rhetoric of atonnement

7/30/2019 Rhetoric of Atonnement

1/21

This article was downloaded by: [University of Waterloo]On: 09 May 2013, At: 22:03Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20

The rhetoric of atonement

Joy Koestena

& Robert C. Rowlandb

aAssistant Professor, Department of Communication, Washburn University, 266 Morgan Hall,

Topeka, KS, 66621 Phone: 7852311919 X2235 E-mail:b

Professor and the Department Chair, Communication Studies Department, University of

Kansas, 102 Bailey Hall, Lawrence, KS, 66045 Phone: 7858643633 E-mail:

Published online: 22 May 2009.

To cite this article: Joy Koesten & Robert C. Rowland (2004): The rhetoric of atonement, Communication Studies, 55:1, 68-87

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388606

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyons expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents

will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388606http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10510970409388606http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcst20


2/21

Comm unication Studies, 55(1) (Spring 2004), 68-87

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENTJOY KOESTEN1 AND ROBERT C. ROWLAND2

In this essay, we outline the defining characteristics of the rhetoric of atonement and argue that it as anidentifiable sub-genre of apologia. In building this argument, we examine the purposive and situationalconstraints that lead to atonement and argue that atonement rhetoric can be defined based on fivecharacteristics. We use an analysis of several instances in which P resident Clinton relied upon atonementto illustrate the power and function of the sub-gen re.KEY WO RDS: political communication, apologia, atonement

Public apologies offered b y political and religious leaders always hav e bee n a pa rtof society. Recen tly how ever, th e focus of these apologies ha s shifted away from anemphasis on self-defense toward the theme of atoning for past sins. For example, in1995 Reverend Walter F. Sullivan, a bishop of the Diocese of Richmond, Virginiaargued in America for the importance of seeking atonement for the horrors of Hiro-shima an d Nagasaki (Sullivan, 1995). The re is also growing pressure for th e preside ntto apologize for slavery by presenting "a verbal atonement of this once codified andaccep ted nat iona l practi ce" (Whitfield, 1997, p . 7B).Calls for atonement are not limited to the United States. In 1996, The New YorkTimes repo rted that Portugal sought to aton e for the 1496 expulsion of Jew s (Collins,1996). In S eptem ber of 1997, Ehud Barak, the leader of the Labo r party in Israel, askedfor the "forgiveness/5 of Israeli Jew s of No rth African an d M iddle-E astern origin for theway that the party had treated them wh en they immigrated to Israel (Weingrod, 1998).More recently, in April of 1998, Australia held its "National Sorry Day" where PrimeMinister Jo h n H ow ard expressed his personal sorrow for "how the state had snatchedthousands of Aboriginal children from their parents and placed them in missions andfoster homes during the past 80 years" (Mount, 1998, p. 4). On November 28, 1998,Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi offered a written apology to China expressing"deep rem orse " for the "grave suffering an d dam age" caused by Jap an 's invasion a ndoccupation of China during World War II (Watts, 1998, p. 20). On March 17, 1998,

Pope Jo hn Paul II offered a formal apology to the survivors of the Holocaust in aneffort to repe nt for the failure of Rom an C atholics to prev ent m ass killing of Eu rope'sJews during World War II (Drozdiak, 1998). In March of 2000, he apologized for"historical transgressions committed by Roman Catholics in the name of the church,"referring to forced conversion, the Crusades, the Inquisition and other acts (Niebuhr,2000, p. Wkl). His sermon was labeled "the most sweeping papal apology ever,repentin g for the errors of his church ove r the last 2,000 years" (Stanley, 2000, p. A l) .No one used atonement more frequently than former President Bill Clinton. Inaddition to several instances in which he apologized for his actions involving M onikaLewinsky, he also apologized to the victims of radiation experiments carried outAuthors Note: A previous version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the Central StatesComm unication Association, Detroit, Michigan, April, 2000.1Department of Com mun ication, 266 MorganHall, Topeka, KS 6 6621. Tel. 785-231-1919 X2235; e-mail:[email protected] unication Studies Department, 102 Bailey Hall, Lawrence, KS 66045. Tel. 785-864-3633; e-mail:[email protected] K oesten (Ph.D. 2002, University of Kansas) is an Assistant Professor at Washburn U niversity; Robert C.Rowland (Ph.D. 1983, U niversity of Kansas) is a Professor and the Department Chair at University of Kansas.


3/21

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENT 69during the Cold War and to the survivors of the Tuskegee syphilis study, who did notreceive treatment for their disease, although treatment was available. However, Clin-ton has not bee n alone in using atonemen t. M ore an d m ore, political figures are askingfor forgiveness and seeking atonement for a variety of past sins. This point has beenemphasized by Roy L. Brooks (1999) in his recently published book, When Sorry Isn'tEnough. Brooks argues that while humans always have been aware of "man's inhu-manity to man," only recently have we begun to say, "I'm sorry." In his words, "wehave clearly entered what can be called the age of apology" (p. 3). Brooks describesthis phenomenon as a "matrix of guilt and mourning, atonement and national revival"(p. 3) .

As we have indicated, there have been many recent cases in which leadersaccepted responsibility for past wrong-doing and sought to atone for these sins. Thisrhetoric, which clearly functions as a type of apologia, is quite different from forms ofapologia tha t seek to deny , displace, or justify past actions. William Benoit says that thetypical apology is defined by "image restoration strategies" (1995). In contrast, atone-m ent rhetoric do es not "restore" the image directly, bu t admits that sinful behavi or hasoccurred in an attem pt to gain forgiveness and long-term image restoration. Its goal isboth forgiveness for a sinful act and restoration of the relationship once the sin hasbeen expiated. Since atonement uses rhetorical strategies very different from thosefound in the image restoration literature, it is important to discover how atonementrhetoric functions and also to identify the rhetorical forms that distinguish it from otherforms of apologia.

While many leaders are using the notion of atonement in public remarks aboutpast transgressions, the characteristics of the rhetoric of atonement have not beenestablished. It is important to fill this gap in our understanding. In Permanence an dChange: An Anatomyof Purpose (1935, 1954 and 1984) Kenne th Burke began developin gthe idea that language as symbolic action can have a purgative-redemptive function.H e wen t on to flesh ou t this idea in Attitudes Toward History (1937, 1959 and 1984), ThePhilosophy of Literary Forms (1941, 1967 and 1973) , and The Rhetoric of Religion (1970),among other works. According to Burke, it is because humans are fundamentallymo ral and ethical animals that they have a natural tend ency to look for rhetorical waysto alleviate guilt. This is done throughout the life-long quest each person undertakes,in search of himself or herself, toward the better life (Burke, 1984a). At onem ent is oneway that an individual can rhetorically purge him or herself of guilt. "[Vjicariousatonement," which Burke also refers to as the "Grand Rounding Out," occurs "wherethe principle of reward as paym ent (from the O rder side) merges with the principle ofpunishment as payment (from the Disorder side), to promise redemption" (1970,p . 191).

The rhetoric of atonement can be classified as a sub-genre of apologia with its owndistinct characteristics. Where traditional apologia is used to defend one's character(either an individual's character or the character of an organization), the rhetoric ofatonement functions as a purgative-redemptive device for an individual or an entireorganization. Through purgation, redemption is produced and the relationship be-tween the person or organization and the wronged party is healed.In this essay, we lay out the characteristics of two slightly different variants of therhetoric of atonement, one variant focusing on past public misconduct on the part ofan organization or nation, the other focusing upon personal moral misconduct of apublic individual. After establishing what the rhetoric of atonement looks like, weexam ine two examp les of atonem ent for past public miscon duct in speeches by former


4/21

70 COM MUN ICATION STUDIESPresident Clinton and three attempts by Clinton to seek atonement for his personalmisconduct in relation to Monica Lewinsky. We utilize the characteristics of theatonement sub-genre to explain why both examples of public atonement succeeded,but only Clinton's final attempt to atone for his personal moral misconduct in theLewinsky scandal was successful. We conclude by drawing implications for the studyof atonement rhetoric, apologia, and generic criticism.

