Epiphenomenon

Epiphenomenon (pronounced ep-uh-fuh-nom-uh-non or ep-uh-fuh-nom-uh-nuhn)

(1) In medicine, unexpected or atypical symptom or complication arising during the course of a disease (ie something historically or literally not connected to the disease).

(2) An activity, process, or state that is the result of another; a by-product, a consequence.

(3) In philosophy and psychology, a mental process or state that is an incidental by-product of physiological events in the brain or nervous system.

1706: The construct was epi- + phenomenon.  The epi- prefix was from the Ancient Greek ἐπί (epí) (on top of; in addition to (in a special use in chemistry, it denotes an epimeric form)).  Phenomenon was from the Late Latin phaenomenon (appearance), from the Latin phaenomenon (attested only in the plural form phaenomena), from the Ancient Greek φαινόμενον (phainómenon) (that which appears in one’s view; appearance; phenomenon), a noun use of the neuter singular form of φαινόμενος (phainómenos), the present middle or passive participle of φαίνω (phaínō) (to cause to appear; to reveal, show, uncover; to expound), from the primitive Indo-European beh- (to glow with light, to shine).  The alternative forms are epiphaenomenon (rare and apparently used only by some pathology journals and epiphænomenon (extinct except when cited in historic texts).  Epiphenomenon, epiphenomenalist & epiphenomenalism are nouns, epiphenomenalize is a verb, epiphenomenal, epiphenomenological & epiphenomenalistic are adjectives, and epiphenomenally & epiphenomenalistically are adverbs; the noun plural is epiphenomena or epiphenomenons.  A need to coin the nouns epiphenomenalization & epiphenomenalizationism seems not to have arisen but there’s still time.

In psychology an epiphenomenon is defined as a mere by-product of a process that has no effect on the process itself and within the discipline is most often used to refer to mental events considered as products of brain processes, the idea explored being the matter of an event secondary or incidental to another primary phenomenon (ie something that occurs as a byproduct or consequence of something else, without having any causal influence on the primary phenomenon).  In the abstract, consciousness or subjective experience is seen as an epiphenomenon of the brain's activity, meaning that it does not play an active role in influencing or causing physical events.  In both the clinical sciences and philosophy, the concept is often applied to a construct of pain, the argument being that the subjective experience of pain is an epiphenomenon of neural processes that are primarily responsible for generating behavioral responses to potential threats or injuries; the conscious experience of pain not directly contributing to behavior but instead accompanying it.  That doesn’t imply mental events are not real, just that they are not real in the sense of biological states and events.

In medicine, the word is used to describe symptoms or complications not directly causative of the relevant disease but occurring as a result of the underlying condition.  For example a patient suffering a chronic autoimmune disease may for a number of reasons be afflicted with inflammation in the joints and the casual relationship between the two is direct.  However, were the patient to react to the inflammation by lapsing into depression, this would be regarded as epiphenomenal because the symptoms are not the primary cause of the disease but arising as a consequence of the physiological and psychological impacts of living with a chronic illness.

Historians and social scientists use the word in the tradition of behaviorism.  In his controversial best-seller Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust (1996), then Harvard academic Daniel Jonah Goldhagen (b 1959) argued the “eliminationist antisemitism” which characterized the Nazi state (1933-1945) and culminated in the genocide of the Holocaust was not a product merely of the particular circumstances of the Third Reich but instead of a centuries-old virulent form of antisemitism which was uniquely and specifically German.  His point too was it was something almost endemic among non-Jewish Germans which necessitated him constructing a framework to explain the bulk of what criticism by Germans there was of the persecution of Jews.  This he did by suggesting the criticism… “was overwhelmingly directed at but certain aspects of the persecution [and] was epiphenomenal… in the sense that the criticism did not emanate from (and therefore does not signify) Germans’ departure from the two fundamental bedrock features relevant to the fate of the Jews at the hands of the Germans during the Nazi period, namely eliminationist antisemitism and its practical consequences”.  Goldhagen’s internal logic was of course perfect but it’s easy to see why the work was so controversial.  A best seller, it was well reviewed although there were professional historians who found fault with the scholarship and identified a number of technical issues but the author wasn’t discouraged and has in the years since published extensively in the same vein.

