Disagreement is deflected onto deviant persons, leaving the world’s self-evidence intact

Evidence

Of course, this indisputably self-evident manner of the world cannot, in fact, be regarded as a fully consensual world. It includes differences and varieties of opinion, enough and to spare. These will not, however, be attributed to the world but rather to human beings as an object in the world, to their irrationality, to their evil intentions, to their alien origins or, nowadays, to their ‘complexes’. As a result, differences lose significance. Since they are interpreted in this way, they do not cause misgivings and create uncertainty in individual experience. They belong to special circumstances in the world which can be dealt with by means of definable acts of distrust, caution, readiness for conflict, or by psychologically induced indifference. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 134

Categorization

• XREF: Echoes Giddens’s point about ontological security: challenges are localized and absorbed so the overall worldview is not destabilized. Could also connect to the way Stevens rationalizes away Lord Darlington’s moral failures as ‘human error’ rather than institutional collapse.