Movie stars and presidents apologize today for adultery and sexual abuse, for not telling the truth when supposed to at least try to, and for many kinds of misconduct as they say now. This is not surprising nor interesting. "To apologize" means to settle a rhetorical defense, and it seems to share common semantic field with the word of Freud in his interpretation of the Irma dream: a plaidoyer – he writes in French.

The dictionary says: "Exposé argumenté, convaincu, en faveur d'une personne, d'une idée, d'une institution. Les idées nouvelles inspirèrent seulement, en Amérique latine, quelques rares plaidoyers en faveur des Indiens et, en France, ce furent les droits des hommes de couleur qui, seuls, trouvèrent d'abord des défenseurs (Lefebvre, Révol. fr., 1963, p. 650).

Freud also was not in favor of too fast try to untie the subject of his feelings of culpability. His plaidoyer is something that according to Lacan is addressed to us. Is a sort of taking responsibility for his act, rather than a captatio benevolentia.

The thing is, you may apologize for everything in this century. Nobody knows what the meaning of that is. The Guardian today asks for the Church to apologize for its participation in the Rwanda genocide.

Where to find it anew? You may apologize for misconduct and on the same token the word applies for genocide. The pulverization of responsibility testifies for a real without law.

Marco Mauas
NLS, Hertzlyia, Israel