Periagoge
Concept
1 min read

Naming and the Crisis of Political Definition

Extending Laozi's warning that naming fixes and distorts reality to how political algorithms must navigate categorical fluidity in genuine political change.

Laozi
Why It Matters

The Tao Te Ching opens with Laozi's fundamental insight: 'The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao.' Applied to algorithmic politics, this warns against the false precision of algorithmic categorization. Political systems attempt to algorithmically classify citizens (progressive, conservative), movements (mainstream, extremist), and content (misinformation, truth) with rigid categories. Yet political reality is fluid and contextual—today's radical becomes tomorrow's mainstream; categories that work in one moment fail in another. Laozi suggests that over-naming and over-categorizing creates false boundaries and obscures genuine political movement. Better algorithmic politics would acknowledge categorical fluidity: using soft classifications rather than hard binaries, allowing categories to evolve, and leaving space for political phenomena that don't fit existing schemas. This means accepting some irreducible ambiguity in algorithmic systems rather than forcing all political content into fixed categories, reflecting Laozi's wisdom that reality exceeds our conceptual frameworks.

Helpful guides
Laozi
Technology & Attention
Peri
Questions about Naming and the Crisis of Political Definition?

Peri can explain this concept, give practical examples, help you decide whether it applies to your situation, or recommend a journey if appropriate.

Ready to work on Naming and the Crisis of Political Definition?

Explore related journeys or tell Peri what you're working through.