Paradigms and Egregores

Prelude

We do not encounter the world directly. We encounter it through a prior coherence that determines what can count as real, relevant, or even thinkable. In the pieces on leadership gathered here at The Subjunctive, this coherence is named paradigm. The choice is deliberate, and the intended meaning is broader than the narrow, technical sense in which Thomas Kuhn popularized the word. Paradigm, as it appears here, does not merely name a way of seeing reality, but a provisional structure within which perception and action become intelligible at all.

What often appears as dysfunction at the level of action is only understood at the level of paradigm. The challenge is not a failure to act within reality. We respond to reality as we find it. What we fail to see is that the reality within which we act is itself the problem. Leadership, then, is more an orientation between competing paradigms than it is simply decision within a shared reality.

Subscribe to The Subjunctive. It is free to receive new posts and support my work.

What follows traces the structure of paradigm from its origins in the philosophy of science through its developmental, temporal, spatial, and finally volitional character. The destination is an understanding of what a paradigm, in its fullness, actually wants.

The Kuhnian Foundation

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn reworks the concept of paradigm. The word originates in Ancient Greek as parádeigma (παράδειγμα), meaning something like pattern, model, or example. In classical thought, it moved between the particular and the general. At times, paradigm functioned as a template, and at other times as an instance used to persuade. Kuhn abstracts it further. What had been another name for pattern, becomes through him a condition of intelligibility within a field of inquiry.

For Kuhn, paradigm describes the entire constellation of practices, assumptions, exemplars, and standards that define a scientific community. He was not always consistent in how he used the term—sometimes meaning exemplary problems and their solutions, sometimes the larger disciplinary matrix—but the thrust is clear. His innovation was to transform paradigm from the recognition of patterns into a structuring condition of knowledge itself.

Kuhn used paradigm to signify the way those within a scientific field tacitly agree to see, interpret, and conduct their work. He confines the concept to science. That restriction is what gives Kuhn’s account its rigor, even as it marks the limit of what his paradigm can do.

Kuhn also proposes occasional episodic paradigm shifts in which one paradigm gives way to another. However, he rejects the idea that such shifts constitute advance. There is no telos in paradigm shift for Kuhn. He does not see development, only rupture. He explains that rupture by pointing out that the paradigms on either side of the shift are incommensurable. One cannot be fully understood from within the terms of the other.

Kuhn’s canonical example of paradigm shift is the move from Newton to Einstein. Newtonian physics constituted a paradigm in the Kuhnian sense. It defined a matrix of assumptions about the physical world and how it should be observed, tested, and interpreted. Among those assumptions was the treatment of space and time as independent and discrete.

Then Einstein publishes. Relativity dislocates the nearly 250-year-old Newtonian paradigm. Space and time are no longer independent, but aspects of a single reality: spacetime. Gravity as understood within Newtonian physics and within relativity becomes incommensurable. To classical physics, relativistic gravity is nonsense. Yet Kuhn insists that this does not amount to progress or evolution. A paradigm shift yields a new disciplinary matrix, but not an improved one.

This restraint in Kuhn’s account provides its discipline, but also defines its limits.

Developmental Archetypes

Kuhn’s limits are consequences of modernity. His paradigms apply only within science because the strictest modern frame understands science as the only valid mode of knowing. Paradigm shifts can only be episodic and discontinuous because teleology would imply retreat into theology. Modernity itself can be seen as a paradigm. Yet Kuhn and modernity demand the concept remain blind to itself.

Liberating paradigm from these inscriptions—a gambit liberal philosophy is ironically loath to attempt—is bedrock for any honest diagnosis of why our institutions have grown incapable of generating more than they consume. When that liberation occurs, what appears is not arbitrary rupture but recurring developmental structure. Rather than nonsense, we uncover recognizable, temporary stabilities: metastabilities.

Metastability is what is possible under conditions of radical uncertainty. Paradigms are not ideas. We do not choose, invent, construct, or impose a paradigm. Rather, paradigms are the configurations in which reality can temporarily hold.

Once this becomes visible, the archetypal nature of paradigm begins to emerge. For example, the eye has independently evolved many times. However different these emergences might be, they undeniably share a conceptual shape. The same is true of legs. Distinct organisms converge on the leg as a solution to ambulation. However much the particulars of an insect leg and a human leg diverge, their abstract form is a recurring archetype.

