1
Contribution to RSA proceedings Rhetorics Change
Lisa S. Villadsen
Keep Calm, Carry On, and above all: Don’t Apologize!
Changing Rhetoric in the Service of Stalling Political Change
The notion of change is often associated with advances in social justice (e.g. as implied in Barack Obama’s campaign slogan “Change we can believe in” and in the Hillary Clinton presidential race slogan “Change Maker”), but of course change can be put in the service of a conservative agenda as well – to maintain a status quo for example. When circumstances undermine or threaten a line of argument, one way to uphold the original claim is to change the argumentation strategy. This chapter explores how the Danish government changed its argumentation on the issue of giving an official apology – a change I suggest was introduced as a means of upholding a policy of apologizing for wrongful actions in state supervised social care institutions. I describe this change in tactic and discuss its implications. Instead of embracing the call for an apology as an occasion for political work in the strong sense of engaging and acting on communal values for the common good, the Parliament majority treated the call as political in the weak sense: a tactical matter of holding on to power, preferrably at the expense of political opponents. This approach to politics yields, due to it opportunism and cynicism, shifty rhetoric.
While the discussion is propelled by analyses of argumentative strategies as played out in a 2 ½ hours long parliamentary debate, the underlying theoretical framework in the chapter consists in contemporary philosophical, political and rhetorical citizenship theory on official apologies.
A policy of not apologizing
In February 2016, the Danish Secretary of Social Affairs, Karen Ellemann, explained to the Parliament why the Government does not intend to apologize to individuals who as children were mistreated in state-run care facilities. In her statement, the Secretary argued that it is “dangerous to judge the past by the norms of the present”, that hitting children was allowed at the time, and that “the Government is unable to assume responsibility for the way society was back then, for the laws and norms of the time, and for the view of human life in the past” (Rosenkrantz-Theil, Ellemann, 10:01).[1] She added that while there may be agreement today that the conditions in such institutions were “tough” and by present-day standards “unacceptable”, nothing can be done to change the history of the care leavers or the historical circumstances however much one might want to. She added that we must content ourselves with the increased knowledge of past injustices that previous investigations have uncovered and use it to avoid repeating history.
The current Danish government’s stance on the question of offering an official apology to care leavers is on key points identical to previous governments’. Since 2009, five secretaries of social affairs, representing three different governments and five different political parties, have declined to apologize on behalf of the state. In addition to the unwillingness to supposedly judge the past by the norms of the present, a common argument in their refusals has been the claim that the past cannot be changed. One could say that this rhetoric of refusal has been consistent, unchanging. Yet, in the 2016 Parliamentary debate following the Secretary’s speech, she introduced a new line of argument not pursued by previous governments, namely that the issue ought to be determined in a court of law.[2]
In this chapter, I show that by insisting that a government apology is a juridical matter to be determined in a law court, the Danish government has hit upon an effective way of stalling a cause that was gaining momentum in political and popular awareness. I argue that the government with this changed argumentation took a new step in actively resisting considering the question of an official apology a political question qua being a moral problem concerning the community, and helped bar this and similar cases from the political realm.
While the case at hand and similar cases of institutional neglect deserve to be heard in a law court, my claim is that official apologies are also, and perhaps primarily, to be treated as political questions. As public expressions of the values informing a community, official apologies concern not just the victims, but the populace in general as they reflect on the collective past and provide a contemporary normative framework for a more inclusive and less abusive society. The Government is thus in fact offering the public a red herring by presenting the question of responsibility as really concerning monetary compensation and by suggesting that such issues are only to be determined in the legal realm.
After a brief introduction to the Godhavn case, which has been an impetus for the call for an apology, I detail the government’s new line of argument for referring the case to the courts. Next, I discuss and critique the implications of this stance by calling on political theorist Melissa Nobles and philosopher Alice McLachlan, arguing that socially and politically significant work is done discursively in official apologies that make them political acts more than anything. Rather than understand official apologies as large-scale interpersonal apologies they share the view that official apologies are both driven by and expressions of political ideology and moral reflection and that as such they play an important role in public life (Nobles, Politics xi, MacLachlan 22). As manifestations of rhetorical citizenship official apologies represent “sites of civic invention and redefinition… and mark a symbolic transfer from one understanding of the collective self to another” (Villadsen 221).
The Godhavn Boys and the political reception of their demands
The recent discussion of an apology was prompted by Proposal B55 to the Danish Parliament, submitted in January 2016 by members of the Social Democratic group. The motion would direct the government to offer “an apology on behalf of the state to persons who within the area of social care and care for the mentally handicapped have been ill treated and whose protection the state has not lived up to its responsibility to secure” (Rosenkrantz-Theil et al.). In preparation of the apology, the proposal also calls for an inquiry into the social and legal questions concerning the individuals in question (Rosenkrantz-Theil et al.). This motion marks a significant point in the Godhavn Boys’ struggle for political recognition since this was the first time their case was to be discussed in Parliament. Previous attempts by politicians to bring the issue forward had been stopped by the incumbent Secretary of Social Affairs.[3]
The B55 proposal includes among the potential recipients of the apology any person who as a child in state-run care facilities suffered ill treatment, but the impetus for the proposal came from activism by the citizens’ group “The Godhavn Boys” [Godhavnsdrengene]. The name of the group recalls the name of the orphanage where most of its members spent part of their childhood. The Godhavn Boys’ efforts to get an apology for the mistreatment they suffered as children while in a state-run orphanage during the 1950s, 60s and 70s began in 2009 as care leavers started talking publicly about the miserable conditions in the orphanage. No apology was given then, partly because of lack of knowledge about what the conditions were, but the state eventually agreed to sponsor an inquiry conducted by an historian. This inquiry resulted in The Godhavn Report [Godhavnsrapporten] published in 2011(Rytter). It covers the years 1946 to 1976 and is based on testimonials from care-leavers from Godhavn and 18 other Danish orphanages, using historical sources such as medical records and school files and comparing them with relevant legislation through the period. The report documents the nature and extent of the mistreatment, ranging from substandard living conditions and schooling over psychological terror to systematic physical punishment and instances of sexual abuse. It also inquires into allegations that the children were subjected to medical experimentation with anti-psychotic drugs. The report specifies the extent to which various kinds of mistreatment were illegal and when, (e.g., a slap on the face was permissible, although frowned upon, up until 1968, whereas hitting children with objects, such as a garden rake, was never permitted). It also shows how the state failed to live up to its obligations to secure proper conditions for the children by not having sufficient personnel and proper procedures for control visits.
