Resonant Thresholds

How Power Through, Moves Between and Beyond

There are moments when something moves through a system, fast, unforeseen, irreversible. A collective surge erupts. A truth, long held in tension, finds sudden resonance. A transformation takes hold, not from the top down or from within a single body, but from the coordinated ignition of countless entangled threads. This is Power Through: the force of emergent amplification that arises when a field of coordination reaches a volatile threshold and something entirely new begins to move.

Unlike Power To, which concerns the capacity to act, or Power With, which emerges through mutual structuring and cooperation, or Power Over, which consolidates and controls, Power Through is not an attribute of anyone or anything. It is a pulse, a passage, a becoming. It cannot be possessed. It does not belong. It flows.

In the ecology of coordination, Power Through represents the phase transition. It is the moment the mycelial network fruits. It is the flash of lightning when atmospheric conditions align. It is the uprising that was “impossible” until it was inevitable. Often misrecognized as charisma, virality, divine intervention, or “momentum,” Power Through is better understood as a phenomenon of systemic resonance collapse, a shift from latent tension to kinetic transformation, in which individual actors become both conduits and dissolving boundaries.

Power Through reveals a fundamental truth about coordination: that the most potent shifts are not caused, but conducted. That what appears sudden is often the expression of deep, slow, hidden preparation. That beneath the surface of every stagnant system lies a charged field of unexpressed potential, waiting not for permission, but for alignment.

This essay explores how Power Through emerges, what conditions make it possible, and what risks accompany its release. We will see how threads, individual and collective capacities for coordination, sometimes lock into catalytic patterns that exceed intention. We’ll examine how signal fidelity, emotional saturation, and field density contribute to its ignition. And we’ll trace how Power Through connects to other forms of power, while remaining irreducible to any of them.

Ultimately, Power Through is not something to be wielded; it is something to be witnessed, invited, and held open. In a world structured to dampen collective pulse and reroute it into control or despair, recognizing and honoring Power Through becomes both an ethical and strategic act. It asks us not to dominate the current, but to become sensitive to its flow, to attune ourselves to the field, to hold space for emergence, and to know when to let go.

Formal Definition of Power Through

Power Through is the emergent amplification of coordination that arises when distributed threads, individuals, actions, signals, or systems become sufficiently entangled and attuned to trigger nonlinear transformation across a field. It is not exerted by any single actor but flows through the dynamic interplay of resonant conditions, enabling systemic shifts that exceed the sum of their contributing parts.

Power Through is characterized by:

• Distributed origination: no central source or controller

• Emergent pattern activation: catalytic resonance beyond linear causality

• Temporal sensitivity: dependent on field ripeness and threshold conditions

• Transformational potential: capable of reprogramming coordination architectures in motion

Unlike other power forms, Power Through does not manifest as a stable capacity or relation but as a phase transition, a volatile expression of accumulated potential reaching critical resonance. It is ephemeral, systemically entangled, and fundamentally irreducible to command, ownership, or intention.

The Anatomy of Emergent Amplification

To understand Power Through, we must investigate how coordination, when it surpasses mere alignment or cooperation, can give rise to sudden and far-reaching transformations. These transformations do not proceed from a singular cause or central node. Instead, they emerge from conditions of heightened relational density, signal resonance, and shared activation thresholds. Power Through, therefore, is not a force that actors wield directly. It is a phenomenon of field expression, in which the coordination potential stored across many threads becomes momentarily kinetic, producing systemic effects disproportionate to any individual contribution.

Thread Entanglement and Signal Resonance

The basic units of coordination, which this framework names threads, refer to any temporally sustained capacity for participation in a pattern. Threads may be human (individuals, collectives), nonhuman (technologies, infrastructures), or conceptual (narratives, protocols, legal forms). Power Through arises when many such threads become entangled, that is, when their activities and states are mutually influencing in a non-trivial way. Entanglement here does not imply control or command, but rather a heightened degree of mutual sensitivity, where the state or orientation of one thread affects the responsiveness or behavior of others.

In such conditions, signals, whether emotional, symbolic, behavioral, or informational, can begin to resonate. Resonance occurs when signals are not only transmitted but are received, amplified, and recirculated in ways that reinforce their structure across the network (Barrett, 2017). This recursive reinforcement is distinct from repetition. Repetition reproduces. Resonance intensifies. It can produce convergence of attention, emotion, or action, even in systems without central coordination. In biological terms, this is akin to quorum sensing, where decentralized organisms coordinate behavior by detecting the concentration of signaling molecules in their environment (Miller & Bassler, 2001).

What distinguishes resonance in the context of Power Through is its cascading capacity. When resonance reaches a threshold across entangled threads, it no longer produces merely shared understanding or synchronization. It ignites coordinated activation. This is the first clue to the anatomy of emergent amplification: Power Through is not simply about many acting together. It is about field conditions in which a signal, once circulating, shifts the disposition of the system as a whole.

Attunement, Feedback Loops, and Activation Thresholds

For amplification to occur, entanglement and resonance are necessary but not sufficient. The threads themselves must also be attuned. Attunement is the capacity of a thread to sense and respond to the signals circulating in the field in ways that are meaningful, precise, and coherent with others. Without attunement, even resonant signals fail to amplify. They scatter, distort, or collapse under noise.

Attunement is not only cognitive. It may be emotional, affective, bodily, narrative, or aesthetic. In many social uprisings, for example, a single image, such as a protester standing alone before an armed line, can produce a wave of attuned action because it condenses shared affect, moral clarity, and symbolic salience (Tufekci, 2017). The feedback loops that follow such moments are rarely designed. They arise from patterns of meaning already latent within the field. A signal strikes a chord not by imposition, but because the threads were already tuned to it.

