Controllability Dependence

Why do our attempts at control often make us more vulnerable?

Since 2009, my journey through various forms of social change—across education, policy, activism, and research—has shown me a recurring paradox: in modern societies, we often pursue transformation through the establishment of epistemic (e.g., scientific theories, legal definitions of rights) and political objectivity (e.g., laws, policies, frameworks). This pursuit of objectivity is intended to clarify, justify, promote, and sometimes correct human behavior, thought, and relationships. Yet I have repeatedly witnessed a troubling pattern: the initial humane intent is often lost in translation, as it becomes embedded within formalized objectivities that are ultimately rigid, abstract, and alienated from lived experience.

Even when people's underlying intentions are aligned, conflicts arise because their respective objectivities—however well-meaning—contradict one another. And once one objectivity gains traction and institutional legitimacy, it quickly becomes a new orthodoxy—vulnerable to critique, resistance, and replacement by the next wave of objectivities. This churn does not necessarily lead to progress, but rather to cycles of reification, conflict, and fragmentation.

This resembles the perennial predicament that the Daoists identified during an age of endless conflict:

The Dao (way/total reality & truth) that can be "Dao-ed" (trodden/expressed as such) already ceases to be the true Dao.

— Daodejing

...schools (of thought) go off without returning, making it impossible forthem ever to come together ... the art of the Dao will be torn to pieces by the world—and this will be what ends up tearing the world to pieces.

— Zhuangzi

This predicament resonates with broader critiques in sociology, philosophy of science, and epistemology: instrumental rationality, reductionism, positivism, disciplinary silos, and post-truth polarization. Drawing on systems thinking, complexity theory, and East Asian philosophical traditions—especially Taoism and Buddhism—I’ve come to understand this not just as a policy or knowledge problem, but as a deeper human pattern.

🔍 A Generative Mechanism

At the heart of this pattern is what I call Controllability Dependence:

Humans seek control to protect themselves from uncertainty and vulnerability. But the more we externalize that control—through artificial systems, technologies, laws, and rules—the more dependent and fragile we become in the absence of those systems.

This mechanism reveals a hidden feedback loop: the pursuit of external control to ensure safety actually undermines intrinsic resilience. Control becomes addictive. The more we reify it—through increasingly comprehensive systems of governance, measurement, or logic—the more our ability to act meaningfully without it diminishes. In seeking to dominate uncertainty, we inadvertently reproduce the very conditions of fear and fragility we are trying to escape.

🧠 Implications

This dependence on controllability is not just a philosophical quirk—it has real-world consequences. It may help explain:

The rise of polarized ideologies and epistemic fragmentation (as competing objectivities clash).
Persistent systemic inequality (as those with control solidify it through reified structures).
Widespread existential anxiety and loss of meaning (as intrinsic agency is outsourced to systems).
Institutional fragility and gridlock (as responsiveness is sacrificed for formal consistency).

Although this mechanism remains underdeveloped, some of the narrower topics have been explored through the ideas listed in the following See also section.