Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, California, keeps being forced to have difficult conversations about using her cell phone while driving. Or not.
Jean Quan in 2010. Apparently not on the phone.
Most recently, Quan’s car was involved in a fender-bender. The other driver said Quan, talking on a cell phone, ran a red light, causing the other driver to strike Quan’s rear tire. Quan, or her office, said she “absolutely” was not talking on a phone. Whether she ran a red they were less certain about. They said they would have police check Quan’s phone records, to prove she wasn’t on the phone.
(This doesn’t speak to whether she was looking at the phone, say to check the time as she dashed from one church meeting to another.)
It’s she-said-she-said, and I have no idea what happened. Someone came forward who says the light was yellow, which is completely possible. But it’s awkward for Quan because it came a week after she was twice photographed, by different people, driving while talking on a cell phone.
KRON-TV’s Stanley Roberts gave Quan a hard time about this. He told her that she was the mayor of a large metropolitan city and people looked up to her for leadership.
(People do that?)
She said, “I know, I know. So that I’m chastened and apologetic and will do my best to meet both of my commitments.” (Both? What, her commitment to drive and her commitment to talk on the phone?)
I just called to say GET OFF the PHONE MARINE.
He asked if she was going to keep doing it. She said “I’m going to try not to.”
She said she works “like 24-7.” Because meetings. “It’s very easy unconsciously to do things like that,” she explained. “You caught me twice – are you following me around?” No, the photographers were random citizens. Who, aaah, were also driving while snapping her picture.
Asked if she had any thoughts to share, Quan said. “It’s a good time to pause and all of us think about how we can do things like that unconsciously and it’s not safe.”
Okay, I will leave aside, I will not even mention, the responsibility-shifting in “all of us… do things like that unconsciously” or the feebleness of “I will do my best” and “I will try not to.” She’s not completely wrong, as shown by the gotcha photographers (whom Quan calls papparazzi) driving and snapping with their own phones.
I wasn’t on the phone. I just needed to look at my phone to see what time it was.
But it is certainly possible for her to go cold turkey on the phone use. It would be easy for her to switch to a hands-free phone. Just because many citizens behave badly and illegally doesn’t mean she should. She’s not helpless.
Not a word about all that. Because what I want to discuss is that Quan said she was “apologetic” but did not apologize.
What’s the difference?
It has been pointed out to me by thoughtful friends that there is a category of speech called performative utterances. (Thank you, Katherine Catmull. Thank you, Mike Godwin.) As soon as they pointed this out, I started noticing such utterances everywhere.
A performative utterance is when something you say is an action. For example, you say “I promise” and those words are the action of promising. “I solemnly swear” is the act of taking an oath. Some say naming a child is a performative utterance.
“I bet five dollars he doesn’t swallow the goldfish.”
“I surrender.”
A fine example is saying “I do” at your wedding.
Take this as a compliment. I don’t bless just any son.
An interesting example is in Genesis 27, when Isaac, blind in his old age, is tricked into blessing Jacob when he thinks he is blessing his other son Esau. The words of the blessing are the act of blessing Jacob, and they can’t be undone.
Notice that a performative utterance may not be sincere. You may promise something while secretly planning to do something else, but you still promised, and you can still be held to the promise.
This distinction clarifies for me why people sometimes avoid (probably without knowing why) the words “I apologize” or “I’m sorry” and instead gab about things being regrettable or how bad they feel.
Apologies are performative utterances. If done correctly. Normally.
When Quan said she was “apologetic,” that wasn’t an apology. It was a mere description. (People can describe themselves inaccurately, as any user of dating sites can tell you.)
“I apologize” is an apology. “I am apologetic” is not.
“I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is an oath. “I’m a truthful person” is not.
“I do” when they ask you if you take this person to be your lawfully-wedded is a vow. “I’m feeling matrimonial” is not. NO IT IS NOT NO. Even if you think it’s funny.
There is no try.
Oh I’m so glad you wrote this! Performative utterance is a critical and to me fascinating part of how apologies work.
Also though “I’m feeling matrimonial” made me laugh out loud. “I acknowledge that this is a wedding and fully support that.” “Marriage is important to me and I care deeply about Steve.” “I think at this point we all know how I feel.” Just SO many many bad ways to answer that question! It’s a great analogy for non-apologies.
Yes! “I’m Bob’s biggest fan! You all look GREAT! So glad you came!”
This is fascinating — I love the theoretical terms for things, the taking apart of the acts of living we do, and dismantling them down to their component bits.
When I was a kid, our father never apologized to my siblings and I, except in the third person. I think that counts under performative utterances. (As well as mild schizophrenia.) I’m going to keep listening for these now. Cool!
Like… “Dad’s sorry about the bicycles”?
Yep. Except, it was more along the lines after being a jerk all day, we’d be in bed, and he’d stand in the doorway and say, “Daddy’s sorry,” and close the door.
As I said: schizophrenia.
That’s not right!
I don’t count third person apology as performative. If it really was a third person it wouldn’t count. “You see that guy over there who spilled the coffee on your skirt? He’s sorry.”
No.
Ah — that’s a good way to restate it — which helps me understand the concept better (still does nothing for Mr. Schizophrenia, but whatever).