APOLOGIA AND THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENTMany rhetorical critics have argued that apologia is a specific genre of rhetoricoffered in the public arena as a response to an attack on one's character (see forinstance W are & Linkugel, 1973; Kruse , 1977; Benoit & Brinson, 1994; Benoit 1995).These critics have focused on apologetic strategies that in some way deny thatwrongdoing has been done or that redefine or transcend that wrongdoing. Forexam ple, W are an d L inkugel identified four strategies that can be used b y an individ-ual for the pu rposes of restoring his or her image : denial, bolstering, differentiation andtranscen dence. D ow ney (1983) developed a slightly different system w hen she arguedthat the function of apologia has in fact changed throughout history and that theseshifts in function have produced five sub-genres: self-exoneration, self-absolution,

self-sacrifice, self-service, and self-deception. Another sub-genre of apologia has beensuggested by Gold (1978), that of self-disclosure. In the most systematic analysis ofimage restoration strategies, William Benoit (1995) has identified five strategies forachieving this aim: denial, evading responsibility, reducing offensiveness, correctiveaction, and mortification as the primary strategies involved in image restoration . O thercritics have developed alternative schemes for discussing apologia. The importantpoint is that in each case the focus has been on denial, deflection, or justification torestore a damaged image, as opposed to accepting responsibility as a sinner.While the various approaches to apologia offer strategies for image restoration,this focus is not appropriate for a situation in which the image cannot be restored viadenial, deflection, or transcendence because guilt is essentially undeniable. In such acase, the rhetoric of atonement offers a person, organizational leader or a nation a

means of accepting guilt in order to create a new image as a redeemed individual ornation. In his essay "Towards a new peace: forgiveness as politics" (1995), PatrickGlynn exam ines the notio n of political forgiveness within the con text of whole n ations.Glynn argues that "for mankind to progress, people must have faith that, somehow,they can ultimately let go of the past" (p. 19). H e believes that the lead ers of today areuniquely positioned to use words of atonement to purge guilt and seek redemption forpast wrong doings in order "to heal violent wounds" (p. 20).Dr. Ru th Fa den, a medical ethicist and professor at the Jo hn s H opkin s School ofHygiene and Public Health, argues that accepting responsibility and apologizing forwrongful action is "extraordinarily im portan t" for the healing process. She notes in thecase of wrong-doing by a nation that when a president formally apologizes it sends aclear message to the public and to those who have been wronged that what was done

will not b e do ne again (Banisky, 1997). Ja m es H . Jo ne s, a University of H ousto nhistory professor agrees and states that only through a formal act of contrition can weatone for our mistakes, offering som e am ount of justice to those who h ave beenharmed (Banisky, 1997). Brooks (1999) argues that "remorse improves the nationalspirit and hea lth . . . raising the moral threshold of a society" (p. 3). As the New YorkTimesnoted in an editorial commenting on the Pope's apologia, atonement not only


5/21

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENT 71

"redress[es] the wrong, but serves the function of 'clearing the air'" ("The Pope'sApology ," 2000, p . A28). In this way, atonem ent functions as a form of symb olic actionto serve a curative function (Burke, 1973 ; 1984a; 1984b). It is this curative function thatBurke has in mind when he labels atonement the "Grand Rounding Out" (1970, p.191). Th e rheto ric of atonem ent, as a sub-genre of apologia, offers a political leade r therhetorical tools necessary to let go of the past and heal old wounds.In sum, based on analysis of past examples of atonement rhetoric, it is clear thatwe understand the function of such rhetoric. W e know w hat it does. But wha t we do n'tknow is what it is-the'formal compon ents of the sub-genre.

THE RHETORI C OF ATONEMENT: A SUB- GENRE OF APOLOGI AIn den ning any rhetorical genre (or sub-genre) it is im porta nt to consider wh ethersimilar rhetorical forms are linked by some factor, w hat C am pbell and Jam ieso n callan "internal dynamic," (1978, p.2), to achieving a particular function in a definablesituation. Absent that rhetorical linkage, a num ber of theorists (C ampb ell &Jamieson,1978; Miller, 1984; Rowland 1991) argue that a genre or sub-genre is unlikely to bedefinable in clear and stable terms. In developing this conclusion, Rowland (1991)contends that there are three factors present in a stable genre which act to produce

strategic constraints that limit the options open to a rhetor: perceived needs, limitingpurposes in confronting those needs, and societal limitations on app ropria te rhetoricalresponses. These three factors create perceived strategic constraints that act as a"causal force" limiting what strategies will be effective within the context of a specificsituation. Thus, if atonem ent is a stable sub-genre of apologia, it should b e possible tolay out the perceived n eeds, limiting purposes, and societal constraints that explain thisstability.President Clinton's responses to the radiation experiments and the Tuskegeestudy illustrate the way these factors operate in the case of the atonement sub-genre.The causal forces that called for the radiation experiment speech and the Tuskeegeespeech were very similar. In both cases there was a perceived need within the countrythat the victims and their families receive an apology for the harm that had been

caused them by the governments' wrongdoing. This was evident by the outpouring ofarticles and letters published in newspapers across the country leading up to eachformal apology (Allen, 1995a; Allen, 1995b; Brown, 1995; Ho versten, 1995; Lee,1995a; Sweet, 1995; Bianco, 1997; Banisky, 1997; King, 1997; McKenna, 1997;M orris, 1997; Park er, 1997; Shelto n, 1997; and Stryk er, 1997).The purpose of the apology in both cases was two-fold: to confront the wron gdoingin the public arena and to purge guilt in order to repair the relationship with thewronged party by outlining steps that the government would take so that similarwrongdoing would not occur in the future. Such purification involves a process ofmo ving from guilt to redemp tion (Rueckert, 1982). Th e societal limitation s facingPresident Clinton also were two-fold. He had to say enough to satisfy those who hadbeen injured in both episodes without assuming more "guilt" than was necessary forhim and the rest of the country.Clearly, the strategies of traditional apologia (denial, bolstering, differentiation,transcendence, and so forth) would not be effective (or appropriate) in the situation wehave described. With the radiation experiments and the Tuskegee episode there wasno way to deny the evidence that had accumulated in both situations. Using the otherstrategies of traditional apologia would have been ineffective as well, since past


6/21

72 COMMUN ICATION STUDIESgov ernm ent action could no t be justified o r transcended. Evil had b een d one for w hichthere w as no possible excuse. Such a situation called for a formal act of contrition andredemption, functions not served by traditional apologia, which aims soley on imagerestoration. The only option was to seek purification via accepting responsibility anda purgation of guilt via atonement, a point that we will develop in more detail later inthis essay.One way of summarizing the "internal dynamic" of atonement rhetoric is tocharacterize the rhetorical form as the only means of responding to an undeniablejerem iadic accusation. Jo hn M urphy argues that "Th e evils [described in the jeremiad]demo nstrate the need to renew the Am erican covenant" (1990, p. 404) and K urt Ritteraptly reduces the m otive beh ind the jerem iad to "get[ting] right with G od" (1980, p.157). H ere , we stretch th e m eanin g of jerem iad to include accusations of significantpersonal or institutional wrongdoing, as well as violation of a religious covenant(Carpenter, 1978). Atonement is the only possible response when one has beenaccused of sin, whether breaking a covenant with G-d, violating basic national orinstitutional values, or personal moral misconduct, and the sinful actions are indisput-able and serious. Atonement does not take the form of the jeremiad. Rather, it is thepersonal or organizational response when there is no means of denying or side-stepping an accusation of substantial wrong-doing. In a sense, atonement is the onlypossible response to a jerem iad th at cannot be refuted.

R H E T O R I C A L F O R M A N D A T O N E M E N TThe notions of redemption, atonement and forgiveness always have been a partof Jude o-C hristian rhetoric , yet little has bee n written abou t how ato nem ent functionsfrom a rhetorical perspective. Perhaps the most developed implicit theory of atone-me nt comes from the Jewish liturgy of Rosh H ashanah and Y om K ippur. This ten-dayperiod of reflection is known as AseretY'mai Teshuva, or the Ten Days of Repentance(Telushkin, 1991). Teshuvah, literally translated, means "to return" and is the centralthem e of the Jew ish H igh Holy D ays which culminates on Yom K ippur when G-dgrants forgiveness and seals those who h ave aton ed for their sins in the Book of Life forthe coming year (Bridger, 1976; Finkel, 1993). The proper act of Teshuvah involves

much more than just asking for forgiveness. It requires that one undertake a wide-ranging and thorough review of why h e or she sinned and to m ake changes in behaviorso that the offense is not repeated. This "return" to moral grounding is the essence ofTeshuvah (Cohen, 1997; Olitzky & Sabath, 1996; Telushkin, 1991).Rabbi Aaron Levine contends that Teshuvah can erase the history of our unsavo ryactions of the past year (1990). Others also have noted the healing power of theatonement process. Edward Kessler (1998), Executive Director of the Centre forJewish-Christian Relations in London suggests that the act of Teshuvah can redirect aperso n's destiny if he or she goes the full rou te to direct his or her "penitential energyinto positive action" (p. 11). Diane Perlman (1998) argues that "atonement is theessential element in healing" and that a culture that values atonement can "shift theenergy in their collective psyche " (p. 33). Go ing even farther, D avid Blum enthal (1998)

claims that a public engagement in the process of Teshuvah by legitimate authoritiesgenerates a "moral and social consensus rooted in desisting from sin, restitution, andreform of characte r" (p. 82). All of these ideas supp ort ano ther Jew ish conce pt, theideal of healing the world or Tikun Olara.One particular prayer, which charts a course for Teshuvah during the Jewish HighHoly Days, is the UnetannehTokef. This prayer, written by Rabbi Amnon of Mainz


7/21

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENT 73about one thousand years ago is recited three times du ring Rosh H ashanah and Y omKippur (Finkel, 1993). Although not labeled as such, the Unetanneh7bfe/~functionallylays out the characteristic of atonem ent as a rhetorical form (Scherman, 1996, p. 541).On Rosh Hashanah will be inscribed and on Yom Kippur will be sealed how many will pass fromthe earth and how many will be created; who will live and who will die; who will die at hispredestined time and who before his time; who by water and w ho by fire, who by sword, who bebeast, who by famine, who by thirst, who by storm, who by plague, who by strangulation, and whoby stoning. Who will rest and who will wander, who will live in harmony and who will be harried,who will enjoy tranquillity a nd w ho will suffer, w ho will be im poverished and w ho will be enriched,who will be degraded and who will be exalted. But repentance, prayer and charity remove theevil of the decree!These three elements, repentance, prayer and charity, are at the core of atonement.A nu mb er of comm entators have concluded that repentance is an essential part ofatonement. Scherman (1996) equates repentance with fasting. Diane Perlman (1998)outlines a path to atonement that begins with confessing your offense. Patrick Sherry(1998) argues that the wro ngdo er m ust freely repe nt to his /he r victim (s) and reconcileonce forgiveness is granted. Blumenthal (1998) notes that repentance begins withrecognizing "one's sins as sin" and showing remorse (p. 76). These views support thenotion that the first characteristic of the rhetoric of atonement is that the rhetor mustacknowledge wrongdoing and ask for forgiveness.