The Godhavn report received considerable public attention. Its scholarly method and documentation generally confirmed the care leavers’ narratives of mistreatment. The Secretary of Social Affairs still declined to apologize. Frustrated by the Secretary’s flat denial, opposition members called her to an open hearing in Parliament’s Committee for Social Affairs to question her about the Government’s refusal to apologize, but nothing came of this except the Secretary expressing “regretful acknowledgement” (Villadsen). Since then, the Godhavn Boys have repeated their appeal to the government. As mentioned, five different Secretaries of Social Affairs have refused to give an official apology on behalf of the state.[4] The 2016 Parliamentary debate showed a majority against proposal B55, thus upholding the non-apology policy.
The reasons why the proposal was not moved are likely multiple, but political teasing between the current (minority) Government, with its supporting parties, and the opposition was no doubt a key reason: Why were the Social Democrats now promoting an apology when they had declined to give it when they were last in power? Other reasons include a general hesitation with breaking a perceived lack of precedent for political apologies in Denmark and a concern about any compensation expenses an apology might entail. Especially these latter concerns were adeptly addressed by the government’s suggestion that the issue should be resolved in court. This would immediately solve several problems for the Government: It would relieve it from sponsoring another documentation of past wrongdoing and having to apologize – or at least postpone such a process until a court verdict might be given (which could take years). Referring the case to the courts would also free Parliament from incurring possible compensation expenses, a concern that is generally assumed to be the real reason for the political recalcitrance, but also one that is rarely explicated.[5]
Referring the case to the courts
During the February 2016 debate two themes emerged that were both new to the discussion of whether the Government should apologize: the idea of extending or cancelling the statute of limitations in child care cases (to allow individuals mistreated as children to sue for compensation as adults) and the idea of referring the apology issue to the court system. Given my focus on change in the government’s argumentation strategy, I shall only discuss the latter. This was raised both by the Secretary and her party’s spokesperson, whereas neither of them addressed the suggestion of changing the rules about the statute of limitations.[6] The “court argument” can be thus seen as the government’s attempt to change the trajectory of the debate.
Interestingly, the “court argument” is not part of the Secretary’s prepared statements but only introduced later, and, significantly, at moments when the opposition presses her. As we shall see in a moment, a more extended argumentation for the idea is launched later in her party colleague’s speech. This suggests that the Secretary and her party’s spokesperson had distributed the arguments between them prior to the debate. The effect is that the secretary, whose response is more likely to be reported by the media, can focus her remarks on expressing sympathy for the care leavers, acknowledgment of the deplorable conditions for people in care in the past, and satisfaction that the truth has been recovered and can inform present and future social policies. An official response from her that the Government wants the case to be decided in court would highlight the Government’s unwillingness to accept moral and political responsibility. While this has also been previous Governments’ position, it is a stance that is increasingly difficult to hold given a growing public awareness of the case thanks to a series of TV-documentaries on mistreatment of children in care, one of them focusing on the Godhavn orphanage (Andersen) and a new movie based on the Godhavn case, “The day will come” [Der kommer en dag]. While the “court argument” might ring dismissive from the Secretary’s mouth, it stood a better chance of coming off as constructive when presented by the party’s spokesperson, who was also more at liberty to taunt the opposition with their apparent change of heart (from refusing to apologize when they were in power to now supporting the idea).[7] Having introduced the “court argument”, the Government can maintain its political line while creating the impression that it has not dismissed the case (unlike previous governments) but has referred it to a more proper setting.
The first time the “court argument” is insinuated into the debate it comes by way of responding to the claim made by an opposition MP that the care leavers need to have someone take responsibility for what happened to them in order to be able to move on (Rosenkrantz-Theil, Skipper 10:14). The Secretary expresses understanding for this need, yet twists the meaning of the word “responsibility”. The MP talks about the need for “someone assuming responsibility” to relieve the care leavers of the burden of thinking themselves somehow deserving of the maltreatment, but the Secretary takes the word in a strictly legal sense where “responsibility” refers to “culpability”, that is, a proximate responsibility to warrant compensation liability. She also ignores the moral tenor of the opposition’s question is by responding in the passive voice: “Whether a responsibility […] needs to be placed is a question for the courts, and this case has been appealed to the appellate court” (Rosenkrantz-Theil, Ellemann 10:15).