The same logic applies to paradigms. Sufficiently complex systems, developing independently, converge on the same metastable configurations. These are not arbitrary. They are the shapes the possibility field permits to emerge. Convergence of this kind indicates something more than coincidence. Solutions like these are not invented. What is being revealed is that the possibility field itself has shape. The solutions must be discovered because the conditions for their emergence were always already there.

Developmental psychology provides a parallel case. Clare Graves, Ken Wilber, and Robert Kegan each describe layered forms of development in different vocabularies. Despite their differences, a recurrent structure remains visible across all of them.

The earliest levels in their models are concerned with the biological substrate. Later ones become increasingly abstract, taking on social, systemic, and meaning-bearing orientations. The models are all accretive or integral, each level building upon those that preceded it. As with eyes and legs, the recurrence is not arbitrary. That independent frameworks converge on this trajectory is evidence that development is constrained by the shapes possibility allows.

These models reveal something more than sequence. They reveal recurring structure. Each level is a distinct configuration of reality. Whether biological, social, or symbolic, the levels emerge inside conditions of uncertainty and increasing complexity. They are developmental archetypes: metastable forms through which complex systems organize themselves over time.

Once freed from Kuhn’s liberal philosophical constraints, paradigm becomes thicker. It can now be recognized as metastable, archetypal, and developmental. Paradigm is the shape of the possible.

The Lifecycle of Paradigms

To say paradigms are metastable is to acknowledge their transience. Like complex and living systems, paradigms eventually die. This is because possibility contains both generation and loss. The cost of genesis is paid by mortality. While we may conjecture about the perfect—the immortal—we have no empirical examples of it. The perfect is rejection of the possible, and possibility is all we have.

This relation between generation and loss is not incidental. It describes a process: the succession of metastability. It is the lifecycle of the paradigm.

This lifecycle appears archetypally even in our most primitive cosmogonies. The Babylonian Enūma Eliš presents creation as born of destruction and destined to return to it. Ancient Egypt’s Ra makes a daily solar journey that gives the pattern more explicit form: birth, zenith, death, passage through the underworld, and rebirth. Anaximander says existence incurs debt. Buddhism calls impermanence anicca. Across traditions, what comes into being does so with the promise of loss.

Metastability is lifecycle. Possibility demands it and thus gives birth to time. Possibility permits becoming permits being, recursively.

Yet this lifecycle is not merely the result of the cost of becoming. It also describes how that cost is paid. It is the payment schedule for the paradigm. To those living within it, however, the reckoning is invisible.

This reckoning can be understood thermodynamically. Living systems are defined, in part, by their relation to energy. They must consume energy to persist. That consumption fuels generativity. Thermodynamic work is generativity. Its cost is entropy: disorder, waste.

The way in which lifecycle settles the account is digestive. A paradigm metabolizes energy, and it does so differently in different stages of its life. A young paradigm consumes more effectively than an old one. It is this changing relationship between generativity and loss that defines the stages of a paradigm’s lifecycle.

Early-stage paradigms exhibit a surplus of generativity. The scope of what the paradigm can address is seemingly boundless when it is new. In the very early 20th century, relativistic and quantum physics had yet to turn their attention to what would become nuclear energy, semiconductors, transistors, the digital revolution, lasers, magnetic resonance imaging, LEDs, solar cells, or electron microscopes. At birth, the paradigm associated with Einstein was typified by illimitable exuberance. In its early stages, the cost of any failure was easily metabolized by this generative surplus.

As a paradigm matures, the ratio of generativity to loss begins to narrow. Its costs are still covered by what it produces, but the remainder grows smaller. Like a well-used tool, it remains comfortable and effective even though it no longer astonishes. At this point, it is approaching the apogee of its purpose. Beyond that point, the energy gratuity disappears altogether.

Even after cost and production reach parity, the trajectory continues. Loss continues to grow as generativity falls. What was excess becomes deficit. A paradigm once characterized by endless potential begins to exhaust itself. We see this in ourselves. As we age, we can do less, while the maintenance of our health grows more onerous. The cost of persistence does not abate simply because vitality is receding.

When the generativity of the paradigm can no longer fully metabolize its cost, it begins to service its debt by other means. Paradigms accomplish this by levying taxes and fees upon their inhabitants. The maintenance of a paradigm in its late stages is the performance of rituals, policed by sacred and moral expectations. In what then appears as brute force, paradigms demand their denizens continue to propitiate even long after it has become unclear why it should be done.

In its early stages, a paradigm’s costs are paid willingly. There is something like devotion among those dwelling within them because participation feels like involvement in something alive. The returns are palpable. The world seems to open rather than close. Compliance and belief are inseparable while the paradigm is new.

