English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I'm trying to say something to the effect of:

"While practitioners before the war were in an environment of ____, practitioners after the war were in an environment of accountability."

Meaning the previous era's practitioners weren't holding themselves to the results of their contributions.

Anyway, something other than "unaccountability" would be appreciated, of course.

share|improve this question
Why not unaccountability? Dictionaries do list it - see onelook.com/?w=unaccountability&ls=a – Unreason Oct 3 '11 at 14:23
I would consider "expediency". – Hot Licks Nov 8 '15 at 1:33
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Meaning the previous era's practitioners weren't holding themselves to the results of their contributions.

(emphasis mine)

Interesting word choice there. It makes me unsure what you mean.

If I don’t hold myself responsible for the consequences of my actions, I am irresponsible or undisciplined, possibly reckless. (These words imply a value judgment, though, so you wouldn’t use them in an academic or professional context without weighing them pretty carefully. But then, accountability is a loaded word too.)

If nobody else is holding me responsible, the environment is unregulated, ungoverned, unstructured, unmanaged, or lax; there is a Wild West atmosphere or perhaps lawlessness, indifference, or amorality; or to lapse completely into jargon, there is no social mechanism to keep me in line.

Social forces comes in a lot of shapes. Maybe it would be best to scrap that sentence and describe the change in question more precisely.

share|improve this answer

You could say they were in a laissez faire environment. Or carefree, blamelessness.

share|improve this answer
+1 for laissez faire – Wudang Oct 3 '11 at 11:40
I disagree w/ the connotations that laissez faire would bring. It's typically in relation to government restricting (or not restricting) private enterprise, not self-regulation. If you used that word, I (as the reader) would assume that the gov't would have put regulations in place after the war... Also, as one other note, (from wikipedia): "The phrase laissez-faire is French and literally means "let do", but it broadly implies "let it be", or "leave it alone.""... All of these imply a subject of "You [let it be]", not "We [let it be]" – Rikon Oct 3 '11 at 13:01
I guess laissez faire could be right, depending on what the practitioners were practicing, but yeah, without more information it seems like a bit of a shot in the dark. – Jason Orendorff Oct 3 '11 at 18:00
With the same connotation: permissiveness. – Graffito Aug 30 '15 at 16:30

I'd go with consequence-free or repercussionless. (Sticklers will say the last isn't a proper word, but I wouldn't hesitate to use it, personally.)

If you want to maintain the sentence structure, 'an environment free of consequences/repercussions' would do.

Another alternative would be using the phrase carte blanche.

share|improve this answer
Alternatively, you could restructure the sentence to say something along the lines of "The antebellum environment of unaccountability came to an end, with practitioners being held newly responsible for their actions." – onomatomaniak Oct 3 '11 at 10:19

Holy cow, DO NOT use repercussionless. I'm gobsmacked how much bad advice there is on this website.

First of all... repercussionless is an adjective. The original poster is seeking a noun. Which would make it repercussionlessness. Very funny word in a Dr. Seuss book maybe.

The word that fits is unimpeachability. Or as Mark above offered...blamelessness.

share|improve this answer
Hello, Betty. These words don't fit any better. 'Blameless' means 'having nothing to be blamed for' rather than 'such that one cannot be held to account (whether one is to blame or not)', and the noun mirrors this. 'Unimpeachability' follows the definitions of the adjective: 1. Difficult or impossible to impeach / 2. Beyond reproach; blameless {AHDEL} (and Collins doesn't give the first sense): at best ambiguous. // – Edwin Ashworth Aug 30 '15 at 15:25
Questions sometimes (as here) make unreasonable demands on members (it must be a noun). English has lexical gaps; I prefer Mark's restructuring with laissez faire: 'They were in a laissez faire environment.'. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 30 '15 at 15:32

"While practitioners before the war were in an environment of de facto impunity, practitioners after the war were in an environment of accountability."

impunity—exemption from punishment or freedom from the injurious consequences of an action: the impunity enjoyed by military officers implicated in civilian killings / protestors burned flags on the street with impunity (New Oxford American Dictionary)

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.