If dialogue is ontological event, and if craft consists in disciplined participation in structured potential, then a difficulty immediately arises.
Dialogue never takes place in a vacuum.
It occurs within fields already structured by power.
The previous movement described precision, restraint, and perturbation as disciplines internal to dialogue. But these disciplines are always exercised within conditions that are uneven, constrained, and sometimes coercive.
To speak of craft without speaking of power would be naïve.
This movement addresses that asymmetry.
1. Dialogue Is Structurally Asymmetrical
Even in the most respectful exchange, positions are not identical.
Participants differ in:
-
Institutional authority
-
Social legitimacy
-
Access to platforms
-
Material security
-
Risk exposure
These differences shape which cuts can be made safely, which will stabilise publicly, and which will be suppressed.
A minister and a protester do not cut from equivalent positions.
A journalist and a detainee do not perturb the field with equal force.
Dialogue may be ontologically reciprocal, but it is rarely socially symmetrical.
Craft must recognise this without collapsing into cynicism.
2. When Power Controls the Cut
If every utterance is a cut within structured potential, then institutional power is the capacity to privilege certain cuts over others.
It can:
-
Amplify selected cuts,
-
Suppress competing ones,
-
Criminalise particular forms of construal,
-
Or reclassify resistance as threat.
In such conditions, the field of structured potential is narrowed externally before dialogue even begins.
Craft then becomes more demanding.
The disciplined participant must distinguish between:
-
Genuine perturbation within a shared field,
-
And imposed constraint that masquerades as order.
The difference matters.
3. Asymmetry and Risk
Craft requires risk — but risk is unevenly distributed.
This asymmetry changes the ethics of perturbation.
To demand “open dialogue” from those exposed to disproportionate consequences is not neutrality. It is blindness to structure.
Ontological craft therefore includes situational awareness:
-
Who bears the cost of instability?
-
Who benefits from closure?
-
Who defines what counts as disorder?
Without these questions, discipline becomes complicity.
4. The Myth of Order
Power frequently presents itself as the guardian of order.
But order is not neutral. It is the stabilisation of particular cuts.
When institutions claim to “restore order,” they are often attempting to:
-
Reassert a preferred construal,
-
Recontain destabilising perturbation,
-
Or prevent alternative structured potentials from actualising.
The rhetoric of order disguises ontological intervention.
Craft must learn to see this.
The question is: whose?
5. Dialogue Under Constraint
What, then, becomes of ontological craft when the field is coercively narrowed?
Three possibilities appear:
-
Withdrawal — refusing participation in a distorted field.
-
Subversive cutting — operating within constraints while exposing them.
-
Strategic amplification — creating alternative spaces where suppressed cuts can stabilise.
None of these is pure. All involve compromise.
But craft lies in recognising which mode is operative, rather than pretending the field is neutral.
6. The Limit Case: When Dialogue Fails
There are conditions under which dialogue cannot function as co-individuation.
When one position denies the legitimacy of the other’s participation altogether, the shared field collapses.
Without minimal mutual recognition, there is no structured potential to preserve.
Craft includes recognising this limit.
Not all situations are repairable through better discipline.
Sometimes the field itself must be reconstituted before dialogue can resume.
7. Power Without Paranoia
Institutions are themselves positions within structured potential. They act to preserve coherence, legitimacy, and stability.
From within their perspective, suppressing destabilising cuts may appear necessary.
Craft requires the capacity to understand this perspective without capitulating to it.
This is difficult.
It requires holding two recognitions simultaneously:
-
That constraint may be structurally intelligible,
-
And that it may still be ethically problematic.
Dialogue as ontological craft demands that tension be sustained rather than resolved prematurely.
No comments:
Post a Comment