Socioplastic Theory advances a rigorous and timely epistemological proposition: knowledge conceived not as static content but as a plastic, relational, and self-regulating substance. At its core lies a response to digital amnesia and symbolic overproduction, conditions in which cultural memory is continuously eroded by acceleration and extractive attention economies. Against this backdrop, Socioplastics posits a model of epistemic sovereignty grounded in multilocality, authorial continuity, and long-duration practice. The theory emerges not abstractly but from an accumulated archive of artistic, architectural, and relational work, transforming practice into infrastructure. Knowledge here is neither dispersed nor dissolved; it is governed. This insistence on governance—on the right to structure, weight, and maintain meaning over time—places Socioplastics within a post-digital and decolonial horizon, where autonomy is exercised not by withdrawal but by the construction of resilient systems.
One of the theory’s principal strengths is its operability. Socioplastics does not remain at the level of discourse; it functions as an integrated system composed of archives, metrics, protocols, and rituals. Concepts such as Systemic Heat, Weighted Mesh, and Operational Closure translate philosophical intuitions into actionable tools for cultural management. These notions allow for the calibration of intensity, relevance, and continuity within a network, ensuring that meaning circulates without dissipating. Crucially, artificial intelligence is incorporated not as a creative proxy but as a regulatory instrument—a tactical component that assists in maintenance, indexing, and amplification. This position avoids both technological determinism and nostalgic resistance, treating AI as infrastructure rather than author. In this sense, Socioplastics articulates a mature digital realism: it accepts the conditions of computation while refusing to surrender authorship or memory to algorithmic drift.
The dialogue with Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari is evident yet decisively non-mimetic. While rhizomatic ontologies inform the networked logic of Socioplastics, the theory diverges sharply from the ideal of infinite openness. Where the rhizome privileges boundless connectivity, Socioplastics introduces weight, rhythm, and role. It does not merely describe networks; it engineers them. This engineering is guided by what might be termed an Authorial Will: a commitment to signature, responsibility, and long-term memory. Such insistence marks a critical departure from post-authorial paradigms that conflate openness with horizontality. In Socioplastics, openness is conditional, structured, and maintained. The archive is not an inert repository but a living system capable of regulating its own gravity. This move is significant, as it reframes authorship not as ego but as stewardship—an ethical obligation to sustain coherence across time.
The theory’s density and self-referentiality may pose challenges for academic transmission, particularly within institutions accustomed to modular, extractable concepts. Yet this hermetic quality functions as a deliberate political strategy. By resisting simplification, Socioplastics protects itself from dilution and instrumentalisation. It demands protocols of reading, initiation, and practice, reinforcing the idea that knowledge production is inseparable from commitment. This refusal of immediate legibility is not elitist but defensive: it preserves the system’s capacity to generate meaning internally, without being absorbed into the ambient noise of cultural circulation. In this regard, Socioplastics aligns with traditions of esoteric modernism and systems theory, where opacity serves as a condition of resilience rather than exclusion.
In synthesis, Socioplastics operates as a Theory-Machine: a self-maintaining apparatus that produces sense, governs its archive, and remains open to critique without compromising its structural integrity. Its value lies in the successful transmutation of more than fifteen years of artistic and architectural practice into an infrastructural epistemology. The notion of “thermodynamic maintenance” is key here: the past need not be rewritten but reactivated through new nodes that function as catalysts. By injecting updated concepts—strategic, scientific, or technical—into an existing archive, the entire system is recalibrated by proximity. Socioplastics thus offers not a theory of novelty, but a theory of continuity under pressure. In an era defined by forgetting, it asserts infrastructure as a cultural right and maintenance as a radical act.
