Article
Glinert, L. (2010). Apologizing to China: Elastic apologies and the meta-discourse of American diplomats. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7 (1), 47-74
Summary
This research looks to establish the pragmatics of diplomatic apologies and therefore analyzes off-the-record interviews with different US officials who participated in apology discussions during two Sino-American crises (1999 and 2001). Four officials interviewed (A, B, C, and D) requested that their real names not be used. Their interviews were recorded for remembrance. All of our participants made it evident that they studied Eastern cultures and gave serious consideration to them. The study employs the descriptive design, looking to gather data to describe diplomatic apologies and apologies in general comprehensively. Findings suggest that negotiation and discursive conflict are crucial components of the diplomatic apology and, maybe, of apologies more generally.
Critical Evaluation of the Article
To begin with, one strength of the study is shown by the way it fully addresses its research objectives using a descriptive study design. The researcher aimed to achieve three goals by describing interviews with former state officials. The author’s first goal is to illuminate the role of apologies in international diplomacy (between the US and China). He shows that face and financial liability are the main reasons for apologies at this level. Face refers to self-image and social image at large, whereby apologies are meant to restore the face of the offended party. While the offended party, China, believes that face restoration entails self-denigration and an expression of honor to them, the US feels that multiple apologies make them look weak and may end up losing some ‘face’ in the process. A financial liability facilitates mutual satisfaction in understanding the situation between both parties.
The second goal was to investigate diplomats’ thinking on such apologies. The researcher shows that it is difficult for an apology to be successful because of the differences in opinions regarding diplomatic apologies. Despite the differences in thought (resulting from differences in languages) between the parties’ diplomats, various factors must be considered to achieve a successful apology. No matter how malleable the language of diplomats on both sides is while negotiating a form of words, the ex post facto support of both leaderships and nations is required (Kitagawa & Chu, 2021). The Chinese continued demand for a proper apology, and the US’s hesitance is solved by words that may appear as an apology to others and a failure to admit fault to others.
Lastly, the author looked to add to the ongoing discussion in pragmatics regarding the qualities of apologies. He does this successfully by showing that diplomatic apologies, like other forms of apologies, entail handling matters rationally and realistically, with an eye toward practice rather than theory. Additionally, he shows non-verbal aspects that affect apologies. Despite the back and forth of apologetic words, factors such as time and timing play a key role in apology pragmatics (Cornut, 2009).
Another strength is the author’s lack of bias in how he treated the apology topic. The lack of bias is shown by how he supports his arguments using off-the-record interviews, blending them with thoughts from previous studies. A perfect example is determining the effects of time and timing in apology, whereby the author feels that timing applies to both the offender and the offended parties. This is supported by comments from official C that as much timing affected both parties in a way that China needed a quick apology to restore its face, while the US had to take its sweet time to avoid humiliation. A quick apology would not sound favorable to audiences in the US (Kitagawa & Chu, 2021). This is supported by Bolívar (2012), who suggests that; while a delay in apology could send ambivalent messages to the offended party, the other party could be formulating a face-saving apology rather than refusing to apologize.
The methodology used and the research’s contribution to the apology field are other factors contributing to the article’s strength. Focusing on diplomatic apologies to relate the findings to general apologies, interviewing state department officials knowledgeable regarding Sino-American relations was the best way to acquire first-hand information about the apology processes involving China and the US on two separate incidents. This is opposed to other inaccurate studies because of their reliance on commentaries and media reports. In addition, the author builds up the study from general perspectives of apologies to more specific ones. He starts by analyzing pragmatic models of apologizing, which entails speeches and negotiations. He then sheds light on the general pragmatics of diplomatic apologies before specifically diving into the apologies made by the US to China. From it, he concludes that diplomatic apologies and apologies, in general, are subjected to discursive conflict and negotiations. This way, the article contributes to the apologies field.
The research’s weakness is based on its limitations. The countries used in the study, US and China, are superpowers and therefore influence each other, which is why the offender is obligated to apologize. This does not reflect what would have happened if the US had offended a weak nation like Vietnam (Kitagawa & Chu, 2021). This study, therefore, can be deemed to focus on equal parties only, neglecting situations where the offender holds all the cards and the offended party is helpless. Similarly, numerous non-verbal factors affect apologies, an example being the positions of the parties relative to each other (Cornut, 2009). The study only focuses on time and timing.
Conclusion
It is evident that negotiations and discursive conflicts play a role in apologies. This means that rather than verbally saying ‘sorry,’ the parties involved make compromises to mutually benefit from the situation. Similarly, like in diplomatic apologies, the status quo in general apologies is subject to time and timing. This research is essential to its field because it also shows the pragmatics of diplomatic apologies. It can therefore be built upon by future researchers hoping to establish the pragmatics of other types of apologies.
References
Bolívar, A. (2012). Political apologies by heads of state in diplomatic conflicts. Between sincerity and political cynicism. Dialogue: state of the art. Studies in memory of Sorin Stati, 89-104.
Cornut, J. (2009). Pluralism in IR theory: an eclectic study of diplomatic apologies and regrets. In APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper.
Kitagawa, R., & Chu, J. A. (2021). The impact of political apologies on public opinion. World Politics, 73(3), 441-481.
write