When we aspire to a social standard, a rule is a typical instrument. Whether it is in the arena of ethics and disclosure or regulations and restrictions, rules play a central role. They are important instruments of social organization. As an instrument of control, the key characteristic of a rule is that it is context-independent. But in social organizations, rules are subject to the varying interpretations of when they are applicable, and contexts are not stable. How do we accommodate the social reality that contexts shift and are a product of relational constructions? To begin to understand this, it is important to consider how rules are used.

In this paper I discuss how state officials in Louisiana opposed a federally funded project without publicly opposing it. They were able to do so by using legitimate rules, those that had been designed for the implementation of similar projects. The application of rules to a project depends upon the story that gives structure to the project. Is it a capital construction project or a service provision? What are the goals of the project and what is the targeted population? In justifying the use of rules, state officials constructed stories about the project. To do so they not only actively reframed the project in terms of economics and efficiency, but they also used the language of the application itself to promote ambiguity about the goals. I discuss how officials in power positions were able to narrate power and use the instruments of external control, rules, as instruments of internal control.

This paper has implications not only in terms of the feasibility of rules as independent, context-free instruments of control, but also for questions about accountability.