The politics of apology

Tim Wilson. Photo / supplied

Late last year, fashion designer Trelise Cooper was accused of perpetrating "colonial violence in floral polyester." She had named a tiered dress with a trailing hem Trail of Tiers.

Unfortunately that sounds a lot like Trail of Tears, a series of forced death marches Native American tribes were sent on in the US between 1830 and 1850. A New Zealand academic, Professor Joanna Kidman, discovered the dress online, and posted, "I guess it's cool to be ironic about genocide" on Twitter. Twitter produced headlines; Trelise Cooper swiftly apologised.

She didn't know about the American Trail of Tears. "The mistake was made out of ignorance," she wrote in her apology. Use of "ignorance" suggests she should have known more about US history.

Why? The event occurred in another country. In the US, they're still struggling to teach the topic properly to high school students. We've only just mandated our own curriculum about New Zealand history. Ignorance implies an uncommon lack of awareness. Not knowing something is quite different.

Had Trelise Cooper released a 'Parihaka party' dress, that would be outrageous. New Zealanders can be reasonably expected to know our own history. But everyone can't know everything. Once, as a social experiment, I spent the day asking random people to name the Leader of the Opposition. Most had no idea.

Also, intent matters. We know this from disciplining our kids. If Tommy meant to hit Sally, he goes to time out. If he didn't, we'd ask him to be compassionate, and more careful next time.

So what was Trelise Cooper guilty of, actually? She was "guilty" of using a sound-alike phrase that accurately described her own design. The person who found this and made the connection didn't contact the fashion label directly, instead posting derisively on social media, directing others to the perceived slight.

This is quite a mild example of a much bigger problem within the social media and news media eco-system. We know the script all too well: public accusation, amplification, pile-on, apology. Sadly, the apology doesn't address the fundamental problems with this culture of public "call-outs."

Anger comes from a natural moral desire to end injustice, a righteous indignation. It is right to want to bring an end to wrongs like racial injustice and for people to not want to perpetuate insensitivity. But how righteous is it for social media users and the news media to incinerate someone publicly when you don't know whether they're erring deliberately? Embarrassing, shaming, and terrorising unknowing people into submission may be the road to clickbait, but it isn't the road to growth and mutual understanding.

Perhaps Professor Kidman could have contacted Trelise Cooper directly. They might have had a private conversation. Two adults working it out. If that approach didn't work out, then public pressure might be appropriate.

We need more authenticity in our discussions of these issues, not less. And we don't need performances of outrage, or apology. We can do better. Let's give the real thing a try.