This leads to the third feature in the anatomy of Power Through: activation thresholds. Each thread or group of threads has its own conditions under which it will move from dormancy to active coordination. These thresholds are not uniform. They may depend on risk, clarity, urgency, or perceived legitimacy. However, in systems primed by long-standing tension or saturated signal exposure, activation thresholds can converge or drop sharply. A tipping point is reached, and what was previously stable becomes unstable in a collective direction. Granovetter (1978) showed that the behavior of crowds could be modeled through threshold dynamics, where each individual acts only when enough others have done so, leading to nonlinear uptake. In Power Through, these thresholds are not sequential but relational, modulated by resonance and feedback in real time.

When feedback is reinforcing and thresholds are surpassed across enough threads, amplification emerges. Not as a property of scale, but as a qualitative shift. The system expresses a new behavior or alignment that was not previously accessible. This may manifest as a surge of movement energy, a cascade of mutual aid, a moment of rupture in a dominant narrative, or even a change in institutional behavior that no single actor could have produced alone.

Field Conditions and Distributed Causality

A common error in interpreting Power Through is to search for a cause. Who started it? What triggered it? This question misframes the phenomenon. Power Through is not caused by an actor, but conducted through a field. That field is made of threads, yes, but also of spatial, emotional, historical, and symbolic structures that shape responsiveness. In this way, causality is distributed. No thread alone is necessary, but enough must be attuned and entangled for amplification to occur.

This distributed causality has implications for both understanding and influencing Power Through. Efforts to “reproduce” moments of Power Through by replicating tactics or messages often fail, because they focus on the visible expressions rather than the invisible readiness of the field. The necessary condition is not the symbol, but the receptivity to the symbol. Not the act, but the latent pattern recognition embedded in a web of shared experience, memory, and desire (Snow et al., 1986).

Power Through, then, is not the result of a single spark. It is a manifestation of a charged atmosphere, a conductive medium, and threads willing or able to move. The anatomy of emergent amplification is not linear. It is ecological. And the more one seeks to control or force it, the more it resists.

Latent Potential and Temporal Ripeness

Every instance of Power Through arises not only from immediate interaction but also from the accumulation of forces that may have remained dormant, suppressed, or invisible for long periods. To understand how emergent amplification becomes possible, it is necessary to examine how latent potential accumulates across time and how certain moments, rather than others, become temporally ripe for rupture or release. Power Through is not a spontaneous event. It is the surfacing of long-held energies under specific conditions, where duration, density, and signal saturation converge with an opening in time.

Field Density and the Saturation of Memeforms

Latent potential is best understood not as a reservoir of stored energy in the classical physical sense, but as an ensemble of unresolved tensions, unrealized desires, and partially activated threads within a system of coordination. These tensions may remain unnoticed, or they may circulate as background signals, subtle, persistent, and unresolved. Over time, as these signals repeat and refract through narrative, emotional, and behavioral forms, they generate what we might call field density. A dense field is not merely populated by many actors. It is saturated with unresolved coordination possibilities, competing framings, and emotionally charged semiotic forms.

Among the most significant carriers of latent potential are memeforms, internalizable idea-structures that can be easily transmitted, recalled, and embedded in personal or collective meaning-making. Memeforms often emerge from cultural symbols, protest slogans, viral images, or even fragments of ideology. Their power lies not in their originality, but in their internalization fitness, their capacity to take root in perception and recur at key thresholds of emotional or situational activation. When memeforms saturate a field, they do not necessarily produce action. What they do produce is a narrative substrate, a shared landscape of interpretation, through which future signals can be rapidly assimilated and amplified.

This saturation contributes to field density because it lowers the activation energy required for new signals to be meaningful. A single gesture, word, or event can resonate widely not because it is inherently powerful, but because it echoes a pre-existing symbolic grammar. In such conditions, the field becomes primed. Not necessarily volatile, but pressurized. And like tectonic plates pressing against one another for centuries, the release does not always correspond to the size of the original pressure point. A small shift, when interacting with a dense and saturated field, can cascade into systemic rupture.

Chronos and Kairos: Linear Time and the Moment of Rupture

It is not enough for a field to be dense or for potential to be latent. Power Through emerges only when systems enter a state of temporal ripeness. This ripeness is difficult to measure, but it can be understood through the contrast between chronos and kairos, two ancient Greek conceptions of time that remain useful in the analysis of coordination dynamics.

Chronos refers to chronological time, the steady tick of linear progression. It is the time of schedules, metrics, and accumulation. Kairos, in contrast, refers to the opportune moment, the qualitative rupture in time when something becomes possible that was not possible before. In rhetorical theory, kairos is the moment in which a message finds its greatest force. In theology, it is the time of divine intervention. In coordination systems, kairos represents the threshold moment at which latent potential becomes actionable, and amplification becomes inevitable (Kinneavy, 1986).

The distinction is crucial. Many movements, campaigns, and strategies operate on chronos. They build steadily, organize resources, and develop capacities. But when Power Through occurs, it is almost always catalyzed within kairotic time. This does not mean planning is irrelevant. Rather, it means that planning alone cannot account for why certain moments ignite and others do not. Kairos requires more than readiness. It requires a resonant convergence between internal conditions (field density, saturation) and external triggers (political shifts, emotional shocks, symbolic ruptures).

