Acts of contrition: Forgiveness and effective intergroup apologies for historical institutional abuse
| Published date | 01 May 2024 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/02697580231162383 |
| Author | Anne-Marie McAlinden |
| Date | 01 May 2024 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580231162383
International Review of Victimology
2024, Vol. 30(2) 358 –378
© The Author(s) 2023
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/02697580231162383
journals.sagepub.com/home/irv
Acts of contrition: Forgiveness
and effective intergroup
apologies for historical
institutional abuse
Anne-Marie McAlinden
Queen’s University Belfast, UK
Abstract
This article examines some of the complexities of the apology–forgiveness nexus within the
context of intergroup apologies by church and state for historical institutional abuse (HIA).
Drawing on primary research conducted in Ireland, North and South, including the voices of a
sample of victims/survivors, it argues that effective intergroup apologies for HIA and the extent
to which they might elicit forgiveness among victimized communities are impacted by a range of
factors including (1) leader apologies and the ‘normative dilution effect’; (2) the lack of emotion
and remorse; and (3) in the case of church apologies in particular, the use of religious rhetoric
and ritual. The analysis ultimately suggests that while ‘pure’ forgiveness may not be possible
in this specific context, effective intergroup apologies for HIA, delivered in a collective, public
context, which have the potential to promote forgiveness among victims/survivors, are those
which closely approximate the relational dimensions of private, interpersonal apologies. This
entails demonstrating emotion; humility; proximity to historical wrongdoing; connectivity with
victims/survivors; and the commitment to non-recurrence.
Keywords
Apologies, intergroup, historical institutional abuse, forgiveness, reconciliation
[I]t is an act which has importance and relevance within a wider context, within a relationship which has
been developed . . . It is not just the words that are said, it is the way they are said . . . That is what makes
an effective apology . . . It is meaningless to just go out into the media and deliver an apology to a camera
and say ‘we’re very sorry for everything that has happened here’.1
Introduction
Collective public apologies and ‘the rhetoric of atonement’ (Koesten and Rowland, 2004) have
featured as a constituent element of contemporary political responses to high-profile cases of
Corresponding author:
Professor Anne-Marie McAlinden, School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast, Main Site Tower, Belfast BT7 1NN, UK.
Email: a.mcalinden@qub.ac.uk
1162383IRV0010.1177/02697580231162383International Review of VictimologyMcAlinden
research-article2023
Article
McAlinden 359
historical wrongdoing as part of the expression of ‘national regret’ (Cuthbert and Quartly, 2012).
Within this wider context, there have been a number of official apologies by state leaders on behalf
of their respective nations for historical institutional abuse (HIA) internationally.2 This has
included, for example, Kevin Rudd’s apology for Australia’s treatment of ‘the Stolen Generations’
of aboriginal children;3 Justin Trudeau’s apology for the abuses of Indigenous children in church-
run residential schools in Canada;4 and the apology by Mette Frederiksen to children abused in care
homes in Denmark during the post–World War II era.5 Within the Republic of Ireland, the three
notable State apologies for HIA are those delivered by Bertie Ahern on behalf of the Irish State to
those abused as children in residential institutions;6 by Enda Kenny to survivors of the ‘Magdalen
laundries’;7 and by Micheál Martin to survivors of the ‘mother and baby homes’ regimes.8 More
recently, an apology was delivered to victims and survivors of HIA in Northern Ireland by five
members of the Northern Ireland Executive, representing each of the main political parties.9 These
state apologies have also been accompanied by apologies issued by religious orders and the
Catholic Church in particular, examples of which are drawn upon below. While there are some
variations in the context and choreography of church and state public apologies which are explored
below and elsewhere (see e.g. McAlinden, 2022a, 2022b), not least in terms of enhanced state
accountability, the analysis focuses predominantly on the shared complexities and factors which
may impede the perceived authenticity and reception of intergroup apologies by victimized
communities.
The article draws on the literature on the nature and effects of both interpersonal (individual)
and intergroup (collective) apologies as well as primary research conducted in Ireland, North and
South, including archival research on public apologies, focus groups with members of the public
and with victims/survivors, and semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders. It examines
some of the key complexities of forgiveness within the context of intergroup apologies for HIA by
church and state leaders in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (RoI) and how they
may be overcome. While the empirical sample is focused on experiences within the island of
Ireland utilizing the case study of HIA, the analysis nonetheless offers an important window into
the perspective both of those issuing and receiving intergroup apologies and the implications for
forgiveness and reconciliation.
While apology is now the subject of a burgeoning interdisciplinary literature across a range of
fields,10 it is the literature from criminology, sociology, social psychology and theology, which is
most pertinent for this discussion, and which is predominantly drawn upon below. Situated within
these broader theoretical frameworks, and as discussed further, forgiveness is central to the con-
ceptualization of apology and dealing with the past within both interpersonal and intergroup set-
tings. However, this article will argue that although the apology–forgiveness link is well established
within the context of the literature on interpersonal apologies, this nexus is much more complex
and variable within the context of intergroup apologies for HIA – that is, those collective public
apologies made on behalf of a group for a wrong that the group, or some of its members (i.e. the
state or the church or their agents), committed against another group (i.e. victims/survivors of
HIA).
Indeed, while apology may facilitate forgiveness, this sequence is not always linear or clear cut
(see e.g. Suzuki and Jenkins, 2022). As discussed further, there are a range of complexities relating
to forgiveness in the HIA sphere, including the magnitude of the wrongs and the diversity of vic-
tims/survivors and their needs (see e.g. Keenan, 2014; Lundy, 2016), which may problematize the
To continue reading
Request your trial