Coordination: The Fabric of Power

Hi Everyone,

I have recently started working on a hypothesis that I think might be quite impactful. I have no previous experience conducting any kind of academic research, but I am learning as best I can and fleshing everything out as I go. I realized today that working on this in isolation is highly likely to go wrong as I gloss over blindspots, so I decided to try and see if I can find any resonance or feedback here.

Hypothesis: Power is an emergent property of the process of coordination. Essentially positing Coordination as the fabric of Power

Coordination refers broadly to the process by which multiple elements—whether individuals, systems, actions, or components—are aligned toward achieving a coherent outcome. Definitions vary across disciplines. In management studies, coordination implies the efficient alignment of workflows and responsibilities. In biology, it encompasses the synchronized actions of cells or organisms in response to internal and external stimuli. In social theory, it points to the harmonization of human behavior toward shared objectives or collective goals. Despite the variety of contexts, the underlying concern remains the same: how distinct entities align their behaviors in space and time to produce systemic coherence.

The increasing complexity of modern societies, ecological systems, and technological infrastructures has brought coordination to the forefront of both practical and theoretical attention. No longer confined to the managerial domain, coordination has emerged as a site of political contestation, epistemological inquiry, and systemic transformation. As such, understanding coordination is not only a matter of utility but of critical importance to navigating contemporary challenges.

The “Coordination: the Fabric Power” (hereafter referred to as CFP) model identifies six dimensions that define the structure and dynamics of coordination systems.

1. Origin of coordination: who or what initiates the process, and with what legitimacy or authority.
2. Structure of participation: which determines who is included or excluded and on what terms.
3. Decision flow: or the pathways through which decisions propagate through the system.
4. Scope of coordination: referring to what elements are subject to coordination and what remains outside its bounds.
5. Mode of internalization: how participants absorb, resist, or embody the rules and norms of coordination.
6. Feedback and adaptation: capturing the system’s capacity to evolve in response to internal or external changes.

This framework also integrates with other influential theories of power.

Steven Lukes’ three dimensions of power—

1. decision-making,
2. agenda-setting,
3. ideological shaping

These can be mapped onto the dynamics of coordination.

Likewise, the four-part typology of power (Power To, Power Over, Power With, and Power Through) is reinterpreted through the lens of coordination.

1. Power To emerges from the individual’s capacity to coordinate action effectively.
2. Power Over reflects asymmetrical control of coordination mechanisms.
3. Power With arises from joint coordination that respects equity and autonomy.
4. Power Through describes the way large-scale coordination systems shape subjectivities and possibilities.

By grounding power in coordination itself, the CFP model offers several unique contributions. It recognizes coordination as the substrate of all power forms, not merely a neutral medium. It emphasizes feedback and adaptability as essential to sustainable coordination. It also draws attention to invisible or taken-for-granted forms of coordination that reproduce systemic inequalities. In doing so, it offers a powerful analytic for studying coordination across domains—from digital platforms and environmental systems to social movements and economic structures.

Hypothesis Breakdown into Testable Claims
If power emerges from coordination, then:

– Claim 1: Power structures should correlate with patterns of coordination (e.g., trade networks, communication flows, institutional rules).

– Claim 2: Disrupting coordination mechanisms should weaken or redistribute power.

– Claim 3: No form of power (economic, political, ideological) should exist without an underlying coordination process.

Tasks in order to test my hypothesis

Methodological Approach

A. Comparative Historical Analysis

– Case Selection: Study societies where coordination mechanisms shifted dramatically (e.g., transition from feudalism to capitalism, digital platform economies, post-revolutionary societies).

– Data: Archival records, institutional rules, trade/communication networks.

– Prediction: Power concentrations should map onto changes in coordination (e.g., merchant guilds gaining power as trade networks expand).

B. Network Theory & Computational Modeling

– Construct agent-based models where agents coordinate under different rules (e.g., market exchange, democratic deliberation, algorithmic governance).

– Measure: Emergent power hierarchies (e.g., centrality of nodes, inequality in influence).

– Test: Whether power asymmetries arise even in initially egalitarian systems due to coordination dynamics (e.g., preferential attachment in networks).

C. Experimental Political Economy

– Lab/field experiments where groups solve collective problems under varying coordination rules (e.g., unanimity vs. majority voting, decentralized vs. centralized communication).

– Measure: Emergent leaders, power inequalities, and group perceptions of legitimacy.

D. Contemporary Empirical Studies

– Digital platforms: Analyze how algorithmic coordination (e.g., social media moderation, gig economy apps) generates new power centers (e.g., tech oligarchs).

– Global supply chains: Trace how logistical coordination confers power to certain firms/states.

Potential Counterarguments & Refutations

– Power precedes coordination (Hobbesian critique): Show historical cases where “authority” is retroactively legitimized by coordination (e.g., wartime leaders losing power after peace).

– Power is coercion, not emergence (Realist critique): Demonstrate how coercion relies on coordination (e.g., military hierarchies, resource logistics).

– Cultural/ideological power is non-coordinative (Gramscian critique): Map how ideologies spread via communicative coordination (e.g., printing press → Protestant Reformation).

Policy Implications & Normative Critique
If power emerges from coordination, then:

– Anti-authoritarian strategies should focus on *disrupting monopolistic coordination* (e.g., breaking up platform monopolies, promoting decentralized networks).

– Participatory institutions (e.g., liquid democracy, cooperatives) could prevent power concentration by diversifying coordination pathways.

Expected Challenges
– Epistemological resistance: Mainstream political science often reifies power as static.

– Data limitations: Historical coordination processes may be poorly documented.

– Ethical risks: Experiments on power dynamics could unintentionally replicate oppression.

