{16 Greater Good Fall 2004

In April of 2004, televised photographs revealedto the world the abuse of Iraqi prisoners held bythe United States military in the Abu Ghraibprison. These photos, and many other imagesthat followed, showed soldiers taking pleasure in

torturing and mocking naked Iraqi prisoners. The prison-ers’ treatment drew criticism from around the world; itwas described as cruel, humiliating, appalling, and unac-ceptable. Iraqis, understandably, were enraged. As detailsunfolded, Americans, including government and militaryofficials, expressed shame that their country’s democraticand humanitarian values were being undermined.

The U.S. government, as the responsible party, soughtforgiveness—not only from the Iraqis, but also from theAmerican public. Toward this end, President George W.Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, andNational Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice offered pub-lic comments, including what some might call apologies.President Bush told the American public how he had apol-ogized to King Abdullah II of Jordan. “I was sorry for thehumiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and thehumiliation suffered by their families,” he said. “I toldhim I was as equally sorry that people seeing those pic-tures didn’t understand the true nature and heart ofAmerica.... I am sickened that people got the wrongimpression.” In an appeal on an Arabic-language televi-sion station, the president said that Iraqis “must under-stand that I view these practices as abhorrent. They mustalso understand that what took place ... does not representthe America that I know.... Mistakes will be investigated.”

}through

}{{

There’s more than one way

to say “I’m sorry,” according

to apology expert Aaron Lazare.

Some apologies encourage

forgiveness and reconciliation;

others only make things worse.

Here’s how to tell the difference.

MakingPeace

Apology

why to forgive

Fall 2004 Greater Good 17

Speaking on the same television channel,Condoleezza Rice said, “We are deeply sorryfor what has happened to these people, andwhat the families must be feeling. It’s justnot right. And we will get to the bottom ofwhat happened.” Secretary of DefenseRumsfeld told the Senate Armed ServicesCommittee, “These events occurred on mywatch. As Secretary of Defense, I amaccountable for them and I take full respon-sibility.”

These attempted apologies and expres-sions of consolation failed to elicit forgive-ness from the Iraqi people or the Arab worldin general. In fact, the words may haveaggravated feelings of hostility and resent-ment. What was missing from these so-called apologies? Why were they flawed?

What makes an apology work?For the past 10 years, I have studied thestructure and function of public and privateapologies. My goal has been to understandwhy certain apologies succeed or fail to elicitforgiveness and bring about reconciliation.During my analysis, I have been surprisedthat most writers and researchers overlookthe relationship between forgiveness andapology. Forgiveness is often portrayed as agenerous gift bestowed on us by someone

we offended, or as a gift we unconditionallyextend to someone who offended us, regard-less of an apology. Yet my own analysis hasconvinced me that forgiveness and apologyare inextricably linked. Indeed, especiallyafter a party has been humiliated, as in thecase of Abu Ghraib, apology is a vital, oftennecessary, step toward assuaging feelings ofhumiliation, promoting forgiveness, andrestoring balance to a relationship.

I believe there are up to four parts to thestructure of an effective apology. (Not everyapology requires all four parts.) These are:acknowledgment of the offense; explanation;expressions of remorse, shame, and humil-ity; and reparation.

Of these four parts, the one most com-monly defective in apologies is the acknowl-edgment. A valid acknowledgment mustmake clear who the offender is (or has thestanding to speak on behalf of the offender)and who is the offended. The offender mustclearly and completely acknowledge theoffense. People fail the acknowledgmentphase of the apology when they make vagueand incomplete apologies (an apology “forwhatever I did”); use the passive voice(“mistakes were made”); make the apologyconditional (an apology “if mistakes havebeen made”); question whether the victimwas damaged or minimize the offense (anapology “to the degree you were hurt” or“only a few enlisted soldiers were guilty atAbu Ghraib”); use the empathic “sorry”instead of acknowledging responsibility;apologize to the wrong party; or apologizefor the wrong offense.

