Introduction: Rethinking the Site of Action
In conventional frames, agency is often attributed to individuals or institutions, operating in a world that already exists. But if reality is brought forth through construal, then agency must be understood not as discrete will or control, but as something distributed, emergent, and ecological.
This post reframes agency not as a possession, but as a property of the relational architectures that make construal possible.
1. From Actor to Ecology
Rather than asking “Who acts?”, we ask:
What system of construals enables a particular kind of action to emerge?
Agency, in this sense, is:
-
A pattern of alignment across symbolic, social, and material phases
-
Sustained by flows of construal within a formation
-
Dependent on the reflexive openness of that formation to re-construal
We move from a sovereign actor model to an ecology of participation.
2. Agency as Reflexive Potential
An ecology of construal supports agency to the extent that it:
-
Holds multiple perspectives in play
-
Allows meaning to be negotiated, not fixed
-
Supports symbolic differentiation and reintegration
This reframes empowerment: not as control over outcomes, but as capacity for reflexive modulation—to shift scale, phase, or alignment within a collective.
3. The Collapse of Distributed Agency
When construal becomes rigid, totalised, or overdetermined:
-
Reflexivity narrows
-
Possibility collapses
-
Agency becomes concentrated in fixed nodes—charisma, coercion, or code
Such collapse is not merely political. It is semiotic and ontological: it marks a breakdown in the ecology of construal that sustains collective life.
4. Designing for Distribution
We can intentionally shape symbolic ecologies that distribute agency. This involves:
-
Creating spaces of symbolic ambiguity that allow for multiple construals
-
Embedding reflexive structures (rituals, rhythms, roles) that invite re-construal
-
Designing social forms that align semantic flexibility with collective coherence
The aim is not to equalise all agency, but to broaden the field of construal so that more actors can meaningfully participate in shaping what is real.
5. Agency Without Subjecthood?
In relational terms, even non-human systems—infrastructures, media, economies—construe. They do not interpret, but they phase, align, and instantiate patterned meanings. They participate in the ecology of symbolic life.
This invites a radical expansion of agency: not as a subjective force, but as a phase-shifting potential within relational fields.
Conclusion: Toward Reflexive Collectivity
Agency is not what one has. It is what emerges through alignment, across construals, within a system that holds reflexivity open. A collective that sustains such openness becomes more than a sum of its parts. It becomes a symbolic ecology capable of evolving itself.
Next, we ask: How do symbolic ecologies evolve—not just as systems of meaning, but as fields of becoming?
No comments:
Post a Comment