The second requirem ent laid o ut in the Unetanneh Tokef s prayer. While religiousprayer is one possible means of enacting the second aspect of a rhetoric of atonement,the essence of this characteristic is inward-looking reflection on the causes of the sinfulaction in order to prevent any recurrence of the sin. Patrick Sherry (1998) contendsthat through reflection the offender must have a thorough change of attitudes andrelationship. Perlman (1998) argues that the offender must promise not to repeat theoffense. Blumenthal believes the repentant must take action by "desisting from sin"and making a "commitment never to commit the sinful act again" (p. 76). Sherry,Perlman, and Blumenthal all stress the importance of placing the burden of respon-sibility on the offender rather than the victim. This is an important element in theatonement process for a political leader. He or she is responsible for looking inward,toward the existing policies and circumstances that could perpetuate similar offensesand examine ways to change the environment. Therefore, the second characteristic ofthe rhetoric of atonement is that the political leader offer a thorough examination ofthe sinful act and reveal a changed attitude or policy to prevent future wrongdoing.The third requirement laid out in the Unetanneh Tokef is charity. While Schermanassociates charity with the offering of mo ney, o thers argu e that charity can b e equatedwith some othe r form of reparation (Blumenthal, 1998; Perlm an, 1998; Sherry, 1998).The w rongdoer must realize that good can com e out of the wrongdoing and that this"good" makes the whole process worthwhile and justified. He/she must make restitu-tion. In essence, the offender must take steps to develop a "different kind of presentand future" (Sherry, 1998, p. 162). Taking steps to deve lop a different k ind of pre sentand future is the third characteristic of the rhetoric of atonement.There is one important difference between private prayers for atonement andpublic rhetoric that seeks atoneme nt. In the religious setting, the credibility or au then-ticity of the prayeris it real atonement-is assessed by G-d. In the public setting,however, a different standard is needed to distinguish between true atonement for sinand a cynical strategy to avoid guilt. A clue to this test of authenticity can be found inthe primary triad of repentance, prayer, and charity that are at the core of the


8/21

74 COMM UNICATION STUDIESrhetorical pattern. One repents by "recognizing" one's sin. True prayer involves"inward looking " and a prom ise to desist from sin. An d cha rity involves "reparation."The rhetorical form linking these concepts together to produce the perception ofgenuine atonement is mortification. A nation or a person demonstrates that they trulyatone for their sin based on words and actions indicating genuine remorse andsuffering for committing the sin. Therefore, in the context of rhetorical atonement,"man sinning" (Burke, 1970, p. 211) calls for mortification, which involves the "self-inflicted pu nish me nt for on e's sins" in order to "expiate the guilt" (Rueckert, 1982, pp .146, 148). W e jud ge som eon e authentically sorry for their actions whe n it is clear theyhave suffered for their sin. Consequently, "the ideal kind of mortification is free-self-willed an d self-imposed" (Rueckert, 1982, p. 148). Burke w as getting at this point w henhe argued that "mortification must come from within" (Burke, 1970, p. 190).

W hile G-d can see into the soul of those seeking atonem ent in ord er to judg e theauthenticity of their praye r, in a public setting that authenticity can be judge d ba sed onwhether the person or organization in some way indicates that mortification hasoccurred as a mean s of expiating sin. Th e nature of the mortification re quire d to p roveauthentic rhetorical atone men t will vary d epending on wh ether the apology is beingoffered on behalf of a nation or an organization or for the person al beh avior of a publicindividual. Rueckert is getting at this point when he notes that "Everything dependsupon what is to be attained through mortification" (1982, p. 150).In the case of a nation, the Presid ent is the natural spo kesperson beca use as Tulishas noted at "the heart of the presidency" is a "duty" "to defend themselves [thepresident and the nation] publicly, to promote policy initiatives nationwide and toinspirit the population" (1987, p. 4). In the case of other organizations, atonement isusually carried out either by the head of the organization or a spiritual leader for it.Atonement for a nation or an organization requires mortification, but of a differentkind than for an individual. A nation or an organization such as the Catholic Churchcannot punish itself personally. But the organization can use words to demonstraterepentance and combine those words with substantive actions to prove the commit-ment to atone for past actions. Those actions must be substantial enough to indicatetrue repentance, prayer, and charity.

In the case of a public individua l, the situation is different. H e or she m ust m akeappropriate charitable actions to make the situation right, but he or she also mustindicate true repentance and a commitment to desisting from sin via personal morti-fication in the form of demonstration of substantial personal suffering. If the persondoes not prove that he or she has suffered, the atonement will not be perceived asgenuine.Apologia, which does not address the necessary and appropriate public actionthat proves repentance or private mortification will not seem genuine and the atone-m ent will no t succeed. It will com e across as what M arjorie W illiams has labeled "thetheater of sham regrets" (2000, p. B5). Therefore, evidence of mortification is thefourth characteristic of atonement rhetoric. An example illustrating the importance ofmortification for successful atonement can be found in the recent attempt by theCatholic Church in Brazil to apologize to Brazil's Indians. In a ceremonial Mass,Jayme Chemello, president of the National Brazilian Bishops Conference, asked"forgiveness" for the church "for the sins committed against our brothers, especiallyagainst the Indians whose rights have not always been respected" ("Church apology,"p . A15). This use of atonem ent failed resulting in "the rejection of the Chu rch's petitionfor forgiveness" ("Extermination of Indians", 2000) because the audience did not


9/21

THE RHETOR IC OF ATONEMENT 75perceive the repentance or the charity as adequate. In the Mass, the Church did notsend a clear signal of repentance. In fact, during the service, "the Vatican's Secretaryof State, Card inal A ngelo S oda no, said Brazil owes its curren t identity to the testimony'of courageous missionaries that left everything behind to announce the Gospel"("Brazil owes," 2000). Rather than truly repenting the actions of the missionaries,Cardinal Sodano defended them . Given the mixed m essage sent by the C hurch, it isunderstandable that "a spontaneous protest" occurred ("News from Brazil," 2000)reflecting the fact that the, "Indians were reluctant to forgive" ("Church apology," p.A15). A representative of the Indian com mu nity stated "Apologies are not enou gh. W ewant respect. We want our dignity" ("Church apology," p. A15).

If the atonem ent is no t perceived to be au thentic, it will be seen as empty verbiageI'm sorry. Tha t is precisely what hap pen ed in this case as evidenced by th e fact that thePresident of the Indigenist Missionary Council, Franco Masserdotti, and other leadersof that organization "refused to participate in the mass held on the spot whereindigenous people suffered 'violence and humiliation' " (Osava, 2000).Even though personal responsibility is at the heart of Tikun Olam (healing theworld), public w orship is its corne rstone (Finkel, 1993; Levine, 1990; Scherm an, 1985).Th e four characteristics we hav e described mu st be d one in pub lic to purge the sin andatone for guilt. Therefore, public confessional is the fifth element in seeking atone-ment. For political leaders, atonement must be sought in symbolic acts made in apublic forum. The apologies they offer to those who have been wronged in some waymust be heard by all if everyone is to move forward in the process of healing.Whether addressing the atrocities of the Holocaust or Hiroshima, or the mistakesof a philandering president, successful atonement rhetoric must contain the fiveelements w e have described if healing is to occur.' Th e characteristics defining arhetoric of atonement are: acknowledge wrongdoing and ask for forgiveness; basedupon reflection offer a thorough change of attitude and relationship; take steps todevelop a different kind of present and future; through public action or privatemortification demonstrate the authenticity of the apology; and seek atonement in apublic forum.PRE SIDE NT CL INT ON AND T HE RHE T ORIC OF AT ONE ME NT

President Clinton has relied on atonement in both the public and the privatecontext. In both situations, he successfully enacted all five elements of atonementrhetoric, although in the private context it took him several attempts before heincluded appropriate mortification to demonstrate to at least most Americans thegenuineness of his search for atonement.Clinton's Atonement Rhetoric on Behalf of the Country

As we noted earlier, President Clinton relied upon atonement strategies to apol-ogize to the victims and families involved in radiation experiments during the ColdWar and to the survivors and their families of the Tuskegee syphilis study. In bothcases he publicly acknowledged wrongdoing and offered an apology on behalf of thecountry. He outlined a variety of ways that the government had altered its attitudesconce rning the particulars of each situation, pledged to take steps to develop a differentkind of present and future, and combined public statements of pain with substantiveaction in order to demonstrate authentic atonement. His rhetoric closely mirrored thesymbolic pattern we have described.


