Apologia

Crisis Situations

The study of apologetic communication has focused on understanding the situation that necessitates an apologia as well as explicating the message strategies that constitute this form of address. Regarding any situation that necessitates an apologia, early definitions focused on individuals and [Page 37]argued that a charge was rooted in an ethical or reputational allegation. More contemporary definitions see apologia as the result of allegations against not just character but also the policies of both individuals and institutions.

Given that a “legitimacy gap” exists between societal expectations for corporate behavior and the reality of how such organizations are seen to act, Keith Hearit (2001; 2006) has proposed that the situation that necessitates an apologia is better conceptualized as a legitimation crisis; an apologia is needed when organizational actions are seen to have violated commonly held public values resulting in public animosity and antipathy toward a company. In turn, this hostility takes the form of social sanction whereby media, consumers, and key opinion leaders criticize said organizational actions.

Apologia Strategies

As to the substance of corporate apologia, scholars have spent a great deal of time and effort to articulate the different message strategies used by organizations. One strategy is denial, to reject charges by characterizing them as false. Those not in a position to deny that they committed an act often find it useful to deny that they intended to, for intent is a key factor in gauging culpability. Con-comitantly, bolstering constitutes an identificational strategy that focuses on the strength and benefits of a past relationship. Corporations, for instance, bolster by reminding constituents of the number of jobs they bring to a community.

Strategies of redefinition are a major category whereby apologists are able to deal with the public perception of their guilt. Differentiation is one strategy where a narrow context is redefined into a broader one. A related strategy of redefinition is that of transcendence. Transcendence differs from differentiation in that the redefinition is to a broader, more abstract context and often has a religious dimension to it. Other strategies of redefinition include provocation, when a social actor claims that it simply reacted to the hostilities of another; defeasibility, used when corporate officers claim they were powerless in the face of forces beyond their control; or a good intentions strategy, where a company claims it had good intentions in creating a specific policy that only recently faces criticism. Finally, in minimization, an institution seeks to lessen its responsibility by claiming that the problem is actually small or insignificant once it is properly contextualized.

...