Everyone is familiar with the phenomenon of feeling more or less alive on different days. Everyone knows that on any given day, there are energies slumbering within them that the stimuli of that day do not bring forth, but which they might display if those stimuli were greater. Most of us feel as if a sort of cloud weighed upon us, keeping us below our highest level of clarity in discernment, certainty in reasoning, or firmness in decision, making. Compared to what we ought to be, we are only half awake. Our fires are dampened, our drafts are stifled. We are making use of only a small part of our potential mental and physical resources. To put it broadly, the human individual thus lives far below his limits; he possesses powers of various kinds that he habitually fails to use. - William James, The Energies of Men
In nooks all over the earth sit men who are waiting, scarcely knowing in what way they are waiting, much less that they are waiting in vain. Occasionally the call that awakens, that accident which grants “permission to act”, comes too late. - Nietzsche
Here we present an attempt to understand change through the theory of subject leaps. What is at stake in understanding changes and being able to control the speed of change processes is that this could enable society as a whole to make faster progress and break free from the inertia of the “society of mediocrity” (Berglund, 2026) or the “difficult, to, live, in society” (Lindblom, 2023) in which we find ourselves.
The theory of subject leaps is a theory about how to rapidly change subject positions. It has been empirically demonstrated that subject positions can change rapidly, even within a single day, depending on the situation, such as when adopting subjectivities of resistance (Jonsson, 2015). Subject leaps involve larger shifts in subject positions and are linked to multiple dimensions of balance beyond mere identity. Subject leaps should also be robust over time, that is, sustainable in the long term.
What is the purpose of understanding rapid change? Therapeutically, it is to demonstrate that sociology suggests rapid change is possible. This represents a truly utopian conception of therapeutic change. Rapid change is possible, but various factors are required for it to occur.
Politically, the purpose of understanding rapid change is that organizations and individuals who succeed in making rapid and extreme changes as subjects can have a very significant impact on society. The clearest examples of subject leaps among collective subjects include social movements such as the incel movement or collective subjects such as (former) startups like Facebook, TikTok, and Palantir. Above all, a large portion of today’s power elite consists of people who have made subject leaps, as many of them come from the upper middle class, that is, outside the innermost financial, political, and cultural elite (Navidi, 2017). For example, few members of today’s power elite in the financial sector come from old money (Navidi, 2017). This is the case with individuals such as Jamie Dimon, George Soros, Larry Finkelstein, Ben Bernanke, and Tony Blair, who have become “superhubs” with network power within the financial elite (Navidi, 2017). The ability to be drawn into a collective’s “subject leap” is thus central to understanding power primarily as a phenomenon of mobility, movement, or rhythm. Randall Collins is the sociologist who perhaps has the clearest theory focused on understanding rapid changes in individual actors and smaller collectives (Collins, 2000, 2004, Collins & McConnell, 2015). Collins highlights how a person, through a reinforcing effect between a sense of pride (emotional energy) and the pursuit of relevant cultural capital, can rapidly climb organizational hierarchies (e.g., Caesar, Napoleon, Steve Jobs) or become part of a philosophical group that exerts significant influence on philosophical debate (e.g., the German idealists) (Collins, 2000). Although Collins’s theory is illuminating, it overlooks the moral dimension, focuses too much on certain aspects of change, particularly overemphasizing the sense of pride, and likely underestimates the central challenge actors face in navigating various ambiguities, dilemmas, and paradoxes.
Below, however, is an analysis of Collins and McConnell’s book Napoleon Never Slept (2015) through the lens of ABT’s balance dimensions. ABT offers an alternative way to systematize the theses Collins advances. What is shown below is that “subject leaps” can be made by individuals who find themselves in states of imbalance across various dimensions; most often, it is a lack of systems thinking that is exploited for one’s own advantage. It can also stem from a lack of civic engagement, among other factors.
Heroic citizenship: the individuals Collins highlights may be disconnected from active citizenship yet still manage to navigate the political arena. The sense of responsibility these individuals assume is specialized and leads to positive outcomes for themselves. Responsibility in military missions builds the track records of Napoleon and Caesar, enabling their future leaps. Steve Jobs’ sense of responsibility is focused on how people can use new technology. The sense of responsibility these individuals demonstrate places them in situations where there are significant rewards for themselves. This can be compared to taking on responsibility in a local community or managing a specific institution, which does not yield the same rewards. The ambiguity within the dimension of balance that they can navigate lies in the obligations of citizenship, which they partially embrace but in other ways completely renounce, and the focus is on their process of heroification, which is simultaneously disconnected from citizenship.
Embedded autonomy: The individuals highlighted by Collins have the ability to disengage from communities with little power and to embed themselves in communities with more power and more energy. Steve Jobs, for example, has the ability to hire people with a high degree of emotional energy, and the accumulation of such individuals can accelerate the pace of product development. In this process, many of these individuals are largely indifferent to the effects their actions have on others’ opportunities for embedded autonomy. Steve Jobs sees the Mac and the iPhone as something that needs to happen, and he believes this will lead to positive changes. The ambiguity within this balance is managed by choosing where to become embedded and where to disembed oneself in order to accumulate autonomy through an increased range of possibilities.
