Actuarial Silencing
Distributed Loss, Threshold Exclusion, and Collective Accountability
Some losses are real. Some losses recur. Everyone can see them. Yet they never become anyone’s responsibility.
Why do recurring losses remain nobody’s responsibility?
This paper argues that some recurring losses never become collectively accountable because the structure that distributes them is also what prevents them from becoming recognizable as a single accountable fact. It calls this condition actuarial silencing.
Most explanations point to individual responsibility, coordination failure, or institutional complexity. This paper identifies another condition: some structures distribute losses in a way that prevents collective accountability from forming in the first place. When that happens, explaining each individual decision no longer explains why the pattern continues.
The explanatory burden shifts from individuals to structure.
Submission Record →
Before publication on this site, this paper was submitted twice.
- Analysis: declined without substantive comments.
- Social Theory and Practice: declined after initial review; the decision stated that the manuscript was "not a good fit" and "lacks the sufficient normative focus" sought by the journal.
Cite This →
Chang, Fa-Chiung. "Actuarial Silencing: Distributed Loss, Threshold Exclusion, and Collective Accountability." Boundaryism Working Paper, 2026. boundaryism.com/papers/p3