The recent apology by the Australian Prime Minister to Indigenous Australians demonstrates the increasing willingness of nation states to apologize for historical injustices. In this critical discursive analysis of Rudd’s apology, we analyse the pragmatic and linguistic features of the apology in light of recent research on political apologies as a generic type of discourse. We demonstrate how the act of offering and justifying an apology was accomplished through the use of emotion and identity categories. In particular, we examine how the reason—emotion dilemma was managed rhetorically by tying emotion to facts, and how differing levels of categorization can all be used to evoke support for apologizing for historical injustice. In contrast to social-psychological experimental work on apologies and forgiveness, we show that different levels of categorization — the personal, intermediate and superordinate — can all be used flexibly in discourse to invoke empathy and identification with the ‘other’, and that rather than invoking emotions in the ingroup, humanizing the ‘other’ is a powerful strategy for eliciting support for redressing social injustice.
Abadi A. ( 1990) The speech act of apology in political life. Journal of Pragmatics14: 467-487.
2.
Abdel-Nour F. ( 2003) National responsibility. Political Theory31: 693-719.
3.
Augoustinos M. and LeCouteur A. ( 2004) On whether to apologize to Indigenous Australians: The denial of white guilt. In: Branscombe NR and Doosje B (eds) Collective Guilt: International Perspectives. New York : Cambridge University Press, 552-609.
4.
Augoustinos M., LeCouteur A. and Soyland J. ( 2002) Self-sufficient arguments in political rhetoric: Constructing reconciliation and apologizing to the Stolen Generations. Discourse & Society13: 105-142.
5.
Barkan E. ( 2000) The Guilt of Nations: Restitution and Negotiating Historical Injustices. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
6.
Billig M. ( 1987) Arguing and Thinking: A Rhetorical Approach to Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7.
Billig M. ( 1991) Ideology and Opinions: Studies in Rhetorical Psychology . London: SAGE.
8.
Brown R., Gonzalez R., Zagefka H., Manzhi J. and Cehajic S. ( 2008) Nuestra culpa: Collective guilt and shame as predictors of reparation for historical wrongdoing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology94: 75-90.
9.
Cunningham M. ( 2008) ‘It wasn’t us and we didn’t benefit’: The discourse of opposition to an apology by Britain for its role in the slave trade. The Political Quarterly79: 252-259.
10.
Doosje B., Branscombe NR, Spears R. and Manstead ASR ( 1998) Guilty by association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology75: 872-886.
11.
Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL and Validzic A. ( 1998) Intergroup bias: Status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology75: 109-120.
12.
Edwards D. ( 1997) Discourse and Cognition. London : SAGE.
13.
Edwards D. ( 1999) Emotion discourse. Culture and Psychology5: 271-291.
14.
Edwards D. and Potter J. ( 1992) Discursive Psychology. London : SAGE.
15.
Engerman S. ( 2009) Apologies, regrets, and reparations. European Review17: 593-610.
16.
Harris S., Grainger K. and Mullany L. ( 2006) The pragmatics of political apologies. Discourse & Society17: 715-737.
17.
Haslam N. ( 2006) Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality and Social Psychology Review10: 252-264.
18.
Hastie B. ( 2009) ‘Excusing the inexcusable’: Justifying injustice in Nelson’s Sorry speech. Discourse & Society20: 705-725.
19.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) ( 1997) National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. Sydney : HREOC.
20.
Iyer A., Schmader T. and Lickel B. ( 2007) Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt. British Journal of Social Psychology46: 572-587.
21.
Jefferson G. ( 1984) Transcript notation. In: Atkinson JM and Heritage J (eds) Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press , ix-xvi.
22.
Kampf Z. ( 2009) Public (non-) apologies: The discourse of minimizing responsibility . Journal of Pragmatics41: 2257-2270.
23.
Kingston M. ( 2004) Not Happy John: Defending our Democracy. Camberwell, NSW: Penguin.
24.
Lakoff R. ( 2001) Nine ways of looking at apologies: The necessity for interdisciplinary theory and method in discourse analysis. In: Schiffrin D, Tannen D and Hamilton HE (eds) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 199-214.
25.
Leach CW, Iyer A. and Pedersen A. ( 2006) Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin32: 1232-1245.
26.
LeCouteur A. ( 2001) ‘On saying sorry’: Repertoires of apologies to Australia’s Stolen Generations. In: McHoul A and Rapley M (eds) How to Analyse Talk in Institutional Settings. London: Continuum, 156-158.
27.
LeCouteur A. and Augoustinos M. ( 2001) Apologizing to the Stolen Generations: Argument, rhetoric and identity in public reasoning. Australian Psychologist36: 51-61.
28.
Luke A. ( 1997) The material effects of the word: Apologies, ‘stolen children’ and public discourse. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education18: 343-368.
29.
McGarty C., Pedersen A., Leach CW, Mansell T., Waller J. and Bliuc A.-M (2005) Group-based guilt as a predictor of commitment to apology. British Journal of Social Psychology44: 659-680.
30.
Macintyre S. and Clark A. ( 2003) The History Wars. Carlton, Victoria: Melbourne University Press.
31.
Meier AJ ( 1998) Apologies: What do we know? International Journal of Applied Linguistics8: 215-231.
32.
Nobles M. ( 2008) The Politics of Official Apologies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Oakes P. and Haslam A. ( 2001) Distortion v. meaning: Categorization on trial for inciting intergroup hatred. In: Augoustinos M and Reynolds KJ (eds) Understanding Prejudice, Racism, and Social Conflict. London: SAGE, 179-194.
34.
Olshtain E. and Cohen A. ( 1983) Apology: A speech act set. In: Wolfson N and Judd E (eds) Sociolinguistics and Language Acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 18-35.
35.
Pedersen A., Beven J., Walker I. and Griffiths B. ( 2004) Attitudes toward Indigenous-Australians: The role of empathy and guilt. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology14: 233-249.
36.
Potter J. ( 1996) Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction . London: SAGE.
37.
Reicher S. and Hopkins N. ( 2001) Self and Nation: Categorization, Contestation and Mobilization . London: SAGE.
38.
Riley SCE ( 2002) Constructions of equality and discrimination in professional men’s talk. British Journal of Social Psychology41: 443-461.
39.
Robinson JD ( 2004) The sequential organization of ‘explicit apologies’ in naturally occurring English. Research on Language and Social Interaction37: 291-330.
40.
Shenhav SR ( 2007) Showing and telling in parliamentary discourse: The case of repeated interjections to Rabin’s speeches in the Israeli parliament . Discourse & Society18: 223-255.
41.
Shields SA ( 2005) The politics of emotion in everyday life: ‘Appropriate’ emotion and claims on identity. Review of General Psychology9: 3-15.
42.
Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD and Wetherell M. ( 1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-categorization Theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell .
43.
Van Dijk TA ( 1993) Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society4: 249-283.
44.
Wetherell M. ( 1998) Positioning and interpretive repertoires: Conversation analysis and post-structuralism in dialogue. Discourse & Society9: 387-412.
45.
Wetherell M. and Potter J. ( 1992) Mapping the Language of Racism: Discourse and the Legitimation of Exploitation. London: SAGE.
46.
Wohl MJA and Branscombe NR ( 2005) Forgiveness and collective guilt assignment to historical perpetrator groups depend on level of social category inclusiveness . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology88: 288-315.
