The Politics of Legibility: Recognition, Experience and the Unequal Distribution of Attention (Butler, Nussbaum, Rancière, Mbembe, Brandom, Floridi) · LAPIEZA LAB · Anto Lloveras · Socioplastics · 2026

Power does not merely prohibit, distribute resources or command bodies; it determines what can become perceptible, intelligible and consequential. Legibility is therefore not a neutral virtue of clear representation but a political threshold through which a life, statement, sensation or demand acquires the status of something that must be answered. Judith Butler locates this threshold in the norms that govern recognisable personhood: gender is not the outward expression of an interior truth but a reiterated social enactment whose intelligibility depends upon compulsory conventions, while precarity names the unequal exposure produced when some embodiments fail to satisfy those conventions. Recognition is never simply granted to an already constituted subject; it participates in producing the subject whose claims can subsequently appear. Jacques Rancière radicalises this problem by showing that politics begins in the distribution of the sensible—the historically organised partition of what can be seen, heard, said and counted. A political order is sustained not only by police, administration or law but by a prior aesthetic arrangement assigning bodies to places, competences and forms of speech. The political act interrupts that arrangement by making visible what had been present yet uncounted. Legibility is thus conflictual: every enlargement of the perceptible field destabilises the coordinates through which reality had seemed self-evident. Slavoj Žižek’s account of ideology clarifies why this partition rarely presents itself as domination. Ideology is not principally a screen concealing an otherwise transparent world; it is the generative matrix that regulates the relation between visible and invisible, imaginable and unimaginable. It organises the very horizon within which facts become coherent, alternatives plausible and contradictions tolerable. What an order cannot imagine is often more decisive than what it explicitly forbids. Robert Brandom relocates a related question inside discursive practice. A concept does not possess meaning as a private content attached to a word; it acquires content through the inferential commitments and entitlements that govern its use. To make a claim is to enter a social space of reasons in which consequences may be drawn, objections raised and responsibilities attributed. Legibility therefore requires more than appearance: it requires inferential addressability. A statement that circulates without accountable consequences remains informationally present yet normatively inert. Martha Nussbaum’s capabilities approach gives this formal problem a material measure. Justice cannot be assessed through aggregate wealth, declared rights or reported preferences alone, because people may adapt their desires to deprivation and because nominal permission does not guarantee actual possibility. What matters is what persons are substantively able to do and become.