Introduction: Power as Patterning of Possibility
Power does not only operate through force or control—it also works symbolically, shaping the architectures within which collective construal unfolds. In this post, we explore how symbolic infrastructures are themselves sites of power, where possibilities are patterned, aligned, or foreclosed.
1. From Coercion to Construal
In a relational ontology, power is not a substance or possession but a pattern of relational constraints and affordances. Symbolic power:
-
Guides what can be meant, by whom, and how
-
Shapes the field of visibility within a semiotic ecology
-
Influences alignment and disalignment without direct imposition
This is the power to configure construal, not to coerce belief.
2. Enclosure and Asymmetry in Symbolic Systems
Symbolic architectures can become enclosed when:
-
Participation is limited to authorised voices
-
Meanings are fixed rather than negotiable
-
Resonance is replaced by one-way alignment
In such cases, symbolic power becomes asymmetrical, reinforcing hierarchies and suppressing emergent meaning.
Examples include:
-
State-sanctioned narratives
-
Corporate branding cultures
-
Doctrinal orthodoxy within ideological or religious institutions
3. Resistance and Repatterning
Symbolic resistance does not always reject meaning—it often reconfigures the architectures of meaning-making:
-
Counter-genres (e.g. satire, remix, parody) destabilise dominant phasings
-
Disalignment becomes a strategy to open space for alternative construals
-
Symbolic fugitivity emerges where collectives withdraw from dominant logics to cultivate their own infrastructures
4. Power as Distributed Constraint
Rather than treating symbolic power as a top-down imposition, we recognise it as distributed across infrastructures:
-
The design of media platforms, education systems, ritual protocols, and institutional norms all instantiate symbolic constraints
-
These constraints are often invisible—but they condition what meanings align, phase, or fracture
To reconfigure symbolic power is thus to redesign the conditions for construal.
5. Toward Reflexive Symbolic Ethics
A reflexive approach to symbolic power involves:
-
Surfacing the architectures that shape construal
-
Creating space for participatory redesign of symbolic norms
-
Honouring both dissonance and resonance as vital to collective semiosis
-
Recognising that alignment is not consensus, and that ethical meaning-making depends on lived difference
Conclusion: Designing for Asymmetrical Mutuality
The challenge is not to abolish symbolic power, but to rephase it—toward architectures that support asymmetrical mutuality, where difference can resonate without assimilation.
In the next post, we turn to the dynamics of symbolic rupture and repair, where collective construal breaks down—and how such moments open new potentials for phasing anew.
No comments:
Post a Comment