Power shifts attribution of actions from the subject to the power-holder
Evidence
This solution to the motivation problem is backed up by a corresponding solution to the problem of attribution. One needs motives only when action is imputed. In the case of an action motivated by power, the selection, although carried out by both parties, tends to be attributed to the power-holder alone, because the power-subject does not appear to have motives which can be recognized as his own. Admittedly this does not have to be the case. For example, not every exercise of power frees the power-subject from criminal responsibility. A power-code, however, must take account of this tendency to shift attribution and can legalize and formalize it by giving the power-subject, for example, the possibility of being ‘officially’ compelled and thereby relieving himself of responsibility. In extremely power-specific codes, such as the military, this even occurs without the assistance of the subordinate; the officer takes responsibility for an unclear order. — Niklas Luhmann, Trust and Power, 686
Categorization
Category: Causal Relationships
- XREF: This is the precise mechanism for Stevens’s ethical abdication — duty-bound obedience legally and formally shifts responsibility for his actions away from him, dissolving his own motives.
- DEEPTHINKING: The ‘motive disappears with imputation’ move is the quiet core of how power hollows out the subject’s moral authorship — worth sitting with in relation to Stevens.
Related
- Power shifts blame from subordinate to power-holder by suppressing the subordinate’s own motives (similarity 0.91)
- Once power and law separate, morality loses structural grip and becomes merely subjective. (similarity 0.80)
- Legitimating myths trap power-holders in chains of forced consistency (similarity 0.78)