Read on Twitter
How do you save face when you have violated a social or legal rule (such as break lockdown)? Erving Goffman beautifully outlined potential strategies in the classic text 'Relations in public'. Here are some options:
You can offer an account - an explanation for why you violated the rule. You could say, for instance, you didn't know the rule existed. This is clearly not possible for Cummings; he helped create the rules
There are other accounts. You can say that you knew the rule, but you were temporarily not thinking straight, such as being drunk or insane
Another account is saying that the rule was broken for a higher cause. In this case, the higher cause was the alleged wellbeing of the child
You can deny the rule existed in the first place. The government have used this strategy by claiming there are caveats that mean Cummings didn't actually break the rules
You can say the action was an accident and you couldn't foresee the consequences. The trip was clearly planned and he sits on SAGE
Alternatively, you can offer an apology. You can say that you acted wrongly and say that your 'true' self reproaches this behaviour
The stakes are high. Get the message right and you can successfully rehabilitate yourself. Get it wrong and you further tarnish your already damaged reputation
Spin doctors and governments should be good at this. But Cummings and the government have got it strategically wrong (never mind morally wrong)
The government have actually damaged the social code of lockdown by suggesting that violating it is acceptable
From a face saving perspective, a better strategy would be to say: 'it was wrong, I'm sorry; in a situation of panic I made a severe error of judgement'
But populists just can't bring themselves to admit wrongdoing. They're too narcissistic, too used to habitually lying. They are challenged and must go on the attack. Obviously they are terrible people. This time I think they have also used the wrong face saving strategy. END