Specialized Systematics: Common to all individuals is their specialization, and often an overspecialization, which creates problematic effects. Steve Jobs lacks any real education or training in matters of ethics, politics, and morality and succumbs to New Age ideas and an idealized view of the creative genius as the driving force of history, a notion captured in Apple’s advertising, where the Apple logo is linked to various inventors, thinkers, and leaders. Caesar’s quest for power leads him, through this one, sided focus, to make the Roman Empire more authoritarian by concentrating more power around himself. The ambiguity in this dimension of balance is managed by choosing specialization over consideration of the system and the common good.
Simplexity: With overspecialization comes a sense of simplexity in their lives. They have a clear purpose and focus, with certain actions becoming routine. Steve Jobs simplifies his life by not being particularly involved in raising his children. Napoleon focuses on carrying out military missions, and Sam Walton on opening one new Walmart at a time.
Routinized spontaneity/Safe risk-taking: Common to all the individuals Collins highlights is their ability to take recurring risks that support their own careers rather than the general public.
Emotive reflexivity, slow speed, reflexive action: These dimensions are at the heart of Collins’s analysis. Emotions enhance the ability and willingness to engage in greater reflexivity, which leads to the capacity for a variety of “bold” actions carried out at high speed. Caesar and Napoleon are highlighted for their ability to use speed to their advantage, for example, by moving troops. The ambiguity is reduced in : this dimension of balance involves prioritizing action and speed, supported by their reflexivity and emotions in an interplay.
Disconsensus: All the individuals highlighted in Collins possess great “symbolic dexterity” (Jackall, 2010), which enables them to motivate their followers to take action at various times. They accumulate gains in different ways. Collins describes how Sam Walton accumulated gains in less competitive markets while building Walmart, which created momentum. Walmart’s tactic is to drive competitors into bankruptcy, and as it has grown in size, it has been able to exploit this advantage more and more. None of the individuals highlighted use communicative action, a more humanistic approach to connecting with others, compared to the much more strategic and Machiavellian approach. Collins refers to the Machiavellian trait these individuals possess as “emotional dominance,” which they can mobilize during conflicts. The ambiguity in this dimension of balance is resolved by conforming to the dominant norms and structures. Resistance is directed against others in this competition to climb within these established structures. Steve Jobs conforms to a capitalist ideology; Caesar and Napoleon to military careers (they were not the ones who stood against slave revolts in their respective eras); and Jesus to the role that many before and during his lifetime assumed, that of the wandering sage or enlightened one who spread his beliefs through speech and climbed the ranks within a religiously dominated structure.
Genuine pretending: for these individuals, identity is not a major focus; they all maintain a rather detached relationship with their identity, which they shape and use more as a facade. Napoleon, for example, creates newspapers that serve as propaganda to extol his achievements and feats. What is central is that identity is linked to a project, not as an end in itself. Questions of identity are not disconnected from what the person perceives as their purpose and meaning. The identities they adopt are carefully shaped throughout their lives to suit the next step. Caesar, through military campaigns and other events, builds an identity as a “larger, than, life” figure.
Historical awareness and critical optimism: All of these individuals cultivate an immense optimism about the future, which enables them to take great risks.
Outward inward lookingness: All these individuals have a strong focus on problems outside themselves. Their ability to keep themselves and others focused is highlighted in the cases of Steve Jobs and Napoleon. This focus is reinforced by the fact that they often place themselves in intense competitive situations involving power and resources. They experience a high degree of gamification in their lives through constant competition and rivalry with others.
Rationalized enchantment: all individuals have a strong sense of purpose. Jesus, who is highlighted as an example, literally believes that he is the Son of God and is destined to save humanity. Irrational enchantment is thus a possible driving force. However, that irrationality cannot extend to their actions in terms of how they persuade people. Their faith may be more irrational or rational, but there is a high degree of rationality in their social interactions.
Eudaimonic hedonism: they all possess a great capacity for exertion and for enduring pain. What seems central to all of them is that they can find rest in their exertion. Caesar, for example, can rest while being transported in a chariot, which was apparently unusual among military leaders at that time. They are all driven by a sense of being virtuous individuals who inspire pride. However, rapid changes can be disconnected from the moral content of their actions. The ambiguity in this balance dimension is resolved by focusing on viewing their actions as eudaimonic without a clear value judgment regarding which other actions might be morally superior.
Following this interpretation of Collins and McConnell’s book through the lens of ABT’s balance dimensions, I would like to present the central empirical generalization regarding rapid changes in subjects, which is that these subjects remain in a phase of punctured equilibrium for a long time. “Puncture” has been used as a concept for this phase of intense change, which is drawn from the punctuated equilibrium model (Gernsik, 1991). Due to different socialities, these actors remain in a prolonged state of punctuated equilibrium longer than others, who may enter periods of more stable equilibria or never enter states of punctuated equilibrium at all. The subject can be an individual, a group, or an organization.