10/21

76 COMM UNICATION STUDIESOn Oc tobe r 16, 1995, President C linton formally apologized to the familieswhose relatives had been involved in government-sponsored h um an radiation exper-iments between 1944 and 1974. He acknowledged wrongdoing when h e admitted th atthousands of experiments took place at hospitals, universities and military basesaround the country during that time with the goal of understanding the effects ofradiation exposure on the human body. He also noted that not only were theseexperiments do ne without the patient 's consent, but that the government ha d kep t the

experiments secret from the American peo ple as a way to avoid em barrassment. H elabeled the tests as "unethical" and as based on "deception" (Clinton, 1995, p. 1531).He then demonstrated a change of attitude by offering a "sincere apology" to thecitizens wh o h ad been subjected to those ex perime nts, as well as to their families a ndto their communities (p. 1531). He stated that "when the government does wrong, wehave a moral responsibility to admit it" (p. 1531).President C linton spent conside rable time describing a how a different futurewould b e created . He called for a thoroug h chan ge in political attitude towa rd secrecyand the government's relationship with its citizens, arguing that the American peoplemust be "able to rely on the United States to keep its word, to tell the truth, and to dothe right thing" (p. 1531). Clinton then outlined a variety of steps that would be takenby his administration. He cited the signing of an executive order requiring government

agencies to review procedures dealing with human research (p. 1531-1532) and thecreation of a Bioethics Advisory Commission to "watch over" research (p. 1531) andcalled for pro mp t "com pensation" as a means of guaranteeing that the nation wouldnever again "stray from the basic values of protecting our people and being straightwith them" (p. 1532).In the early sections of the address, where he described the experiments asunethical and deceptive, in the call for various actions to be taken, and finally in theconclusion, Clinton dem onstrate d tha t he and his administration felt pain for and trulyregretted the past experiments. In the second to last paragraph, he expressed theessence of all five characteristics of atonement when he said, "So today, by makingourselves accountable for the sins of the past. I hope more than anything else, we arelaying the foundation for a new era" (p. 1532). These words, in combination with

strong actions, indicated tru e remorsethe mortification n ecessary to prod uce authen -tic atonement on an issue of public, rather than private, moral conduct.In a 1997 speech, Presiden t Clinton apologized to the survivors of a syphilis studythat had been conducted at the Tuskegee Institute in Macon County, Alabama. In1932 the Federal govern me nt offered a new health care progra m to approxim ately 600poor black men living in Macon County. Over three hundred of these men werediagnosed with syphilis and were given placebos to treat their "bad blood." In thisstudy, conducted by the Federal Go vernm ent and the Tuskegee Institute, the d octorswatched for nine years as the ravages of syphilis took their toll. Even after penicillinwas introduced as a viable cure for syphilis, doctors working w ith the Tuskegee projectnever administered it to their patients (Auchmutey, 1992). It is perhaps most aston-ishing, that for more than thirty years scientists involved in the project wrote projectreports in which they "clearly delineated the nature of the study and its devastatingconsequences" without generating significant criticism (Solomon, 1985, p. 234).

In his speech President Clinton acknowledged this wrongdoing saying, "theAm erican peo ple a re sorryfor the loss, for the years of hurt. You did no thing wron g,but you were grievously wronged. I apologize and I am sorry that this apology hasbeen so long in coming." He indicated a sincere change of attitude when he said that


11/21

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENT 77the men in the study had been "betrayed," by the Public He alth Service and when helabeled the study as "an outrage to our commitment to our integrity and equality forall citizens," as "shameful," and as "clearly racist" (Clinton, 1997, p. 608).President Clinton explicitly called for "build[ing] a better present and a betterfuture" (p. 607). In order to rebuild broken trust, he supported steps to be taken tomake sure "there is never again another episode like this one" (p. 608). Clinton thenlaid o ut a plan to achieve this goal. First, he said a lasting m em orial at Tuskegee w ouldbe erected. Second, he promised to increase community involvement so that trustcould be restored. Third, he m ade a comm itment to strengthen researchers' training inbioethics and provide postgraduate fellowships to train bioethicists "especially amongAfrican Americans and other minority groups" (p. 608-609). Last, Clinton issued anexecutive order extending the charter of the National Bioethics Advisory Commissionto further "strengthen our protection for subjects in human research" (p. 609).

As in the radiation apologia, Clinton demonstrated adequate mortification toprove authentic atonement via statements of pain felt for past actions and substantivepolicy change. In the conclusion, he included a heartfelt plea for forgiveness as amea ns of demo nstrating that the nation felt pain for the survivo rs of the study. He said,"Today, all we can do is apologize. B u t . . . only you hav e the pow er to forgive"(paragraph 2 0). His expression of anguish, along with the actions he outlined prov idedthe rhetorical proof of genuine atonement.While there is not extensive data on the public response to either speech, someinformation indicates that the public perceived each apologia as authentic and re-sponded accordingly. For example, following his apology for the radiation experi-ments, commentators in The Boston Globe an d The Washington Post remarked thatClinton's statements had "brought a dramatic end" (Lee, 1995b, p. 8) and a "finalreckoning" (Greenberger & Allen, 1995, p. 3) to the radiation episode. ElmerineWhitfield Bell, whose father ha d b een one of the victims of the radiation experim ents,commented that she was "pleased by the report and the apology" ("Clinton sorry,"1995).The response to the Tuskegee apology, reaction was even greater. FollowingClinton's speech He rm an Shaw, who was in his early thirties whe n he be cam e a victimof the syphilis experime nts, said "It is never too late to wo rk to restore faith and trust"(Harris & Fletcher, 1997, p. 1). Shaw also was quoted as saying that h e was "delightedtoday to close this very tragic and painful chapter in our lives" (Mathis, 1997, p. 1).Albe rt Julk es, Jr. , wh ose father and two uncles were subjects of the experim ents, saidthat his father would have appreciated the President's apology (Mitchell, 1997).Vanessa Northington Gamble, chair of the Tuskegee Legacy Study Committee,comm ented that she hoped the apology would mark "a beginning of healing in termsof the racial divide we see in terns of black people not trusting medicine" (Harris &Fletcher, 1997, p. 1). In the same article, He nry W . Foster, Jr . called the ap ology the"right thing to do," and said that more often than not, apologies help more than hurt(Harris & Fletcher, 1997, p. 1). Dr. Rand all Mo rgan, pre siden t of the N ational M edicalAssociation, the oldest African-American professional medical association, said thatwhile President Clinton's apology did no t excuse what h app ene d at Tuskegee, "it mayhelp close this unfortunate chapter in our nation's history" (Mitchell, 1997, p. 10).In The Washington Post, Dorothy Gilman (1997) argued that the government'sapology was important to African Americans and to "everyone who cares aboutjustice" (p. Cl). It carried the hope, she said, that Clinton would address the ongoingracism in American society in a meaningful way. She said tha t she "felt renewe d h op e"


12/21

78 COMM UNICATION STUDIESthat Clinton could fulfill his promise "to heal the breach , to build a bridge across thedivide that, as he has said, 'has been America's constant curse' " (p. Cl). In the samearticle, Gilman quoted Vanessa Northingham Gamble, chair of the Tuskegee SyphilisLegacy Com mittee, w ho said, "the Presidential apology is just the beg inning of th ehealing" (p. Cl). Appearing on Morning Edition of National Public Radio with BobEdwards, Bebe Moore Campbell offered the following comments about PresidentClinton's apology:When a country has harmed a group of people, "I'm sorry" is more than just an admission ofwrongdoing, an apology on behalf of a nation does at least two important things for which there isno time limit. First, it disseminates information . . . and second, it sends a message that the beh aviorapologized for has brought shame to the country, is against the national interest, and should neveroccur again. A formal apo logy is a way of asking a nation to change its behavior . . . and it will helpthe country to heal. (Campbell & Edwards, 1997)This comment identifies the essence of what the rhetoric of atonement is supposed todo for a political leader and a nation. Clearly, Clinton recognized the situationalconstraints in these episodes and used the appropriate strategies to move the countryforward. Crucially, he u nde rstood that atone me nt for past public actions of a nation oran organization calls for both statements of repentance and action demonstrating awillingness to confront the past sin. It is the com bination of the public rep entan ce andthe action which functions as the societal equivalent of mortification to make therequest for forgiveness seem credible and heal the breach between the organizationand the victim.Personal Atonem ent and the Lewinsky Affair: A Question of Repentance

Clinton d ealt with a situation calling for a rhetoric of person al aton em ent w hen hefaced the accusation that he had conducted an illicit sexual affair with MonicaLewinsky and h ad lied about it. W hen it became quite clear based on DN A and otherevidence that the accusations were true, Clinton was presented with a situation inwhich atonement was the only option. However, unlike his use of the form in theTuskege e an d radiation cases, Clinton stumbled in his responses to the Lewinsky affair.Clinton made three separate statements in which he attempted to use atonement as aresponse to his wrongdoing. In the first two attempts, he clearly failed to enact thecharacteristics of the sub-genre. In the third, he met the formal requirements of thecategory, but his personal history led some to question the authenticity of his repen-tance. Memb ers of this group d oubted that his remorse was genuine. Thus, the pub licreaction largely was dictated by w hethe r they perceived his rhetorical mortification torepresent a genuine search for atonement. This created a situation in which mostAmericans accepted the President 's apology and desired an end to the scandal, but asizable minority continued to view him as a personal and political sinner.Clinton's First Attempt at Atonemen tA ddress to the Nation on August 17, 1998

In his televised address to the nation on August 17 th following his testimonybefore the Gra nd Ju ry , President C linton m ade his first attem pt to set things right withthe American public. He acknowledged that he did indeed "have a relationship withM s. Lewinsky that was not appropriate." He went on to say that this "constituted acritical lapse in judgment, and a personal failure" on his part for which he would takecomplete responsibility (Clinton, 1998a, p. 1457). He stated:


13/21

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENT 79But I told the grand jury today, and I say to you now , that at no time did I ask any o ne to lie, to hidor destroy evidence, or to take any other unlawful action.I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. Imisled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that. I can only tell you I was motivated bymany factors: first, by a desire to protect myself from the em barrassment of my own conduct. I wasalso very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked ina politically inspired lawsuit, which has, since been dismissed was a consideration, too.

