Many people, myself included, first heard the concept of plausible deniability in association with right-wing political activist, Charlie Kirk. But, did you know that the concept first appeared in the writings of the 19th century “Father of the Computer” Charles Babbage? The concept enjoyed a checkered, sometimes unsavory reputation since then but received revived attention with Kirk’s horrendous assassination.
What Is Plausible Deniability?
First of all, a definition with some exampless is in order. According to the Cambridge Dictionary, plausible deniability is “the ability to say in a way that seems possibly true that you did not know about something or were not responsible for something.” For example, an athlete may claim that taking a legistimate medical prescription may be the cause for his/her positive drug tests. Or, an organization pretends that websites run by representatives are autonomous thus enabling it to disstance itself from controversial statements and claims made by those sites.
Origin and History of Plausible Deniability
Although the concept may have existed throughout human history as the Wikipedia entry claims, it never received formal recognition until Charles Babbage described it in his Ninth Bridgwater Treatise. There he depicted it as a deceitful but common political process whereby committee members could maintain deniability regarding sensitive or unethical decisions. It required “a few simply honest men” on a committee who could be conveniently, and temporarily, dismissed when a “peculiarly delicate question” arose. In that way, one of those absent members could “declare truly, if necessary, that he “never was present at any meeting at which even a questionable course had been proposed.”
This abstract concept lay dormant until 1948. Then, a series of National Security Council (NSC) papers defined “covert operations” committed in behalf of the U.S. government “are so planned and executed that … if uncovered the US Government can plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.” Later on In 1952, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA( Director Allen Dulles coined the term “”plausibly deniable” for operations committed in the government’s behalf.
From there the term reappears regularly in political histories, especially American, over the last forty years. Coverage of events as disperate as the Cuban invasion, Nixon’s Watergate scandal, the Iran-Contra affair, and the Wagner Group’s invasions into Ukraine, Syria, and Africa all reference the term. Even the unbiased Australian media outlet, The Conversation, speaks of how Kirk’s radicalism evolved from the “casula denigation and dehumanization of the ‘enemies’ . . . into the “dark and sarcastic humor that allow[s] for plausible deniability while still spreading hate.”
Context’s Role
It appears that connotations associated with plausible deniability have changed over the past 150 years since Babbage defined the concept. Whereas he spoke of it in terms of a political ploy used by bureaucrats in the course of their indvidual infighting, the CIA institutionalized it as a procedural weapon against their opponents to evade accountability for their actions.
In Babbage’s case, he wrote of it within the context of the early 19th century’s debate over religion and science. Whereas, philosopher David Hume‘s rejected miracles as a part of the laws (including human) of nature, Babbage envisioned them as part of God’s divine plan. Similar to today’s human computer programmer, he envisioned the deity as having “the supreme ‘foresight’ to encode apparent adaptations and deviations into the universe from the beginning.”
Such foresight applies to miracles as well. Rather than a violation of nature, Babbage stated that miracles “follow preprogrammed rules that are too complex for human comprehension.” Therefore, in regards to the existence of such miracles, “it is ALWAYS possible to assign a number of independent witnesses, the improbability of the falsehood of whose concurring testimony shall be greater than the improbability of the alleged miracle.”
Plausible Deniability in the Modern Age
Currently, the idea of plausible deniabilty is neither as loffy nor as philosophical as Babbage’s conception. The telling difference is a procedural one based on economies of scale. Instead of being applied on an individual level, entire governments work to employ deniable plausibility on a mass scale as a part of institutional policy.
Beyond the examples cited above, even computer networks (ironically from Babbage’s viewpoint) can be set to relay certain types of broadcasts automatically. For instance, the original transmitter of a file becomes indistinguishable from those who are merely relaying it. Organized that way, those people who first transmitted the file can claim that their computer had merely relayed it from elsewhere.
Conclusion
It seems ironic that the religious man who conceived of the notion of plausible deniability as part of his defense for God’s existence should have it used for dubious ends such as Watergate and the CIA’s overthrow of countries. Perhaps some of it stems from his mechanistic view of the universe and of the god that created it. The son of a banker and a mathematically gifted polymath from an early age, Babbage seldom appearss to have viewed people as anything other than chess pieces to move around to fit his theories.
In fact, most of his work in his appropriately titled book, The Economy of Machines and Manufactures, delineates the “careful division of labor” from a managerial rather than a worker standpoint. He restricts his view of human input within the factory system to the time period for recover of training costs.
Perhaps if the conceiver of the Analytical Engine had viewed plausible deniability in a less narrow, more humane light, his legacy as originator of the concept would be less harsh. No individual can anticipate the future’s regard for his work with certainty. Howver, a more flexible, humanistic view of God and the universe might have softened or even nullified today’s ethos. A cultural mindset that promotes worker productivity at the expense their well-being, institutionalizes plausible deniability, and influences radical activists like Charlie Kirk..
What do you think? This post provides another entry in an occasional series about the Trump administration’s impact on our culture (see Shelley’s Unsung Poem & Anti-Trump Protest among others). Let me know in the Leave a Comment section below.