MIT philosophy professor Sam Berstler has published a paper analyzing the concept of plausible deniability, a common phenomenon where people make statements with hidden meanings but preserve the ability to deny any implied accusations. Berstler’s research reveals how social interaction norms enable individuals to communicate indirect criticisms or accusations without overt confrontation.
How plausible deniability works in social contexts
Berstler uses a workplace example to illustrate plausible deniability: when an employee indirectly signals another’s wrongdoing by making a seemingly general statement, they maintain a public denial if questioned. This practice, although obviously insincere, frequently succeeds in sparking understanding without explicit confrontation. Berstler points out that this shows communication extends beyond literal words to include tone, context, and social cues.
Her work highlights that plausible deniability is not just about avoiding direct lies but is embedded in broader social practices that discourage full transparency. Indirect speech often reflects “non-acknowledgement norms,” where group members tacitly agree to not openly address sensitive or damaging information, maintaining group cohesion.
Two-tracking conversations and open secrets
Berstler identifies “two-tracking norms” as a key mechanism behind plausible deniability. This occurs when a group maintains two levels of communication: an official, polite discourse and an informal, resentful subtext known only to insiders. For example, in office settings, this allows employees to express dissatisfaction indirectly without provoking damaging conflict.
Her earlier research on open secrets—widely known information left unacknowledged—connects to this concept. Both open secrets and two-tracking conversations function to manage tensions and conflicts discreetly, allowing communities or organizations to maintain stability despite unspoken issues.
The role of social performance and implications for communication
Drawing on the sociologist Erving Goffman’s ideas about social “face” and performative interactions, Berstler argues that conversational deniability protects social harmony by allowing individuals to preserve their reputation while communicating dissent or criticism subtly. This balance between confrontation and avoidance is a widespread social phenomenon influencing everyday communication.
Rather than condemning plausible deniability as deceptive, Berstler suggests that developing rhetorical skill in indirect communication can be a pragmatic way to navigate social and professional environments. She contends that transparency, while morally valuable in some contexts, may not always be effective or desirable given the complexity of human interactions.
Why it matters
Understanding plausible deniability and the social practices that support it sheds light on everyday communication strategies in workplaces and other social groups. It reveals why direct confrontation is often avoided and how indirect speech can both manage conflict and obscure accountability. This insight has implications for improving interpersonal communication, conflict resolution, and organizational dynamics.
Background
Berstler’s paper, “Non-Epistemic Deniability,” appears in the journal MIND. It builds on her previous work investigating open secrets and broadens the philosophical study of deception by incorporating sociological perspectives on performance and social norms.
Read more Science Discoveries stories on Goka World News.
Sources
This article is based on reporting and publicly available information from the following source: