October 14, 2008

A physician by profession, Theodore Dalrymple has diagnosed one of the most public ills of our age -- "False Apology Syndrome."  He defines this new illness as "public apologies by politicians for the crimes and misdemeanors of their ancestors, or at least of their predecessors."  There is a lot of this going around.

Britain seems to be involved in an outbreak of this syndrome at the moment, and this includes both church leaders and politicians.  As Dalrymple points out, Australia and the Vatican have also been involved.  The Australian Prime Minister apologized to the Aborigines for the colonization of the continent.  Pope Benedict XVI apologized to the Muslims for the Crusades.

Dalrymple explains his objection:

Let us examine briefly the apology for the Crusades as an example of the whole genre. It is not exactly a new discovery that the Crusaders often, perhaps usually or even always, behaved very badly. It is not in the nature of invading armies to behave well, even when discipline is strong, morale is high, and control of the foot soldiers is firm; it is no secret that these conditions did not exist during the Crusades, to put it rather mildly.

They were, however, rather a long time ago. The Crusades were an attempt to recover for Christendom what had been lost by force, with all the accompanying massacre, pillage, and oppression that the use of force in those days implied. No one, I think, expects an apology from present-day Arabs for the imperialism of their ancestors, either as a matter of moral duty or political likelihood. We are all born into the world as we find it, after all; we are not responsible for what went before us.

Dalrymple argues further that the practice of apologizing for what ancestors or predecessors have done is morally corrosive.  The giver of the apology is prone to pride.  "Insofar as the person offering the apology is doing what no one has done before him, he is likely to consider himself the moral superior of his predecessors," Dalrymple explains.  "He alone has had the moral insight and courage to apologize."

But, "he knows full well that he has absolutely no personal moral responsibility for whatever it is that he is apologizing for. In other words, his apology brings him all kudos and no pain."

As for the recipients of the apology:  "Just as those who give them become convinced of their own virtue, so do those who receive them. It is enough that they should be considered victims for them to conclude that they can do no wrong, or at any rate no wrong worth talking about. For what is a personal peccadillo to set beside a great historical wrong?"

In the most significant paragraph of his essay, Dalrymple explains why these apologies have become more common:

The False Apology Syndrome flourishes wherever there has been a shift in the traditional locus of moral concern. At one time, a man probably felt most morally responsible for his own actions. He was adjudged (and judged himself) good or bad by how he conducted himself toward those in his immediate circle. From its center rippled circles of ever-decreasing moral concern, of which he was also increasingly ignorant. Now, however, it is the other way round. Under the influence of the media of mass communication and the spread of sociological ways of thinking, a man is most likely to judge himself and others by the opinions he and they hold on political, social, and economic questions that are far distant from his immediate circle. A man may be an irresponsible father, but that is more than compensated for by his deep concern about global warming, or foreign policy, or the food situation in Africa.