Moral Fragility Cycles
Diagnosing when grievance-based governance systems become polarising or destabilising—and measuring the temporal dynamics of moral authority.
The 60-Second Version
Why do some grievance-based governance systems remain corrective while others become polarising or destabilising?
Grievance is a legitimate governance input. Historical wrongs create valid claims for remediation. But grievance is also temporal—it exists in time, requires decay, and should diminish as conditions change.
When grievance is treated as timeless—immune to evidence, revalidation, or feedback—it produces moral fragility cycles: legitimacy inflation, asymmetric application, and institutional brittleness.
This paper provides diagnostic instruments: grievance half-life, legitimacy decay rate, asymmetry index, and feedback suppression metrics to identify when governance has become fragile.
Grievance as Temporal Governance
The key insight: Grievance is not timeless. It exists in relationship to actual conditions. As conditions change, grievance authority should evolve.
A claim valid in 1960 may still be valid in 2024—or may not. The architecture must allow for revalidation, not assume permanence.
Three Modes of Grievance Governance
Corrective Governance
Grievance authority is time-bounded and responsive to evidence of change
Characteristic: Authority decays as conditions improve
Crystallised Governance
Grievance authority becomes permanent regardless of empirical change
Characteristic: Authority persists even when original harm is addressed
Extractive Governance
Grievance authority is leveraged for ongoing benefit beyond remediation
Characteristic: Authority generates resources unrelated to original claim
What Moral Fragility Produces
Legitimacy Inflation
Grievance authority expands beyond its original scope. Claims multiply without evidence, because the underlying framework doesn't require it.
Authority Lock-In
Those who benefit from grievance authority resist any evidence that might diminish it. The system optimises for authority preservation, not remediation.
Feedback Suppression
Challenges to grievance claims are treated as evidence of the grievance itself. The system becomes unfalsifiable and immune to correction.
Institutional Brittleness
The institution loses capacity to absorb legitimate criticism. Small challenges trigger existential responses because legitimacy has become fragile.
Where This Applies
Universities
Where grievance claims have become institutionalised without temporal governance or revalidation mechanisms.
Legal Systems
Where reparative frameworks persist beyond their corrective function and become extractive.
Corporate DEI
Where grievance-based programs lack metrics for success and become permanent regardless of outcomes.
Public Policy
Where historical remediation programs lack sunset clauses or evidence-based renewal requirements.
Part of the LGIT Series
This paper provides the diagnostic layer for Legitimacy-Grievance theory. It answers: how do we identify when grievance governance has become fragile?
Legitimacy Governance Program
Apply these frameworks in your institution through our pilot programs.
Learn More