POST-HIERARCHICAL ANALYSIS · 017

Who manufactures impossibility — and who can undo it?

A post-hierarchical analysis of Austina Pakalnytė’s conversation with philosopher Kristupas Sabolius

Terms marked ? are explained without leaving the article.

‘Nothing can be changed’ may sound like a sober conclusion about the world. Sometimes, however, it describes more accurately an arrangement in which people have no opportunity to explore together what could be changed and how. When the search for solutions is closed off, its absence begins to look like evidence that no solutions exist.

A conversation about possibilities being closed off

Austina Pakalnytė’s interviewee, philosopher Kristupas Sabolius, explains ecosociality through the connections between nature, society, technology and war. The conversation follows the conference ‘Ecosocial Ideas: Coexistence and Change’, organised by Vilnius University’s Centre for Research on (Post)Authoritarian Landscapes. The term counter-affordances describes possibilities that are actively blocked. Uncertainty is also examined as a means of entrenching the belief that action is impossible.

Framing the problem this way raises an institutional question: who has the right to decide that the possibilities have been exhausted? Does that conclusion emerge from a sufficiently broad search, or from an arrangement in which only a few are allowed to search? The post-hierarchical analysis below examines precisely this distinction.

What the conversation brings into view

Where the post-hierarchical contribution begins

A philosophical conversation need not supply a complete organisational model. Yet such a model is needed to bring the question it opens into practice. The collective decidement proposed here — the search for and selection of solutions — is an independent contribution by culture.lt, not a prescription attributed to Sabolius.

A possibility becomes testable in practice when people have a way to construct it together.

Who has the right to say ‘impossible’?

Imagine an organisation where proposals for change are met with familiar responses: there is not enough money, people will never agree, the requirements are incompatible. Each claim may be well founded. Yet each may also conceal an untested assumption: that every worthwhile alternative has already been considered.

A budget sets out how much can currently be spent. It does not, by itself, tell us which combinations of activities are worth trying. Disagreement shows that participants assess the existing options differently. It does not prove that there is no as-yet-uncreated solution that would change the choice itself. A constraint identified by a specialist may be fundamental, but we still need to understand exactly which part of the proposed action it limits.

Post-hierarchical analysis examines the arrangements through which such claims become final. If the same centre defines the problem, selects the alternatives to be considered and declares that no better ones exist, a closed circle of knowledge forms. Knowledge outside it cannot test the conclusion, even though those reaching it may be acting entirely in good faith.

Impossibility can therefore also be sustained by ordinary routines: one department protects its budget, another meets its targets, a third avoids responsibility for a trial. No single, deliberately manipulative actor is required for a shared search to be left without a place or anyone responsible for it.

Three different forms of impossibility

To open up the search, it helps first to distinguish what we mean by impossibility. This analysis proposes three cases.

1. A verified constraint. A particular action conflicts with established physical conditions or exceeds the resources available. A different action, other resources or a longer timeframe must be sought; the fact itself cannot be voted away.
2. A constraint imposed by the existing arrangement. Action is prevented by the chosen model of procedures, responsibilities or resource allocation. Changes to that model must therefore also be considered, with a clear account of who has the authority to make them.
3. An unexplored possibility. We do not yet have a solution, and previous attempts have not helped. This gives us grounds to refine the question and widen the search. A conclusion of universal impossibility would go beyond what we know.

These situations can overlap. One of the most useful steps is therefore to break the blanket answer ‘we cannot’ into testable claims: what exactly can we not do, under what conditions, on what grounds do we know this, and what new information would allow the conclusion to be revised?

How distributed knowledge becomes a shared search

Post-hierarchy begins with the opportunity to help create what will later be assessed. An invitation to choose between two prepared options may be useful, but it does not allow a third to be proposed. Asking questions at a meeting likewise does not guarantee that the different answers will develop into a shared solution.