These subjects experience an accelerated rate of learning and maintain it over several years, which can enable them to become experts, leaders, or startups that grow into “unicorns,” and so on. The focus of this section is on how the evolutionary process can be taken under control by the individual so that periods of revolution/disruption can be prolonged. What factors cause the subject to remain in a “puncture” phase?
Generally, the subject succeeds in reducing ambiguity across various balance dimensions through practice, balancing.
Choosing activities, practices, and social interactions that reduce ambiguity across various balance dimensions leads to increased energy and agency. The individuals Collins discusses reduce ambiguity by focusing exclusively on a single goal. This brings a simplicity that is easier to manage. This simplicity must be created across multiple balance dimensions simultaneously to establish focus. Certain activities or practices support a wide range of balances. Deliberative training (Ericsson et al., 2018) and deep work (Newport, 2016) are among the most powerful. New forms of sociality and self, socialization are another. Taking risks on behalf of others also forces change. Reading and writing are two central activities in an information society where mastering them is rewarded and is part of being able to contribute to change within that system. Books such as Deep Work (Newport, 2016) and Peak (Ericsson & Pool, 2016) are two examples of stored sociality that can create a very high level of balance in simplexity. Through just a few activities with enormous potential for improvement. Newport’s book can be boiled down to the idea that people today are judged by their ability to maintain deep focus for long periods. Those who succeed at this, both in social interactions and in their own work, can learn much more and be more creative. Learning deep work is in itself a process that can be motivated by a purpose beyond oneself: the desire to make things better for others. The better the individual is able to enter a state of deep work, the more life becomes like a game, because the difficulty level has been lowered somewhat. Without deep work as a state of being, life as a game becomes difficult, leading one to give up and seek out easier, fictional games.
Pareto balancing, a reinforcing effect between extremes. Examples from the various balance dimensions of pareto balancing, where the extremes reinforce each other: effort that is restful, pain that is pleasurable, the pleasure of acting virtuously, speed that does not feel stressful, play that focuses rather than distracts through, for example, competition; routines for discovery and adventure; security that enables repeated risk-taking; increased understanding of complexity leading to simplification in actions and thought; or actions accompanied by reflections for rapid awareness. The endurance and pace/intensity of the punctuation depend on how much the various balances are utilized to their maximum strength/potential.
A sufficient degree of control over multiple governance problems. Every actor faces the governance problem, both in governing themselves and in managing the external governance problem of which they are a part (for example, an organization must both manage governance problems within the organization and address the governance problem presented by the market). The governance problem has been highlighted in how actors possess partial agency or conditional agency depending on their situatedness within practices, discourses, and subjectifications. The governance problem is well articulated by Callon through his view of agency as a result of various factors that create “agencement” (Callon, 2021).
Reinforcing effects between dimensions of balance. The pursuit of the good life becomes complex when one considers the various balances that need to be in place simultaneously. It is not enough for just one dimension of balance to be in balance. ABT has incorporated Collins’s concept of emotional energy as a dimension to be considered (2004). Emotional energy is created through successful social interactions that motivate a person to increase their cultural capital in order to create more positive interactions, a typical positive feedback loop. Similar feedback loops can be created in the other dimensions of balance. Rest enables effort, and that effort allows one to rest better. Risk-taking increases one’s sense of security, so that one dares to take even more morally productive risks.
Avoiding inertia. What is needed is to set in motion reinforcing, positive feedback loops between at least most of the dimensions of balance. If this is not created, the process will stall due to inertia. Inertia here refers to the fact that parts of a person’s habitus, that is, chains of thought, remain stuck in the old ways during the change, causing the person to consciously or unconsciously believe that the change cannot or should not continue. Just as traffic jams can occur due to acceleration and deceleration on a highway, change can stall even when acceleration is taking place in one area, but is out of sync with other aspects of life. The traffic jam arises because the other dimensions of one’s habitus are out of balance.
Interactions that trigger chains of thought and reflexivity can have a delaying effect. When interactions do not influence a person’s behavior, it is because the chains of thought drown out the information coming from current chains of interaction. If imbalances have persisted for a long time, they eventually create thought chains so strong (Collins, 2004) that these thought chains become an internal sociality that is stronger than external influences, such as those that try to get the person to start eating but fail to do so. The thought chains drown out the interaction chains. This internal sociality leaves traces that create neurological changes.
Weber’s “switchmen” metaphor for why social change occurs could be applied at the micro level. Weber writes:
Not ideas, but material and ideal interests, directly govern men’s [and women’s] conduct. Yet very frequently the “world images” that have been created by “ideas” have, like switchmen, determined the tracks along which action has been pushed by the dynamics of interest. “From what” and “for what” one wished to be redeemed and, let us not forget, “could be” redeemed, depended upon one’s image of the world (Weber, 2001)
One could call this a “switchman on a switchman,” where changes in worldviews condense into shifts during the puncture period, causing it to be sustained and intensified. Randall Collins has captured this in his theory of interaction rituals. Successful social interactions create gains that build momentum. New chains of thought and chains of interaction. For rapid changes in the subject, the subject must enter a state of “boldness” (Collins, 2000).
