Apology and Dissent - The BIG But!! (part two)
(c) Melina Magdalena
Well well well, I am so happy that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd spoke an apology on my behalf and on behalf of Australian people past and present, for the horrors, atrocities, bureaucracratic abuses and other wrongs committed by us and on our behalf, with our tacit assent and ignorance, towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people of this continent and nation. I was lucky enough to be able to turn on the radio and listen to his address last Wednesday, along with my students, and some other teachers who wanted the opportunity to be part of this occasion. We then had a vigorous and interested discussion about Australia's track record and history, which my students were ready for, all having lived here now for between 3 years and 6 months.
And what I'd wanted to go on and say on this topic has of course changed with changing circumstances... When I Google 100 revs now, I am no longer directed to motorhead sites. Instead, there are numerous articles, letters and posts about the Reverends who hope to march in Sydney's Mardi Gras next month. More on that in a moment.
I also got a direct email reply from my MP, Pyney himself - a surprise. Perhaps I could interpret it as an oblique apology thrust in my direction, for treating me as an insignificant minion whose experiences and ideas were not worth regarding. Or perhaps he sent the same pdf copy of the Sunday Mail article to the thousands in his electorate, who responded to GetUp's call to keep the Liberals humble, and join in The Apology?
My first day back at work this year consisted of a day-long professional development workshop about restorative justice in schools and classrooms. It was my first formal introduction to the ideas and the process.
Restorative Justice can begin with the recognition that forcing an insincere apology from a wrongdoer who is ignorant of what harm s/he has instigated and of its consequences for the wronged, is utterly meaningless, and dissatisfying for both sides. As a young parent I had it modelled to me time and again “Say Sorry!” And again, with a threat to back it up “Say sorry, or you won’t…” Clearly, it was a social convention, and did little to repair the damage or the relationships involved.
So what is the value of Apology?
Apology is an open-handed gesture that someone makes with a particular intention.
The intention can be to preserve the status quo; stop the boat from rocking anymore; pull back from a previously-stated position because it’s too scary to keep up one’s outrage or distance from the fold. This kind of Apology is about giving one’s power away, and placing it at the feet of the Authorities. The Apologiser becomes weaker as an effect of guilt and shame.
You will note my use of “Apologiser” and not “Apologist”. If Apology is made in order to maintain a phony harmony and power-stricken status quo, the Apologiser is in effect, an Apologist for that status quo. A little like the reaction to Brendan Nelson’s so-called Apology (paraphrased as – we did it for your own good, and it hurt us just as much as it hurt you, and you don’t even have the grace to be grateful for our attempts to save you from yourselves).
Apology is just the beginning - the opening of the window of opportunity for a new way of relating.
A sincere Apology is an acknowledgment of Harm, more than it is about wrongdoing, blame or punishment. A sincere Apology is not an easy thing to offer. It takes great moral courage, particularly when the implications are that things are going to have to change. That kind of Apology is about rocking the boat and making a noise.
In Apologising, one can feel bereft of potency – who is to say that my Apology will be accepted with the same sincerity with which it is given? Who is to say that the Harmed Person or People will understand and believe my contrition and my regret? And furthermore, in making this Apology I must acknowledge that the effects of my Harm are further reaching, more deeply rooted, and longer lasting than ever I imagined. The more I listen, the more is exposed; the more deeply I fall into that pit of despair. I must see, and accept the effects of this Harm, no matter where and how it began. My accountability is to the Present, whilst I cannot alter the Past. In making my Apology, I am setting a new course for the Future.
There were some letters in the Sydney Star Observer, in response to 100 Revs. One of them in particular I think demonstrates the ongoing effects of harm and how the effects manifest themselves as they bounce from hurt to anger to fear to anger to hurt again. Can a guarantee be given, that an Apology will not cause further Harm, by raising expectations of healing that are never achieved?
The Harmed often carry a great deal of anger for what has been done to them, and the effects of this. There is no guarantee of graciousness towards the Apologiser. In this sense, an Apology must be unconditional. It is possible that the Harmed are not ready to accept a burden of working with the Apologisers to create new ways of relating. It is possible that the Harmed are stuck inside the web of their distress. When this happens, it does not render an Apology meaningless. It means the Apologiser must seek other, less direct avenues for making amends and creating a new Future.
