Why we use indirect speech to maintain social order and avoid open conflict
In short: Plausible deniability is not just for spies or politicians. In everyday life, we use indirect language and two-tracking to manage social friction without destroying relationships. By avoiding explicit confrontation, we protect our social face and keep organizations running, even when everyone involved knows exactly what is being communicated.
Plausible deniability is often viewed as a tool for political or espionage-related evasion, but MIT philosopher Sam Berstler argues it is a fundamental feature of human interaction. In her paper, "Non-Epistemic Deniability," Berstler explores how we use indirect speech to navigate social contexts where total transparency would be destructive. By relying on context, tone, and shared knowledge rather than literal words, individuals can signal disapproval or address grievances without triggering the direct recriminations that would follow an explicit accusation.
A key mechanism for this is what Berstler calls "two-tracking." In this practice, groups divide communication into two distinct channels: an official, courteous track and an informal, uncooperative track. This allows individuals to engage in a form of proxy battle, signaling conflict while maintaining enough ambiguity to avoid a full-scale breakdown of norms. It functions like a personal Cold War, where adversaries limit their aggression to avoid the total destruction of their shared environment. As Berstler notes, the goal is not to be perfectly convincing, but to provide enough cover that the denial itself need not be plausible to be effective.
This behavior draws on the work of sociologist Erving Goffman, who emphasized the importance of maintaining a ritualized social self, or "face." The price of preserving this face is often a reduction in transparency. Whether through open secrets—widely known information that remains unacknowledged—or two-tracking, these social practices allow us to manage power and group dynamics. By keeping the underlying intent just beneath the surface of our literal words, we can address controversial issues while allowing all parties to pretend that the conflict never occurred, thereby keeping the social machine running smoothly.
Opens the Intellect+ feed with this card first. Swipe up for the next one.
Sources
- Summary by Intellect · source: Why bother with plausible deniability?
- Also: Plausible deniability
To cite this card, link to https://intellectplus.co.uk/app/places-plausible-deniability.
How we source, check and correct cards: Editorial standards.
General information, not professional advice. Spotted an error? Flag the card or see corrections and complaints.
Intellect Plus is a visual educational discovery platform for exploring fascinating facts and ideas. Brain Food, Not Brain Rot. What is Intellect Plus?
Related
More in Major world cities · More in Countries & Cities · Latest · A–Z · All topics
