How to Write an Apologia
There are two basic strategies to pursue in an apologia, and they can often be used simultaneously. The first is to deny that you did what your accusers say; the second is to admit that you did it, but argue that it wasn’t a bad thing.
Denial
Imagine the following exchange (typical of Christian apologetics):
Apologist: “We Christians have faith that God exists, even if we can’t prove it.”
Accuser: “Hah! That is an irrational belief! You Christians are not being logical!”
Apologist: “On the contrary, logic supports our faith.”
This is basically the conversation that inspires Christian apologetics. Indeed, the majority of the field is basically an effort to support the last statement through logic and evidence. The details of Christian apologetic arguments are not important for now – what’s important for our purposes is to notice that the apologist is denying that they are guilty of irrationality.
Another version of this strategy would be to clarify, rather than strictly denying. In other words, the apologist might acknowledge that the accusations are in some sense true, but not really true.
Justification
Let’s stick with the Christian example and imagine a slightly different conversation:
Apologist: “We Christians have faith that God exists, even if we can’t prove it.”
Accuser: “Hah! That is an irrational belief! You Christians are not being logical!”
Apologist: “That’s true, but is it so bad? Logic doesn’t give us all the answers.”
There have been a few Christian apologists who adopted this line of reasoning. They concede the factual claim that their faith is illogical, and go on to defend the validity of illogical belief, pointing to the spiritual limitations of human logic.
This was also Socrates’ strategy: he never denied his radical teachings, but rather justified them.
Failed Strategies
Sometimes, an apologia may employ a fallacious (i.e. illogical) strategy in defense of its author. This is quite common in politics, where people frequently have to defend themselves in public against a variety of accusations. Here is a short list of common fallacies that appear in apologias – be careful to avoid them!
- Ad Hominem Attack: attacking your accuser as a person rather than responding to the substance of their objections.
- Appeal to Emotions: if you can make people feel hatred, fear, or groundless hope, you can easily make them forget their accusations in a storm of emotions.
- Mischaracterizing the Accusation: you must respond to the precise objections that your accuser has brought up. It’s tempting to present those objections in the weakest possible light, to make your own argument seem stronger, but this is faulty reasoning and will not fool an intelligent reader.
- Chewbacca Defense: This is a humorous term for using confusion to escape criticism. Instead of defending your ideas or actions, you simply bombard the audience with confusing words and tangled sentences until they can no longer follow the argument. It only works when the audience feels that they have somehow been outsmarted, but that’s rare – and even when it works, it’s a terrible way to make an argument.
When to Use Apologia
Apologia is a feature of formal arguments; thus, it’s mainly a feature of formal essays, especially those written against a specific counterargument. However, there are a few situations in creative writing that might call for an apologia. In particular, if a character is facing criminal or ethical accusations, they might want to deliver an extended apologia. Be careful in your reasoning, though, as this apologia will give the reader tremendous insight into the character’s morality – particularly if the character is employing a justification strategy. If the justification is unsound or unconvincing, you can accidentally make your character seem immoral (conversely, if you want to make the character seem immoral, then an unpersuasive justification can do very nicely)!