In late stages, compliance is not animated from within but demanded from above. An elderly paradigm still requires its rites be performed, but there remains nothing to make them feel like more than hollow obligation. What had appeared as consensus never was. It was always a product of a generative surplus that made paying its costs feel beneficent. When the surplus is gone, devotion expires, yet its form outlasts its substance. Aged paradigms cannot restore their vitality, so they do the only thing remaining to them: they insist. It is this insistence that appears as brute force. We are compelled to pay costs that provide little or no return. Compliance becomes compulsory. Returns become illusory.

When generativity is exhausted, what remains is not merely a diminished paradigm. Its character has changed. What had once been a conduit for possibility reorients around persistence. Even a deracinated paradigm continues to structure reality. It still tells us what is legible, what is rewarded, what is real. What it can no longer tell us is why we should allow it to do so. The energy it once consumed in service of generation is now extracted in service of survival. No longer capable of genuine interest in anything else, senescent paradigms turn their focus to self-interest.

The outward projections of self-interested paradigms continue to give the appearance of vitality. But from the inside, the self-interest is more obtrusive. The internal rot pervades the institutions of the paradigm. For leadership, the crisis is existential.

Paradigms Are Nested

We’ve seen that paradigms can be inhabited. For some of them, we are the inhabitants. Paradigms are sequential, developmental, and archetypal. They are generative yet transitory: they traverse possibility, generate solutions, decline, and die. They have a lifecycle. But they are also something else. They are containers.

Paradigms can contain other paradigms. They almost always do. Paradigms are nested within other paradigms and, in turn, can nest others within themselves.

This nesting is necessary. Containers give life to the paradigms nested within them. Each paradigm builds upon and integrates the paradigms that contain it. This yields two perspectives. From one perspective, successive paradigms recontextualize those that came before them. From the other, each paradigm contains the paradigms it makes possible.

Matter contains life. Nature contains culture. This is nesting seen from the outside.

From the inside, the direction appears reversed. Developmental paradigms that emerge from the lifecycle of a containing paradigm transcend and include their predecessors. Higher paradigms reconstitute lower ones rather than simply sitting above them.

From this interior perspective, another developmental dynamic comes into view. A new paradigm does not merely supersede the one it follows. New paradigms also alter the relation between the immediately prior paradigm and the one that preceded it. We can call this dynamic penultimation.

At the beginning of its lifecycle, a paradigm becomes real, in part, by suppressing aspects of the one it is transcending. It must do this because the older paradigm cannot diagnose its own loss of generativity. The inability of a paradigm to see beyond itself is partially a product of the sacralized maintenance demanded as its vitality fails. It has no energy to examine its problems because it is spending all its resources to stay alive.

This produces a second effect. A dying paradigm, when it first emerged, had already performed a similar suppression on the paradigm before it. In subduing its predecessor, a new paradigm also undoes some of the restrictions imposed two paradigms prior. Thus, the full effect of penultimation is that each new paradigm censors some of the penultimate and rescues some of the antepenultimate. This is how nested paradigms maintain continuity even as they die and give way to new ones.

Ken Wilber’s developmental model provides a useful example. What he calls the Magic-Mythic level is the domain of ego, power, and impulse. The Mythic level that follows disciplines those impulses into the conformity required for social membership. Later, the Rational level transcends that conformity in favor of individual achievement and system-navigation. In doing so, it suppresses part of the Mythic while recovering part of the earlier egoic energy in a more developed form. This is penultimation.

What is now visible is nesting from within paradigm. From the inside, lifecycle appears as a succession of integrations. The interior is where the developmental potential of each paradigm is realized across its lifecycle: generativity. From the outside, nesting exhibits a different character: depth.

The depth of a paradigm is the number of layers of nesting available beneath it. This is not predetermined. As with generativity, each paradigm must navigate a field of possibility to discover what paradigms can be nested within it. Those nested paradigms must perform the same navigation. Over time, this process reveals the depth of any given paradigm.

In turn, depth reveals a chain of dependency. Nested paradigms cannot exist in the absence of the paradigms into which they’re nested. If we comprehend the biological order of Rodentia as a paradigm—and we can—we will readily see that it owes its existence to its parent paradigm, the class Mammalia. No mammals? No rodents.

This dependency runs only downward. Every nested paradigm depends upon the paradigm that contains it. Paradigms are always contained, but they do not always go on to contain further paradigms, even though they generate solutions at their own level. This asymmetry also means a paradigm may be indifferent to what it contains, even coercive toward it, but it remains unconditionally dependent on those that contain it.

