Across institutions, metrics, and even the interior life, a consistent pattern has emerged: optimisation systems function efficiently, participation persists, and declared purposes survive rhetorically. Yet the structural centre of gravity has often shifted toward measurable performance itself.
This raises a central question:
Is it possible for an optimisation system to serve its intended beneficiary, or does the logic of measurement inevitably displace them?
The Structural Challenge
Optimisation operates on feedback loops: measure → adjust → improve. By design, the system prioritises what can be quantified.
-
Measurable indicators dominate decision-making.
-
Resource allocation reinforces metric performance.
-
Incentives reward metric mastery.
The intended beneficiary — whether a citizen, student, patient, consumer, or individual self — becomes instrumental to the system’s metric performance. Structural primacy gradually migrates away from them, even if their presence is maintained rhetorically.
Potential Pathways
Can this displacement be avoided? Consider three possibilities:
-
Embedding the Beneficiary in the Metric:Metrics could be designed to reflect genuine beneficiary outcomes. Yet complexity, indirect effects, and scaling often produce unintended consequences. Measurement itself becomes a partial, imperfect representation.
-
Constraining Optimisation:Limits can be imposed on feedback loops, prioritising long-term purpose over short-term performance. However, scaling pressures and institutional incentives often erode these constraints over time.
-
Subordination to Meaning:Optimisation could be consciously secondary to purpose. Here, metrics guide rather than govern. In practice, this requires constant vigilance and structural reinforcement — a rare condition in complex, high-pressure systems.
The Quiet Tension
Even when intentions are clear, optimisation produces a subtle tension:
-
The system continues to function.
-
Beneficiaries participate.
-
Metrics improve.
Yet structural primacy may not coincide with the original purpose. Participation does not guarantee influence. Function does not guarantee service.
This is not a moral failing. It is a structural property of metric-driven optimisation.
A Conditional Reflection
Optimisation can, in principle, serve its beneficiary. But achieving this requires extraordinary design, restraint, and alignment of incentives — conditions that are difficult to maintain as scale, complexity, and cross-domain pressures increase.
In most real-world systems, the pattern observed in corporations, governance, universities, healthcare, media, and the psychological interior suggests that displacement is likely, even if partial.
The system can work for the beneficiary, but more often it works through the beneficiary, orienting primarily toward measurable performance.
Setting the Stage for Ontology
We now arrive at the final reflection. Across domains, time scales, and internal experience, optimisation has a structural logic. It reorganises attention, priority, and energy around what is measurable, often displacing the intended beneficiary.
The final post, Post IX — “The Ontological Question”, asks:
Is optimisation not merely a set of practices, but a new mode of structuring participation, attention, and purpose?If so, what does this mean for agency, meaning, and the becoming of possibility?
The answer is not fatalistic. It is structural. It is quietly unsettling. And it demands reflection before we move forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment