In Brief
The system hides the question “who made the decision?” behind the formula “we are simply following the rules.”
Formula: a person and a choice → are replaced by an “impersonal procedure.”
How the Mechanism Works
- A complaint arises: the system’s actions have produced a negative effect.
- Instead of discussing the subject who made the decision, the system refers to a rule or procedure.
- The impression is created that the decision “was made by no one.”
- Responsibility dissolves into the formal order.
Typical responses:
- “Those are the company’s rules.”
- “This is standard procedure.”
- “That is the platform’s policy.”
- “We are required to act according to the regulations.”
The Key Substitution
The actual chain:
subject → introduces a rule → the rule is applied → an effect arises
The system’s rhetorical version:
the rule exists on its own → we merely implement it → no one is responsible
The link “who introduced the rule and why?” is artificially removed from the analysis.
Why This Is Manipulation
Rules do not exist “by themselves.” Every rule has:
- an author (or an adopting body);
- a moment of introduction;
- a purpose;
- a scope of application;
- a possibility of revision.
Referring to a rule may be factually accurate, but in this mechanism the reference is used as a shield against the question of the source of the decision and responsibility.
Why This Benefits the System
Once the subject of the decision is acknowledged, questions immediately arise:
- who approved the rule;
- why this particular arrangement was chosen;
- whether the rule can be changed;
- who bears responsibility for the harmful effect.
The system therefore shifts the conversation into an impersonal format: “it’s just a procedure.”
How to Neutralize It
- Restore the subject: “Who introduced this rule?”
- Clarify its grounds: “When was it adopted, and on what grounds?”
- Examine its revisability: “Who can revise it, and how?”
- Connect the rule to its consequences: “Who bears responsibility for the effect of applying it?”
The key move is not to dispute the existence of the rule, but to demand that the source and the subject of the decision be identified.
Strict Definition
A mechanism of institutional self-protection: responsibility for the consequences of actions is concealed behind a reference to an impersonal rule or procedure, masking the fact that human decisions were made to create, apply, and maintain that rule.