Distance from normality through tertiary normality must be maintained. To clarify this, I would like to introduce the concept of tertiary normality, which is the opposite of tertiary deviance. Tertiary deviation occurs when we resist confirming the secondary deviation (which is the identity constructed in an encounter with, for example, a psychiatrist, where the person confirms through their behavior what the diagnosis states). Secondary normality occurs when we are deemed to confirm normality, which we in turn confirm; we relate to the labeling of ourselves as normal. Tertiary normality is a resistance to the expected affirmation of normality. This is best achieved by seeking new normalities that are closer to heroic citizenship. Identification with normality in a society of mediocrity (Berglund, 2026) will reduce the chance of escaping mediocrity as a dominant sociality. The distance from normality must be maintained in some way, which is often achieved through embedding in social communities that view this normality critically and habitually scrutinize it.
Shock waves through the dimensions of balance, acting as either a reinforcement or a weakening of momentum. Practices, events, and socialities can send shock waves through the various balances. This can cause changes to occur in multiple balances simultaneously. Disruptions to balances can also arise if one balance changes. This disruption (the reduced rigidity) in that sub, habitus will once again become rigid unless activities further influence these balances. These disruptions represent a window of opportunity that is brief and can be closed. Points of tension between equilibria and within the socialities one inhabits (Flyvbjerg, 2001) can be actively utilized to reinforce or create loosening. This is similar to Bourdieu’s concept, where major changes in a field can increase the subject’s reflexivity and create new habitus (Freidman, 2015).
Utilizing the social and the social landscape. The greater one’s understanding of this social landscape, the more rapidly change can occur once a concentrated and sustained disruption is achieved. The social landscape in which one finds oneself is part of the self; the landscape and the self are intertwined. Fractal subjectivity is a dimension of change characterized by depth, dynamism, and variation, a “ruggedness” (for which there is no good Swedish translation), that is nonlinear and can be harnessed. Self-alization is a phenomenon that is constantly at work in people. Self-alization means that a person has partial agency to choose how to integrate with the social world. The social world can be used as a tool for changing oneself.
The shift from perceived personal misfortune to being part of a societal or private injustice a. For change to be maximally consolidated, it must be rooted beyond the subject, a fact of which the subject is also keenly aware, and increasingly embedded in their habitus. Turner’s (1969) shift from unhappiness to perceived injustice is part of this. This opens the door for us to fight for others who need our help. This aspect can be unclear, and one may feel that there is nothing one can do to help someone. This makes it difficult to help oneself, as the train of thought is one of loneliness and isolation. This ties into the process of demonization and adventurization (Berglund, 2026), where seeing injustices all around one draws the person into identifying various enemies who benefit from these injustices. Enemy, ification is a form of framing one’s life that can be experienced to varying degrees. Changing this framing is central to the process of disrupting the equilibrium. The framings that open the door to new, stronger framings are central. These framings need to be constantly reinforced throughout the process of change.
One prediction that could be made based on the theory of subject leaps is that change can occur more quickly the greater the discrepancy between insight and behavior. If there is a catalyst that can cause the person to change course, the pace of that change will vary. In this context, social factors, a book, or other people can serve as that catalyst. Leaders who have brought about significant change are often well, read in the field in which they later become leaders and have, in a sense, prepared for a “spiritual crisis” that can bring about major changes. Central to major changes is dissatisfaction with the past and a vision of where one wants to be, as well as the discrepancy between the two. This gap needs to remain and be reinforced by a momentum that ensures one’s actions strengthen the resolve not to revert to old habits, and through social interactions? Nietzsche wrote that we are assailed by ideas when we are tired. Fatigue can cause behaviors to resurface. Insights are also easily forgotten if they are not institutionalized in one’s life so that the insight becomes second nature; otherwise, it is forgotten. Religious practices involve keeping insights from a specific religion close at hand to influence chains of thought and chains of interaction. Social factors and various techniques aimed at the body and the self are what should prevent fatigue from creating inertia in the process of change.
One dimension of balance can serve as an anchor for the other dimensions of balance. Greater balance within one dimension can have positive effects on the other dimensions of balance. A strong balance can also stand al ly and be dragged down by the others. Which balances have the greatest chance of creating ripples of change in the other balance dimensions? This would need to be investigated empirically; here is a speculative outline. There is potential for each one to act as a catalyst that triggers changes in the other balances.
