Thanks to Willie Jackson and John Tamihere, we have a
broader context for understanding the young men at the heart of Roast Busters.
For the past few years, it turns out, a group of young men
in Auckland calling themselves ‘Roast Busters’ have preyed on girls and
teenagers, raped and sexually assaulted them, and bragged about their
activities on a facebook site. Some of the women were plied with alcohol and
approached at parties and other social events. The story has blown up in NZ,
and at first there were at least two groups of people to be angry with: the
young men who have carried on with their crimes for years; and NZ police who
have known about their crimes for years but wouldn’t prosecute because they
didn’t feel they had enough evidence. I am sure many women in NZ are not
surprised, on the basis of our own encounters (on behalf of ourselves or
others) with NZ police about other
instances of rape and sexual assault, that the police response was
underwhelming to a mind-numbing and infuriating degree.
I wish I was more surprised by the police situation, to be
honest, but many of us are already familiar with the problem of their appalling
treatment of such cases (over the phone, when reporting on an incident: ‘but
are you sure she said no? why would she have a shower when that has probably
removed any evidence? are you sure she said no?’) and general reluctance to
prosecute which rests on the blatant unfairness that a traumatized victim needs
to be willing to come forward (unlike for example when a television is stolen
and the police step in and prosecute on behalf of the television despite the TV
not having provided its own affidavit) even though there is no guarantee the
re-traumatization involved in coming forward and repeating statements will be
enough anyway.
Over the past 24 hours, two radio talkshow hosts (the
aforementioned Willie and John) have stepped forward and volunteered themselves
to be the third target of national anger about this whole situation. They
‘interviewed’ Amy, an 18 year old young woman who had been victim of the young
men and – as many other commentators have already noted – proceeded to
reinforce the usual sexist framing of such a topic: her clothes, her
consumption of alcohol, her virginity and whether teenaged girls are
promiscuous these days. They proposed that if some girls had consented then it
wasn’t really rape. Etc. Awful. Beyond words.
This display of characteristic sexism on the part of
these two middle aged men who pride themselves on being ‘straight talkers’ etc
etc yawn yawn attracts enough attention that they are drawn into a national discussion
of whether an apology is necessary. The next day, Willie
Jackson apologises, kind of. He says “we have no problems apologising to Amy
for causing offence.”
And here’s the question: is this the apology demanded
under these circumstances? Is offence the problem here? Or, to put it another way, if Amy wasn’t “ofen[ded]” would
it have been okay?
The idea of offence, and apologies offered for causing it,
make me wonder.
In another context, when we have small children, and they do
something bad to another child, we say ‘apologise!’ and we expect that the
child will say ‘I’m sorry for breaking your toy,’ not ‘I’m sorry if breaking
your toy might have made you upset.” In the moment, we can see the cause and
effect, and the central point of the interaction is not the upset, it’s the
breakage. Both children, and all adults standing around them, can see the
relationship has been ruptured because the first child broke the toy, not
because the other child cried. The crying – the upset – of the second kid is
neither here nor there in terms of the relationship between the kids; it’s a
by-product, not the problem.
But somehow once people become grownups, it becomes
acceptable to place a little breathing room in an apology: I’m sorry if I
offended you. I’m sorry if you are offended when I dress up in a parody of your
culture for Halloween. I’m sorry if you’re offended that I said people from
your community are all stupid. I’m sorry if my African themed 21st
party to which friends came dressed in blackface and a KKK costume offended
you. I’m sorry if my comment that you’re ugly has offended you. I didn’t mean
to offend you when I suggested you sounded like a slutty teenager and probably
asked for it.
This kind of apology isn’t an apology because it refuses to
focus on the actual site of the rupture; it attempts to deflect attention,
suggesting the victim’s response is unpredictable and arbitrary, and locating
the problem with the response rather than the thing to which the victim is
responding. It turns an actual act or comment into a neutral entity, and places
all of the emotion – and all of the responsibility for emotion – on the side of
the victim. Once the emotion quietly slides to the victim end of the equation,
so too does the central weight of the issue. Focusing on the response of the
victim means the possible effects of the original act are rendered unknowable
and therefore, because this opens up the possibility of alternative responses,
the original actor is rendered potentially innocent at least because it is
conceivable a ‘non-offended’ response is also possible.
(‘I’m sorry you’re offended I dressed like an Indian for
Halloween.’ ‘Oh I’m not offended.’ ‘Oh great I’ve got nothing to be sorry for then –
glad we cleared that up.’)
Apologizing for causing someone else’s offence is facetious
because it cannot ever be truly genuine: how can one genuinely apologize – and
by that I mean reflectively and absolutely take responsibility for their own
wrong actions – when one suggests that the rupture in the relationship between
the two people is only knowable through the outward sign of a specific response
of offence? Surely taking responsibility for one’s own wrong actions
necessarily involves taking the time to thoroughly consider all of the possible
implications and effects and take responsibility for these as well.
(‘I’m sorry I dressed like an Indian for Halloween. I have
participated in a specific form of stereotyping which has deep colonial roots
and dehumanizes your people, and I can see that this thoughtless act
contributes in real ways to the ongoing injustice and violence inflicted on
Indigenous people.’)
Apologising for offence caused rather than for your actual
behaviour renders the person making the apology incapable of repairing the relationship because the rupture is located at the end of the victim, and presumably one cannot 'make' someone feel different. Apologising for offence caused rather than for your actual behaviour is a refusal to take responsibility for your own actions and a refusal to do anything further to repair the relationship (which surely is the best possible outcome of an apology).
[For clarity: I'm talking here about taking responsibility in a collective, relationship-focussed, sense rather than an individualistic right wing sense.]
This – this - is
at the heart of the non-apology to Amy (“we have no problems apologising to Amy
for causing offence”) – as if causing a specific reaction is the problem rather
than their words to which she may or may not be reacting. This pattern of
thinking ultimately denies there can be clarity about right and wrong, cause
and effect, of the original behaviour… and it does this by leaving open the
possibility that there is an plausible alternative understanding of the
interaction, in which the victim does not feel aggrieved. If Amy did not feel
offence – unlikely, but theoretically plausible seeing as offence is an individual emotion –
they had nothing else for which to apologize.
And this – this – is
at the heart of what’s wrong with how Willie and John – and some members of the NZ police force and many more - gently perpetuate rape culture. The idea that the perpetrator’s guilt depends not on
the act of rape in and of itself but on the specific and provable response of
the victim. According to this pervasive logic, there is always the possibility not only that
Amy won’t be offended but that Amy wasn’t raped.
If men like Willie and John
took full and serious and thoughtful responsibility for their own actions ('we apologise for...'), perhaps
men like those behind Roast Busters might grow up seeing models for how they
can take full and serious and thoughtful responsibility for theirs.