The word is not part of the Western legal vocabulary but it is related to the concepts of causation and foreseeability, both essential elements in determining liability in matters of negligence, their interaction a relatively recent development in common law.  For liability to be found, there must be (1) a causal relationship between the negligence and the injury suffered and (2) it must have been reasonably foreseeable that the negligent act might cause the injury suffered.  There’s no mathematical test to determine these things and each case is decided on the basis of the facts presented and even then a judge might find one way, their decision might be reversed 2-1 on appeal and then decided finally 4-3 by the highest appellate court.  So the scorecard of eleven eminent legal minds working with the same facts, in the same tradition can be 6-5 but that’s how the common law evolves.

Known as "The Twisted Tower", the the 28-storey PwC building in Midland, Johannesburg, South Africa, was designed by LYT Architecture.

Of late, causation, reasonable foreseeability and the epiphenomenological have been on the minds of some conspiracy theorists pondering revelations one of the arms of PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC, one of the “Big Four” accounting companies (the others KPMG, EY & Deloitte) while acting as consultants to the Australian government in the development of legislation designed to ensure certain multi-national corporations would no longer be able to avoid paying tax on revenue generated within Australia, passed the relevant information to the PwC arm which was consulting with those very companies to design the legal and accounting mechanisms to avoid paying tax.  For PwC, this synergy (vertical integration taken to its logical conclusion) was an extraordinary example of efficiency and apparently a type of high-dollar insider trading which, depending on the chain of events, could disclose all sorts of potential wrongdoing, the obvious conflict of interest perhaps the least serious if it can be proven any involved personally gained from improper conduct.  That will play out, perhaps over years, but what intrigues the conspiracy theorists is whether it was reasonable foreseeable that if one hires the company working for the corporations one wishes to prevent avoiding tax and asks them to help develop a tax code to ensure that tax is paid, that the consultants might be tempted to exchange facts.  In other words, given that such a thing would appear to be reasonably foreseeable, what were the motives of the politicians in putting temptation in the way of PwC?  Theories have included (1) an ideological commitment to support global capitalism in ensuring big corporations pay as little tax as possible while appear to make every attempt to pursue them and (2) it being an example of crony-capitalism whereby politicians ensure big corporations aren’t too troubled by taxes in exchange for a nice sinecure upon retirement from the tiresome business of politics.  The cover of course would be the construct that the ongoing ability of multi-nationals to avoid tax would be something epiphenomenological rather than the reasonably foreseeable consequence of hiring the same accountancy firm as that hired by the multi-nationals.  There has been much muttering about Dracula & the blood-bank but after all, Dracula will do what Dracula does and the more interesting matter is the thoughts of those who thought it a good idea to hand him the keys.

Watched approvingly by comrade Joseph Stalin (1878-1953; Soviet leader 1924-1953) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (1893–1946; Nazi foreign minister 1938-1945), comrade Vyacheslav Molotov (1890–1986; Soviet foreign minister 1939-1949 & 1953-1956) signs the Nazi-Soviet Pact with its secret protocol, Moscow, August 1939 (left) and Dr HV Evatt (1894–1965; Australian attorney-general & foreign minister 1941-1949, and leader of opposition 1951-1960) with Winston Churchill (1975-1965; UK prime-minister 1940-1945 & 1951-1955), Downing Street, London, May 1942 (right).

Perhaps also of interest is that PwC has dozens of contracts with the Australian Department of Defence, generating in excess of Aus$200 million in revenue for the company.  There may be reasons that situation should anyway be reviewed but following recent revelations, the fact that PwC operates in the People's Republic of China (PRC) adds a layer of concern.  As the sharing of confidential information about tax matters indicates, whatever claims PwC make about the robustness of their "Chinese walls", it is clear that in at least some cases, once data is in the hands of PwC, there's no guarantee it will be kept confidential.  Whether PwC has contracts with the Chinese military might be an interesting question to ask but even if it does not, few would doubt that were the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to ask PwC to obtain what they could, cooperation would be forthcoming.  PwC make much of their operation being a collection of "independent" entities but given the company is often as opaque as the CCP, people should make of that what they will.  Still, when asked during Senate Estimates (a process whereby senators can ask questions of ministers and senior public servants) if he still had sufficient confidence in PwC for them to remain as his department's internal auditors (ie advising him, inter-alia, on matters of governance), the head of the Treasury indicated he was on the basis that PwC auditors has assured him of their integrity.  It recalled the moment in October 1955 when Dr HV Evatt, then leader of the opposition, informed the house all members could be assured a certain Russian document about spying was a forgery because he'd written to the Soviet foreign minister to ask and comrade Molotov had replied confirming it was.  Those reporting the exchange were either too polite to draw the comparison or, as seems the case with journalists these days, lacked knowledge of anything which happened more than ten years ago.