In Defense of Blame

“Blame” has been given a bad rap by a congress of oracles, philosophers, preachers, and self-help gurus. Blame connotes “cop-out,” a rejection of accountability. But substitute “cause” for “blame” and suddenly all is forgiven. In Western societies, “this caused that” is wholly more acceptable than “this is to blame for that.” Indeed, seeking the source of causation is fundamental to scientific inquiry, technological advancements, medical breakthroughs, etc.

Yet “blame” is simply the evil twin of “cause.” Consider the following: “Researchers blame flea-infested rats for the bubonic plague of Medieval times” versus “flea-infested rats caused bubonic plague.” The latter suggests a course of action for an identified problem; the former lacks certainty and merely provides a scapegoat. Yet despite the formulation, the essence of the two statements is the same. “Blame” is often just a pejorative synonym for “cause.”

No one denies the utility of studying cause and effect. Human progress depends on it. Beyond its scientific benefit, cause and effect, and by extension, blame, also plays a prominent role in adjudicating social justice. Identifying cause and placing blame are useful constructs in ordering societies. For example: “the police investigation blamed a drunk driver for killing the family of four.” In this case, cause has been determined and blame assigned. The hopeful consequence (effect) is that a drunk driver will be prosecuted, imprisoned, and kept off the road so as to not kill again. Here’s another: “Greedy money managers enabled by inept regulatory structures are to blame for the financial crisis of 2008.” Assigning blame in this case resulted in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act. (Admittedly, the jury’s still out on that one, but you get the point). Unapologetically, society’s goal in assigning blame in these cases is to punish miscreants for their harmful actions and deter others from doing the same.

Still, the enemies of “blame” can’t be completely wrong, can they? When do the curative properties of “blame” morph into a malignancy that must be cut out of the patient?

My tepid, unproven answer to that question is: “when there is nothing further to be gained.” When the guilty have been properly punished, when there is no one guilty to be punished, when the victim has been made whole, when the victim cannot be made whole – in other words, when blaming people and events for bad things that have happened loses its utility. The trick for us humans is identifying that moment and accepting that conclusion.

My forthcoming novella, “Someone Had to Die,” examines the concept of “blame” through the eyes of damaged people, damaged in body and soul, people who could not acknowledge the moment and would not accept the conclusion that blame had run its course. Blame becomes an explanatory crutch in recounting their lives and a motivator for commission of dark deeds.

Still, there is no darkness without light. Those who prize life, not just breathing but living, will claw their way out of desolate caves. In the end, my story offers an antidote to the poison of blame. And truly, in the end, we are all just stories – if there’s someone left to tell them.