If restoration is a myth, the reason lies not in our ambitions but in our misunderstanding of breakdown.
Breakdown is routinely described as damage, failure, or disruption — something that happens to a system, which ideally leaves the system itself unchanged.
This post argues for a stronger claim:
Breakdown is not an interruption within a field.It is a transformation of the field itself.
And that transformation is irreversible.
1. Why Breakdown Is Misdescribed as Failure
Failure implies deviation from a norm that remains intact.
A machine fails when it stops functioning as designed. A process fails when it does not achieve its intended outcome. In both cases, the background conditions that define success and failure are presumed stable.
Breakdown is not like this.
In breakdown:
-
norms themselves lose their grip,
-
expectations cease to coordinate action,
-
and what previously counted as competent participation no longer does.
What collapses is not performance but the field of intelligibility in which performance made sense.
2. Fields Do Not “Pause”
A crucial mistake in restoration thinking is the idea that fields can be paused — that the system waits, damaged but intact, while repair is carried out.
Fields do not pause.
Even attempts to “hold things together” are themselves new forms of participation, contributing to the transformation already underway.
By the time breakdown is recognised, the field has already shifted.
3. Irreversibility Is Structural, Not Moral
Irreversibility is often treated as a moral failure — something regrettable, tragic, or unjust.
But irreversibility is not a value judgement. It is a structural fact.
Once:
-
trust has reorganised,
-
expectations have re-aligned,
-
affordances have changed,
there is no neutral mechanism for returning the field to its prior configuration. The conditions that sustained that configuration no longer obtain.
4. The Myth of “Fixing What Broke”
When breakdown is framed as damage, repair is framed as fixing.
But fixing presupposes that:
-
the object repaired remains identifiable across time,
-
its function remains the same,
-
and success consists in re-establishing prior performance.
In field terms, none of this holds.
After breakdown:
-
identities have shifted,
-
roles have mutated,
-
and viability has been redistributed.
What one attempts to fix is already an artefact of memory rather than a live structure.
5. Breakdown Creates New Conditions of Possibility
This is the most difficult point to accept.
Breakdown does not merely remove possibilities; it reconfigures them.
This is why post-breakdown efforts often feel uncanny:
-
familiar actions no longer work,
-
while unfamiliar moves suddenly have traction.
The field has changed, and with it, the space of the possible.
6. Why Denying Irreversibility Worsens Harm
When irreversibility is denied, repair efforts tend to:
-
enforce outdated norms,
-
blame participants for misalignment,
-
or demand performances that the field can no longer sustain.
In the name of restoration, further breakdown is produced.
The insistence on return often deepens the very damage it seeks to undo.
7. Naming the Shift Is the First Act of Repair
Repair does not begin with solutions.
It begins with accurate description.
To name breakdown as an irreversible field shift is not to surrender — it is to stop fighting a ghost.
Only once we accept that the field has changed can we ask the question that repair actually requires:
What configurations are now viable, given the constraints that now obtain?
But it does open a future that is no longer held hostage by it.
In Post 3, we will confront the hardest implication of this shift:
No comments:
Post a Comment