Friday, 10 April 2026

The Avoidance of Construal — 7 The Pattern of Avoidance: Why Construal Never Appears in Theories of Meaning

Across the preceding posts, a recurring structure has been exposed.

Different theories of meaning begin from different starting points:

  • structure
  • use
  • normativity
  • practice
  • integration

Yet despite their differences, they converge on a single outcome:

construal never appears as the explanatory object.

This is not accidental.

It is systematic.


1. The Empirical Diversity, The Structural Repetition

Theories of meaning vary widely in their commitments:

  • formal vs pragmatic
  • cognitive vs social
  • internalist vs externalist
  • representational vs anti-representational

But across these differences, a deeper regularity persists:

meaning is always explained in terms of something else.

That “something else” changes.

The role it plays does not.


2. The Invariant Move

Each framework performs the same operation:

  1. identify a domain of organisation
  2. describe its structure, dynamics, or norms
  3. treat that organisation as sufficient for meaning

Then:

construal is never separately accounted for.

It is either:

  • absorbed into structure,
  • dissolved into use,
  • reduced to normativity,
  • dispersed across practice,
  • or attributed to the whole system.

At no point is it treated as:

a distinct relational phenomenon requiring its own account.


3. What Counts as Explanation

A crucial shift occurs early in every theory:

explanation is redirected from meaning to organisation.

Once this happens, the target silently changes.

What is being explained is no longer:

  • how something is taken as something,

but:

  • how systems behave,
  • how patterns are stabilised,
  • how coordination is achieved.

The object of inquiry becomes:

structure, not construal.


4. The Substitution Mechanism

The avoidance operates through a consistent mechanism:

  • identify a tractable form of organisation
  • elevate it to explanatory status
  • allow it to stand in for meaning

This produces the illusion that:

meaning has been accounted for.

But what has actually been accounted for is:

  • organised activity under constraint.

Not:

  • the “as”-relation.

5. Why Construal Disappears

Construal does not appear in these frameworks because:

it does not fit the available explanatory categories.

It is not:

  • a structure
  • a process
  • a behaviour
  • a norm
  • a practice
  • or a system property

It is:

a relation that does not reduce to organisation.

And because it does not fit, it is:

  • displaced,
  • renamed,
  • or absorbed.

6. The Stability of Avoidance

What is striking is not individual error.

It is the stability of the pattern across incompatible theories.

Even when frameworks explicitly reject one another, they often share:

the same avoidance structure.

This suggests that what is being avoided is not a particular theory, but:

a particular kind of phenomenon.


7. The Structural Blind Spot

The blind spot is not empirical.

It is conceptual.

Theories are well-equipped to describe:

  • patterns
  • behaviour
  • norms
  • practices
  • systems

But they lack a category for:

relation-as.

So instead of confronting this gap, they:

  • fill it with organisation.

8. What Has Actually Been Shown

Across this series, one claim has been repeatedly established:

no amount of organisation yields construal.

Not:

  • more structure
  • more use
  • more normativity
  • more practice
  • more integration

None of these introduce:

the “as”-relation.


9. The Real Pattern

We can now state the invariant pattern precisely:

theories of meaning explain organisation
and substitute organisation for meaning.

This is not a mistake in detail.

It is a structural tendency:

meaning is consistently displaced into something else.


Closing Formulation

Across contemporary theories of meaning, construal does not appear as an object of explanation.

Instead, it is repeatedly displaced into structure, use, normativity, practice, or integrated systems of activity.

These accounts successfully describe organisation.

But organisation is not meaning.

And no form of organisation, however complex or integrated, accounts for the relation in which something is taken as something.

This absence is not incidental.

It is the defining pattern of avoidance.

No comments:

Post a Comment