Depth also reveals something about capacity. Deeper paradigms (those higher in the stack) are richer in what Stuart Kauffman calls the adjacent possible. Shallower paradigms (those nested further down the stack) have a smaller adjacent possible. The potential permutations within the mammalian paradigm are so great in number that the exploration of these possibilities results in many nested paradigms: rodents, primates, cetaceans, bats, and so on. At more nested levels, the constraints inherited from containing paradigms progressively narrow the adjacent possible. An individual species may have a few subspecies at best, its possibility space nearly exhausted by the specificity of its nesting.

Paradigms nest. Nested paradigms require their containers. Depth measures how many levels of nesting appear beneath. Shallower paradigms have less capacity. What a paradigm contains, it also constrains. And the weight of that constraint determines how fast the paradigm must move.

Pace and Complexity

The lifecycle of a paradigm displays a temporal character. From the inside, it feels as though the pace of a paradigm changes as it ages. It appears to accelerate, stall, or fragment in response to its own development. From the outside, pace emerges from position within a nested architecture. Duration follows from depth. Every paradigm is subject to both perspectives without contradiction. Paradigms unfold through time, inheriting their tempo from where they sit within the structure that contains them.

In particular, the pace inside a paradigm appears to quicken as it ages. Paradoxically, as it accelerates, the paradigm generates progressively less. The experience is one of unrequited arrival. As inhabitants of the paradigm, we feel increasing pressure toward resolution; to see the greatest problems addressed in full. It is a kind of melancholic nostalgia. We remember the exuberance of the young paradigm—or our youthful initiation into it—and the promises it made; promises it is now failing to honor.

One source of this dysphoria is the misapprehension that cadence is a product of agency. We take the tempo of the paradigm to be something we are setting. We believe we are choosing the pace at which it moves. This belief does not arise from our desire for agency alone. We overdetermine our role because the paradigm and its requirements are almost always invisible to us. Especially within the modern paradigm, we assume either nothing is determined or everything is. That there is a paradigm in which we are operating—and which is also operating upon us—lies outside our frame of knowledge.

When we misread our potency in this way, the most common response is an attempt at deceleration. This takes two familiar forms, conventionally understood as left and right, or progressive and conservative. At bottom, they both amount to an effort to slow the paradigm so that its death might be deferred. Progressive deceleration refuses to acknowledge that the paradigm is aging. It asks—indeed, demands—that we go on believing the paradigm will eventually consummate perfection. Conservative deceleration eulogizes an earlier stage in the lifecycle of the paradigm while persuading itself that stage can be restored. As a paradigm advances toward its end, these countervailing forces invariably emerge among its constituencies and grow increasingly acerbic and combative.

This is a signal example of how a dying paradigm cannot diagnose itself. In its senescence, a paradigm cannot furnish its inhabitants with visibility into its infirmity. All that appears available are brake pedals. We press them and nothing happens. When we are not blaming one another for this failure, we find ourselves searching for still other pedals to press. Presently, we want brakes applied to a panoply of presumed ills we hold responsible for our antipathy toward ourselves: social media, misinformation, disfavored political parties and philosophies, free speech, religion, atheism, fertility, infertility, science, pseudoscience, sex work, prudishness, patriarchy, feminism, racism, antiracism. That rancor intensifies as we press more pedals is evidence of the insight no one sees: the paradigm sets the pace of its own demise. We do not.

The question we repeatedly ask is why we fight with one another. In perpetually misdiagnosing these internecine battles, we are rendered blind to the answer: paradigmatic pace is beyond our control. These battles are the inevitable byproducts of an aging paradigm. The pressing of brake pedals does nothing to change this.

What we refuse to ask is what must die for something new to be born. This is not determinism. The paradigm sets its conditions, but we are not absolved from acting. Control of the paradigm itself is available to no one. What remains—and what matters—is how to navigate within it.

The tempo of a paradigm is not set, then, where we experience ourselves acting. Seen from outside the paradigm, the locus of action becomes clearer. Paradigms are nested in layers. Pace is unevenly distributed across them. From inside a paradigm, this layered pace feels like quickening. It is not this. The position of the paradigm in the stack sets its tempo.

Thus, pace is a function of depth. The higher a paradigm is situated in the stack, the greater its depth. It contains more. The greater the depth of a paradigm, the slower its pace. Greater depth implies a wider field of possibility and thus requires a longer interval over which that possibility can be traversed. As a result, such paradigms remain stable longer. Yet they are still metastable. Like all paradigms, their genesis is inscribed by their mortality, only over a longer duration.

