{"title":"修辞交叉:白人文化中的黑人存在","authors":"Raven Maragh-Lloyd","doi":"10.1080/02773945.2023.2185016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Strange’: When Presidents Apologize for Genocide” because, in so many cases, the apology appears to be merely an image management ploy rather than an authentic gesture of remorse. Thoughtful skepticism and cautions like the above wind through The Rhetoric of Official Apologies, working through varying perspectives and approaches, and serving as tributaries for future theorizations of what official responses to moral wrongs can possibly be authentic, sufficient, and mindful of past and present. I’m hopeful that forthcoming rhetorical criticism of public and official apologies will take particular note of the preceding rhetoric that tips the scales of kairos and exigence to compel an official statement. Accusations, calls for apology, and other advocacy by victims and witnesses create a unique lens through which to observe and assess official apologies. Likewise, both official and unofficial responses by the recipient(s) ought to be considered in conjunction with official apology. These reactions inform future rhetorical action and criticism as they contribute to the public record and shine a light on the impact of apology rather than the speaker’s ostensible intent. Taken together, these essays and the bookending commentaries by both editors invite the reader to consider historical events and their more recent apologies as heuristics for careful and critical reflection of how citizens can work toward more just, humane, and inclusive futures in their corporations, communities, and nations. Editors Villadsen and Edwards take an optimistic approach: “Official apologies have the potential to serve as lessons on proper civic interaction and reflections on the values that undergird a community and how they are honored, and not” (223–24). Thoughtful inquiry into apologies and other rhetorical responses to wrongdoing can spur public discourse about national identities, intersubjectivities, vulnerability, accountability, self-determination, and more as we grapple with both historical and present-day wrongs perpetrated by those and to those who might be a lot like us.","PeriodicalId":45453,"journal":{"name":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rhetorical Crossover: The Black Presence in White Culture\",\"authors\":\"Raven Maragh-Lloyd\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02773945.2023.2185016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Strange’: When Presidents Apologize for Genocide” because, in so many cases, the apology appears to be merely an image management ploy rather than an authentic gesture of remorse. Thoughtful skepticism and cautions like the above wind through The Rhetoric of Official Apologies, working through varying perspectives and approaches, and serving as tributaries for future theorizations of what official responses to moral wrongs can possibly be authentic, sufficient, and mindful of past and present. I’m hopeful that forthcoming rhetorical criticism of public and official apologies will take particular note of the preceding rhetoric that tips the scales of kairos and exigence to compel an official statement. Accusations, calls for apology, and other advocacy by victims and witnesses create a unique lens through which to observe and assess official apologies. Likewise, both official and unofficial responses by the recipient(s) ought to be considered in conjunction with official apology. These reactions inform future rhetorical action and criticism as they contribute to the public record and shine a light on the impact of apology rather than the speaker’s ostensible intent. Taken together, these essays and the bookending commentaries by both editors invite the reader to consider historical events and their more recent apologies as heuristics for careful and critical reflection of how citizens can work toward more just, humane, and inclusive futures in their corporations, communities, and nations. Editors Villadsen and Edwards take an optimistic approach: “Official apologies have the potential to serve as lessons on proper civic interaction and reflections on the values that undergird a community and how they are honored, and not” (223–24). Thoughtful inquiry into apologies and other rhetorical responses to wrongdoing can spur public discourse about national identities, intersubjectivities, vulnerability, accountability, self-determination, and more as we grapple with both historical and present-day wrongs perpetrated by those and to those who might be a lot like us.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45453,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Rhetoric Society Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Rhetoric Society Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2185016\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rhetoric Society Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2023.2185016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Rhetorical Crossover: The Black Presence in White Culture
Strange’: When Presidents Apologize for Genocide” because, in so many cases, the apology appears to be merely an image management ploy rather than an authentic gesture of remorse. Thoughtful skepticism and cautions like the above wind through The Rhetoric of Official Apologies, working through varying perspectives and approaches, and serving as tributaries for future theorizations of what official responses to moral wrongs can possibly be authentic, sufficient, and mindful of past and present. I’m hopeful that forthcoming rhetorical criticism of public and official apologies will take particular note of the preceding rhetoric that tips the scales of kairos and exigence to compel an official statement. Accusations, calls for apology, and other advocacy by victims and witnesses create a unique lens through which to observe and assess official apologies. Likewise, both official and unofficial responses by the recipient(s) ought to be considered in conjunction with official apology. These reactions inform future rhetorical action and criticism as they contribute to the public record and shine a light on the impact of apology rather than the speaker’s ostensible intent. Taken together, these essays and the bookending commentaries by both editors invite the reader to consider historical events and their more recent apologies as heuristics for careful and critical reflection of how citizens can work toward more just, humane, and inclusive futures in their corporations, communities, and nations. Editors Villadsen and Edwards take an optimistic approach: “Official apologies have the potential to serve as lessons on proper civic interaction and reflections on the values that undergird a community and how they are honored, and not” (223–24). Thoughtful inquiry into apologies and other rhetorical responses to wrongdoing can spur public discourse about national identities, intersubjectivities, vulnerability, accountability, self-determination, and more as we grapple with both historical and present-day wrongs perpetrated by those and to those who might be a lot like us.