Generalized symbols absorb uncertainty but at the cost of situation-inadequate conduct

Evidence

All possibilities for increase go back to what is basic in the distinction between code and process – the generalization of symbols. What is meant by generalization is a generalizing of meaningful orientations, which makes it possible for an identical meaning to be adhered to when different partners face one another in different situations, so that the same, or similar, conclusions are drawn. Reducing the relative significance of the immediate situation diminishes the burden of obtaining and evaluating information in individual cases and removes the need for a complete reorientation in shifting from one case to another. At the same time, in this manner it absorbs uncertainty. It becomes possible to form complementary expectations, and conduct on the basis of expectations, but at the risk of an expectation-oriented, but not quite situation-adequate behaviour which does not exploit the possibilities that the concrete situation may offer (for instance not exploiting a momentary weakness in the power-holder) and misses opportunities for learning. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 637

Categorization

• XREF: The ‘expectation-oriented, not situation-adequate behaviour’ is almost a direct description of Stevens’s deferential conduct — he operates purely on generalized expectations, missing situational realities like Darlington’s moral failures. — connects to: Conspiracy symbols succeed by combining concrete specificity with vagueness
• DEEPTHINKING: The cost/benefit dual here — codes reduce informational burden but buy flexibility of conduct at the price of code inflexibility — is the exact irony that powers the reader’s central thesis of ethical abdication.