This density of constraint governs everything that follows. Nested paradigms inherit constraints from above. Each containing paradigm adds to the set of constraints passed down to the paradigms that emerge within it.

These constraints do not merely accumulate as we descend the stack. Each layer inherits the full constraint set from everything above it. The space of what can emerge within it contracts. The density of constraint is what sets its pace. The more nested the paradigm, the narrower its adjacent possible, and the shorter its life.

Stewart Brand offers a practical expression of the relationship between depth, constraint, and pace. His model of pace layers arranges paradigms by their tempo: nature, culture, governance, infrastructure, commerce, fashion. Brand does not name this principle, but when understood as nested paradigms, his model reveals a key insight regarding the density of constraint: nested paradigms cannot operate outside the conditions set by those that contain them. When they attempt to do so, the attempt fails.

The density of constraint reveals another component of the cost of genesis: complexity. A radically nested paradigm must act quickly, but its coherence is maintained only by honoring the weight of its constraints. Its space of possibility is therefore more tightly bound to the structure from which those constraints are inherited.

This is the condition of complexity. To be complex is to express an irreducibly interwoven relationship between parts. Within such a condition, coherence is burdened by the necessity to quickly iterate over the demands of that relationship. The more complex the paradigm is, the faster it must move.

This provides a more complete picture of pace and how we experience it from within a paradigm. What presents as acceleration over the life of a paradigm is not in fact a change in velocity. The tempo is set by depth and complexity. What changes is our ability to metabolize it. In youth, the pace of a paradigm is borne by generativity. Its cadence feels like promise because returns exceed costs. As it ages, that same pace becomes burdensome. An atrophied paradigm can no longer sustain promise. What once appeared as a calm motion toward consummation now arrives as pressure, churn, and exhaustion.

Leadership is an institution upon which this tribulation settles as an indelible weight. The cultural paradigm of modernity is slow-paced because its depth is great, and that same depth makes its decline especially costly. The effects of this decline cascade through the paradigms nested within it. As it nears its end, its institutions squander trust. The discharge of their duties is reduced to performance. Leadership becomes the visible office through which this exhaustion is delivered.

What Paradigms Want

The density of constraint reveals more than structure. When a faster paradigm runs up against the conditions set by a slower one, it does not meet the mechanical resistance of dead weight. It finds something pushing back. The containing paradigm does not passively absorb or deny. It appears to act of its own volition.

This is strange, especially for those inhabiting the modern paradigm. Modernity demands abstract structures be recognized as inanimate. To say they have interests is to commit a category error; to anthropomorphize. If anything, modernity is increasingly attempting to de-animate humanity, describing us as reductive, predetermined instruments. Yet the volitional behavior of paradigms is unmistakable to anyone who has attempted to challenge one. Its resistance feels organized. It descends from multiple directions at once. It knows where to press. It feels alive.

Stranger still is where its defenses operate most effectively. A paradigm does not merely enforce constraints. It does not simply prevent action. It does something more tangibly deliberate: it governs imagination. It forecloses certain futures by rendering them unthinkable. Those who inhabit the paradigm experience this as wisdom. It feels as though it could not be otherwise. It is simply how the world works.

A paradigm that cannot imagine its own death will, by extension, ensure those within it cannot imagine it either. This suggests paradigms are something more than impersonal structures. It suggests they possess something like agency, interest, and a will toward their own persistence. There is a name for this: egregore.

The Ancient Greek word egrḗgoros (ἐγρήγορος) is an adjective meaning wakeful or vigilant. In modern English, egregore signifies a concept from Western occultism in which the collective intent of a body of people comes to life. An egregore is thought to exist independently of that body. It is not concerned with policy, hierarchy, or even the individuals from whom it emerges. It is instead animated by an aggregation of their intentions that exceeds any one of them. Imagined as an extended presence, the egregore is felt rather than seen. It is experienced as another member of the group, and yet somehow something beyond this.

It is through egregore that paradigm governs imagination. The egregore of a paradigm is its imagination. It tells the inhabitants what can be imagined by delimiting the imaginal space in which they can operate. Through this function, it enacts both punishment and reward without the need for formal structures. What cannot be imagined cannot be pursued. What the egregore makes imaginable simply feels right.