The U.S. apology for Abu Ghraib con-tained several of these deficiencies. For anational offense of this magnitude, only thepresident has the standing to offer an apol-ogy. It appeared that other spokespersonswere apologizing on behalf of PresidentBush, or even to shield him. That was thefirst deficiency. Second, the apology must bedirected to the offended people, such as theIraqis, the American public, and the Ameri-can military. Instead, in President Bush’smost widely publicized comments, he apolo-gized to the King of Jordan and thenreported his conversation secondhand to theoffended parties. He never directly addressedthe Iraqis, the American public, or the Amer-ican military. Third, the person offering theapology must accept responsibility for theoffense. Neither President Bush nor Con-doleezza Rice accepted such responsibility.

Instead, they extended their sorrow to theIraqi people. Feeling sorry does not commu-nicate acceptance of responsibility. The pres-ident also avoided taking responsibility asthe Commander-in-Chief by using the pas-sive voice when he said, “Mistakes will beinvestigated.” In addition, he failed toacknowledge the magnitude of the offense,which is not only the immediate exposure ofseveral humiliating incidents, but a likelypervasive and systematic pattern of prisonerabuse occurring over an extended period oftime, as reported by the International RedCross.

The next important phase of an apology isthe explanation. An effective explanationmay mitigate an offense by showing it wasneither intentional nor personal, and isunlikely to recur. An explanation will back-fire when it seems fraudulent or shallow, asby saying, “The devil made me do it,” or “Ijust snapped,” or “I was not thinking.” Thereis more dignity in admitting, “There is noexcuse,” than in offering a fraudulent orshallow explanation.

President Bush, and others in his adminis-tration, tried to explain prisoner abuse atAbu Ghraib as the work of a few bad apples.Rather than discussing any broader explana-tion for the abuses—or outlining how hewould make sure they did not happenagain—he just stressed that they did notrepresent “the true nature and heart ofAmerica.”

Remorse, shame, and humility are otherimportant components of an apology. Theseattitudes and emotions show that theoffender recognizes the suffering of theoffended. They also help assure the offendedparty that the offense will not recur, andallow the offender to make clear that heshould have known better.

{ }

Left: Jordan’s King Abdullah II and President Bush in theWhite House Rose Garden discussing the abuses at AbuGhraib prison with the media on May 6, 2004. The United

States apologyfor Abu Ghraibcontainedseveraldeficiencies.

AP

/Wid

e W

orld

Pho

tos

18 Greater Good Fall 2004

President Bush failed the humility testwhen he suggested that his critics did notknow “the true nature and heart of Amer-ica,” and that he was as sickened by peoplegetting the “wrong impression” of Americaas he was by the abuses at Abu Ghraib. Inmy opinion, he was implying that the U.S.was a victim in the incident.

Finally, reparation is a way for an apologyto compensate, in a real or symbolic way, forthe offender’s transgression. When theoffense causes damage or loss of a tangibleobject, the reparation is usually replacementor restoration of the object. When theoffense is intangible, symbolic, or irre-versible—ranging from an insult or humili-ation to serious injury or death—thereparation may include a gift, an honor, afinancial exchange, a commitment to changeone’s ways, or a tangible punishment of theguilty party.

Of the three attempted apologies, only Sec-retary Rumsfeld’s apology accepted responsi-bility for the “events.” But neither he norPresident Bush recommended any repara-tions, including his possible resignation.

How apologies healWithin the above structure of apology, aneffective apology can generate forgivenessand reconciliation if it satisfies one or moreof seven psychological needs in the offendedparty. The first and most common healingfactor is the restoration of dignity, which iscritical when the offense itself is an insult ora humiliation. Another healing factor is theaffirmation that both parties have sharedvalues and agree that the harm committedwas wrong. Such apologies often followracial or gender slurs because they helpestablish what kind of behavior is beyondthe pale. A third healing factor is validationthat the victim was not responsible for theoffense. This is often necessary in rape andchild abuse cases when the victim irra-tionally carries some of the blame. A fourthhealing factor is the assurance that theoffended party is safe from a repeat offense;such an assurance can come when anoffender apologizes for threatening or com-mitting physical or psychological harm to avictim. Reparative justice, the fifth healingfactor, occurs when the offended sees theoffending party suffer through some type ofpunishment. A sixth healing factor is repara-tion, when the victim receives some form ofcompensation for his pain. Finally, the sev-enth healing factor is a dialogue that allowsthe offended parties to express their feelingstoward the offenders and even grieve overtheir losses. Examples of such exchangesoccurred, with apologies offered, during theTruth and Reconciliation Commission hear-ings in South Africa.