Possible Anchor 1. Gamification is a major trend in society. The state of being engrossed in a game is so powerful that people with concentration difficulties in school can sit for several hours playing without a break. Today’s games and the extent to which they motivate people to strive toward an external goal beyond themselves (albeit a fictional one) demonstrate the potential that exists if we can gamify our lives. The state of being immersed in a game is maximized when we have a meaningful and epic goal, clear enemies and allies, rapid feedback, dynamic worlds with multiple missions and events happening simultaneously, an inherent belief that success is possible (otherwise the game wouldn’t have been created), challenge as central to meaning, sub, quests, process goals, and visualizations of the process (McGonigall, 2012). Gamifying one’s life and social interactions involves these more substantial elements of gamification. What is often incorporated into people’s lives is quantification. That is a start. The process of turning one’s life into a game is not entirely easy, however. There are places to read about the rules of the game, but in a way, there are so many of them. But if you have the idea of gamifying your life, this can be made easier by maximizing simplicity as a balance.
Possible Anchor 2. Heroification is a recurring catalyst in fiction where the protagonist is suddenly thrown into a situation where they must act to save something dear to them. It’s often something that successful people in various fields use to narratively reflect on how they came to be where they are today. In today’s mass society, there are plenty of these struggles to throw oneself into, but one is rarely thrown into them. You need to actively seek out these struggles. This means there needs to be something that triggers the desire to seek them out. Being in touch with the heroic dimension within oneself can awaken a motivating force, since heroism is linked to the social and moral significance of one’s life for others.
Possible Anchor 3. Simplicity can be a balance with great potential for change. Simplification and a focus on a few details are usually what psychologists emphasize when it comes to behavioral change, such as BJ Fogg’s “tiny habits” (Fogg, 2020). Society’s complexity has increased in countless ways through individualized life projects (Giddens, 1991), the information society with its vast amounts of information and myriad entertaining activities of various kinds, and massification involving large numbers of people with diverse group affiliations. Simplifying life, means identifying a few key activities to start with in order to navigate the social landscape.
Possible Anchor 4. Another balance that can have a major impact on the others is embedded autonomy. Embedding in a social environment that brings the subject closer to the main balances in ABT: heroized citizenship, rationalized enchantment, and/or subjectivized self, objectification. Examples of such communities to become embedded in include universities, elite high schools, specific companies, social movements, and associations. If these exist as horizons, these communities serve as social tools to be used against one’s own subject to force about changes. These communities provide a social landscape that contains various balances within it, which one can draw upon. One seeks out the places with the greatest balances in order to be influenced by them, driven by the expectations within these communities for positive social interaction.
Coping with the pain of change. Changes in habitus are often painful, as Friedman, following Bourdieu, has demonstrated in the psychological costs of upward social mobility, such as feeling lonely (Friedman, 2016). Downward mobility leads to shame and disorientation (Kemper, 2011; Durkheim, 1950). The pain arises from a habitus gap that causes a certain part of us to feel out of place (Friedman, 2016). However, change can be made more or less painful. Friedman provides empirical evidence of the psychological pain that accompanies changes in habitus (Friedman, 2016). Friedman shows that it is not only the working class that suffers from “hidden injuries” (Sennett, 1977) but also those who move upward in social fields:
Facing upward in social space, they routinely battled feelings of insecurity and inferiority, and facing downward, they were invariably met with a sense of guilt, estrangement, and abandonment. Mobility, in short, brought with it a slew of hidden emotional injuries (Friedman, 2016).
Reaching a certain level of competence and ability to succeed in key activities. These may include, for example, emotional regulation (Furedi, 2019), metacognition (Archer, 2001), collaboration skills (Sennett, 2013), or focus (Collins, 2000).
Reflect on the changes occurring in the various balances. Reflection, both on one’s own and with others, is necessary to become aware of how one’s own unconscious biases can hinder progress. Reflection is also important for rethinking what one already knows to be a factor that creates problems for oneself. It’s very easy to lie to yourself here, and sometimes you underestimate factors that you’ve grown accustomed to, even though others can immediately see they’re a major problem you need to address.
Leverage the areas of balance you already have more of to build momentum. What’s the best thing in your life that you can do more of? Write down 1, 3 things. What’s the worst thing in your life? 1, 3 things. Change the thing that drags your life down the most and focus relentlessly on getting it out of your life. For example, limiting your access through phone locks and website blockers can free up time for reflection, to realize how much idle time you spend on your own, how much time you’re just sitting around.
Furthermore, changes in ABT can be viewed through the lens of the concept of eudaimonia balancing. Eudaimonia balancing can be achieved in various ways: Pareto shifts, via negative/positive approaches, embracing paradoxes/paradox balancing, Pareto optimizations, creating new equilibria, positive and negative spirals, balancing between balance dimensions, a one, sided focus for a limited time, and both/and. These are ways in which an actor relates to different balance dimensions. Thus, there is not just one way to strive for flourishing. These different approaches can be linked to specific practices. Eudaimonia balancing can also be viewed as agon balancing, derived from the word “agon” (struggle), which can be distinguished from “antagon,” meaning opponent. Agon balancing refers to various ways in which the struggle between the poles strengthens the dimension. Antagon balancing is discussed later in the text, with various examples where the poles struggle against each other, resulting in poorer balance.