In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an Independent Counsel investigation thatbegan w ith private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings, I might add, about which an indepen dentFederal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over 2 years ago. TheIndepe nden t C ounsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. Andnow th e investigation itself is under investigation. This has gone on too long, cost too much , and hurttoo many innocent people, (p. 1457)Here, Clinton attempted to combine atonement with traditional apologetic strategiessuch as denial, differentiation, b olstering, transcend ence, a nd accusation. This com bi-nation was not successful.According to Burke (1973), symbolic action can have a purgative-redemptivefunction. But, while Clinton offered reasons why he misled those around him (toprotect himself and o thers from emb arrassm ent), he did not offer any insight into anypersonal reflection that he might have had of his wrongdoing. In no way did hisrhetoric contain evidence of mortification needed to demonstrate the authenticity ofhis atonement. Instead, he defended his actions by holding up the need for personalprivacy during a time when he felt pursued by an over zealous prosecutor who heperceived to be politically m otivated. Th is self-disclosure, wh ich was aim ed at bolster-ing his image as a protector of his family, along with his attempt to differentiate hisparticular behavior from more sinful action, reflected Clinton's refusal to accept realresponsibility for his actions.

Clinton wen t on to say that the Lew insky affair was a private m atter no w, betw eenhim, his wife, their daughter and their G-d. He ended his address by asking the publicto "turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of ournational discourse, and to return ou r attention to all the challenges and all the pro miseof the next Am erican century" (p. 1457). It is evident in Clinton's closing remark s thathe was attempting to transcend the situation by moving the country toward a higherpurpose and away from the issue at hand. However, Clinton's attempt at purgation-redemption and moving the country forward failed with this address. This result canbe traced to Clinton's failure to truly atone for his sins by accepting responsibility andexhibiting repentance. Political scholar and psychoanalyst, Stanley Renshon, labeledthe ad dress as a "nonapo logetic ap ology" (2000, p. 60). Instead of atoning for his sins,Clinton tried to sidestep responsibility, a strategy that clearly did not work.Reports from a variety of sources indicated that Clinton's "I'm sorry" was notenoug h (M cGrory & Kranish, 1998). M any found the President's apo logy to be"hedg ed and insufficient" (Grier & Th urm an , 1998). As a consequ ence, the p ublic wasnot ready to forgive the President. The Los Angeles Times reported that only one in sixAmericans considered President Clinton's address as a sincere apology (Brownstein,1998). In the same poll, 54% of those who watched President Clinton's address statedthat he was trying to shift the blame for his actions. Other reported comments duringthat same time period also seem ed to suggest that President C linton's apo logy left a lotto be desired (Sapsted, 1998, p . 4). Th e perce ption that he had not truly apologized wasreflected in the polls. Surveys conducted by The Gallup Organization on August10-12, 18 and 20 showed a marked decline in public support for President Clinton.


14/21

80 . COMMUNICATION STUDIESOver this period, the percentage of those polled who had a favorable opinion of thePresident declined from 60% to 55% and finally 53% on August 20.Clinton's Second Attempt at Atonement-Oak Bluff,Massachusetts

In a speech given on August 28th President Clinton again attempted to bring his"apology" to the public's attention. Again, the attempt at atonement was a failure. Ata ceremony in Oak Bluff, Massachusetts, on the 35th anniversary of the "I Have aDream" speech, Clinton used the King speech as a springboard for addressing theissue of forgiveness and talked about the lessons he had learned in recent weeks:All of you know, I'm having to become quite an expert in this business of asking for forgiveness. Itgets a little easier the more you do it. And if you have a family, an administration, a Congress, anda whole country to ask, you're going to get a lot of practice. [Laughter]But I have to tell you that in these last days, it has come home to me, again, something I firstlearned as President, but it wasn't burned in my bones, and that is that in order to get it, you haveto be willing to give it.And all of usthe anger, the resentment, the bitterness, the desire for recrimination againstpeople you believe have wronged you, they harden the heart and deaden the spirit and lead toself-inflicted wounds. And so it is important that we are able to forgive those we believe havewronged us,even as we ask for forgiveness from people wehave wronged. (Clinton, 1998b, p. 1475)While this second attempt at atonement came closer to the required form tha n did thefirst, it still failed to resolve the crisis.In order to satisfy the first element of atonement , the person who has beenwronged must be acknowledged and the wrongdoer must ask for forgiveness. In thisattempt, we are not privy to whom Clinton has asked forgiveness from nor to how hewill change his ways. He only says that he's "becoming an expert" at it. Nor did thePresident offer any of the other elements that are necessary for atonement . He did notaddress how his attitude has been examined or changed concerning the Lewinskymatter (the second requirement of atonement). He also failed to outline a path tocreating a different kind of present and future (the third element of atonement) .Perhaps most importantly, he exhibited little contrition for his action. In fact, byrelying on humor , he indicated that no significant mortification had occurred. Insteadof atonement, Clinton used image restoration strategies associated with traditionalapologia. W hile his comments served to heighten our awareness of the importance offorgiving o thers who have failed us in some way, Clinton failed to apologize or atonefor his own wrongdoing.

Again, this speech fell short in its attempt to heal the nation. In fact, Clinton'sremarks within this speech went fairly unnoticed in the press. Those that did respondoffered headlines such as "Clinton speaks of forgiveness, [but] dodges apology"(Mathis, 1998, p. Al) . Absent rhetoric providing evidence of authentic repentance, hecould not succeed. It is, therefore, unsurprising that polls conducted by the GallupOrganization from August 10th through September 10th showed a continued decline ofClinton's job app roval ratings. Clearly the nation was still not satisfied with the rhetoricof Clinton's atonement process.Clinton's Third Attempt at AtonementThe Annual Prayer BreakfastUnlike his remarks mad e on the even ing following his Grand Ju ry testimony and thoseoffered in Oak Bluff, Massachusetts, President Clinton's statement to religious leadersat an annual prayer breakfast on September 11, offered his first com plete use of therhetoric of atonement .


15/21

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENT 81First, I want to say to all of you that, as you might imagine, I have b een on quite a journe y these lastfew weeks to get to the end of this, to the rock bottom truth of where I am and where we all are. Iagree with those w ho hav e said that in m y first statement after I testified I was not contrite enou gh.I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned.It is important to me that everybody who has been hurt know that the sorrow I feel is genuine:first and m ost important, m y family; also my friends, my staff, my C abinet, Monica Lewinsky and herfamily, and the American people. I have asked all for their forgiveness.But I believe that to be forgiven, more than sorrow is required-at least two more things. First,genuine repentance-a determination to change and to repair breaches of my own making. I haverepented. Second, what my bible calls a 'broken spirit;' an understand ing that I must have G -d's helpto be the person that I want to be; a willingness to give the very forgiveness I seek; a renunciationof the pride and the anger which cloud judgment, lead people to excuse and compare and to blameand complain. (Clinton, 1998c, p. 1565)Here, Clinton unequivocally chose a rhetoric of atonement and turned away fromtraditional apologia.In this third and final address pertaining to the Lewinsky matter, Clinton met thefirst three and the fifth formal criteria required in the rhetoric of atonement and,depending upon the predispositions of the audience, the fourth as well. Clintonattempted to fulfill the first criteria of the rhetoric of atonement in the first twoparagraphs. He acknowledged that he had "sinned" and offered that his "sorrow" was"genuine." He specifically named those who he had hurt, his friends, his Cabinet,Monica Lewinsky and her family, and the American people. He also explicitly askedfor their forgiveness.

Clinton met the second criteria of the rhetoric of atonement by acknowledgingthat in order to repent he must be determined to "chan ge an d to repair breaches" (p.1565) of his own making. For the first time, he clearly accepted responsibility to changehis behavior and attitudes. He vowed that with G-d's help he would "be the person"that he wants to be. He continued to elaborate on this theme later on in his speechwhen he stated that he would "continue on the path of repentance, seeking pastoralsupport and that of other caring people so that they can hold me accountable for myown commitment" (p. 1565).The third criteria for the rhetoric of atonement was met when Clinton concludedthat he would "intensify" his efforts "to lead our country and the world toward peaceand freedom, prosperity and harmony, in the hope that" he can be used "for greatergood" (p. 1565). Both statements offered the American people a sense that there wasto be a different kind of present an d future in w hich he w ould focus on the w ork of thenation. It is interesting that Clinton specifically referred to a particular piece of theYom Kippur liturgy that focuses on the need to "make a turn" away from old habitsand to "ch ang e" our ways (p. 1566). This is the essence of Teshuvahand Tikun Olam. Tohea l the world eac h of us must take respon sibility for our a ction s, turn aw ay from sinfulbehavior and make the necessary changes to affect change.