In the U.S. government’s apologies for theAbu Ghraib incident, there was not a fullacknowledgement of the offense and anacceptance of responsibility, so there couldbe no affirmation of shared values. In addi-tion, there was no restoration of dignity, noassurance of future safety for the prisoners,no reparative justice, no reparations, and nosuggestion for dialogue with the Iraqis. So itshould not come as a surprise that the Iraqipeople—and the rest of the world—werereluctant to forgive the United States.

A causal relationship between apology andforgiveness is understandable based on thisanalysis of apology. The apology repairs thedamage that was done. It heals the festeringwound and commits the offender to a changein behavior. When the apology meets anoffended person’s needs, he does not have towork at forgiving. Forgiveness comes spon-taneously; the victim feels like his offenderhas released him of a burden or offered hima gift. In response, he often wants to return

the gift by downplaying the damage done tohimself, sharing part of the blame for theoffense, or complimenting the offender insome way. Commonly, the relationshipbecomes stronger with a bond forged out ofthe honesty and courage of the offendingparty.

Getting it rightFor an example of this type of apology, it isuseful to compare the Abu Ghraib incidentwith another case of prisoner abuse and itsaftermath.

Eric Lomax, a Scotsman in the militaryduring World War II, was captured in Singa-pore by the Japanese and held prisoner atKanburi, Thailand, from 1940 to 1944. In hisbook The Railway Man, Lomax describes hisexperience of being caged like an animal in atiny cell, beaten, starved, and tortured. Hiscaptors broke his bones. The interpreter,Nagasi Takashi, who appeared to be in com-mand, became the focus of Lomax’s hostility.

After his release from prison at the end ofthe war, Lomax was a broken man, behavingas if he were still in captivity, unable to shownormal emotions or maintain importantrelationships. He frequently thought aboutexacting revenge on the translator and wasunable to forgive, even though he knew hisvengeance was consuming him. In 1989,Lomax discovered that his nemesis was aliveand was writing about his repentance and hisdesire to be forgiven for his wartime activi-ties. Lomax wanted revenge. He wanted toreconstruct his story of those war years. Hewanted to see Takashi’s sorrow. He wanted tohave power over him.

Lomax and his wife wrote to Takashi, whothen asked for a meeting. Both men andtheir wives met for two weeks near the siteof the prison camp in Thailand and atTakashi’s home in Japan. With Takashi’shelp, Lomax was able to piece together thestory of his prison existence. Takashiacknowledged with sorrow and guilt thewrongs for which he and his county wereresponsible. He said he had never forgottenLomax’s face, and admitted that he and oth-ers in the Japanese Imperial Army hadtreated Lomax and his countrymen “very,very badly.” He explained how, since the war,he had argued against militarism and builtmemorials for the war dead. During theirmeetings, Lomax observed Takashi’s suffer-ing and grief.

Before they met, Lomax had been unableto forgive. He was controlled by his grudgesand vengeance. It took a heartfelt andextended apology on the part of Takashi to

why to forgive

Only SecretaryRumsfeld’sapology acceptedresponsibility forthe “events.” Butneither he norPresident Bushrecommendedany reparations,including hispossibleresignation.

meet Lomax’s needs—the need to have hisdignity restored, to feel safe, to understandthat he and Takashi had shared values, togrieve, and to learn that Takashi suffered per-haps as much as he did. After the two weeks,Lomax said his anger was gone. Takashi was nolonger a “hated enemy” but a “blood-brother.”Lomax wrote that he felt like “an honoredguest of two good people.”