Pareto movements are rapid movements within one or more dimensions that create major changes. The term “Pareto movement” derives from Pareto distributions. What can increase balance in a nonlinear way? Pareto movements, or Pareto balancing, involve identifying these larger effects that lead to higher levels of balance. For example, if you have learned a great deal, you may have temporarily exhausted the benefits of learning more, a diminishing return. Applying that knowledge in informed action will then have a major impact because you can make full use of everything you know. Organizations engage in this balancing act, which is captured by the concepts of exploration (discovery of knowledge) and exploitation (application of knowledge) (March, 1991). Pareto movements can be likened to a pendulum swing between different poles in the various balancing dimensions. For example, the oscillation between learning and applying knowledge in action is one such oscillation; or risk-taking, as described by, can lay the foundation for greater security; or freedom of thought that makes the community stronger and more balanced; and being part of the community to gain ideas and strengthen one’s ability to carry out actions that are impossible alone. It is a balancing act that avoids excesses and deficiencies. This back, and, forth motion creates strength and forward momentum. The balance between reflection and action can reinforce each other. Action provides more information; reflection allows one to improve the action for the next time, thereby increasing wisdom.
Pareto optimizations: this occurs when multiple balances are positively affected simultaneously, or when an improvement in one balance does not lead to deterioration in other dimensions. This concept is drawn from the ideas of sociologist and economist Vilfredo Pareto regarding the simultaneous optimization of multiple factors, rather than always having to make trade, offs. Seeking what can improve everything at once often requires specific practices. It is difficult to know exactly where the Pareto front lies, but it is a process of exploration that involves using various methods. One approach is to compare with real, world utopias (Wright, 2011).
Creating New Equilibria: Research on behavioral change consistently shows that people’s behaviors are influenced by the actions of others. People possess interactive rationality and adapt their behavior based on how others act. This leads to problems with collective governance and collective action. Social equilibria supported by norms and sanctions against those who violate these norms have a powerful effect on people’s behavior. This is a recurring factor in why people act based on their own values; for example, in an imbalance of brutalized patriarchal structures that mandate female genital mutilation, where at the same time parents themselves are opposed to it but do not dare to go against the collective.
Through negative and positive means. One removes or adds something that restores balance. One can introduce a practice that brings about change, or one can eliminate or reduce a practice that currently exacerbates or perpetuates an imbalance. For example, adding a walk and putting away the cell phone at bedtime are practices linked to the “body” dimension of balance.
Eudaimonia Relief: As a consequence of cognitive limitations, humans also face moral limitations in dealing with many different moral challenges. Therefore, practices and technologies (both material and cultural) are processes that can relieve people in their pursuit of flourishing. Charles Taylor captures what happens to a society where freedom increases but without this being complemented by eudaimonia, alleviating practices and technologies: “It is in the nature of this kind of increase in freedom that people can sink lower, as well as rise higher. Nothing will ever ensure a systematic and irreversible move toward the heights.” (Taylor, 1991). Eudaimonia, supporting measures can be implemented by embedding balancing mechanisms into well, designed rules. Eudaimonia, supporting measures can also take the form of routinization, whereby eudaimonia, balanced actions become automatic. A general tendency of the brain is that what is repeated becomes easier. Learning and the automation of a behavior can thus be viewed as a form of eudaimonia offloading from more conscious behavior and thinking. Cognitive offloading to maps and computers has also been called “exbodiment” (Krakauer, 2024). Krakauer views culture as accelerating the pace of evolution because knowledge can be stored (Krakauer, 2024). Eudaimonia offloading, just like cognitive offloading, is a process of cyclical interaction, in which what has been externalized can become the basis for new improvements.
Epoché balancing: Putting the final balancing act in parentheses. Drawing on Husserl’s concept, this involves refraining from reaching a conclusion, continuing to keep something non, reified. It is a state of openness rather than closure.
Paradox-embracing is the practice of encountering dilemmas, paradoxes, the absurd, and ambiguities as a central part of eudaimonia, balancing. Paradoxes are captured in the names of several balancing dimensions: embedded autonomy (Giddens), genuine lock, in (D’Ambriaso & Moehller, 2021), specialized systematics, subjectivized (self-objectification), safe risk-taking, culturalized naturalness, enlightened false consciousness (Sloterdijk, 1987). De Beauvoir, in Ethics of Ambiguity , places ambiguity at the center of ethics. Embracing paradox means taking these paradoxes as a starting point and not attempting to theorize away these ambiguities. One encounters paradoxes in various attempts at identity formation; for example, a crisis of authenticity can arise if one tries too hard to be authentic in every situation, where one may notice that one is different depending on who one is with, or that authenticity is always socially grounded or influenced (as in Heidegger’s view of authenticity) (Moehller & D’Ambriaso, 2021). Embracing paradoxes involves becoming aware of these paradoxes and ambiguities. This, in turn, leads to the need to strike a balance through careful consideration, rather than making false compromises or adjustments that negate the paradox or ambiguity. However, embracing paradoxes is n e with merely remaining in ambiguity without striving and seeking better approaches.