Of course, the speech was presented in public and was widely covered, thusmeeting the fifth characteristic of atonement rhetoric. In relation to the fourth char-acteristicdemonstration of authentic repentance via mortification-the situation ismore complex. Clinton clearly claimed to have suffered considerable pain because ofhis behavior. He agreed with his critics that he "was not contrite enough" in his firstspeech, expressed his "genuine" sorrow, and claimed to have "a broken spirit." Inthese statements, the President told his audience that he had experienced great pain(mortification) and thus indicated that he had authentically atoned for his behavior.The primary difference between the first two speeches and the third is the series of


16/21

82 COMM UNICATION STUDIESstatements claiming that he genuinely felt anguish for his actions. While these state-ments clearly were enough for most Americans, they were not sufficient for a sizablemino rity. Th e key factor influencing pub lic reaction to the speech w ould seem to havebeen the degree to which people accepted as genuine Clinton's use of mortification.Following the speech, it was immediately evident in a variety of public forumsthat Clinton's use of the rhetoric of atonement had been successful for most Ameri-cans. On Septem ber 11, a Gallup poll indicated that President C linton's job approvalrating was up to 63% . In articles published that day, a nd in the d ays following this thirdspeech, the sentiment was different than it had been before. For example, PeterGelzinis of the Boston Herald (1998) quoted one Congressional source as saying that"the president's behavior, along with this public penance, has had the effect ofthrowing open many closet doors and forcing lots of skeletons out into the open. It'suncom fortable and unsettling. It rattles people. It exposes plenty of hyp ocrites" (p. 6).The tone in this commentary and many others indicated a willingness to accept thePresident's apology because for the first time he seemed to be genuinely contrite.

Many press reports suggest that a large group of Americans accepted the authen-ticity of the President's apology. Hanna Rosin (1998) reported in Th e Washington Poston September 12 th, that m any of the religious leaders of all faiths at the W hite Ho useprayer breakfast were "moved by the sight of the most powerful man in the worldhumbling himself so thoroughly before them." Rosin added that "[M]any of the 106religious leaders in attendance said they were won over by the president's deferenceto religious touchstone s, by his repea ted references to the fact that he had 'sinned ,' thathe ha d rea ched 'rock b ottom ,' that he had a 'b roke n spirit' " (p. A10). Similarly,Watanabe (1998), reporting for the Lo s Angeles Times, noted that with each apology,President Clinton moved closer to "satisfying the requirements of penitence upheld byJewish and some Christian faiths" (p. A16). The Orange County Register on Septembe12, 1998, (McGraw & Phan) q uoted religious leaders from the co mm unity o n theimp ortanc e of self-reflection, em phasized that the "road to repenta nce is painful," andadm onishe d readers that "Am ericans should take stock of their own frailties" (p. A39).Th e consensus of religious leaders was expressed in the w ords of Bill W hite, pastor ofSurfer's Chapel in Huntington Beach who quoted the biblical adage "let whoeveram on g you is perfect cast the first stone" (p. A39).

With each passing day, more and more clergy stepped up to the President 'sdefense. On September 14, the Sacramento Bee (O'Rourke, 1998) quoted Pastor Tim-othy L. Simpson of the Greenridge Baptist Church who told his congregation, "Weneed to forgive the president. We believe in redemption and forgiveness" (p. A15).Pastor Melvin G . Brown of the Greater New Ho pe B aptist Church was quoted in thesame article as saying that "those who would condemn Mr. Clinton should recall theGospel message, 'He that is without sin, let him cast the first stone' " (p. A15). Moreoften tha n no t, these wer e the sentiments of the clergy. For exa mp le, Lee Strobel of theWillow Creek Community Church, acknowledged that Clinton should have comeforward much earlier but concluded that "as a Christian" he must forgive him(O'D onne ll & Skertic, 1998). Co m parin g Clinton 's situation to the the affair of biblicalKing David and Bathsheba, Strobel and other clergy suggested that since G-d forgaveDavid once he repented, so too should we forgive Clinton. In the same article, PastorJo hn M . Buchanan of Fourth Presbyterian C hurch states: "It 's t ime to forgive, not for(Clinton's) sake, but for ours" (p. 2). In the New York Times, Laurie Goodsteinsummarized the feeling of many clergy, noting that "in a broad diversity of churchesof many denominations, conservative and liberal, large and small, ministers empha-


17/21

THE RHETO RIC OF ATONEMENT 83sized the theme of forgiveness, saying no one is free of sin, and that only G-d has thepow er to judg e, to forgive a nd to re dee m" (1998, p. A25).As thejewish High Ho ly Days approached , the public response to the President 'sfinal appeal was evident. Rabbi Wohl of Temple Israel in New Roshelle, New Yorkwas quoted in The New York Times (Ames, 1998) saying that Clinton "represents all ofus . We are a nation obsessed with celebrities and with hype. He embodies the nation'shop e and ideals, and he becom es an ex tension of us all. So rathe r than ho lding him u pas a person who should be impeached, I see him as a symbol of us. He can improve;we can improve" (p. 10).

By September 2 1, President Clinton's approval rating had climbed to 66% am ongthe white population an d an 86% job-app roval rating am ong African-Americans(Gallup, 1998). M any co mm entators cited either public opinion or presented their ownview of Clinton as "one of us," arguing that it was time to put the scandal aside andmo ve on (Feldman, 1998; Georg e, Fen ner & Goldin er, 1998; Grossm an, 1998; Lerner,1998; Martinez, 1998; McGrory, 1998; Rivera, 1998; Shaw, 1998; Shogren, 1998;White, 1998). Now that he had owned up to his sin, people were more willing toforgive him. Ja m es S weeney, bo ard chairm an of the New College of California said,"Everybody's bathtub has a ring in it" (George, Fenner & Goldiner, 1998, p. 3).At the same time, however, a sizable number of the American people clearly

rejected the President's apology (Jacobson, 1999, p. 45). While the polls showedincreased su pport for the President an d a desire to get bey ond the scandal, millions ofAmericans still did not accept President Clinton's attempt at atonement. Arthur H.Miller argued that roughly "one-third of the peo ple rem ained firmly fixed" in favor ofimpeachment throughout the crisis (Miller, 1999, pp. 722-723). The key issue seemsto have been the perceived credibility of the repentance; they doubted Clinton'sclaims to have suffered and been transformed. The "core" group supporting impeach-ment was "unforgiving of anything less" than impeachment (Jacobson, 1999, p.48).Members of this group doubted that the President's apology was authentic. Ratherthan authentic atonement, critics of the President saw his statements as reflecting awillingness to say anything to end the crisis, what Marjorie Williams of the WashingtonPost has referred to as "mea-not-really culpa" (2000, p. B5).Atonement rhetoric allows us to wash out our bathtub ring. It allows us to admitour wrongdoing, to ask for forgiveness and offer a thorough change of attitude that willmo ve us toward a better life. At the same tim e, if there is no g enuine statemen t of painen du red -no real mortification-the atonemen t is unlikely to be perceived as genuine.In that situation, the public may remain quite skeptical and refuse to believe theapology. Both of these results occurred in the Lewinsky scandal. By Jan ua ry 10, 1999President Clinton's approval rating had climbed to an all time high, even thoughmillions still supported the House managers in their attempt to impeach the president.

PostscriptIn a curious postscript to the Lewinsky scandal, President Clinton returned to arhetoric of atonement on August 10, 2000. At a meeting of four thousand ministers,

Clinton "spoke about redeeming himself" (Welna, 2000). He called his affair withLewinsky "a terrible mistake," and spoke of his effort "to totally rebuild my life." ThePresident expressed repentance by admitting that he had "given evidence" that heneeded "to be in church" and added that the affair had forced him to confront "thestatus of m y spiritual life." H e claimed that his genu ine rep entan ce had freed him "todo what you ought to do anyway" (Lacey, 2000, p. A12; "Clinton talks," p. A2).


18/21

84 COMM UNICATION STUDIESAs with his use of the rhetoric of atonement two years previously, the responsewas mixed. While as a group, the ministers "warmly" responded to Clinton's remarkswith a "standing ovation" ("Clinton talks," p. A2), not all were convinced that thePresident genuinely had repented for his sins. In an interview with David Welna ofNational Public Radio, one member of the audience said, "there wasn't really much ofan apology-a full apology for what his actions were" (Welna, 2000). Another statedthat "I think he's truly repentant. But I wish I could see more evidence of it in every

day life" (Welna, 2000). Acco rding to Welna , "M any others described the Presiden t asa fellow sinner who has done some atoning, but not quite enough" (2000). Two yearsfollowing the Lewinsky scandal, little had changed. Most Americans accepted thePresident's atonement. But a asubstantial minority did not, largely because they didnot believe that Clinton exhibited signs of genuine pain and repentance.CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

In this essay, we have argued that atonement is an identifiable sub-genre withinapologia. To be successfully utilized, atonement must include all five characteristicsidentified here. It is also a rhetorical strategy that is difficult to combine with otherstrategies. One cannot deny wrongdoing, or displace blame, and also unconditionallyaccept that blame. The use of other strategies in combination with atonement tends toundercut the perceived genuineness of the apology. It was President Clinton's failureto understand that atonement is an all or nothing strategy that caused his first twoattempts at using the sub-genre in the Lewinsky scandal to fail and subsequentlycaused some of the public to believe that his final attempt to atone was less thangenuine. At the same time, however, Clinton has demonstrated in both public andprivate matters that the rhetoric of atonement can be a powerful force for purgation,redemption, attitude change, and healing the relationship with the individual or groupthat was harmed.

