Scapegoating is not a failure of accountability. It is a specific institutional technology for managing the political consequences of failure without addressing its causes.
What Scapegoating Does
Scapegoating — the attribution of institutional failure to a specific individual or small group in ways that discharge the institutional pressure for accountability without addressing the systemic conditions that produced the failure — is a recognisable institutional technology with a specific function: it converts the diffuse demand for accountability that institutional failure generates into a bounded transaction that produces a visible response while leaving the underlying conditions intact.
The scapegoat absorbs the institutional blame that the failure has produced. Their departure, dismissal, or prosecution satisfies the institutional demand for a response to the failure — it produces a visible, attributable consequence that signals accountability. It also terminates the inquiry into systemic causes before those inquiries reach the actors and structural conditions that are actually most responsible for the failure. The scapegoat is selected, explicitly or implicitly, for their political expendability rather than for their causal centrality to the failure.
When Scapegoating Is Most Effective
Scapegoating is most effective as an institutional technology when the scapegoat is plausibly connected to the failure — when their actions can be characterised as a contributing cause — and when the political pressure for accountability is intense enough to require a visible response but not sophisticated enough to distinguish genuine accountability from its simulation. The first condition ensures that the scapegoating is defensible against scrutiny; the second ensures that the simulation is sufficient to discharge the accountability pressure.
The institutional harm of effective scapegoating is that it prevents the learning that genuine accountability would produce. When the failure's causes are attributed to a specific individual rather than to the systemic conditions that determined what any individual in that role would do, the systemic conditions are not addressed, and the failure cycle repeats with a different individual playing the same role under the same structural conditions.
The scapegoat is the institution's answer to the question "who is responsible?" when the real answer — "the system was" — is too threatening to acknowledge. The institution that scapegoats has resolved the accountability question politically without resolving it analytically, which means the next failure is already being prepared.
Discussion