Eudaimonic balancing as reinforcing loops. Eudaimonic balancing as a process involving actors can occur with little momentum or with strong momentum, where different dimensions of balance reinforce one another in reinforcing and integrated loops. The loop, as a metaphor, is one of the connections that exist between the dimensions of balance. Eudaimonic balancing is achieved by leveraging the reinforcing effects of various balancing dimensions. The momentum that can be generated by a strong balance in the emotional energy dimension can potentially be amplified if it is linked to the pursuit of cultural capital, which in turn strengthens the pursuit of the good life in the dimension of heroized citizenship. A central reinforcing effect in ABT is the balance dimension of emotional energy. There is a potentially reinforcing effect between balances in that if they are grounded in citizenship and advocating for others, we can feel more secure about taking risks, which in turn reinforces the balance dimension of safe risk-taking. A growing sense of courage can influence the balance dimension of “reflexive action”, that is, acting rather than merely thinking about what one could do, which in turn has the effect of making reflexivity more empirically grounded in one’s engagement with society and the challenges it presents. This, in turn, can foster a deeper understanding of the issues at hand, making one even more motivated. Eudaimonic balancing thus involves a kind of acrobatics or athleticism in managing different dimensions of balance and seeing how they can reinforce one another.
Balancing between different dimensions of balance. The more dilemmas one faces where the individual must balance what is best for a particular dimension, the more imbalances exist in the social context in which the individual is currently operating. If, for example, a higher balance of hero, worshiped citizenship leads to greater loneliness, then there is something problematic within the community.
A one sided focus for a limited time. Another aspect of being human is that we face various situations and challenges that require us to prioritize certain actions and ways of being over others for a time. Balance also means finding balance in the very act of seeking balance. Certain moments, such as raising young children, cannot be entirely “balanced”; instead, they may require more focus on the children for a period, while other aspects of life take a back seat. Reducing ambiguity by focusing solely on one aspect for a time can create clarity. For example, spending a period of time developing one’s capacity for reflexivity, while studying can then be combined with a period of applying what one has learned.
Both/and simultaneously. Learning while taking action. You don’t take a break from one or the other. Experimentation is an example of a practice that involves both reflection and action.
Radical balancing: Go to the root (from the Greek word for “radish”) of what is causing the imbalance. This means going to the root in order to reach the full potential of the dimension of balance. To get to the root, one must connect it to other balances. One example is finding practices that fundamentally affect multiple aspects. Radical balancing aims to balance the cause that underlies other causes. Balancing efforts and attempts at rebalancing become less noticeable the further they are from the root cause. Balancing can thus be seen as reactions that can address either causes or symptoms. Marxist theory identifies the root cause in the internal tensions of capitalism. Others go even further and argue that capitalism as an idea is based on other, more fundamental ideas, such as that of extractivism as part of an Enlightenment project to take control of nature (Hickel, 2020). These theses need not be correct, but the point I wish to make is the search for causes.
Sublation, Balancing: ABT posits that dualisms cannot be transcended until post, humanist technologies are available (and perhaps not even then); dualisms capture human nature, a priori social, yet simultaneously always subject to influence and made possible within the social sphere. The form of eudaimonic balancing that comes closest to transcending dualisms is Hegel’s concept of sublation (German: Aufhebung) (Taylor, 1975). Hegel’s philosophy is permeated by dualisms that are in tension. ABT holds a similar view in that contradictions and tensions between different opposites are part of human sociality and individuality. The balancing act consists of relating to this. Sublation balancing is sublation carried out within the dimensions of balance. Sublation is a combination of something in the dimension of balance being abolished, preserved, and elevated. Sublation balancing, therefore, cannot transcend or nullify the poles within the dimension of balance. In ABT, sublation is interpreted not as a logical necessity but as a relational practice within social reality, where actors attempt to navigate contradictions and create new forms of balance. Where Hegel views sublation as a universal conceptual movement that realizes reason, ABT views sublation as an ethically open movement within moral and institutional landscapes, where success is contingent, and where balance is something that must be tested, negotiated, and sometimes fails.
Second, order balancing. Second, order balancing is the kind of balancing that is necessary when interacting with other people. So how can I, as an individual, contribute to better balancing within the company where I work, which in turn will make it easier or enable me, as an individual, to achieve a higher level of balance in one or more dimensions? For example, joining a union to increase employee influence in order to achieve a better balance against one, sided managerialism.
Maintaining balances. Balances can stabilize over time for various reasons. Practices, chains of thought, artifacts, emotions, socialities, normative pressure and social equilibrium, can stabilize a particular balance. The routinization of positive spirals between other balances allows reinforcing balances to sustain one another within a network. Maintaining equilibria also requires managing the problem, solving dimension in all social contexts. Tensions and problems are part of the human condition, which means that work is required to maintain a state of equilibrium.
