In Brief
The system presents a controversial, harmful, or illegal practice as “ordinary” and “widespread” in order to diminish critical scrutiny and weaken resistance.
Formula: the frequency of a practice substitutes for an assessment of its permissibility.
How the Mechanism Works
- A complaint arises concerning a violation, harm, or a questionable norm.
- Instead of responding to the substance of the complaint, the system invokes how widespread the practice is: “many people do this,” “this is standard practice.”
- The criterion of discussion shifts from a legal assessment to statistical prevalence.
- The recipient is given the impression that the dispute is “excessive,” since the practice occurs everywhere.
- Pressure to challenge the practice diminishes: a complaint, escalation, or demand for legal assessment is postponed or abandoned.
Typical Markers
- “This is standard practice.”
- “This is how things are done.”
- “These are the usual terms.”
- “All services operate this way.”
- “This is a normal procedure.”
What This Mechanism Does
1) Alleviates Concern
Logic: “if everyone does it, it must not be a problem.”
2) Eliminates Conflict
Logic: “there is no point in disputing what is already considered normal.”
3) Substitutes the Criterion
From:
lawful / unlawful
To:
common / rare
4) Weakens the Recipient’s Action
The person becomes less likely to proceed with formal legal documentation and procedural action.
Why This Is a System Defense
- Widespread practice creates an appearance of stability.
- Stability begins to be perceived as a norm.
- A normalized practice is challenged less often.
Outcome:
the system protects itself through repetition.
How to Neutralize It
- Separate prevalence from permissibility: “The fact that a practice is widespread does not answer the question of its legality.”
- Return the discussion to the criteria of law and obligations: the legal provision, contract, causal relationship, and harm.
- Demand specifics about the particular case: who made the decision, on what grounds, and which consequences have been acknowledged.
- Establish the principle: frequency of application does not create legal immunity.
- In analysis, explicitly identify this technique as a distinct defensive mechanism, rather than as a “neutral description of the market.”
Counter-formula:
“The prevalence of a practice may describe the market, but it does not determine the practice’s lawfulness or eliminate responsibility in a particular case.”
Strict Definition
A mechanism of institutional defense: a rhetorical shift in the evaluation of a practice from criteria of legality and responsibility to the criterion of its prevalence, used to reduce conflict, dilute criticism, and obstruct challenges.