This essay shows that a broader theory is needed within the apologia family.Previous studies of apologia ha ve identified a num ber of strategies within the category.But they have not clarified the relationship between situation/purpose and the use ofspecific sub-genres of apologia. Nor have they identified in a prescriptive sense theproper mix of strategies for confronting different types of situations. Identification ofatonement as a sub-genre of apologia suggests the importance of identifying othersub-genres within the category and clarifying the relationship between particularstrategies or groups of strategies and image restoration.This essay also supports the research agenda of those who have argued for abroadly situational approach to genre. It indicates that breaking down situation intoperceived exigence, purpose, and societal constraints is a useful approach for identi-fying the causal force (if any) that might bring into existence a stable genre. Identifi-cation of that causal force is essential for discovering and defining what rhetoricalstrategies will be effective for the rhetor in any given genre.As for President Clinton, his use of the rhetoric of atonement may be indicativeof the nation's n eed to purge collective guilt and com e to terms with past mistakes. Buthis rhetoric also has demonstrated that if symbolic action is perceived as inauthenticbecause there is no genu ine m ortification th en pu rgation will not occ ur. In either case,Clinton's rhetoric of atonement served a fundamental purpose, showing the impor-tance of collectively facing guilt and m oving forward as a nation in our jou rne y towarda better life.


19/21

THE RHETORIC OF ATONEMENT 85REFERENCES

Allen, S. (1995a, Septem ber 24). Radiation pr obe ends; few apologies; Crit ics hit panel for weak remed y. Th eBoston Globe, p. 1.Allen, S. (1995b, Septem ber 29). Radiation subjects to get apology. The Boston Globe,p. 33 .Ame s, L. (1998, September 20). High holy day services broadcast. The New York Times,Section 14 WC ; p. 10.Auch mutey , J. (1992, Septe mbe r 6). Ghosts of Tuskegee: The G ove rnm ent is sti ll l iving down its infamousstudy of untreated syphilis in Alabam a, but to doctors who took part , there 's no thing to apologize for. The AtlantaConstitution, Section M; p. 1.Banisky, S. (1997, April 12). Tuskeg ee victims wait for an apology; i t wou ld c hange nothing , but might healsome hurts. The Baltimore Sun, p. 1A.Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excluses and a pologies: A theory of image restoration strategies. Albany, StateUniversity of New York Press.Benoit , W. L. & Brinson, S. L. (1994). AT& T: Apologies are not enou gh. Communication Quarterly, 42, 7 5 - 8 8 .Bianco, R. (1997, February 22). Docto ring the truth: Hypocrisy of Tuskegee syphilis study unfolds in 'MissEvers ' Boys' . Denver Rocky Mountain News, p. 7D.Blumenthal, D. R. (1998). Repentance and forgiveness. Cross Currents, 48, 7 5 - 8 2 ."Brazil owes identity to missionaries, Cardinal Sodano says" (2000, April) . Catholic World News, RetrievedOctob er 6, 2002 from http:/ /www.cw news.com /index.cfmBridger, D. (Ed.) (1976). U-Netanneh Tokef. In The new Jewish encyclopedia. Behrman House , Inc . WestOrange, NJ.Brooks, R. L. (Ed.). (1999). When sorry isn't enough: The controversy over apologies and reparations for humaninjustice. New York: New York University Press.Brown, D. (1995, October 4). Study details the culture that drove experiments; Scientists worried about

safety, not consent. The Washington Post, p. A8.Brownstein, R. (1998, August 21). The Tim es poll: Few believe Clinton , but most a pplaud his work. The LosAngeles Times, Part A; p. 1.Burke, K. (1984a). Attitudes toward history (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, California; H erm es Publications.Burke, K. (1984b). Permanence and change: An anatomy ofpurpose (3rd ed.) . Los Angeles, California: U niversityof California Press.Burke, K. (1973). The philosophy of literary form: Studies in symbolic action (3rd ed.) . Berkeley and Los Angeles,California: University of California Press.Burke, K. (1970). Th e rhetoric of religion: Studies in logology. Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of CaliforniaPress.Cam pbell , B. M. & Edwards, B . (1997, Ma y 16). Tuskegee apology, Morning Edition, National Public Radio.Campbel l , K. K. &Jam ieson , K. H. (1978). Form and genre in rhetorical cri t icism: An introduction. In K. K.Cam pbell & K. H. Jam ieso n (Eds.) , Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 9-32). Falls Church, VA: SCA.Carpe nter, R. H . (1978). The historical jerem iad as rhetorical genre. Form and g enre in rhetorical cri t icism:An introduction. In K. K. Cam pbell & K. H. Jam ieson (Eds.), Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 9-32).Falls Church, VA : SCA. Form an d genre in rhetorical cri t icism: An introduction. In K . K. Cam pbell & K. H.Jamieson (Eds.) , Form and genre: Shaping rhetorical action (pp. 103-117). Falls Church, VA: SCA.Chu rch apology gets chilly reply. (2000, April 27). Kansas City Star, p. A15.Clinton sorry for tests in cold war; Experiments done on unknowing subjects. (1995, October 4). St. LouisPost-Dispatch, p. 3A.Clinton talks about Lewinsky affair (2000, August 11). Kansas C ity Star, p. A2.Clinton, W. J. (1995, Octo ber 3). Remarks on accepting the report of the advisory com mittee on hum anradiation experiments. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1995, Book II, p p .1530-1532.Clinton, W. J. (1997, May 16). Rem arks in apology to African-Americans on the Tuske gee e xperimen ts.Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 199 7, Book I, p p . 6 0 7 - 6 0 9 .Clinton, W. J. (1998a). Address to the nation on testimony before the in dep ende nt cou nsel 's grand jury.Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1998, Book II, pp. 1457-1458.Clinton, W. J. (1998b). Remark s on the 3 5 th Anniversary of the March on Washington in Oak Bluffs,Massachusetts. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J. Clinton, 1998, Book II, pp. 1472-1475.Clinton, W .J. (1998c). Rem arks a t a breakfast with religious leaders. Public Papersof the Presidents of the UnitedStates: William J. Clinton, 19 98, Book II, pp. 1565-1566.

Co hen, J. M. (1997). 1001 Questions and answers on Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. Jason Aronson, Inc .Collins, L ia t (1996, Dec emb er 6). Portugal atones 500 years after Jew s exp elled. The Jerusalem Post, p. 1.Dow ney, S. D. (1983). The evolution of the rhetorical genre of apologia. Western Journal of Comm unication, 57,4 2 - 6 4 .Dro zdiak , (1998, M arch 17). Va tican a pologizes to Je ws ; Chu rch cites failings in fighting holoca ust. Th eWashington Post, p. A1."Extermination of Indians-Black Legend?" 2000, May. Zenit, Retrieved October 6, 2002 from http://www.Zenit. org/english/.


20/21

8 6 C O M M U N I C A T I O N S T U D I ESFeldman, T. B. (1998, September 28). Clinton, in Oval Office interview, focuses on the importance ofa tonement . The Buffalo N ews, Special to The W ashington Post, p . 4A.Finkel , A. Y. (1993). Rosh H ashan ah: D ay of judg men t. In Th e essence of the holy days: Insights from theJewishsages, (p . 13-39). Nor thva le , NY. L ondon : Jason Aronson , In c .Gelzinis, P. (1998, September 11). Guilt means always having to say you're sorry: Hillary is key to anypardon for President . The BostonHerald,p. 6.Georg e, T., Fenn er, A., & Goldiner , D . (1998, Septem ber 20). Black caucus embraces p rez. Daily News (NewYork), p . 3 .Gil l iam, D. (1997, Ma y 17). An apology, A heal ing sense of hope . The Washington Post, p. C1.Glynn, P . (1995). Towards a new p eace : forgiveness as polit ics . Current, March-A pril, 371, 17-20 .Gold, E. R. (1978). Political apologia: The ritual of self-defense. Communication Monographs, 45, 3 0 6 - 3 1 6 .Goodstein, L. (1998, Septem ber 14). Test ing of a president: The sermons. G uidepost from c ountry 's pulpi ts :Th e Power to judge belo ngs to G-d. The New York Times, p . A 2 5 .Greenberger , S. S. & Allen, S. (1995, October 4) . US apologizes to thousands i t exposed to radiat ion. Th eBoston Globe,p . 3 .Grier , P. & Thu rma n, J . N. (1998, August 31) . W hy the poli t ical spl it between public and Washing ton el i te .The Christian Science Monitor, p . 3 .Grossman, C. L. (1998, September 23). Scandals bring repentance to the forefront . The Detroit News, p . E 8 .Harris , J . F. & Fletcher , M. A . (1997, May 17). Six decades la ter , an apology; Saying ' I am sorry, ' Presidentcal ls Tuskegee experim ent ' shameful . ' The Washington Post, p. A1.Hoversten , P. (1995, August 18) Hu nting radiat ion reco rds- and truth. USA Today, p . 3A.Jacob son, G . C. (1999). Imp each men t poli t ics in the 1998 Congressional e lections. Political Science Quarterly,114, 3 1 - 5 1 .Kessler , E. (1998, September 26). Fai th and reason: How real is President Clinton 's contr i t ion? Th e