Eudaimonic balancing can thus occur in several different ways. This avoids a criticism directed at the use of dualisms. Complexity, which is theoretically reduced to two fixed poles, is resolved by the fact that eudaimonic balancing consists precisely in recognizing the paradoxical and ambiguous nature of these dualisms and that they are, in principle, always intertwined. It creates the illusion that they are separate because the concepts distinguish them, but they should nevertheless be viewed as cognitive tools for grasping reality, albeit in parentheses (Husserl), which is precisely why epoché balancing is a form of eudaimonic balancing. Epoché balancing is a concept that captures an attitude of not seeking a definitive balance, which would then shut down a continued open search for the good life; in other words, epoché balancing is a way to avoid reifying these balances. Furthermore, the various dimensions of balance are said to be constructed with the awareness that the different poles are intertwined. Imbalances are precisely a state in which a certain part of that dimension is underestimated, creating problems for the person experiencing it. For example, nature and culture are intertwined in the body because bodily expressions are always mediated through culture and vice versa. The imbalance in that dimension stems from the belief that either nature or culture is irrelevant, or from a combination of the two that hinders the pursuit of the good life.
Eudaimonic balancing involves varying degrees of awareness. In some situations, people become very aware that they are engaged in a balancing act, between security and risk, or autonomy and embeddedness, routine and spontaneity, effort and rest, and so on. In other situations or over longer periods, decisions, states, emotions, and actions may be experienced as natural, because they occur out of habit, they feel good, or there is a culture that encourages a particular behavior. The automation of certain states makes it harder to perceive them as ongoing balancing acts. It may also be experienced unconsciously if there is no change, either vertically toward higher levels or horizontally between the poles of the balance dimension. The automation and routinization of attempts at balancing cause it to cease feeling like a balancing act. In other words, different states of balance have varying degrees of stability, and one characteristic of stability is that it is perceived as natural or taken for granted. People can go their entire lives without feeling that they are balancing, and may even hold the explicit view that balance is not good. ABT’s assumption is that people nevertheless engage in balancing in their search for the good life.
Balancing acts can be blocked, fail, or exacerbate imbalances. Eudaimonic balancing acts can be blocked either by other actors, structures, or perceptions of reality. Below are various forms of blocked, failed, or destructive balancing attempts. These can also be called “antagonistic balancing” because the poles in the balancing dimensions work against each other, rather than as in “agonistic balancing,” where they support each other.
Machiavellian balancing: occurs when one does not believe one is capable of eudaimonic balancing or believes that one’s Machiavellian balancing is eudaimonic balancing. For example, a person who believes they must lie. A Machiavellian balancing act involves deliberately engaging in zero, sum balancing acts, in which time, energy, and resources are transferred to oneself. Central to this is the externalization and creation of imbalances. For example, an elite group can create various problems by transferring balancing acts to themselves while simultaneously creating imbalances in the lives of others.
Zero, sum balancing occurs at the expense of others when an actor takes resources, energy, and time from other actors. The transfer of balancing between individuals involves the exploitation of states of balance. For example, a wealthy person who has become rich by underpaying their employees can build a life that appears to have high levels of balance on the surface. There may be time for learning, spending time in nature, living in harmony, and donating money to philanthropy. This zero, sum balancing is always blocked from higher, level balancing. This is because the “happy” politician who has strengthened their power at the expense of others should not actually be happy, since feelings of shame and guilt have been blocked by a perception of reality that claims what they have done was right. Zero, sum balancing can also occur as an inability to handle ambiguities, paradoxes, and dilemmas linked to the dimension of balance. This may be due to a lack of wisdom. We may believe that a balance has been handled well, but problems may have arisen, for example, because the ambiguity or dilemma has been shifted onto the rest of society.
Negative spirals of increasing imbalances. Attempts at eudaimonic balancing lead to increased problems. For example, one lacks sufficient energy to maintain balance and falls back into states of imbalance such as hedonism and becoming stuck in personal struggles, which in turn lead to other imbalances being reinforced.
Deficiency, based imbalances, an imbalance as a symptom of general deficiencies. One example is attempts to achieve greater fulfillment solely through hedonism. The individual is blocked from experiencing feelings of happiness as a byproduct of ethical actions and takes a shortcut to happiness via hedonism.
False balancing, the belief that one has achieved balance, when in fact it is an imbalance.
Routine-based balancing, these may be good balancing strategies, but they have become so routine that they no longer have an effect on the individual.
Symptom, based balancing rather than radical balancing. Some balancing is intended to address symptoms rather than the root cause of the imbalances.
Imbalance: One pole of the dualism carries too much weight.
Paradoxes, dilemmas, and ambiguities are dismissed or externalized.
False transcendence, one believes one has overcome nature/culture and is unaware that it still exists.
Failed sublations, a sublation that goes wrong.
Attempts at balancing that distort other balances, for example, trying to balance the emotional dimension but doing so by distorting reality. A balance has been achieved in one dimension by increasing an imbalance in another dimension.
Balancing attempts that have reached a local peak in the moral landscape. Being stuck in a rut can make certain balancing adjustments easier while simultaneously yielding higher levels of balance. However, certain outcomes can lead to positions that are difficult to escape from without requiring radical rebalancing, where one must go back to the basics again. An example of this might be relying solely on trade, off solutions that lead to slightly better outcomes but do not address the core of the problem.