![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I think the reason people aren't satisfied by apologies is because they have unrealistic expectations of what an apology is and what it will do, not to mention the fact that many people flat out don't apologize correctly.
First of all, an apology doesn't "fix" anything. It's not meant to, and the people who demand apologies as a way to "fix" something are not demanding the right thing. This is why they are often dissatisfied with the apology. Some examples of an inappropriate demand for an apology include demanding celebrities apologize to their fans for behavior directed at a single person - the person offended or hurt has the right to demand an apology, but the fans? Not at all. Any apology the celebrity makes will be viewed as "not good enough" and anything the celebrity does will be seen as "insincere" at best. What the fans want is some grand, huge, over-the-top gesture that entertains and diverts them - serious groveling and humiliation of the celebrity are definitely desired. And even then, it might not be enough.
On a corporate level - the banks and mortgage brokers who played a part in the financial crisis - there truly is nothing they can say that will "fix" the economy. Demanding an apology isn't going to make all the people who suffered deep financial losses or their homes (or both) feel better or provide them with jobs or homes.
That said, an apology - done right! - is an essential social bridge that paves the way for right action to happen.
And there, right there, is the rub. Either the offender doesn't feel they did anything wrong (most banks feel they were wronged, not that they contributed to the financial disaster) and any apology they make, if they make one at all, will be insincere because it lacks the desire to make things right that a true apology offers or they phrase it wrong.
Apologies do have a set formula they need to follow in order to be perceived as both sincere and as a "fix" for whatever went wrong.
An apology is a contract, and most people have forgotten that. It's a contract between the apologizer and the one apologized to that this event won't be repeated, at least not in this particular way. It may go further and be a contract for the apologizer to make some form of penance or restitution to the one apologized to.
An apology without that implicit contract is viewed as insincere. Worse, an apology that places the blame on the one apologized to is seen as an attack and not an apology at all.
Examples of bad apologies: "I'm sorry you got upset", "It was just a joke, can't you take a joke?", "you're being too sensitive", and 'You know I didn't mean it that way. What's your problem?"
I hear these so-called "apologies" a lot, especially among the younger generations of people. With that kind of "apology", no wonder the other person isn't satisfied. Each of these "apologies" implies the person being apologized to is actually at fault, that the apologizer did nothing wrong, and there is no contract that the apologizer will be more considerate in the future. No change happens. Except maybe the apologizer feels put upon and determined to "prove" themselves right and thus goes out of their way to antagonize, tease, or hurt the other person again - a bully's tactics.
A good apology is a simple one, and the best apology is the one where the apologizer follows through with their contract.
Examples of good apologies: "I'm sorry." That stands alone. Said sincerely and with an expression indicating the apologizer truly is saddened, sickened, and/or repentant, it is often enough for minor inflictions of hurt. "I'm sorry I spilled (edible substance) on your (fabric item - clothes, furniture, carpet). Please send me the cleaning bill." This works for any damage to another person's clothing or upholstered furniture or carpets. You spilled the edible substance (or maybe your pet peed or pooped on it), and it's your responsibility to acknowledge you (or your pet) did it and the contract is that you will clean/repair/fix the damage - or at least offer to. If the other person takes you up on it, then you follow through and pay for the cleaning/repair. It is up to the person whose item was damaged to either accept the offer to clean/repair the item or to decline it - in either case, the injured party accepts the apology and life moves on for both "I'm sorry my words/actions hurt you. I won't say/do it again." This apology is kind of weak, but is still good - the apologizer knows they did something wrong and wants to not do it again. The person being apologized to has to take it on faith that the apologizer is sincere and truly means to not cause that hurt again. That means accepting the apology and moving on.
A good apology consists of an acknowledgement of doing or saying something hurtful or wrong. It ends there. No explanation, no excuses, no qualifiers, no shifting the blame to someone or something else.
A great apology consists of 2 parts: an acknowledgement and a contract for the future. It modifies the apologizer's behavior in some way that adds to the comfort or security of the one being apologized to, or it offers reparations for damages done.
An apology doesn't end with the apologizer. The person being apologized to also has a duty in the apology process. That duty is to accept the apology, trusting the apologizer will change their behavior or attitude, or will repair, replace, or otherwise fix what was damaged if such a promise was made and accepted. The person apologized to may choose to decline the offer of repairs or restitution while still accepting the apology, but is not obligated to decline the offer of repairs or restitution.
However, the person being apologized to (don't we have a single word for that phrase?) doesn't have to accept the apology under certain conditions: if the apologizer doesn't acknowledge their responsibility for the hurt, if the apologizer qualifies the apology with excuses, disclaimers, or explanations, and/or if the apologizer shifts or evades or tries to share the blame or responsibility. If the apologizer offers a change of behavior/attitude or repairs/replacement/restitution and doesn't follow through with it, the person apologized to has the right to rescind their acceptance of the apology.
When multiple cultures are involved, apologies and acceptances should flow freely between them and both parties should make an effort to learn why it was hurtful/offensive and how to interact together with some degree of comfort and accommodation - while admitting that it may not be possible to be entirely at ease with one another. Some allowances must be made by both parties for the other party's cultural expectations but not so much that one party completely dominates the other.
An apology is the beginning of a social smoothing process, not the end.