A protest may be organized with great care and still fall flat. Yet a spontaneous walkout triggered by a minor incident might surge into a massive movement, as it taps into kairotic timing. What was needed was not more preparation, but the right resonance within the field. Kairos is not planned. It is sensed, seized, and sometimes missed. That is why understanding temporal ripeness is central to any theory of Power Through. Without it, we risk mistaking potential for inevitability, or assuming that action will follow accumulation linearly.

The Delayed Effects of Coordination

Coordination does not always yield immediate results. Some of its effects are delayed, not because they are weak, but because they accumulate slowly and manifest only under specific conditions. A repeated chant, shared over several years, might not change policy, but it might become a lodestone in a moment of crisis. A relational network built over quiet decades of mutual care might appear marginal until a disaster strikes, and then it becomes the lifeline for an entire community (Simone, 2004). These delays are not failures of coordination. They are expressions of endurance, of how coordination can shape the substrate of potentiality even when its surface-level effects seem negligible.

Power Through respects this temporal logic. It honors the slow build-up and the unnoticed layerings of effort, meaning, and relation. When the field finally erupts, it is rarely because a single message or action tipped the balance. It is because the system had been living in saturation, waiting for the conditions to declare themselves. This is why post-hoc analyses often struggle to isolate causes. They misread the kairotic rupture as a product of what immediately preceded it, ignoring the long sedimentation of signals and the cumulative resilience of shared orientation.

Temporal ripeness, then, is never only about timing. It is about preparedness without control, saturation without certainty, and coordination that trusts its effects even when they are not immediately legible.

Reprogrammability in Motion

Power Through, when fully expressed, does not merely amplify what already exists. It disrupts, redirects, and transforms the architecture of coordination as it unfolds. In this sense, it reveals not only the capacity of systems to scale under pressure but also their ability to reprogram themselves mid-flow. This reprogrammability is not a passive feature. It emerges from the reflexive, catalytic nature of Power Through, which alters both what is being coordinated and how coordination itself is structured in real time.

Catalytic Reordering: Power Through as More Than Scaling

Amplification is often misread as a linear increase. One might imagine that Power Through simply enlarges the magnitude of Power With or accelerates its effects. But amplification in this context does not simply mean doing more of the same. It involves a catalytic reordering of the relations, meanings, and logics that underlie a coordination system. Catalysis in chemistry does not just increase the rate of reaction. It lowers the activation energy by altering the pathway of interaction. Similarly, Power Through modifies the pathway of coordination.

When a social movement surges into the public imagination, for example, its most potent effect is often not the number of participants or the volume of media coverage. Rather, it is the shift in what seems possible or permissible, both within the movement and outside it. A new grammar of action begins to take hold. The slogans, tactics, and relationships formed in that moment begin to supplant prior assumptions. What was once marginal becomes central. What was once dismissed becomes taken for granted. In this sense, Power Through does not merely mobilize, it refactors the social code (Tufekci, 2017).

This catalytic reordering is particularly evident in threshold events. These are moments when a system tips into a new pattern of behavior, not because a planned design was imposed, but because internal dynamics became unstable enough to reconfigure themselves. In such moments, resonance becomes more important than replication. The actors within the system are not simply scaling up previous behaviors. They are undergoing structural adaptation, guided by the internal logics of the coordination surge.

Adaptive Repatterning Triggered Mid-Flow

The most distinctive property of Power Through is that it can trigger pattern change while still in motion. This is not a retrospective shift imposed after the fact. It is a live process in which coordination realigns itself around new attractors. Participants find themselves acting differently, interpreting differently, and organizing differently without a centralized decision. The field itself reorganizes. This adaptive repatterning is analogous to what some complexity theorists describe as phase transitions, changes in systemic behavior that occur when a system reaches a critical threshold of interaction or tension (Kauffman, 1993).

But in coordination systems, these transitions are not purely physical or stochastic. They are semiotically mediated. That is, the symbols, narratives, and emotional valences circulating in the field shape how the reconfiguration proceeds. When protestors suddenly shift from isolated local demands to a shared identity and transnational strategy, they are not just scaling their actions. They are recoding their shared meaning structure. This recoding does not always occur by choice. It often feels like discovery. Participants sense that the ground has moved beneath them. What was once understood in one light now appears entirely different. This perceptual and behavioral pivot is a hallmark of Power Through’s midstream adaptability.

The implication here is profound. Reprogrammability is not a static feature that can be designed into a system ahead of time. It is a latent affordance that becomes available only in states of resonance and motion. When coordination becomes fluid enough, the internal logics that seemed fixed, goals, roles, and metrics, can dissolve and reassemble around new meanings. This is not always comfortable. Adaptive repatterning requires a kind of epistemic humility, a willingness to allow coherence to emerge rather than forcing it through predetermined scripts (Snowden, 2002).

Resonance as the Engine of Code Revision

How does such a transformation occur without centralized control? The answer lies in the dynamics of resonance. When threads of action, emotion, and perception align across a system, they can amplify one another not only in strength but in structure. Resonance is not merely an increase in volume. It is a form of mutual adaptation across nodes in a system, each adjusting in response to others until a new collective pattern emerges (Kelso, 1995).

In resonant states, systems become more sensitive and more plastic. Small perturbations can generate large reorganizations. Crucially, this plasticity does not revert to chaos. Instead, it moves through coherence. The system begins to exhibit new logics, new boundaries, and new possibilities for coordination. It is in this zone that the code of the system, its deep patterns of value, recognition, and response, can be rewritten. Not by force, but by distributed responsiveness.

