The avoidance of responsibility has arguably been endemic in human nature from the very beginning as typified by the legendary story of the fall of mankind: Adam blamed Eve and she blamed the serpent! Almost every major dispute, war or separation drama in the bitter break-up of relationships is an exercise by both parties in seeking to allocate blame away from themselves and as much as possible on the other. Every legal system functions largely through the attempts to hold one or other party responsible for the unwelcome situation in question and blame is at the core of all civil litigation.

Human beings have a natural tendency to seek causal explanations. Where an outcome is positive, it is satisfying to be able to take the credit. If it is unfavourable, we would prefer that the causes be found outside ourselves and the avoidance of responsibility is likely to be even more successful if we can fix the blame on some other individual or factor beyond our control. People in authority who are negligent, corrupt or incompetent often resort to seeking scapegoats, and organized criminals have been known to set up a ‘fall guy’ to take the rap so that they can remain looking impeccable.

When a person is aware of his own contribution to a bad situation, it takes considerable character to admit the truth and face the consequences, for there are significant disadvantages in accepting responsibility and resisting the inclination to try to pin blame on others. Accepting responsibility could be seen as diminishing our own bargaining position and weakening our resolve to win against the other party. There is also the risk of incurring costs due to implicitly admitting liability, and as a result we might have to carry a disproportionate share of the fault and possibly suffer unreasonable penalties.

The process of assigning appropriate and legitimate blame is probably a necessary feature of civilised society. Laws must be enforceable and penalties are used as a deterrent to crime. However, if justice is to prevail, it is essential that the penalties be directed only at those who are properly identified as responsible. Criminal investigation is about finding who is accountable, and without this there cannot be a resolution.

Nevertheless, the pursuit of blame as a general response to problems also has major personal, social and organizational disadvantages.

• The act of directing blame is essentially an admission of one’s own powerlessness, and we adopt a ‘victim’ mentality. It is disempowering.
  


• It tends to be fragmenting and divisive. Consciousness shrinks inward towards the narrower self and each party thinks in terms of ‘I, you, or he’, rather than ‘we’.
  


• Blame is generally associated with anger, resentment, hatred, bitterness and other negative emotions. These are known to be very detrimental to health.
  


• Blame always focuses backward in time rather than forward. Often both sides rake up a long history of recriminations in their attempts to prove that the other party ‘started it’. This fuels and prolongs the animosity.
  


• The ‘witch-hunt’ mentality is conducive to cover-up, lying and the concealment of evidence rather than allowing the situation to be used as a learning opportunity for long-term benefit.
  

• A blame culture within an organization puts people on the defensive, lowers morale and initiative, and generates excessive caution that hinders development.

Blame has appropriate applications, but it is highly prone to being used unproductively. The extent to which this can be restrained depends largely on personal character and the culture of the organization or system within which we operate.

"Viewpoints"
©Carl Jacob

Web design by Ieva Bergman