Independent (London), Obituaries , p . 11.King, S. (1997, Febru ary 16). Cov er s tory; A governm ent s tudy gone ba d. Los Ang eles Times, p . 5 .Kruse, N. W. (1977). Motivat ional factors in non-denial apologia. Central States SpeechJournal, 28, 13-23 .Lacey, M. (2000, August 11). Rep entant Clinton reviews his presidency. The New York Times, p . A12 .Lee, G. (1995a, Octob er 3) . Panel urges compensa tion for radiat ion subjects ; Thous ands of vict ims of ColdW ar researc h could be eligible for financial reme dies. The W ashington Post, p . A 6 .Lee, G. (1995b, Oc tobe r 4) . Clinton apologizes for U.S. radiat ion tests , Praises panel re po rt . The W ashingtonPost, p . A 8 .Lerner , M. (1998, Septe mb er 25). Com men tary; A day of atone men t for the market- induced ethos ofselfishness; Presidency: Clinton puts self-interest above principle. But then, we live in a society that rewards suchbehav io rs . The Los A ngeles Times, Part B, p . 9 .Levine, A. (1990). Rosh Hashana day. The new Rosh Hashanah anthology. Canada: Zichron Meir Publicat ions.Mart inez, J . (1998, Septem ber 25). Tim e to make amen ds; spir itual leaders ma p out Clinton 's path toa t o n e m e n t The Boston Herald,p. 1.Mathis , N. (1997, May 17). Atoning for Tuskegee expe riment; O n behalf of nat ion, an apology ; ' I am sorry, 'Clinton tells study's subjects. The Houston C hronicle, p. 1.Mathis , N . (1998, August 29) . Clinton speaks of forgiveness, dodges ap ology. The Houston Chronicle, p. A1.McG rory, B. & Kranish, M . (1998, Septem ber 5) . Clinton declares: ' I 'm very sorry; ' President issues his fi rs tLewinsky apology. The Boston Globe, p. A1.McGrory, M. (1998, November 5) . Surprise , surprise . The Washington Post, p . A 3 .McGraw, C. & Phan, H. T. (1998, September 12). STARR report ; His apologies might not be enough, but'Everyone is a s inner . ' The Orange CountyRegister, p . A39 .McK enna, M . A. J . (1997, February 21). Study in Shame ; notorious Tuskegee experim ent is over , but itslegacy l ives on in medical research. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, p . I D .Miller, A.H. (1999). "Sex, politics and pub lic opinio n: Wh at political scientists really learne d from th eClinton-Lewinsky scandal ." PS: Political Science & Politics, 32, 7 2 2 - 7 2 3 .Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 70, 151-167 .Mitche ll, A. (1997 , M ay 17). Clinto n regrets "clearly racist" U.S . study. The New York Times, p . A10 .Morris , P. (1997, Apri l 22) . 'Sorry ' isn ' t enough to make Blacks trust medicine. The Plain Dealer, p . 9B.Mount, F. (1998, May 31). Apologies are good for governments . Sunday Times, Section 5; p . 4 .Mu rphy, J . M . (1990). "A t ime of shame an d sorrow": Robert F. Ke nne d' and the America n jeremia d.Quarterly Journal of Speech, 7 6 , 4 0 1 - 4 1 4 .New Y ork Times. (2000, March 14). The P ope 's apology. The New York Times, p . A28 .Niebu hr, G . (2000, Marc h 12). Mea culpa: The P ope apologizes for his church. The New York Times, p. Wk. 3.News from Brazil, (2000, April 28). Servico Brasileiro de Justica e Paz Retrieved on October 9, 2002 fromht tp : / /www.onewor ld .o rg / se jup /397 .h tm.O'Do nnell , M . & Skertic , M. (1998, Septem ber 14). Forgive Clinton, pastors urge. Chicago Sun-Times, N E W S ,p . 2 .Oli tzky, K. M. & Sab ath, R. T. (1996). Preparingyour heart or the high holy days: A guided ourne y. Philadelphia,PA : Jewish Publicat ion Society.


21/21

T H E R H E T O R I C O F A T O N E M E N T 8 7O'R ourk e, L. (1998, Septem ber 14). Forgive, Co nde mn ? Clergy divided regarding Clinton. Sacramento Bee,p . A 1 5 .Osava, M. (2000, April 26). Brazil: Catholic Church says sorry for crimes. African Perspective, Retrieved onOc tobe r 6, 2002 from http:/ /www.africanperspective.comParker, L. (1997, April 28). 'Bad blood' still flows in Tuskegee study. USA Today, p. 6A.Perlman, Diane (1998). Atonement as t ikkun. Tikkun, Sept.-Oct., 13, 3 2 - 3 4 .Renshon, S. A. (2000). After the fall : The Clinton presidency in psychological perspective. Political ScienceQuarterly, 115, 4 1 - 6 5 .Ritter, K. W. (1980). Am erican polit ical rhetoric and the jerem iad tradition: Presidential no mina tion

acceptance addresses, 1960 -1976. Central States SpeechJournal, 3 1 , 153-171 .Rivera, J . (1998, Septem ber 29). Sett ing things right; Atone men t: Cur rent even ts make relevant the me anin gof the Jewish Yom Kippur: the ne ed to confess sin and b e reconciled. The Baltimore Sun, p. 1B.Rosin, H. (1998, Septem ber 12). Prayer breakfast sways ministers; Clinton makes m oving plea for forgive-ness. The Washington Post,A. 10.Rowland, R. C. (1991). On generic categorization. Communication Theory, 1, 128- 144 .Rueckert , W. H. (1982). Kenneth Burke and the drama of human relations (2 nd ed.). Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.Sapsted, D. (1998, August 19). Scandal in the W hite H ous e: Confession fails to shock a jade d nation.Am ericans found the ' lying' hard to take but only a minority thou ght the President should go. The Daily Telegraph,p . 4.Scherman, N. (1996). Unetanneh Tokef, In The complete artscroll M achzor Rosh H ashanah, p. 541. ArtscrollMesorah Series. Brooklyn NY: Mesorah Publications, Ltd.Shaw, M. T. (1998, September 26). Forgiving the President The Boston Globe, p. A19.Shelton, D . L. (1997, April 15). Mistrust of doctors l ingers after Tuskegee; M any B lacks remain wa ry- an dunderserved-a quarter-century after infamous syphilis study. The Washington Post, p. Z8.Sherry, P. (1998). Redeeming the past . Religious Studies, May 1998, 34, 165-176.Shogren , E. (1998, Dec em ber 13). Clinton pastor ' speaks out ' in boo k; Aton eme nt: Minister says he has nodoubts about sincerity of the President 's repentance. He calls the transgressions sins of 'weakness, ' not 'malice. 'The Los Angeles Times, p. A45.Solom on, M . (1985). Th e rhetoric of dehuman ization: A n analysis of med ical reports of the Tuske gee syphilisproject. Western Journal of SpeechCommun ication, 49, 233- 247 .Stanley, A. (2000, March 13). Pope asks forgiveness for errors of the church over 2,000 years. The New YorkTimes, p. A1, A10.Stryker, J . (1997, April 13). Ideas & tren ds; Tuskegee 's long arm sti ll touches a nerve, The New York Times,Section 4; p. 4.Sullivan, W. F. (1995). Hiroshima and Nagasaki after 50 years. America, 173, p 8 - 1 0 .Sweet, L. (1995, October 3). U.S. panel urges apology to A-test victims. Chicago Sun-Times, p. 22 .Telushkin, J . (1991).Jewish literacy. NY: Wil l iam Morrow & Co.Tulis, J. K. (1987). Th e rhetorical presidency. Princeton, Princeton University Press.W are, B. L. & Linkugel, W . A. (1973). The y sp oke in defense of them selves: O n th e generic crit icism of theapologia. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 59, 273- 283 .Wa tanab e, T. (1998, Septem ber 12). The Starr report; Religious reflect different points on m oral c omp ass;Ethics: Views of wrongdoing, repentance vary widely. Some faiths stress individual atonement; for others, thestability of society is paramount. The Los Angeles Times, p. A15.Watts, J . (1998, Nov emb er 28). Toky o's war ' re mo rse' fails to satisfy Jia ng ; 'History is a mirror. But mo reimp ortant is the future. ' Jian g said. The Guardian (London), p. 20.Weingrod, A. (1998). Ehud Barak's apology: Letters from the Israeli press. Israeli Studies, 3, 238 .Welna, D. (2000, August 11). Reflections of the president. Morning Edition, National Public Radio.White, G. (1998, September 26). Searching for forgiveness; some religious leaders call for judgment onClinton; while others express will ingness to put scandal behind them. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, p . D 1 .Whitfield,J . H. (1997, Septem ber 29). Nev er too late to apologize for slavery. St. Lou is Post Dispatch , p. B7.Williams, M. (2000, Marc h 20). Era of the 'useful a pology. ' The Kansas City Star, p. B5.

rhetoric of atonnement

Documents