Resonance makes this possible because it draws attention inward and outward simultaneously. Participants sense their individual experience in relation to a shared field. This reflexive synchrony enables systems to transform without collapse. Reprogramming in motion, then, is not a breakdown of structure. It is a metamorphosis, a process by which coordination changes its shape while retaining continuity of participation and intent.

Such transformations are difficult to model because they resist static categories. Yet they are observable in moments of cultural breakthrough, collective healing, insurgent redefinition, and spontaneous realignment. When people say “something changed in the air,” or “we were no longer the same after that,” they are often referring to this quality. Power Through reorders not just what is done, but what is thinkable.

Power Through vs Power With: Architecture and Surge

The distinction between Power With and Power Through lies not in their opposition but in their structural relation and dynamic tension. Both forms arise within collective coordination, but they emerge from different organizational architectures and serve different energetic functions. Power With is the capacity to act together through mutual recognition and shared orientation. It rests on coherence, trust, and attunement among agents who seek not to dominate or outpace one another, but to participate in ways that preserve the integrity of the collective frame. Power Through, by contrast, is what occurs when the coherence achieved by Power With ignites into a forceful surge, not merely a continuation of unity, but a transformation in intensity, speed, and structural capacity.

Mutual Grounding vs Systemic Ignition

Power With can be understood as a mutual grounding process. It aligns the intentions, perceptions, and actions of participants in a shared context. Coordination becomes a felt sense of togetherness, not only in outcome but in process. As individuals and groups participate in this kind of mutualism, they build relational architectures that allow meaning to circulate without distortion. Shared values are enacted through transparent practices. The system is in resonance, and this resonance generates stability, adaptability, and psychological safety (Frye, 2020).

However, resonance alone does not guarantee transformation. A group can remain in a stable configuration of Power With while being insufficiently equipped to address larger systemic conditions. The emergence of Power Through marks the moment when a coordination system does more than sustain itself. It ignites. The field of resonance builds to such a degree that it generates a systemic ignition, triggering behaviors and logics that exceed the original frame. This surge reconfigures the architecture of participation. It is no longer simply about sustaining alignment; it becomes about expanding the scope, force, and reach of the system’s activity (Tufekci, 2017).

Ignition occurs when the coherence of Power With reaches a threshold of intensity. In such moments, collective action shifts from deliberation to momentum. The actors within the system are not necessarily following a new plan. They are responding to a shift in the affordances of the system itself. What was previously improbable or even unthinkable becomes immediately viable. The structures of constraint that governed the group now appear as temporary scaffolds, no longer definitive of what is possible.

Interdependence and the Risk of Burnout or Hijack

The intimate relationship between Power With and Power Through creates a condition of interdependence, but this relationship is not without risk. Power Through relies on the coherence generated by Power With, yet it introduces volatility into that coherence. When the ignition of Power Through occurs, the system may enter a state of heightened vulnerability. Coordination becomes fluid, and that very fluidity opens the door to both transformation and manipulation.

One danger is burnout. The intensity of Power Through can overextend participants emotionally, cognitively, and physiologically. In sustained surges, the drive to maintain the momentum can lead to internal collapse, especially if the underlying Power With infrastructure is not resilient. The very relational trust and coherence that made ignition possible can begin to erode if not continually regenerated (Juris, 2008).

Another danger is hijack. A system in the midst of a Power Through surge becomes more porous. External actors or internal opportunists may redirect the flow of energy toward goals that were not collectively held. Because the system is moving quickly and adaptively, participants may not immediately notice when its trajectory is being subtly altered. The aesthetics and language of the movement may remain familiar, even as the underlying logic is co-opted. This is particularly common when dominant institutions reframe insurgent energy in ways that preserve systemic status quo while appearing to respond to calls for change (Zizek, 2011).

These risks do not invalidate Power Through. They make clear that its ethical and political significance cannot be separated from the integrity of the architecture that precedes it. If the Power With structures are strong, transparent, and reflexive, the surge of Power Through can lead to genuine reconfiguration. If those structures are brittle or incoherent, the surge may collapse or be diverted.

When Harmony Holds the Charge, and When It Breaks Open

There are moments when harmony, understood here not as homogeneity but as attuned diversity, can contain enormous potential. In such moments, the field of coordination is saturated with latent energy. Participants feel deeply connected, the directionality of the system is clear, and the social body becomes aware of itself as a coherent force. This harmony is not inert. It holds a charge, much like a battery holds a potential difference before release.

Power Through emerges when this charge finds a conductive path. Sometimes the trigger is external, such as a political rupture, a cultural flashpoint, or a material crisis. Other times, the trigger is internal: a symbolic shift, a reframing of strategy, a ritual, or a shared recognition of readiness. Regardless of the source, the surge is not a break from the harmony. It is an explosion out of it.

But not every charge breaks open constructively. When harmony is superficial or enforced, the surge can fracture rather than expand the system. In such cases, the ignition becomes a rupture rather than a transformation. What is required, then, is not the elimination of rupture, but the cultivation of relational architectures that can withstand ignition without disintegration.

This balance is delicate. Holding too tightly to harmony can suppress the necessary tensions that lead to ignition. Releasing too quickly can fracture the very coherence that made ignition meaningful. It is in this tension that Power Through proves both potent and precarious. It is not a resource to be managed or a tactic to be deployed, but a structural capacity that emerges only when the right relational and systemic conditions align.

