In Brief
If a system facing a risk of being held responsible cannot sustain a single stable defensive account, it produces multiple partially incompatible versions in order to destroy certainty and make it difficult to establish a causal relationship.
Formula: no single stable version → a field of incompatible versions is created → causality is blurred → responsibility is dispersed.
When It Is Triggered
The mechanism usually appears when three conditions coincide:
- there is a risk that an error or fault will be acknowledged;
- there is a risk of losses or sanctions;
- there is no single version that provides reliable protection at every point of examination.
How the Mechanism Works
Instead of a single line of defense, a “field of versions” is created, for example:
- “this happened before we were involved”;
- “we did not do it”;
- “we did it, but this is normal”;
- “someone else did it”;
- “you are to blame yourselves”;
- “even if we were involved, it is not our responsibility.”
The objective here is not to establish the truth, but to reduce the certainty of the account of events.
Effect
- No single cause can be established.
- A linear causal chain cannot be assembled.
- A “fog” of interpretations arises, along with doubt of the “not everything is so clear-cut” variety.
- Individual responsibility is weakened by dispersing it across multiple versions.
Strict Indicators (Recognition Criteria)
The mechanism is likely when the following are observed simultaneously:
- Mutually exclusive versions (for example, “we did not do it” and “we did it, but it was permissible”).
- The absence of a unified causal chain answering the question “what exactly happened?”
- The shifting of responsibility to the customer, third parties, “complexity,” or abstract circumstances.
- The number of versions exceeds their compatibility: the more versions there are, the less successfully they fit into a single model.
Boundaries of Applicability
This is not a universal explanation.
The mechanism is not confirmed if:
- the versions complement each other within a single model;
- there is a unified causal account with variations in details;
- there are no contradictions between the versions.
The mechanism is confirmed when the versions cannot be integrated into one coherent causal model.
A More General Principle
This is a particular case of the shift from meaning to form: priority is given not to establishing the truth, but to constructing a space in which testing truth claims becomes difficult.
Short Working Formula
If there is no single stable version, the system creates multiple incompatible ones to undermine the possibility of establishing causality and thereby dilute responsibility.
Strict Definition
A mechanism of institutional defense: under conditions of exposure to responsibility and the absence of a single stable defensive account, the system generates a set of partially incompatible explanations of an event; in doing so, it reduces the verifiability of the causal relationship and disperses individual responsibility.
