Издательство Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2006, -261 pp.
Whether it is a president who must apologize to the nation, a company that has developed a product that has caused a grievous harm, or a celebrity trying to repair a damaged image, apologia and apologies are frequently in the news.
The study of apologetic crisis management, particularly from the perspective taken here, is one that views most crises to be self-generated. This book has grown out of a desire to account for the many ways individuals, organizations, and institutions try to save face as they seek to extricate themselves from difficult straights. Although this text tries not to feature only corporations and their crisis management, it does note that the hegemonic effect of for-profit corporations on crisis discourse is nothing short of dramatic.
The guiding assumption taken here is that crisis researchers are wise to pay particularly close attention to the language used by those who would extricate themselves from their wrongdoing—to try to uncover the lexicon of the lie. As a result, this book takes an unabashedly rhetorical approach to the study of crisis management, and specifically examines that genre of crises whereby individuals and organizations are believed to be guilty of an offense and have to enter into the public confessional in order to repair their damaged reputations.
The need for close attention to the nature of language used by apologists is evident even in the two major terms of this study: apologia and apology. Apologia refers to the act of giving a defense, whereas apology typically means the offering of a mea culpa. Yet, even here, the confusion as to the difference between apologiae and apologies has tremendous rhetorical benefit for an apologist. Disceing parties that face criticism often capitalize on this ambiguity by offering an apologia that sounds like an apology: Auditors are then placated by the rhetor’s apparent act of contrition.
Two other comments are needed. First, the references at the beginning of each chapter to Scripture are by design, and are rooted in Kenneth Burke’s writings, especially his book The Rhetoric of Religion (1970), in that religious terminology offers a helpful entrance into the common language and scripts that human actors use as a vehicle to situate their actions. Second, when possible, this book uses The New York Times as a primary source for public statements on the part of apologists. This is intentional for two reasons. First, the Times is the United States’ newspaper of record. As such, it is viewed as a highly credible if not authoritative source (although one not without imperfections). Second, the Times also has been shown to have a significant effect on subsequent broadcast and newspaper coverage (Batulis, 1976; Beniger &Westney, 1981; Charles, Shore, & Todd, 1979). As such, this book has emphasized the public statements of apologists in the Times with the idea that they are the statements likely to be mediated by joualists throughout the nation.
Introduction
Apologia, Social Drama, and Public Ritual
Legality and Liability
Apologetic Ethics (written with Sandra L. Borden)
Apologia and Individuals: Politicians, Sports Figures, and Media Celebrities
Apologia and Organizations: Retail, Manufacturing, and Not-for-Profits
Institutional Apologies: Institutional, Religious, and Govemental
Conclusions: Corporate Apologia, Ideology, and Ethical Responses to Criticism
Whether it is a president who must apologize to the nation, a company that has developed a product that has caused a grievous harm, or a celebrity trying to repair a damaged image, apologia and apologies are frequently in the news.
The study of apologetic crisis management, particularly from the perspective taken here, is one that views most crises to be self-generated. This book has grown out of a desire to account for the many ways individuals, organizations, and institutions try to save face as they seek to extricate themselves from difficult straights. Although this text tries not to feature only corporations and their crisis management, it does note that the hegemonic effect of for-profit corporations on crisis discourse is nothing short of dramatic.
The guiding assumption taken here is that crisis researchers are wise to pay particularly close attention to the language used by those who would extricate themselves from their wrongdoing—to try to uncover the lexicon of the lie. As a result, this book takes an unabashedly rhetorical approach to the study of crisis management, and specifically examines that genre of crises whereby individuals and organizations are believed to be guilty of an offense and have to enter into the public confessional in order to repair their damaged reputations.
The need for close attention to the nature of language used by apologists is evident even in the two major terms of this study: apologia and apology. Apologia refers to the act of giving a defense, whereas apology typically means the offering of a mea culpa. Yet, even here, the confusion as to the difference between apologiae and apologies has tremendous rhetorical benefit for an apologist. Disceing parties that face criticism often capitalize on this ambiguity by offering an apologia that sounds like an apology: Auditors are then placated by the rhetor’s apparent act of contrition.
Two other comments are needed. First, the references at the beginning of each chapter to Scripture are by design, and are rooted in Kenneth Burke’s writings, especially his book The Rhetoric of Religion (1970), in that religious terminology offers a helpful entrance into the common language and scripts that human actors use as a vehicle to situate their actions. Second, when possible, this book uses The New York Times as a primary source for public statements on the part of apologists. This is intentional for two reasons. First, the Times is the United States’ newspaper of record. As such, it is viewed as a highly credible if not authoritative source (although one not without imperfections). Second, the Times also has been shown to have a significant effect on subsequent broadcast and newspaper coverage (Batulis, 1976; Beniger &Westney, 1981; Charles, Shore, & Todd, 1979). As such, this book has emphasized the public statements of apologists in the Times with the idea that they are the statements likely to be mediated by joualists throughout the nation.
Introduction
Apologia, Social Drama, and Public Ritual
Legality and Liability
Apologetic Ethics (written with Sandra L. Borden)
Apologia and Individuals: Politicians, Sports Figures, and Media Celebrities
Apologia and Organizations: Retail, Manufacturing, and Not-for-Profits
Institutional Apologies: Institutional, Religious, and Govemental
Conclusions: Corporate Apologia, Ideology, and Ethical Responses to Criticism