Denzyl Janneker (2007-09-17)
The author’s research is within the context of the U.S. and NATO bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on May 7, 1999. Three people were killed in the assault, which was reported to have huge diplomatic repercussions, not least given China’s opposition to NATO attacks in the country. Tian’s ontological argument pits the apologies that followed against Smith’s model. The author adopts a realist perspective, viewing the subject from an objective point of view with the known tangibles – a bombing incident, a model to base the apologies upon and the documented evidence of apologies made. In terms of a theory, I venture that these media messages and the study of their content fall within the ambit of academic Denis McQuail’s media culturalist view.
Tian starts off with a literature review that addresses why apologies are made, the growing body of literature on the subject over the years, the various meanings associated with the term and the basis for a successful apology. Tian also refers to newspaper and online articles about the bombing. It’s useful information in terms of formulating an argument, but of concern is that Tian merely restates the work of other scholars cited, without giving us the benefit of some critical analysis. For instance, Smith points to some of theoretical shortcomings in Lazare and Tavuchis’s work. Hence, it would have been interesting to know how the apparent limitations of their research impact on Tian’s analysis, given that the work of the two scholars are cited extensively in the study.
The author’s theoretical framework reintroduces Smith’s nine elements of categorical apology and further explains each in turn. Tian omits to say exactly why Smith’s categorical apology method has been chosen, and one is left wondering whether other models exist that could be tested. Before applying the analysis to the case of the U.S. and NATO bombing, Tian concedes that Smith fails to address one important point in the Tavuchis definition of apology – that of forgiveness by the victim. And if a “proper and successful apology” hinges on such an omission, we’re left to question the credibility of Smith’s theory. To makes sense of this gap in the analysis, I revert to Smith’s original work and find that only in the concluding paragraph is there reference to “forgiveness.” Smith appears to suggest that it’s by choice that he failed to consider “the crucial relationship between apologies and forgiveness … ” He states further that he is not willing to claim that forgiveness should necessarily follow an apology. In my view, Tian ought to have explored Smith’s contention, perhaps alluding to a weakness in the study, rather than summarily accepting it and endorsing its relevance.
Using Smith’s model, the epistemology seeks to balance the apologies made by various institutions to the Chinese embassy, in an endeavor to see how they square up. The author examines the behavior by the U.S. and NATO in the form of apologies made in public briefings, letters and the like, in an attempt to match these patterns with a scientific study. The findings reveal both positive and negative aspects – positive in the sense that the apologies comply with four of the standards set and negatively in that five of the standards of apology have not been met. Tian doesn’t dwell on this imbalance in much detail, and this is rather unfortunate considering that it’s the culmination of an exhaustive study. There is just one sentence that attempts to address the disparity - that the U.S. and NATO failed to produce meaningful or categorical apologies for the attack. Thereafter, Tian concludes the study in another line by saying that future research ought to explore China’s responses to the apologies. And on this last point, we’re not alerted to whether this is a reference to the notion of forgiveness, which appears to be the only flaw Tian’s has found in Smith’s model.
Tian does a commendable job arranging the material in a methodical fashion from setting out the basis for the study, to introducing Smith’s apology model, and finally to the conclusions drawn. But, I hold that it’s flawed when, in adopting the categorical apology method, it doesn’t really take account of the glaring omission of forgiveness. This comes into sharper focus, when Tian, in quoting from Tavuchis, that a “proper and successful apology,” hinges on forgiveness, sidesteps this issue and tailors the research to fit in with the approach that is adopted.
I would further suggest that the theoretical framework could have been enriched by references to contemporary examples, like apologies over torture and abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, of the clergy in relation to abuse of young boys and President George W. Bush’s admission of the federal government’s failings in the wake of relief aid to victims of Hurricane Katrina. Or for that matter, how calls for U.S. apologies to the Japanese for raids on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the bombing of wedding parties in Afghanistan and Iraq which killed scores of civilians, could have a bearing, if at all, on Smith’s nine elements of a categorical apology.
Granted this is an objective study, but there is room for more interpretation of the results of the findings by the author. We rarely get to hear Tian’s “voice” emerge and I venture that the over reliance in clinging to the work of previous scholars does a disservice to the author’s research and findings, the latter ultimately proving rather anticlimactic. It is a fascinating study nevertheless and would do well as a comparative study with other contemporary issues alluded to earlier, taking account of course of any weaknesses in the model being applied.
