Critique presumes a simple causal chain:
make power visible → weaken its hold → enable reconfiguration.
Post 1 showed why this chain once held. This post explains why it no longer does — not contingently, not morally, but structurally.
The core claim is this:
Visibility is no longer a destabilising force.It is a primary operating condition of contemporary power.
1. From Hidden Power to Ambient Power
Classical critique was oriented toward concealment. Power worked by remaining unseen, unspoken, or misdescribed. Under those conditions, visibility functioned as interruption.
But contemporary fields are not organised around concealment. They are organised around continuous exposure.
Power today operates:
-
in the open,
-
through circulation,
-
via permanent attentional engagement.
Structures are no longer hidden behind appearances; they are appearances — dashboards, metrics, narratives, feeds, statements, performances.
Nothing needs to be kept secret for the field to function.
This is the first inversion:
Power no longer depends on invisibility.It depends on saturation.
2. Visibility as Circulation, Not Interruption
In such fields, visibility does not stop processes. It feeds them.
Exposure now typically results in:
-
amplification,
-
moral signalling,
-
factional sorting,
-
engagement spikes.
But none of these effects alter the underlying architecture of participation. They merely increase the velocity with which signals move through the field.
Critique becomes content.
This is not because critique is shallow or commodified, but because fields have evolved mechanisms for absorbing visibility without reconfiguration. What once functioned as a perturbation is now metabolised as signal.
3. Attention Has Replaced Belief
A deeper shift sits beneath this transformation.
Critique assumed that belief mediated participation:
-
if people believed differently, they would act differently;
-
if falsehoods were corrected, practices would realign.
But contemporary cognitive fields are not belief-driven in this way. They are attention-driven.
Participation is sustained by:
-
habit,
-
rhythm,
-
procedural embedding,
-
infrastructural constraint.
What people believe matters far less than:
-
what they attend to,
-
what they must respond to,
-
what is structurally salient.
Visibility affects belief more readily than it affects attention. And belief, increasingly, is epiphenomenal.
This is why exposure feels simultaneously intense and ineffective.
4. The Collapse of the Reveal
The canonical moment of critique is the reveal: the unveiling of what was really going on.
But revelation presupposes a contrast:
-
between appearance and reality,
-
between ignorance and knowledge,
-
between the unaware and the enlightened.
In saturated fields, this contrast collapses.
Everyone already knows — or, more precisely, everyone already has access to knowing. What differs is not awareness but positionality within the field.
The reveal no longer reorders participation because:
-
nothing structurally depends on ignorance,
-
no coordination mechanism hinges on shared belief,
-
no role is destabilised by knowing differently.
Knowledge circulates freely — and power remains intact.
5. Why This Is Not Cynicism
It is tempting to describe this situation as cynical: people know, but do not care. That diagnosis is comforting, because it preserves the idea that things should change if only people were better.
But cynicism is not the issue.
The issue is that fields no longer route action through belief revision. They route action through constraint, affordance, and attention.
In such conditions, visibility produces:
-
affect,
-
alignment,
-
identity reinforcement,
but not reconfiguration.
Critique feels urgent precisely because it is structurally decoupled from change.
6. The Consequence for Critique
At this point the implication becomes unavoidable:
Critique has lost its lever not because it is false,but because the field no longer couples truth to transformation.
This is not a failure of courage, intelligence, or morality. It is a mismatch between a practice and the conditions under which it once worked.
To continue exposing under these conditions is not neutral. It is to participate — often unknowingly — in the very circuits one hopes to interrupt.
7. The Question Forward
then the central question shifts.
It is no longer:
“What must be revealed?”
It becomes:
“What configurations of attention, coordination, and constraint are being sustained — and by what forms of participation?”
That question does not yet tell us what to do.
But it tells us, with precision, what no longer works.
Post 3 will make the implication explicit — and uncomfortable:
Critique as a Stabilising Practice.
No comments:
Post a Comment