When revisability collapses, most interventions fail. Conventional opposition—protest, outrage, radical gestures—often strengthens the very system it seeks to destabilise.
Subversion, in the context of revisability, is not chaos. It is intelligibility repair.
1. Why conventional opposition fails
Traditional dissent assumes a system can be corrected by:
-
shouting louder,
-
exposing malfeasance,
-
punishing “bad actors,”
-
or asserting moral superiority.
But if revisability is already constrained, these interventions are absorbed, redirected, or neutralised.
The system survives—often stronger—because:
-
constraints are reinforced,
-
deviation is moralised,
-
alignment is rewarded over reflection.
Opposition without structural insight is an accelerant for rigidity.
2. Subversion targets constraints, not agents
Revisability makes the system itself the ethical focus. Subversion must therefore:
-
identify where deviations are ignored, suppressed, or devalued,
-
intervene to make them intelligible again,
-
restore the capacity for the system to re-articulate its own constraints.
This is subtle. The goal is not to overthrow or punish, but to reopen the system to learning.
3. Techniques of subversion
Subversion in the service of revisability often operates through:
-
Framing: shifting how deviations are interpreted without triggering moral collapse.
-
Style and pacing: introducing alternatives gently, persistently, and intelligibly.
-
Constraint-shifting: altering rules, rhythms, or incentives so deviations can circulate.
-
Coordination repair: restoring feedback loops and uptake mechanisms rather than debating correctness.
Notice: these are not heroic acts. They are surgical, relational, and structural.
4. Why subtlety matters
Direct, loud, morally charged action risks:
-
triggering defensive moralisation,
-
freezing constraints further,
-
signalling loyalty tests,
-
accelerating the loss of revisability.
Effective subversion respects the system’s boundaries while gently expanding its negotiable space.
5. Subversion as ethical action
If ethics is the preservation of revisability, then:
-
Subversion is ethically justified not because it punishes the bad,
-
but because it restores the possibility for the system to revise itself.
It is an intervention in the field of intelligibility, not a moral crusade against specific actors.
6. One-line compression
Subversion is not rebellion; it is the repair of a system’s capacity to learn from itself.
7. Looking ahead
Having explored subversion, the final post will examine collapse, responsibility, and the ethics of future negotiability: what it means to act ethically in systems where revisability is fragile, partial, or threatened.
No comments:
Post a Comment