Denial strategy # 8: Manipulation

"I’ll only admit that I have problems, if you agree to solve them for me!”  

When problems box someone into a corner, they manipulate.  Manipulators use the people who want to help them by transferring responsibility to them while deflecting any away from themselves.  People who help are often the only ones offering a genuine effort.  The manipulator prefers to view themselves as helpless victims of circumstance.  This is essentially a quick and effortless fix which also provides a scapegoat should efforts fail; the people who help.  Attempts to delegate responsibility to the manipulator will often result in a negative and hostile reaction.  Essentially they are enacting a denial strategy that will result in others taking the responsibility for their behaviors.  Manipulators will clean up their act, but only if someone else does it for them.    

Denial Pattern #7: Minimum compliance

"I’ll pretend to do what you want, if you’ll leave me alone!" 

Proponents of this strategy go through the motions of addressing a problem by doing what they can to avoid negative consequences for inaction, no more and no less.  They exhibit lackadaisical compliance, but make promise/pledges to ease tensions, with just enough feigned enthusiasm or determination necessary to convince others that they are addressing the issue.  They will often tout having enlisted expertise or performing extensive research into a problem, while having no intentions of following the recommendations that these resources provide them any further than necessary to avoid repercussions.   

 

Later, when it becomes apparent that they have not lived up to their promises/pledges they will often find excuses for why they did not or could not follow through.  These excuses often manifest as some form of blaming, rationalization, or comparison arguments.  However, these are often short lived and apologies are made for transgressions, followed by more empty promises/pledges designed to reduce pressure and oversight. 

These types of denial strategies are often cyclical, but effective for those who wish to delay meaningful action.  Reasons for this are that meaningful repercussions are often delayed until the pattern becomes established and recognizable to others.

Denial strategy # 6: Comparing

"Others are worse than me and that proves that I don’t have serious problems!"
 
     Types of arguments that enlist comparison usually entail the party on the defensive refocusing attention on others with similar or associated problems.  Denial through comparison can be recognized when someone uses others’ appalling practices as reasons why their substandard ones are favorable.  Examples of more serious examples are given and compared with the behavior of the accused party as rationalization via relative severity.  Since the current issue may seem minor in comparison, the target audience is encouraged to focus elsewhere. 

       This argument, at its core, attempts to redefine what constitutes a significant contribution to the problems being discussed; also referred to as “moving the goalposts”.  By distancing themselves from extreme examples the accused attempts to align with their accusers and distract the target audience from their contributions and responsibilities associated with them.  Proponents of this argument assert that they are sympathetic to the concerns of their accusers, but that their own behaviors are benign. 

         Clever practitioners of this strategy may even try to claim the moral high ground by stating that what their practices are more ethical than what others are doing and therefore criticism of them is somehow equivalent to the promotion of unethical practices.  By doing so they effectively hijack and distort the initial concerns of their accusers while rebranding their own behavior as a virtuous alternative, and therefore above reproach.  This is a clever tactic as it often refocuses the discussion on the accusers’ motivations and places them on the defensive.  In doing so, focus on the initial problem is delayed or avoided altogether.    

Denial strategy # 5: Blaming

"These problems are not our fault. We don’t have to deal with them!"
      

         

     When a problem progresses to the point that one can no longer, avoid, deny, minimize or rationalize it, people often revert to scapegoating.  This usually takes the form of a partial admission of a transgression while claiming that it is mostly somebody else’s fault.  They’re just a victim of circumstance.  They are powerless to change.  If you were in their shoes you’d do it too.  By blaming others for their contributions to a problem they deny taking responsibility for their own.  They justify inaction by laying the blame elsewhere. 

        

         By keeping the debate focused on who is responsible effective action is delayed.  In reality, a consensus on whom or what is truly at fault is not always necessary for constructive steps forward to take place.  However, by blaming they raise the stakes and polarize stakeholders.  The result is inaction as shifting and assigning blame becomes easier and more palatable than taking responsibility.  Polarized stakeholders inevitably disagree in deciding a common path forward because they become distracted from the core issues.  This strategy often goes unrecognized by those that employ it.

Denial strategy # 4: Rationalizing

"There are good reasons for ignoring these problems, its not worth it to deal with them!"   

   

      When minimizing is no longer successful, many try to explain away problems by making up good explanations for why they are “necessary evils” or what’s “really” causing them.  This often includes making excuses to avoid a true explanation.  These arguments are often supported by revision or rebranding of the original premises.  Often these arguments are, out of necessity, well researched.  Informed opinions are applied inappropriately to reframe and center a discussion around subjects other than the topic of interest, thereby providing a distraction.

     These arguments are recognizable when arguments are raised that try to convince you that it is not worthwhile to pursue solutions because there are other, more pressing issues that need to be solved first.  Therefore the focus of discussion is hijacked.  The end result sought by proponents of this strategy is the conclusion that problems are systemic and thus no ones responsibility.  This is a powerful tool of distraction and invalidation because to recognize and counter these arguments one needs to be well versed in both the subject matter and context.