to stop rewarding politicians who commit sexual assault, institutions must not turn a blind eye to harassment or misbehavior in the workplace, democracy would need to be revived in way that minimized partisan echo-chambers, and individuals would need to be willing to forgive in a way that motivated the apology in the first place, etc.,” Bricker recommends.

This to-do list of responsibilities in the pursuit of improvement and remedy shouldn’t create hopelessness.

“That isn’t to say it’s impossible,” Bricker says. “And the reason we do this work is to hopefully nudge people in the right direction.”