is there any value in an apology? i have often engaged in heated discussions with a certain someone (let's call her v) over the relevance, if any, of an apology. the debate typically centres around when and why an apology should be delivered. the issue as to when refers to the timing of the apology - specifically, how soon after the initial conflict should an apology be offered. the issue as to why refers to the objective of the apology - specifically, which wrong should the apology attempt to right. i have always felt that, in order to be convincing, an apology should be delivered relatively soon after the offending behaviour. otherwise it may appear artful and calculated. but v has argued that an apology granted immediately afterwards must necessarily lack reflection and sincerity. as for the question of why an apology is delivered, i believe that the words "i'm sorry" should be directed solely towards alleviating the hurt feelings of the injured party. accordingly, whether or not the sender of the apology feels genuinely remorseful for his behaviour is largely irrelevant. but v has suggested that the overall goal of any apology should ultimately be the resolution of the difficulties between the warring parties. as a result, in order to be effective an apology must express the heartfelt desire of both parties to reach an amicable settlement of their differences. personally i have never uttered the phrase "i'm sorry" where i lacked either genuine regret or an honest desire to make things right between myself and the other combatant. so the question then becomes: isn't that enough?
"an apology is the superglue of life. it can repair just about anything." - lynn johnston
it sure is windy out here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh9cNYlmXEY
No comments:
Post a Comment