In his amusing book Would It Kill You to Stop Doing That? A Modern Guide to Manners, and in interviews Henry Alford describes a six-week campaign of retaliatory apologies, or “reverse etiquette.” It must not catch on.
Alford calls himself a humorist, journalist, and guy of letters. Although he writes about manners, you may have detected that he does not call himself an etiquette expert. Elsewhere Alford notes, “I can be, as I may have mentioned, an ass.”
Which makes for good reading.
In his retaliatory apologies, Alford apologized to strangers who had done something for which they ought to have apologized to him. When they didn’t, he did. A clerk in a grocery store drops his apple on the ground, picks it up and puts it in his bag, saying nothing. Alford says “Oh, I’m sorry.”
She automatically replies, “That’s okay.” (Clearly an idiot.) Alford went on “Sorry about that—I really didn’t mean for you to drop that.” She says nothing. “[S]she stared off into the mid-distance as if receiving instructions from outer space.” I don’t think she was listening to alien communiques, I think she was hoping not to hear more communiques from that alien, Alford.
He gives a few more examples – a clerk in a pizzeria who can’t make change for a twenty, so Alford has to go next door and get it himself. No thanks or apology came from the clerk, and Alford says, “So sorry—I hope I didn’t keep you waiting.”
Alford says he’s hoping people will figure it out later, maybe the next time someone owes them an apology that isn’t forthcoming. Right.
Alford wasn’t content with “improving others’ lives with gentle-time-released lessons. Sometimes, the angry little man in me wants more. Such as, an apology.”
So he began a two-pronged technique: first the apology to the person who should have apologized, then an explanation of what he’s up to. To a man who bumps him with a duffel bag, Alford apologizes and then says “I’m saying what you should be saying.” The guy says “Oh, right.”
To a woman who bangs into him with a stroller, Alford lays it out” “No one says ‘I’m sorry’ anymore, so I do it for them.” He adds that “at least the words have been released into the universe.” She gapes.
Since she hasn’t fled, Alford gets to go on. “The apology gets said, even if it’s not by the right person. It makes me feel better. And maybe you’ll know what to say next time.”
“Wow,” she replies. “I’ll think about it.” Which Alford says is what he’d been longing to hear. But as a rule, what he was doing was “totally lost” on the people he reverse-apologized to.
This isn’t a brand-new technique. People have long said things like, “I’m so sorry, did my eye get in the way of your elbow?” “Pardon me for standing where you wanted to spit,” and “Well, FORGIVE ME FOR LIVING!”
I’m not sure how often it works.
Alford apologizes because they don’t – and now that he’s tried it, we don’t have to. He knows he was being “abrasive” and “horrendous.” In response to rudeness, he generated more rudeness. Rudeness dressed up in a politeness suit. Interesting to read about, but as a custom, it must not stand.
I do like Alford’s obliquely worded story of showing Miss Manners how one – how he – hails a New York taxi. Wait, not hails, steals. His method caused Miss Manners to say, “Wow. You really do have a technique.” Not, “I shall use that technique from now on.”
My grandmother would be appalled!
That’s not an accurate description of all Alford pleas, though. What about a person who is accused of causing a bad traffic accident but has retrograde amnesia? The evidence is pretty much open-and-shut, but the person has absolutely no recollection of driving the vehicle. Before Alford v. North Carolina, that person would have been forced to plead “not guilty” because he or she could not honestly admit the elements of the offense. Now that person can acknowledge that the state has the evidence to convict and avoid the necessity of trial without falsely confessing guilt.
His responses are induced by the deep ,inner urban rage that afflicts all if us.
Just differently. In cars, in parking lots,
shopping malls.
Hopefully, not in a chronic, behavioral pattern. Because it enrages all bystanders and the Accused.
Probably does not create happy rehabilitation on part of the guilty party.
That’s so interesting. I guess there are lots of Alford-plea situations. I looked at the Wikipedia entry on the case. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Alford
It’s the classic “He said he was gonna kill the guy, he went out with a gun, he came back and said he’d killed the guy, and the guy’s dead, so we figure he killed the guy” setup. Then Alford says he didn’t do it after all, but he wants to plead guilty to second-degree murder to avoid the death penalty.
Take it to the Supreme Court!
Who knows maybe the person who did take obvious not, and others who said nothing but did think about it, made a net increase in apologies later that exceeded the number of Alford retaliatory apologies, for a net improvement in the world’s apologetic quotient?
I say you’re a dreamer. But perhaps not the only one.
Have you seen this cartoon? Saying ‘sorry’, reflexively, to the person who committed the offence, is a normal part of Canadian culture! 🙂
http://completelyseriouscomics.com/?p=269
That’s great! Thank you for pointing that out — and sorry for my cultural narrowness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPI0aicf4bU
A truly Canadian film.