In a collective intelligence environment, people interact on a single platform: they read other participants’ proposals, assess them and contribute their own ideas. Another participant’s observation can change not only the answer selected, but also the understanding of what kind of answer to seek. The initial options may give rise to a new combination that nobody proposed at the outset.

Accountable anonymity is important here. Assessing a proposal should not require choosing between its substance and loyalty to a manager, colleague or one’s own camp. At the same time, each person’s contribution is recorded: anonymity in this architecture does not turn interaction into an indistinguishable stream of opinions.

Competence remains important. A specialist may spot a technical error, while someone who encounters the problem every day may show why a formally suitable solution does not work. Their interaction is intended to strengthen the shared capacity to solve problems. A job title alone should not determine in advance whose proposal is more valuable.

People assess ideas, while the algorithm calculates the results according to established rules. Resonance helps reveal where a shared assessment is forming and where disagreement remains. Ideas receiving less support should not be deleted: when circumstances change or new arguments emerge, they may become material for a new search.

The shared home also includes those who do not participate

Once decidement is opened up, we must still ask who has been left out. The most active participants do not necessarily represent all groups affected by a decision. Future residents are not participating, and ecosystems do not state their needs in an idea written by a human being.

Preparing the task therefore requires access to knowledge about long-term impacts, the experiences of less visible people and the condition of the environment. Participants must be able to examine the evidence behind a claim of shared benefit and identify who would bear its cost. Agreement alone does not confirm that every consequence has been noticed.

The maturity of post-hierarchical decidement would be demonstrated by the ability to revisit the question itself when something important turns out to have been left outside its scope. Openness would then be a continually maintained property of the process.

When does participation actually change the decision-making arrangement?

If an organisation invites people to develop alternatives but can subsequently ignore them without explanation, it risks reinforcing the very powerlessness it sought to reduce. A person now knows that making proposals is possible, yet also learns that proposing makes no difference. The connection between the outcome of the search and the decision is therefore an essential part of the process.

Different institutional agreements are possible. In one case, the collective search produces recommendations, while managers retain the right and responsibility to choose. In another, an organisation commits in advance to implementing the outcome of collective decidement within a defined area. Participants need to know which model they are working in.

In omnicracy, collective decidement would include making the final decision. Implementation would remain a matter of specific functions, competences and responsibilities: specialists would organise how to carry out the collectively chosen direction. If a major obstacle emerged, it would provide grounds for reviewing the decision through the established procedure.

This makes it possible to begin with one real change while seeing its limits clearly. Introducing a shared search is a step towards post-hierarchy; how far it changes power itself depends on who holds the final choice and under what rules.

A possibility must withstand reality

Collective assessment does not automatically turn an attractive idea into a workable solution. A group may overlook an important circumstance, rely on incomplete evidence or estimate costs too optimistically. Opening a possibility must therefore be followed by testing it.

A practical trial provides something that neither authority nor an algorithmic result can supply: knowledge of how a particular solution works. Failure can then be broken down into causes rather than turned into another universal verdict. We learn which option did not work, under what conditions and why.

From this perspective, post-hierarchical architecture would be an arrangement for learning. Its value would lie in generating more well-grounded alternatives, selecting promising ones and adjusting direction in light of experience. Promising that all conflicts will disappear or that the best solution will always be found would only make such learning harder.

flowchart TD
          A["Uncertainty and constraints"] --> B{"How is the search organised?"}
          B -->|"The search is closed"| C["An unexplored possibility is deemed impossible"]
          C --> D["Powerlessness and inaction"]
          B -->|"Post-hierarchical contribution"| E["Clarify boundaries and the shared question"]
          E --> F["Participants develop and assess alternatives"]
          F --> G["The algorithm calculates results"]
          G --> H["Decision under agreed authority"]
          H --> I["Implementation and verification"]
          I -->|"New evidence"| E
          classDef closed fill:#f3f1ec,stroke:#9b978f,color:#25261f
          classDef post fill:#fff8f4,stroke:#a93b2b,color:#25261f,stroke-width:2px
          class A,B,C,D,H,I closed
          class E,F,G post