The Affective and Memetic Charge

The emergence of Power Through cannot be understood solely through structural analysis or rational coordination models. Its ignition is not a purely cognitive event. It arises within fields charged with emotion, narrative, and symbolic coherence. These elements do not simply decorate the action; they constitute its underlying momentum. Power Through depends on an affective and memetic infrastructure that prepares the conditions for a collective surge. This infrastructure, often invisible in technocratic analyses of power, includes grief, rage, awe, and belonging. It also includes the fidelity of the signals that circulate within the system and the story-patterns that grant those signals symbolic coherence.

Emotional Catalysts and Affective Fields

Emotions are not merely internal experiences. They are social signals, physiological activations, and shared currents of meaning that pass between bodies and groups. In systems where Power Through arises, certain emotions operate not as interruptions to rational strategy but as catalysts of transformation. Grief, for example, marks the recognition that something has been lost or violated. It calls attention to rupture. It draws participants together in shared mourning, often surfacing historical wounds that transcend the immediate context (Ahmed, 2004). When held collectively, grief can bind participants in a sense of sacred urgency, turning remembrance into momentum.

Rage, unlike grief, does not rest in mourning. It carries the heat of refusal. It insists that what is intolerable must not continue. In many instances, rage precedes Power Through by rupturing the emotional logic of resignation. It exposes the boundaries of civility that have normalized injustice and compels action from a place beyond politeness or procedural patience (Lorde, 1984). But rage, on its own, does not always lead to transformation. It can collapse into nihilism if not met with forms of containment and redirection. When rage is met with a field of shared purpose and coordinated possibility, it becomes a furnace rather than a firestorm.

Awe and belonging, in turn, serve as stabilizing forces. Awe functions to expand perceptual horizons. It reminds individuals that they are part of something vaster than themselves. This expansion is not always pleasant. Awe may involve a dissolution of self, a recognition of contingency, and an encounter with limitlessness (Keltner & Haidt, 2003). Yet within collective contexts, awe becomes a unifying force. It grants participants a shared orientation toward the sublime, the sacred, or the overwhelming, often in response to the perceived scale of either threat or possibility. Belonging, meanwhile, anchors the participant. It assures them that their presence matters, that they are known within the collective fabric, and that their contribution is not disposable. Belonging is what allows individuals to endure the volatility of Power Through without disassociating or collapsing.

These emotional energies interact with one another in complex ways. They do not operate in isolation. Rather, they coalesce into what we might call affective fields, dynamic emotional ecologies that shape the readiness of a group to move through threshold moments. These fields are not random. They are cultivated through ritual, storytelling, shared struggle, and attentiveness to interpersonal dynamics. Without this cultivation, the emotional charge required for Power Through dissipates or explodes without form.

Signal Fidelity and Emotional Entrainment

The affective field does not self-sustain. It relies on the fidelity of the signals that circulate through the coordination system. Signal fidelity refers to the degree to which communication retains its integrity as it travels across nodes in a network. In environments of low trust or high distortion, messages become fragmented, misinterpreted, or hijacked. As signal fidelity degrades, the emotional charge of the group either scatters or becomes unstable. Conversely, when fidelity is high, emotional information moves clearly and cleanly. The field stays coherent. Individuals can attune to one another without becoming overwhelmed or confused.

This attunement is what allows for emotional entrainment, the process by which individuals synchronize their emotional rhythms with those around them. Entrainment is not mimicry. It is a form of mutual calibration. Heart rates shift. Voice tones modulate. The group begins to move as a single system of feeling, not by force or manipulation, but through continuous feedback. In moments of entrainment, a kind of collective nervous system comes online. This nervous system can feel what is happening in the space, not only in content but in tempo and intensity. It becomes capable of sensing when the charge is nearing ignition.

Such sensitivity is necessary because the movement toward Power Through often requires precise timing. If the surge is triggered prematurely, before the field has stabilized, it may result in incoherence. If the moment is missed, the charge may dissipate and leave participants in a state of emotional exhaustion. High-fidelity signaling, coupled with emotional entrainment, provides the internal intelligence needed to navigate this uncertainty. It also makes possible a kind of nonverbal decision-making, where the group shifts together before any formal instruction has been given.

Story-Patterns and the Memetic Substrate

Emotions do not move in isolation. They move through memetic structures, patterns of meaning that circulate between minds, media, and moments. Memes, in this broader sense, are not just images or jokes. They are units of cultural transmission, encapsulating affect, narrative, and instruction in highly portable forms (Dawkins, 1976; Blackmore, 1999). Power Through requires a memetic substrate capable of carrying emotional charge without collapsing under it.

Story-patterns, in particular, play a central role. These are not just individual stories, but archetypal logics that shape how events are interpreted and sequenced. One story-pattern might frame the group as a rising force, confronting impossible odds with courage. Another might depict the coordination as a sacred return, a reconnection to ancient wisdom long suppressed. Still another might position the collective as a living organism, becoming conscious of itself for the first time. These patterns do not need to be fully articulated to function. Their power lies in their resonance, their ability to structure perception and motivate behavior.

Memes that carry Power Through are often emotionally charged but symbolically open. They allow for multiple layers of interpretation while maintaining enough coherence to unify action. Their strength lies not in precision, but in generativity. They must be both specific enough to be felt and abstract enough to be carried across diverse contexts. This dual nature allows Power Through to propagate through a system without being diluted or fragmented.

Importantly, not all memes are generative. Some are parasitic, hijacking the emotional field to reproduce patterns of domination or distraction. The memes that support Power Through must be cultivated with care, not only for their strategic impact but for their internalization fitness, their ability to enter the hearts and minds of participants without diminishing their agency or clarity.