Although apology and forgiveness betweenthese men occurred in private, their storyserves as a microcosm of what can happenafter public apologies between groups ornations. Whether an offended party is an indi-vidual or a collection of individuals, an apologymust meet the same basic psychological needsin order for it to bring about forgiveness andreconciliation.

Exceptions and conclusions There are situations in which it is useful toforgive without an apology. One obviousexample is where the offending party isdeceased. Forgiveness then helps the aggrievedget on with his life. In other situations, wherethe unrepentant offender shows no signs of

remorse or change of behavior, forgivenesscan be useful, but reconciliation would befoolish and self-destructive. For example, awoman who has been abused by an unre-pentant husband may forgive him butchoose to live apart. On the other hand,without an apology, it is difficult to imag-ine forgiveness accompanied by reconcilia-t i o n o r r e s t o r a t i o n o f a t r u s t i n grelationship. Such forgiveness is an abdica-tion of our moral authority and our carefor ourselves.

These situations aside, effective apologiesare a tool for promoting cooperation amongpeople, groups, and nations in a worldplagued by war and conflict. Although theapologies of the U.S. government to theIraqis for the abuses at Abu Ghraib fellshort, we must keep in mind that it is rarefor apologies to be offered and accepted dur-ing war. In such times, emotions run high,preserving face and an image of strengthare critical, and it is all too easy to demonizethe enemy. But in the decades since WorldWar II, several nations (or individuals orgroups within nations) from both sideshave apologized for their actions duringthat war. In 1985, Richard von Weizsacker,then the president of Germany, apologizedto all of Germany’s victims of the war. TheU.S. government apologized to JapaneseAmericans who were interned duringWorld War II. Additionally, in the wake ofthe Holocaust, Pope John XXIII eliminatedall negative comments about Jews from theRoman Catholic liturgy. He followed thiseffort by convening the Second VaticanCouncil, or Vatican II, which marked a turn-ing point in the Church’s relationship withJews, Muslims, and others. These and manyother successful apologies, both private andpublic, require honesty, generosity, humil-ity, and courage.

We can only hope that current and sub-sequent administrations in the UnitedStates, Iraq, and other nations can, in thedecades ahead, acknowledge their offenses,express their remorse, and offer repara-tions for acts committed during wartime.Without such apologies, we may be leftwith grudges and vengeance for decades tocome.

Aaron Lazare, M.D., is chancellor, dean, and pro-fessor of psychiatry at the University of Massa-chusetts Medical School. He is a leading authorityon the medical interview, the psychology of shameand humiliation, and apology. His most recentbook is On Apology (Oxford University Press,2004).

When the apologymeets an offendedperson’s needs, he does not have towork at forgiving.Forgiveness comesspontaneously; thevictim feels like his offender hasreleased him of aburden or offeredhim a gift.

What an Apology Must Doby Aaron Lazare

There are up to four parts to an effectiveapology, though not every apology

requires all four parts. They are as follows.

1. A valid acknowledgment of the offensethat makes clear who the offender is andwho is the offended. The offender mustclearly and completely acknowledge theoffense.

2. An effective explanation, which shows anoffense was neither intentional nor per-sonal, and is unlikely to recur.

3. Expressions of remorse, shame, andhumility, which show that the offenderrecognizes the suffering of the offended.

4. A reparation of some kind, in the form of areal or symbolic compensation for theoffender’s transgression.

An effective apology must also satisfy at leastone of seven psychological needs of anoffended person.

1. The restoration of dignity in the offendedperson.

2. The affirmation that both parties haveshared values and agree that the harmcommitted was wrong.

3. Validation that the victim was not respon-sible for the offense.

4. The assurance that the offended party issafe from a repeat offense.

5. Reparative justice, which occurs when theoffended sees the offending party sufferthrough some type of punishment.

6. Reparation, when the victim receivessome form of compensation for his pain.

7. A dialogue that allows the offended partiesto express their feelings toward theoffenders and even grieve over theirlosses.

Fall 2004 Greater Good 19

M E T H O D S