@rafa

In a society where protocols harden into infrastructure, where the levers of influence are so costly that even collective effort struggles to budge them, freedom mutates into something miniature, something re-routed into the interior. What is left to the individual is not the ability to alter the conditions of their world but to curate the surfaces of their own agency within it, to refine taste as a proxy for action. The technocratic order promises efficiency but delivers enclosure. Decisions are proceduralized, layered in committees, encoded into standards and APIs that no one person can unilaterally shift. The individual finds themselves in a landscape where power is distributed thinly, then re-aggregated into invisible architectures—an economy of governance where participation is technically possible but prohibitively expensive. Influence has been financialized. Protest feels like spam. And so, a quiet substitution occurs. The self withdraws from the macro-structures it cannot meaningfully alter and reinvests in the curation of its micro-choices. Agency collapses into the terrain of taste. One cannot change the algorithm, but one can select which aesthetic signals to affirm. One cannot rewrite the contract, but one can display discernment in how to inhabit it. Taste becomes both weapon and refuge, a compressed field where sincerity can still be exercised without exorbitant cost. Byung-Chul Han describes freedom under neoliberalism as the compulsion to optimize oneself, to become one’s own project and brand. Within the technocratic horizon, this logic narrows further: freedom becomes the ability to declare allegiance to certain forms, to express appreciation for particular articulations of concept, object, or style. The individual’s power lies not in changing the system but in cultivating recognition, arranging their private sympathies into public statements that read as identity. Taste is cope, but not trivial. It is the remaining theater where recognition and sincerity can be tested. To express appreciation for form is to assert that orientation is not entirely dictated by protocol, that the self can still claim some fragment of aesthetic autonomy even when systemic autonomy has been foreclosed. It is the art of choosing what cannot be chosen: making visible the intervals where freedom, however narrow, still flickers. In this way, taste is the consolation prize of agency, the ornamental afterlife of freedom in a society that has converted power into procedure. It is both a diminished resource and a stubborn refusal, a signal that even within cemented protocols, one can still point and say: here, this shape, this pattern—I stand with this.

0 reply

1 recast

3 reactions