Disruptions, Dangers, and Co-option

Although Power Through can catalyze profound transformation, it is not inherently benevolent. Its force, like a current running through collective bodies, can be seized, redirected, or spent in ways that undermine its emancipatory potential. Because it functions at the level of affective intensity, symbolic cohesion, and relational synchrony, it is especially vulnerable to distortion by those who seek to exploit its potency without committing to its ethics. The surge of Power Through, once triggered, cannot easily distinguish between a liberatory horizon and a manipulative design. Therefore, understanding its disruptions, dangers, and susceptibility to co-option is not merely a defensive maneuver; it is a vital condition of collective integrity.

Fascist Through: The Weaponization of Clarity

One of the most dangerous forms of Power Through occurs when the emotional and memetic conditions are seized by authoritarian movements. What emerges in these contexts is not simply a distortion of Power Through, but a strategically crafted simulation of it. Fascist movements, both historical and contemporary, excel at producing affective fields charged with rage, belonging, and mythic narrative (Eco, 1995; Stanley, 2018). They manufacture clarity, often dangerous clarity, in a world where complexity and nuance have become overwhelming. By collapsing pluralism into purity and ambiguity into threat, Fascist Through offers its participants a sense of coherence that feels revelatory.

The coherence, however, is counterfeit. It is manufactured through scapegoating, conspiracy, and repetition, rather than relational attunement or shared volitional clarity. This counterfeit clarity allows emotional entrainment to occur around hate, fear, and exclusion, rather than mutual recognition or care. What makes Fascist Through particularly effective is its ability to mimic the ecstatic dimensions of authentic Power Through while replacing its foundation with domination, spectacle, and mythic violence. In these contexts, people do not simply follow an ideology; they become absorbed into a totalizing worldview that dissolves internal dissent and elevates submission to the collective will as virtue.

This form of Through thrives not in the absence of coordination, but in its inversion. It reprograms coordination patterns to suppress complexity, not metabolize it. It exalts action, not discernment. The result is not empowerment, but a mobilized subjugation that operates under the illusion of awakening. Recognizing Fascist Through requires attentiveness not only to what is being coordinated, but to how it is being made emotionally legible and symbolically irresistible.

Corporate Capture: Bottling the Flow

Another form of disruption emerges when institutions, particularly corporate entities, attempt to harness Power Through for profit or control. This is not always done through explicit coercion. More often, it is achieved by bottling the flow, that is, by capturing the affective surge and repackaging it within frameworks that render it safe, legible, and commodifiable. In these instances, the surge is allowed to happen, but only within containers that benefit the institution.

Consider how brands co-opt the language, imagery, and emotional cadence of social movements. A corporation may align itself with liberation narratives, not because it seeks transformation, but because doing so increases its market appeal. In this process, the memetic and affective materials of Power Through are filtered, sanitized, and reframed to avoid threatening the status quo. What remains is a hollow version of the original event, drained of its transgressive force but still dressed in its aesthetic.

This capture is not always visible to those within the field, especially when the alignment appears sincere or when material resources are involved. The seduction lies in the offer of scale, more visibility, more funding, more distribution. But scale, when administered through extractive systems, dilutes integrity. The more the movement is shaped to fit institutional optics, the less it can access the raw and destabilizing emotional charge that Power Through requires. What appears as growth may, in fact, be containment.

The bottling of the flow also introduces a logic of scarcity. Instead of allowing Power Through to remain unpredictable and decentralized, institutions present themselves as necessary conduits. They begin to act as emotional and symbolic gatekeepers, controlling access to legitimacy, amplification, or resources. In doing so, they reintroduce hierarchies into what began as a distributed and generative field.

Aftermath: Burnout, Dissociation, and Unmet Integration

Even when Power Through avoids capture or distortion, it can still result in significant harm if its intensity is not metabolized. The surge is not sustainable by design. It arises in response to threshold conditions and carries a voltage that can overwhelm the nervous system, especially when individuals are not supported in its aftermath. Without integration, participants often experience burnout, a condition of exhaustion marked by emotional depletion, disillusionment, and somatic dysregulation (Maslach & Leiter, 2016).

This is not simply a matter of too much work. It is the result of internal systems being pushed beyond their capacity to regulate. The collective field, once coherent and vibrant, collapses into fragmentation. The emotional resonance that once bound the group becomes difficult to access. Individuals may withdraw, not out of disinterest, but as a survival response. The experience of dissociation is especially common, as people struggle to reconcile the intensity of what occurred with the relative banality or injustice of what follows.

If no space is created for narrative integration, many participants are left with a sense of rupture rather than transformation. They remember the moment of Power Through as luminous, even sacred, but increasingly distant. This dissonance can result in a cycle of re-seeking the surge rather than engaging in the slower, more durable work of collective infrastructure. In the worst cases, the failure to integrate leads to cynicism or collapse. People conclude that nothing lasts, that coordination always dissolves, and that peak experiences are illusions rather than inflection points.

Preventing this outcome requires intentional ritual, storytelling, and somatic resourcing. It demands that communities not only prepare for the surge but also prepare to return. This return is not a regression. It is a necessary descent, a re-grounding. If Power Through is to become more than a temporary spark, it must be woven back into the fabric of collective life. It must leave behind not only memory, but capacity.

Designing for Ethical Amplification

To design for ethical amplification is to attend not only to the question of what spreads, but how and under what conditions amplification preserves the integrity of a collective field. Power Through, as previously argued, is not an instrument of will. It is a field effect, a surge that arises when distributed threads enter resonant alignment and latent potential is made kinetic. If such surges are to contribute to long-term transformation rather than fragmentation or co-option, their design must rest on a field-sensitive ethical architecture. This requires cultivating readiness without control, enabling emergence without foreclosure, and grounding volatility within internal and collective coherence.

