This reassurance is precisely the problem.
Stability is never neutral. It is the visible surface of a deeper constraint structure that has become sufficiently sedimented to disappear from view.
1. When Constraint Stops Looking Like Constraint
Constraints are easiest to see when they are new. They feel awkward, artificial, imposed. Over time, however, effective constraints cease to register as constraints at all. They come to appear as:
-
common sense,
-
professionalism,
-
best practice,
-
or simply “how things are done”.
At this point, constraint has succeeded. It no longer needs enforcement, because it has become intelligible.
What stabilises is not behaviour alone, but the field of possible variation within which behaviour can occur without breakdown.
2. Stability as Achieved Coordination
From a relational perspective, stability is not stasis. It is ongoing coordination under constrained variation. The system continues to move, but only along already-legitimised trajectories.
What looks like freedom is often just fluency within a narrow field:
-
you can vary here, but not there;
-
you can innovate this way, but not that way;
-
you can speak, provided you speak in recognisable forms.
Stability marks the point at which these limits no longer feel like limits.
3. The Disappearance of Alternatives
One of the most powerful effects of stable systems is that alternatives stop appearing as alternatives at all. They are reclassified as:
-
naïve,
-
incoherent,
-
unprofessional,
-
or simply unintelligible.
This is not censorship. It is pre-emptive exclusion at the level of possibility.
When stability is high, the system does not need to suppress dissent. It simply fails to recognise it as meaningful.
4. Stability and the Illusion of Neutrality
Stable systems routinely present themselves as neutral frameworks within which individuals make choices. This framing is deeply misleading.
The system has already done most of the choosing:
-
which distinctions matter,
-
which goals are intelligible,
-
which forms of success can be recognised.
Neutrality is the self-description of a constraint regime that no longer feels like one.
5. Why Stability Is So Persuasive
Stability feels good. It reduces cognitive load, minimises coordination costs, and allows participants to act without constant renegotiation. This is why stability is seductive — and why it is often defended with surprising intensity.
Challenges to stability are experienced not as proposals, but as threats to intelligibility itself.
This explains why systems often respond to critique with irritation, dismissal, or moralisation rather than argument. What is being defended is not a position, but a field.
6. The Subversive Insight
The subversive move is not to oppose stability outright. It is to recognise that stability is always earned, always maintained, and always conditional.
Once this is seen, the system can no longer pretend to be natural or inevitable. Its constraints become visible again — not as failures, but as design features that can be questioned, revised, or re-cut.
Subversion begins not with rebellion, but with re-seeing.
Conclusion
Stability hides constraint by making it intelligible, habitual, and emotionally reassuring. It is the mark of a system that has successfully shaped possibility without drawing attention to itself.
In the next post, we will move from stability to asymmetry — examining how access to these hidden constraints is unevenly distributed, and how power operates not through force, but through differential access to the cuts that hold systems together.
No comments:
Post a Comment