Coordination Can Survive the Death of Meaning
One of the most persistent errors in theories of meaning is the assumption that if coordination continues, meaning must still be present.
This is false.
Systems can remain highly coordinated long after symbolic value has collapsed.
Indeed, some of the most efficiently coordinated systems are the most semantically hollow.
The reason is simple: social value is not meaning.
Three Kinds of Value, Three Kinds of Stability
To diagnose this properly, we must keep three domains distinct:
-
Symbolic valueFirst-order meaning.Arises through relational construal under sufficient readiness.
-
Social valueCoordination, norm enforcement, predictability.What allows groups and institutions to function.
-
Biological valueSurvival, metabolism, readiness in the physiological sense.
These domains interact, but they are not interchangeable.
When they are conflated, social success is mistaken for semantic success.
When Meaning Collapses but Coordination Persists
Consider slogans.
Slogans often begin as meaningful condensations of symbolic value. But through repetition, circulation, and institutional uptake, they frequently outlive their semantic readiness.
Eventually:
-
the words still circulate,
-
responses are still triggered,
-
alignment still occurs,
but nothing new can be meant.
The slogan coordinates behaviour without generating meaning.
Bureaucratic Language and Semantic Minimalism
Bureaucratic language is not designed to mean richly. It is designed to coordinate reliably.
Forms, templates, and procedural phrases stabilise action while aggressively minimising interpretive space.
This is not a flaw; it is the point.
But when bureaucratic language migrates beyond its proper domain — into education, healthcare, ethics, or governance — semantic readiness collapses.
What remains is functional compliance without symbolic uptake.
Algorithmic Governance: Coordination Without Semiosis
Algorithmic systems make this pattern unmistakable.
Such systems:
-
optimise outcomes,
-
enforce norms,
-
allocate resources,
-
shape behaviour.
They are extraordinarily effective at social coordination.
But they do not generate meaning.
They operate entirely within social and instrumental value. Symbolic value is at best parasitic, at worst irrelevant.
This is why algorithmic governance feels alienating rather than merely efficient: it consumes readiness without replenishing it.
Why This Is So Tempting to Miss
The confusion persists because coordination is visible and measurable.
Meaning is not.
A society that functions smoothly can appear healthy even as its symbolic capacity erodes.
But the symptoms eventually surface:
-
hollow discourse,
-
ideological rigidity,
-
semantic inflation,
-
ritualised speech without uptake.
Meaning Requires More Than Alignment
Symbolic meaning requires:
-
interpretive room,
-
horizon openness,
-
the possibility of re-construal.
Social systems, by contrast, often reward:
-
predictability,
-
repetition,
-
closure.
When social value is mistaken for meaning, closure is celebrated as clarity and rigidity as coherence.
Meaning quietly disappears.
The Deeper Lesson
The earlier claim — that social value is not meaning — was a necessary distinction.
The deeper claim is this:
Social coordination can actively undermine meaning while appearing to succeed.
In the final post, we will draw these threads together and ask what it would mean to design communicative, social, and semiotic systems that actively protect readiness — rather than consuming it in the name of efficiency or control.
No comments:
Post a Comment