Increasing Field Readiness Without Coercion

Readiness is not the same as preparedness. It cannot be imposed through directive planning or an optimized protocol. Rather, it must be cultivated as a relational disposition, a state in which participants possess not only the capacity to act but the orientation to recognize when and how to respond collectively. Within the ethical framework outlined in Ethics as Ontogenetic Fields, this readiness corresponds to an attunement that emerges from the internalization of ethical memeforms and the embodiment of relational sensitivity (Bourdieu, 1977; Tronto, 1993).

Field readiness depends on the saturation of certain affordances within threads of coordination. When threads are ethically saturated, through iterative exposure to memeforms like “care is action,” “power is relational,” or “no one is disposable”, they begin to shape participants’ habitual orientations. These orientations operate beneath explicit cognition. They incline perception toward noticing conditions of injustice, resonance, or rupture. Ethical memeforms thus act as perceptual attractors, creating dispositions of attentiveness that are neither passive nor prescriptive.

Importantly, readiness cannot be produced by coercion. Attempts to enforce synchrony through manipulation or urgency override the ontogenetic process through which agency is formed. Coordination under pressure can produce surface-level participation, but it often undermines the long-term cultivation of ethical orientation. Amplification that emerges from fear or obligation lacks the volitional clarity required for Power Through to maintain coherence once initiated. True field readiness depends on an ecology of trust, not on the efficiency of command.

Avoiding Premature Closure: Knots in the Weave

Ethical amplification must also resist the temptation of premature closure. Closure, in this context, refers to the solidification of coordination into fixed patterns before the field has fully expressed its potential. Such closures often emerge from a desire for certainty or control. Yet within my Coordination: the Fabric of Power (CfP) framework, this desire produces knots, hardened patterns of relation that block further emergence, reinforcing dominant structures under the guise of stability.

These knots are not always visible as authoritarian impositions. They often take the form of narrative ossification, in which a single frame or slogan becomes overdetermined. What began as a generative memeform becomes a boundary that restricts interpretation. For example, when a protest chant becomes institutional doctrine, or when a shared grief becomes a moral demand for conformity, the weave of coordination begins to lose its elasticity. In such moments, the potential of Power Through to reprogram relational logics is replaced by the consolidation of moral authority in fixed signs.

To avoid these knots, ethical amplification must prioritize structural flexibility over coherence-as-consensus. This means designing systems that support divergence, dissent, and reflexivity. Feedback loops must be maintained not simply to affirm resonance, but to register dissonance as information rather than a threat. Symbols and slogans must remain porous enough to invite reinterpretation, not closed enough to enforce uniformity. Metaphorically, the weave must remain unfinished, with enough slack to accommodate transformation.

Design, then, is not about fixing the pattern. It is about tending the conditions that allow the pattern to shift, adapt, and evolve without collapsing under the weight of its own coherence.

Anchoring in Power Within and Power With

If Power Through is the surge, then its ethical amplification depends on anchoring the field in Power Within and Power With. These anchoring dynamics provide the coherence, resilience, and reflexivity necessary to metabolize the intensity of emergent transformation.

Power Within refers to the internal architecture of volition, what the ontogenetic ethics essay calls the habitus of moral orientation. It is through this internalization architecture that ethical memeforms become perceptual dispositions. A participant anchored in Power Within does not merely follow rules. They act from a lived sense of what matters, formed through emotional resonance, social modeling, and embodied memory. This kind of inner anchoring enables clarity without rigidity. It supports discernment under pressure and allows individuals to participate in the surge of Power Through without losing their capacity for reflexive self-awareness (Gilligan, 1982; Levinas, 1969).

Power With, by contrast, is the relational infrastructure that sustains collective coherence. It is built through trust, mutual recognition, and shared risk. Coordination anchored in Power With supports ethical amplification by ensuring that no single thread dominates the pattern. Instead, the pattern emerges from distributed attention, where each participant is both witnessing and witnessed, influencing and influenced. This reciprocity stabilizes the field during amplification, allowing signals to circulate without distortion and enabling adaptive responses when conditions shift.

Without these anchorings, Power Through becomes either explosive or manipulable. Lacking Power Within, individuals are swept into collective motion without the grounding necessary to maintain integrity. Lacking Power With, coordination becomes vulnerable to capture, fragmentation, or coercive reorientation. Ethical amplification, therefore, is not a spontaneous byproduct of intensity. It is a composed condition, requiring careful design of internal and external architectures that support both transformation and restoration.

Designing for ethical amplification means shaping the ontogenetic field in ways that make just transformation possible. It requires slow work, relational fidelity, and a resistance to premature resolution. It asks us to hold open the field long enough for something genuinely new to emerge, not only in structure, but in sense, in care, and in shared meaning.

Conclusion: Participating in the Pulse

Power Through cannot be mastered. It cannot be owned, wielded, or guaranteed. Attempts to dominate it betray its nature and misread its origin. Power Through is not a resource in reserve, nor a strategy to be deployed on command. It is a collective condition that arises when resonance saturates a field, when readiness ripens without coercion, and when participants allow themselves to be shaped by something larger than individual intention.

To participate in Power Through is to enter a relationship, not to impose an agenda. This relationship is not symmetrical, and it is rarely safe. The field is volatile. The surge can disorient, uplift, fragment, or recompose a coordination system in unpredictable ways. Participation, in this sense, is neither passive nor directive. It is an attunement to the pulse of the field, a willingness to inhabit the threshold between stability and transformation. It is not enough to stand near the current. One must become momentarily permeable to it.