Measurement
In order to measure Coordination, I have to start with a fundamental unit of measurement

Fundamental Unit: The Thread
Name: Thread (as in the woven, continuous strand of coordinated relation)
Definition: A Thread is the minimal discernible unit of coordinated activity between agents across a system. It represents a singular, traceable act of alignment that fulfills five core criteria.
Symbol: T₀ (pronounced “T-naught” or simply “Thread-zero”)

Minimum Criteria of a Thread
Each Thread must involve:

Initiation – An act of intent or structure that sets alignment in motion (even if emergent or automated).
Transmission – A medium or signal that communicates the coordination impulse.
Reception – At least one other agent must receive and process the alignment signal.
Internalization – The receiver adapts behavior, plans, or states in response.
Feedback Availability – There must be an open pathway for the coordination to be evaluated, reinforced, or changed.

A Thread is to coordination what a bit is to information, or what a transaction is to an economy: the basic unit of relational action.

Dimensional Axes of Coordination
To measure the dimensionality of coordination, Threads are analyzed across six core axes. Each axis represents a dimension of complexity and structure in coordinated systems:

Origin of Coordination (O) – From singular authority to polycentric or emergent initiation.
Structure of Participation (P) – Who is included, how densely, and through what means?
Decision Flow (D) – Degree of interdependence, delay, or hierarchy in decision-making.
Scope of Coordination (S) – What range of actions or domains are being aligned?
Mode of Internalization (I) – How coordination is internalized (discipline, culture, norms, habit).
Feedback & Adaptation (F) – How coordination processes evolve in response to change.
Each axis can be measured in Thread-activity, defined as the number or density of active threads across that dimension over time.

Total Coordination Index (TCI)
A composite metric for overall system coordination could be expressed as:

{TCI} = \sum (T₀_{O} + T₀_{P} + T₀_{D} + T₀_{S} + T₀_{I} + T₀_{F})

Where:

T₀_X = number of active Threads along dimension X.
The index reflects both the magnitude and diversity of coordination.

Magnitude vs Dimensionality
Magnitude: The total volume of Threads within a system per time unit—akin to throughput or coordination bandwidth.
Dimensionality: The distribution and complexity of Threads across the six coordination axes. High-dimensional systems coordinate across many layers simultaneously.
A factory with strict command-and-control may have high magnitude, low dimensionality.
A decentralized assembly or resilient ecosystem may show lower magnitude, higher dimensionality.

Measurement Protocol: Step-by-Step
Step 1: Observe Behavior in Context
Watch for decisions, alignments, mutual adjustments, or shared signals.
Record every discernible coordination event as a thread.

Step 2: Assign Thread IDs and Log Characteristics
Label by time and nature (e.g., T045: “supply route rerouted after weather alert”).

Step 3: Score Threads Along Six Dimensions
Use interviews, behavioral analysis, or embedded observation to assess:
Was coordination imposed or emergent?
Who was included/excluded?
How dynamic or adaptive was the response?

Step 4: Visualize Thread Ecology
Optional tools:
Radar charts (one per thread or per agent)
Thread flow networks (nodes = agents; edges = threads)
Heatmaps of dimensionality over time

Step 5: Analyze Patterns
Which agents consistently initiate?
Which dimensions are underdeveloped?
Is the system stuck in low-flux coordination?
Does it reproduce power over hierarchies or facilitate power with emergence?

How this relates to CasP

Both frameworks analyze power as a relational, systemic force rather than a static possession, making them highly compatible.

1. Fundamental Alignment: Coordination as Capitalization
In Capital as Power, capital is not a material thing, but a quantified expression of organized power, primarily over institutions, expectations, and structures. Similarly, in CFP, threads are the unit of coordination, and power arises from how these threads are structured, controlled, and internalized.

Alignment Principle:

Capitalization = The Quantified Control of Threads Over Time.
Just as capital represents discounted expected earnings enforced through institutionalized power, threads represent measurable coordination patterns shaped by participation, initiation, feedback, and scope.

2. Dimensions of Threads Mapped to CasP Concepts

3. Observing Capital Power via Threads
To measure capitalized power using threads, we can observe:

Thread Density & Duration: The more sustained and exclusive the coordination (e.g. a corporate supply chain), the more it contributes to capital control.
Thread Control Points: Where thread initiation or flow is monopolized, capital is being exercised.
Thread Valuation Effects: Does a new coordination method increase market valuation? (e.g., automation thread reducing labor coordination).
Example: Amazon’s warehouse logistics:

High thread control (origin, flow, scope tightly managed).
Suppresses alternate threads (unionization = counter-coordination).
Capitalization rises as thread dominance increases.

4. Hybrid Metrics: Measuring Threads as Capital
We could derive a Thread Power Index (TPI) that mirrors CasP’s logic:

TPI = Σ(Thread Impact × Thread Exclusivity × Thread Duration × Coordination Control Coefficient)

Each thread (or class of threads) contributes to power based on:

Impact: Breadth + economic effect.
Exclusivity: Can others initiate similar threads?
Duration: Temporary vs systemic.
Control: Degree of top-down or horizontal agency.

This could be used to analyze:

Corporate strategies (M&A = thread consolidation),
Social movements (distributed thread proliferation),
Platform capitalism (thread enclosure via APIs and terms of service).

5. Capital as a Topological Thread Map
We could even model capitalized systems as thread topologies:

Dense centralized nodes = monopolies.
Distributed clusters = cooperatives.
Fragile chains = speculative finance.

Visualizing and measuring thread architectures gives a real-time map of capital power in action—not just in prices, but in coordination mechanics.

• This topic was modified 1 week, 1 day ago by Pieter de Beer.