I think we must remain open to the possibilities that a sincere and unconditional Apology creates.
Here’s an example of an Apology that is sincere but conditional:
Imagine if you will, an Institution with a long history of maltreatment of certain minorities. The maltreatment involves spreading vicious rumours, exclusion and stigmatisation and denial of access or comfort. One day, the Institution is forced to acknowledge and recognise the far-reaching effects of its policies, processes and the behaviours its adherents have promulgated in the name of Convention and not rocking the boat. The Institution makes a decision to formally apologise to the Wronged. The Apology is sincere. The people in the Institution genuinely regret the effects of their policies, processes and behaviours. If they could just separate the effects from the Wronged, (whose behaviour – alas – continues to contravene Convention), perhaps the Wronged would relent and change their ways? Then everyone would be on the same side, and we would all have a happy and unified ending.
The point is, that Apology is not about taking sides, but about building bridges.
The 100 Revs are not requiring those within the GLBTIQ communities who have been harmed by the treatment in churches to change themselves at all, in order for their sincere Apology to be offered. The whole point of taking their Apology onto GLBTIQ turf (the Mardi Gras) is to meet the Harmed in a place where the Harmed are more powerful and have more voice than those who are making the Apology. It is a humble gesture, and one which has caused controversy within the GLBTIQ communities, which, it must be acknowledged, are themselves far from homogenous.
The relationship between Apology and Dissent has something to do with Moral Courage. In acknowledging that things are not perfect, one expresses a desire for change. The effect of a sincere and unconditional Apology can be to shake the very fabric of Convention and tearing at the roots of what passes for a Peaceful Society.
What responsibilities do we have, as Australians who are part of an openly multicultural and culturally diverse society? Must we forever be engaged in acts of Apology, in order to co-exist, because our differences are brought to the fore, whilst our commonalities are reduced to the banal? Surely this is a negative spin on the cultural diversity? Is there not more that unifies us, than divides?
Dissent is a verb of action, whilst Dissension is a noun, a state of being. There are many ways to dissent. Some promote peace; some promote revolution and violence. Fomenters of dissent all work within the understanding of a need for deep and radical change at the heart of the matter.
To dissent is to act when we recognise the need for change. Dissent implies the acknowledgment of Harm, and Dissent can only begin from that recognition. It takes a great deal of moral courage to act in such situations. It means separating oneself from the fold of convention, stepping out and making a noise to attract the attention not only of the Wronged, but also of those who continue to harm, either with intention or through malicious ignorance. Apology is one of the first meaningful actions of Dissent.
It’s nice to think we can all exist in our disconnected bubbles of homogeneity, where everyone thinks and behaves like me, and we all feel safe and comfortable all the time, because we know what’s expected and that’s not too hard to keep up.
Trouble is, as self-seeking and comfort loving as Australia has become, we are also embroiled in serious exploration of individuality and expressions of freedoms. The implications are severe. Our bubbles are not homogenous. The illusion is shattered, every time some individual chooses a different path, and takes it unashamedly, insisting on his or her right to do so and furthermore demanding unconditional acceptance from everyone else.
We are not a homogenous society or culture. It’s about time our thinking caught up with our reality.
When someone comes out as being other than heterosexual, it takes enormous moral courage. An analogy for what it takes to step outside the bubble of one’s comfort zone is the crazy idea that a fish might one day decide for no particular reason that any of its cronies can comprehend, that it wants to live on the land now, and not in the water. Its cronies are too busy running around and asking stupid questions, comparing notes, spreading rumours about the land-dwelling fish, to see that there are vital aspects of that land-dwelling fish’ life that remain the same, and also that the land-dwelling fish would be much happier if her cronies and associates chose to support her in her new venture, rather than condemn her and whisper behind her back; let alone acknowledge what an incredibly brave and gutsy thing she is choosing to do, despite all the flack she is copping from left, right and centre.
And this is where response to the 100 Revs from within their own bubbles, falls far short of the mark. The coming out that the 100 Revs are doing, concerns the idea that belonging could be extended beyond the strict borders of conventionality and heteronormativity, to encompass a broader understanding of human sexuality within the beliefs and thinking of what it is to be Christian, than what has commonly been accepted by church-goers.
