::::::::: SOCIOPLASTICS : Tactical Refusal * Socioplastics and Epistemic Sovereignty

Monday, February 2, 2026

Tactical Refusal * Socioplastics and Epistemic Sovereignty

The deliberate absence of external academic citation in the analysis of Socioplastics must be understood not as a gesture of omission but as a strategic refusal embedded in the project’s epistemic architecture. Within dominant scholarly economies, citation operates as a technology of validation: it situates an object within an already-legitimated discursive field and borrows authority from canonical figures to stabilise meaning. To invoke thinkers such as Nicolas Bourriaud or Bruno Latour would immediately frame Socioplastics as responsive rather than constitutive, as an object to be explained rather than a system that explains itself. The text makes clear that this manoeuvre would contradict the project’s internal logic. Socioplastics is not seeking recognition through resemblance; it is asserting operational legitimacy through coherence, density, and execution. The refusal of citation therefore functions as a tactical act of epistemic sovereignty. It blocks the automatic subordination of the system to external regimes of intelligibility and preserves its capacity to operate as a self-authorising structure. In this sense, the analysis aligns itself with the project’s core wager: that theory no longer precedes practice, but is generated immanently through infrastructural behaviour. Knowledge is not imported; it is produced through use, recursion, and internal activation.

The Socioplastic Mesh as State of Exception
At the centre of Socioplastics lies the construction of what can be described as an epistemic state of exception. Authored by Anto Lloveras, the project does not reject relational or network-based thinking; it absorbs, compresses, and operationalises them beyond their original theoretical formulations. Where relational aesthetics articulated sociality as an aesthetic horizon, Socioplastics renders relation as a topological condition. Where actor-network theory mapped associations conceptually, the Malla executes them materially, as infrastructure rather than discourse. In this context, external citation would reintroduce a jurisdiction that the system has already suspended. To cite Bourriaud would be redundant, as the relational logic has been internalised and surpassed. To cite Latour would be regressive, as the network is no longer a metaphor or analytic model but a functioning environment. The project declares the primacy of topology over biography, displacing authorial narrative and historical lineage in favour of operative density. Meaning emerges not through reference but through circulation. The system therefore positions itself beyond critique-as-comparison and demands critique-as-navigation. Its exceptionality lies precisely in this move: it creates a space where inherited theoretical tools are rendered unnecessary not by negation, but by exhaustion.

Analyst as Navigator, Not Translator
Within this framework, the role of the analyst undergoes a decisive transformation. The task is not to translate Socioplastics into the language of established academic theory, nor to mediate its acceptance within institutional discourse. Translation presupposes equivalence and external standards of intelligibility; navigation presupposes immersion in a terrain governed by its own rules. The text explicitly adopts the latter position. The analyst enters the system through its frugal interface, traverses its links, accepts its recursive temporality, and works with its internally generated lexicon—terms such as “hiperdenso,” “autopoiético,” “consola,” or “válvula” function as operational descriptors rather than stylistic flourishes. Citation, accordingly, is redirected inward. The primary sources are the archive itself, the system’s internal documents, and the conceptual formulations produced by Lloveras. This methodological closeness is not a lapse in critical distance but a form of immanent rigor. It mirrors the project’s own epistemic logic: meaning is produced through internal activation, not external legitimation. The analyst becomes a cartographer of processes rather than an arbiter of value, mapping flows, thresholds, and feedback loops without appealing to transcendent frameworks. Critique, here, is an internal operation of the mesh.

Thinking from the Mesh, Not About It
The most radical implication of this approach is the insistence on thinking from the Malla rather than about it. Socioplastics is not positioned as an object awaiting theoretical illumination; it is an environment that reorganises the conditions under which thought itself occurs. External citation would reinstall a hierarchical epistemology in which theory precedes and judges practice. The project instead proposes simultaneity: thinking, making, and operating collapse into a single plane. The analyst’s refusal to cite canonical figures is therefore structurally necessary. It preserves the integrity of a system designed to render certain frameworks obsolete by exceeding them. What emerges is not an anti-academic stance, but a post-academic one: a mode of inquiry attuned to systems that generate their own criteria of validity. Socioplastics demands to be engaged as infrastructure, not interpreted as representation. Its sovereignty is not isolationist but operational, inviting traversal while denying arbitration. To analyse it responsibly is to accept a suspension of inherited reflexes and to risk an encounter with an epistemology that legitimises itself through function. The essay thus models a critical practice adequate to disruptive systems—one that recognises when citation clarifies, and when it merely reinscribes the authority of a system already surpassed.

272-MESH-SOCIOPLASTICS-SIMULTANEITY-COMMAND-PROTOCOL https://antolloveras.blogspot.com/2026/02/simultaneity-command.html