Here is the apology from Michael Richards. Jerry Seinfield appeared on David Letterman and they connected with Michael Richards via satellite for an apology. It is incredibly awkward. I do not know why I looked for it this afternoon. Maybe it is because the Dolphins and Lions are playing. I don't know what I'll do when the Bucs and Lions play to avoid that game.
From what I heard, reaction to this clip was mixed. The audience laughed in the beginning of the clip until Jerry scolded the audience. Richard seemed very disturbed by his actions, though I hear people complained over the lack of his sincerity.
In terms of apologia (speeches of self-defense), he used the following strategies:
(1) Confession: he admits what he did and admits he feels terrible about it. There seems to be no question about this. He later admitted that his type of action is stream of consciousness and the words just flowed.
(2) Control (or lack thereof): Normally, when speakers defend themselves, they try to alter the settings to make them more favorable (Nixon delivers "Checkers" on a studio stage, in front of his desk, with his wife Pat sitting on a couch). Richards stated that this may not be the proper venue for his apologia-- it is a comedy show after all. It does seem odd that he delivered the apologia on the Letterman show when Jerry was the guest. I wonder what the connection is. A negative view is the seventh Season of Seinfeld was just released and this incident may interfere with sales. Syndication of Seinfeld may be another problem since some individuals may no longer be able to watch the show. Regardless, this seems to limit the success of his defense.
(3) Transcendence/ Bolserting: Richards connected this incident within the larger context of race relations and what comics tried to do for race relations (Transcendence), such as comic helping victims of Katrina. However, he lost coherence here and just tried to associate himself with other comics that have helped others (Bolstering- when you identify with things your audience with find favorable though it has little to do with the situation at hand.
The discussion here quickly changes course to what he said in relation to the audience and different audiences. He then pleads he is not a racist though he made comments that could have been considered racist. He seems to lose agency: "it's said...it comes through... it fires out of me."
(4) Confession: Letterman asks if Richards thought by saying something so over the top that it would not be a problem. Richards stated he tried to do that, which seems to show Richards is trying to gain his agency back. Of course, his agency is connected to Letterman's control of the situation (via asking questions). He then discusses how he apologized and how he tried to reach the people he insulted. He was happy the people he insulted went to the press. When asked about what he can do, he has no clear answer of what he can do. Jerry then adds to the conversation and tried to defended Richards.
Overall, he seems sincere about his apology; we can infer this from his repeated confessions about the incident. However, he did not do a good job of picking his venue (he attempts at control were very bad) and he did a poor job of offering redemption (what he could do to fix the problem he created, not that any one person will be able to fix race relations).
Thoughts?
1 comment:
While that's an excellent treatment of the circumstances contributing to Richards' apology, one thing it doesn't factor is the rhetorical uselesness of it all.
Because, solon, for an apology to be even taken seriously as a Rhetorical Move, don't we have to presuppose a willingness on the part of the Audience to listen to, and perhaps even accept the apology? What purpose does an apology serve?
Just a quick survey not only of the reaction of Letterman's audience, but of the blogosphere and major media in general teaches us that forgiveness and generosity of spirit are hardly native to the American discourse.
As Harrogate has implied several times already, this seems symptomatic of people's need to assert their own moral cleanliness by destroying a mark.
It is called Moral Preening, and one of the things it does is, it utterly robs us of the opportunity to learn from such an incident, to use it as a way to reach broader understandings about race.
And Harrogate, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal in most ways, regrets the compulsion to take this to its sad logical conclusion:
Such Moral Preening is indeed a Registered Trademark of Today's American Liberal. Because English Professors and Journalists are incapable of racism, of course. Or homophobia, etc. Our skirts are clean. Ad nauseum.
More will come of this from Harrogate tomorrow, with a fuller (but hopefully brief) explanation of what he means, after the turkey's been fully digested.
Until then, Happy Thanksgiving to all.
Post a Comment