This permeability is an ethical and political orientation. It requires the participant to let go of control without relinquishing responsibility. It requires the kind of deep listening that can sense not only what is being said, but what is trying to be born. Such listening is not reducible to language. It involves gesture, pace, tension, stillness, and the emotional charge of what remains unspoken. To participate in the pulse is to perceive not just what is present, but what is possible.

In this mode, building resonance fields becomes a form of care. Not care in the narrow sense of nurturance or repair, but care as infrastructural attention to the conditions of emergence. Resonance fields do not form spontaneously. They require cultivation. Trust must be built. Signals must be refined. Meaning must be allowed to circulate without premature fixation. This cultivation is not mechanical. It is affective and symbolic. It is the slow work of learning how to be with others in ways that amplify mutual sensitivity rather than mute it.

Care, in this context, is not sentimental. It is structural. It recognizes that the most powerful surges do not arise from force, but from relational density and perceptual alignment. When we care for the field, we are caring for the very possibility of Power Through. We are maintaining the openness through which transformation might arrive. And when it does arrive, we are more likely to meet it with integrity rather than panic, with clarity rather than confusion.

Perhaps most critically, participating in Power Through demands that we let go of outcome. Not in the sense of apathy or detachment, but in the sense of releasing the fantasy that we can determine in advance what emergence will bring. The outcomes of Power Through are rarely linear. They do not conform to our plans, however strategic. They follow the contours of a field in motion, shaped by layers of memory, resonance, saturation, and refusal. To hold too tightly to a desired result is to constrict the field, to predefine what ought to unfold before it has even had the chance to take shape.

Letting go is not a failure of commitment. It is the condition for metamorphosis. In biology, metamorphosis is not a linear progression but a liquefaction of form. The caterpillar dissolves into imaginal tissue before reorganizing into a new organism. So too, social systems that undergo Power Through must dissolve something of themselves in order to recompose. If the form is clung to too tightly, the transformation cannot be completed. We end up with hybrids, half-changed structures that cannot survive the new conditions they themselves helped generate.

To live within this cycle, to seed resonance, cultivate field conditions, participate in surge, and then release into the unknown, is to take part in a deeper rhythm than most institutional or organizational models permit. It is to coordinate with the future, not as a prediction, but as an invitation. It is to accept that the most meaningful shifts often arrive unannounced, pass through us briefly, and leave behind a changed landscape we could never have designed.

Participation in Power Through, then, is not a strategy. It is a stance. It is a commitment to live ethically within systems that are always changing, to hold open the space for transformation even when the path is unclear, and to trust that when the field pulses, and we are ready, something more just, more alive, more collective might emerge.

References

Ahmed, S. (2004). The cultural politics of emotion. Routledge.

Barrett, L. F. (2017). How emotions are made: The secret life of the brain. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Blackmore, S. (1999). The meme machine. Oxford University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge University Press.

Boyd, B. (2018). On the origin of stories: Evolution, cognition, and fiction. Harvard University Press.

Davis, A. Y. (2005). Abolition democracy: Beyond empire, prisons, and torture. Seven Stories Press.

Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford University Press.

Eco, U. (1995). Ur-Fascism. The New York Review of Books.

Frye, J. (2020). Mutual aid and the limits of solidarity: Reflections on collective resilience. Radical Futures Press.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development. Harvard University Press.

Granovetter, M. (1978). Threshold models of collective behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 83(6), 1420–1443.

Juris, J. S. (2008). Networking futures: The movements against corporate globalization. Duke University Press.

Kauffman, S. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. Oxford University Press.

Kelso, J. A. S. (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. MIT Press.

Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (2003). Approaching awe, a moral, spiritual, and aesthetic emotion. Cognition and Emotion, 17(2), 297–314.

Kinneavy, J. L. (1986). Kairos: A neglected concept in classical rhetoric. In Rhetoric and praxis: The contribution of classical rhetoric to practical reasoning (pp. 79–105).

Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity: An essay on exteriority. Duquesne University Press.

Lorde, A. (1984). Sister outsider: Essays and speeches. Crossing Press.

Maslach, C., & Leiter, M. P. (2016). Understanding the burnout experience: Recent research and its implications for psychiatry. World Psychiatry, 15(2), 103–111.

Miller, M. B., & Bassler, B. L. (2001). Quorum sensing in bacteria. Annual Review of Microbiology, 55(1), 165–199.

Scheffer, M., Bascompte, J., Brock, W. A., Brovkin, V., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., Held, H., Van Nes, E. H., Rietkerk, M., & Sugihara, G. (2009). Early-warning signals for critical transitions. Nature, 461(7260), 53–59.

Simone, A. (2004). For the city yet to come: Changing African life in four cities. Duke University Press.

Simpson, L. B. (2017). As we have always done: Indigenous freedom through radical resistance. University of Minnesota Press.

Snow, D. A., Rochford, E. B., Worden, S. K., & Benford, R. D. (1986). Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review, 51(4), 464–481.

Snowden, D. (2002). Complex acts of knowing: Paradox and descriptive self-awareness. Journal of Knowledge Management, 6(2), 100–111.

Stanley, J. (2018). How fascism works: The politics of us and them. Random House.

Tronto, J. C. (1993). Moral boundaries: A political argument for an ethics of care. Routledge.

Tufekci, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press.

Žižek, S. (2011). Living in the end times. Verso Books.