Blame and Responsibility

Blame and responsibility

I started writing this post by trying to find a word for “responsibility” (as in responsibility for something gone wrong) which does not have a negative connotation. I was unsuccessful, and I cannot think of a word which assigns responsibility without assigning blame.

Not every failure indicates blame. Even if we can identify who is responsible for a failure, it is not necessarily correct to blame them for it. An immediate example is someone who was forced to accept responsibility beyond their skill level. If all the officers in a platoon are killed in battle, and one of the soldiers assumes command, if he loses the battle we can assign responsibility to him, but we cannot blame him. His responsibility would not include any negative connotation.

The spectrum of responsibility runs from full blame to no blame. Someone who had the necessary skills and knowledge and still failed to do the job has the highest degree of blame. Someone who did not have the skills, and was not negligent in attaining them, and did not put themselves in a situation they were unprepared for is blameless in case of failure, though we can still discuss their responsibility.

There are distinct factors which define levels of blame. The first is a failure to apply one’s skills to dealing with the issue. This is the greatest degree of blame, for the failure is entirely a result of the person not accepting the responsibility, and not exerting themselves to succeed. This is the standard situation when we blame people for failure – students who did not study for their tests, managers who did not mind their schedules, and generals who did not respect their limitations.

A lesser degree of blame is when someone is in a position of responsibility they are unsuited or unprepared for. If they pushed themselves into that position they are to be blamed for that. This seems to be common in hierarchal, structured settings, such as the military or large corporations.

A common situation where conflict arises over assigning responsibility is where someone was decently prepared for their situation, yet they fail to achieve their goal, for no obvious reason. They were not irresponsible or lazy, they took care to learn how to do what needed doing, they made a good faith effort, and still failed. Often other people will be quick to blame them, as they have failed where success was reaonably expected. Theperson involved will refuse to accept the blame, as they have done what was expected of them, even if the results reflect poorly on them. The conflict here arises because the people involved conflate blame and responsibility. In this situation the responsibility is clear while the blame is elusive.

A very common situation where blame and responsibility need to be seperated, but are not, are in cases of divorce. Everyone who gets divorced has some responsibility for it, but usually one side bears the blame. It is very common to hear how it is always both sides who are responsible. This is technically true, if we understand responsibility as a situational evaluation and not as a judgement. Both sides are responsible, not necessarily in the same way, but there is never any reason to assume that both sides are to blame.

At this level the relevant responsibility is to recognize that whatever you are doing is not working, and figure out how to change it. This is a second level of responsibility, more difficult and less obvious than the first level, which is doing what is recognized and expected in the situation. Getting back to marriage, the first level of each person’s responsibility is to care about the other, pay attention to their needs and desires, and generally allow the relationship to grow. There is also the further expectation to stick it out when it does not go well, while continuing to try to improve the relationship. Someone who fails at this level is clearly responsible, and deserves the blame for the lack of success of the marriage. The second level of responsibility is relevant when someone has done what was expected and their marriage is still not succeeding, and this will generally be when their spouse is failing in their responsibilities. At this point they must realize that the standard expectations in marriage are not helping them, and they must try to understand why not, and what they can do instead. What often happens here is that if they are truly committed to the marriage they will double down on doing the standard expectations, investing further energies in what is not working anyway. This will cause extreme frustration if they end up getting divorced, and they are then blamed for failing in their responsibilities, even though on the first level of responsibility they may well have invested more than anyone in a succesful marriage invests.

This second level of responsibility, which is the responsibility to reject standard expectations when they do not work, requires people to reject what they have always been told is their basic responsibilities. They must violate the demands of those same people who will hold them responsible in the end, as they change from expected approaches to finding something that works. The superior who cannot tell the difference between responsibility and blame will also not be able to recognize the need to depart from the standard script, which will often leave people in a situation where they are assigned responsibility and must accept the blame, but they do not have the authority to actually ensure the successful execution of their responsibilities.