Futures foreclosed by the egregore do not present as forbidden. There is no official instrument through which this proscription is enacted. Forbidden futures merely appear as foolish, dangerous, naïve, immoral, or insane. This is why the closure feels like wisdom. The egregore does not need to intervene or correct. It does not need to say no. It has already rendered some possibilities unavailable before they can even be considered. Thinking beyond the imaginal space of the egregore is like asking what is north of the north pole. To even consider it feels unmoored. To do it is self-exile.

The reach of the egregore extends beyond merely bounding the imaginal space. It occupies that space so thoroughly that even heterodoxy struggles to exist outside it. Ideas that cannot be dismissed are absorbed. Thoughts that cannot be excluded are reinterpreted. The egregore domesticates its own opposition. It colonizes dissent by giving it license and bringing it to heel. We are left to see the heterodox as existential threats to our reality, when in fact, they have already been rendered utterly innocuous.

Despite their role in governing imagination, egregores are not temporally fixed. Over time, they traverse the same kind of archetypal development we see elsewhere. An egregore evolves in a reciprocal relationship with the lifecycle of its paradigm.

In early stages, egregores orient imagination toward growth. Future images are comprised by a continuous expansion of possibility. Problems inherited from the past are confidently imagined as immanently solvable. Horizons are open.

As paradigms mature and generative surplus becomes deficit, the imaginal space shifts. In a paradigm at this stage, its egregore begins to abandon confidence and reorients toward collapse. Futures are now imagined through the lens of decline, decay, exhaustion. New problems become visible, and their solutions unavailable.

This posture cannot be sustained indefinitely. Eventually, imagination takes on a new frame. In the late stages of the paradigm, its egregore is compelled to foreground discipline. Neither expansion nor collapse is now available. What remains is preservation. Like a museum curator, the task of the egregore is to maintain an increasingly ossified collection of artifacts once generated by its paradigm.

It is when the egregore is shaping imagination as discipline and maintenance that penultimation is born. Incapable of recovering its earlier glory, a dying paradigm allows its egregore to look backward. Perhaps something was overlooked in the previous paradigm? In this late stage is when some voices are heard saying the future is a past to which we should return.

What is visible here is that the succession of imaginal postures is not designed nor chosen. The apparent agency of the egregore does not lie in its capacity to choose. Instead, by changing the shape of the imaginal space, the egregore expresses the shifting relation between generativity and loss within the paradigm itself.

No one chooses this closure. There exists no central actor to enforce it. The effusive vitality of early-stage imagination is not a product of bad faith optimists. The pornographic frisson of middle-stage decay narratives cannot be attributed to dyspeptic Cassandras. Late-stage internecine strife does not count as evidence that we’ve lost our humanity and are incapable of accord. These are all emanations of the paradigm becoming itself through the mediation of its egregore. We may navigate the field provided us, and we may learn its local contours, but they are metastable, and what lies beyond them cannot be known.

This radical uncertainty opens a final imaginal category. It is the shape of an ending followed by a new coherence rising from the ruins. This category is transformation. What is salient about transformation is that its content cannot be seen from inside the paradigm. Paradigms maintain coherence by foreclosing what lies beyond them. Their constitutional ignorance of their successors is the price of existence as a paradigm at all. Each paradigm dies without knowing what will replace it. This is the origin of Kuhn’s incommensurability.

For this reason, transformation belongs to no paradigm. It is the space between paradigms. It is a liminal interval in which one reality no longer holds, and the next has yet to become coherent. It is the place where no egregore can preside. Egregores can only shape coherent institutions within paradigms. During transformation, institutions are dismembered, reimagined, and reconstituted.

Every institution within a paradigm, then, serves its coherence. This is what it means to exist within a paradigm. There is, however, one institution created by paradigms that is partially exempted from this demand: leadership. The egregore cannot fully close what it must govern through. It requires an aperture capable of recognizing where its answers are insufficient. Leadership is the function that provides that aperture.

Leadership is charged with remaining porous where the egregore is already closed. It does not transcend the egregore, because no position within the paradigm permits that. What it can do is hold open questions the egregore has answered. Leadership is allowed to tolerate radical uncertainty by resisting its resolution.

This, then, is the terrible burden. Leadership is not management of people or resources. It is not reflexive fealty to the liturgy of the paradigm. It is not the apparent obeisance that launders a desire for social approbation. It is not a pat on the head from teacher. Leadership is the willingness to stand at the edge of imagination, where certainty dissolves—where the egregore cannot go—and to act anyway.

Thank you for reading The Subjunctive. Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.