The meta-responsibility of breaking away from the initially expected approach is also where moral growth happens. As long as someone handles their responsibilities by simply following their job description they will never gain a better understanding of the nature of their work and of their own abilities and limitations in the relevant area. They will never be forced to analyze the area of their responsibilty and to understand all the potential pitfalls. They will not have the opportunity to creatively apply their own skills and insights in solving the problem. Paradoxically, people who have always succeeded in the field will often turn out to be the least able to guide others, as their success shielded them from gaining deeper insights. People who have failed initially in their responsibilities and then again accepted thos responsibilities and succeeded are the ones who best understand the issues involved, and who are most capable of advising others.

People often deny responsibility because they are trying to avoid accepting blame. Often when someone demands than another person accept responsibility, they are trying to assign blame. Blame and responsibility must be seperated in order to allow a healthy resolution to any failure, and to be able to identify and fix the causes of the failure. Blame must be assigned where blame is due, but it should not get in the way of discussing responsibility where the only issue is the failure but there is no blame. A denial of blame does not necessarily reflect poorly on someone, unless they are to be blamed, but avoidance of responsibility is always a problem. Acceptance of personal responsibility for a failure is the basic condition which says that someone is again ready to assume responsibility in a task where they previously failed.


One comment on “Blame and Responsibility

  1. פרל says:

    The distinction between responsibility and blame has to be made in any case involved, true.
    What is not that obvious and should me given a deeper thought, whether the distinction between positive and negative responsibility is correct.
    The basic degree of responsibility is responsibility for everything I do. I act at my free choice, I can control my own deeds, therefore, I am responsible for them. There might be times, where I choose to be manipulated into doing something, but it is again my own choice to be manipulated (very bad choice, btw).This initial stage of responsibility can be further viewed, against the background of success or failure, in a different light. In case of success or failure, there is always some body (individual or group) that is responsible for that. In this light, there is truly no difference between positive and negative responsibility.
    The story of blame is completely different, precisely because of the fact that you never say 'he is to be blamed for the success'.
    In general, the problem of blame starts, where there is a situation where someone has to bear the cost of the failure, or, as some put it, is to be punished. Where there is no punishment, there is no blame. Even in case of punishment , the Torah clearly separates if a person acted bemezid, or alternatively, beshogeg, lo mitkaven etc. What is here crucial is the authority, who has to judge the case, to determine the punishment. It cannot be anyone directly or indirectly involved in the case, because of understandable sentiments.
    I would also argue, that especially in the case of divorce, things are more complicated. Usually, divorce is the final stage of already failing relationship, where one of the sides, or both, has no interest in continuing the relationship. Both sides may claim they did anything that they could to improve the relationship, and this can be always negated by the other side. In divorce, as in most other personal stories, there are two versions. In cases, where no body can clearly determine who is to be blamed and is to bear the cost, one or both sides will always be disappointed. The best would be, not to punish in these cases anyone, but unfortunately, our system doesn't allow for such solution. The divorce and the stigma is in itself the punishment.
    Lets examine now the following statement: 'They must violate the demands of those same people who will hold them responsible in the end, as they change from expected approaches to finding something that works.' It is not quite the same as to say 'People who have failed initially in their responsibilities and then again accepted thos responsibilities and succeeded are the ones who best understand the issues involved, and who are most capable of advising others.' While in the second case, I failed in my responsibilities unconsciously, but nevertheless, or maybe because of that, I was able to learn a new lesson about these responsibilities in order to fulfill them even more consciously and truly, the first statement make my fulfilling or not fulfilling the responsibilities dependent on others. The first situation is my personal fight with the authority, and is in fact unrelated to my fulfilling or failing in responsibilities. The second situation is about me and my responsibilities, purely. Indeed, society and authorities have many demands, some of which can be questioned. But the question should be in any case, how I want to handle my responsibilities for my actions regardless any external authority. The first case, i.e. questioning the demands of the authority, can be true in case of officers in the Nazi Germany. They bear full responsibility and are to be blamed for what they had done, precisely because they didn't question the authority. We should read once more Karl Jaspers, I believe… Here I entered already the question of collective guilt and the question of conscience, which is far more complicated than the problem of first and second degree of each one's responsibility for their own action, or success, or failure.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s