Our journey began with a silent scar, passed through the iron cage of the state, the crucible of revolution, the mists of modernity, and the faint yet resilient starlight of nonviolent resistance. At the end, we must return to the original question: having deeply understood the unavoidable core role of violence as the ultimate "forced convergence" mechanism in the creation of order, how are we -- fragile individuals destined to live together amid difference and conflict -- to conduct ourselves? Are we doomed to endlessly cycle between one "consensus" after another, each founded upon a different form of violence?
All the critical analysis in this book is not intended to lead to a nihilistic, cynical despair. Quite the contrary: only by most thoroughly confronting the "ontological" status of violence within power structures can we possibly move beyond naive fantasies that treat violence as mere "accident" or "barbaric remnant," and begin a truly serious, truly reality-grounded inquiry.
The goal of this inquiry is no longer the illusory utopia of "perpetual peace" that seeks, once and for all, to eliminate all conflict and divergence. For we already know that differentiated "observation" is the wellspring of vitality in human society, the fundamental precondition for the world to manifest its richness. "Observational divergence" itself is not evil; rather, the attempt to use a single "correct" "macro-observation" to completely erase all "divergence" is the path to slavery and tyranny.
Therefore, the goal of our inquiry is a new form of order. It does not pursue a "crystal palace" without a single crack, perfectly unified, but is instead committed to building a vibrant "ecosystem" capable of coexisting with cracks, even drawing strength from them. It no longer understands "consensus" as a static "endpoint" that must be forcibly reached, but as a dynamic "process" forever on the road, constantly adjusted through ongoing negotiation.
We call this ideal social form -- perhaps never fully attainable, yet worthy of infinite approximation -- a "resilient consensus." It differs from the "consensus of violence" that depends on the ultimate threat of force. Its core feature lies in its "antifragility" -- a capacity not merely to withstand shocks, chaos, and "observational divergence" without collapsing, but to learn, adapt, and grow stronger through them.
This chapter, as the conclusion and elevation of the entire book, will attempt to outline three core paths toward this "resilient consensus." These are not a concrete policy blueprint, but more like a fundamental shift in mindset and value orientation.
First, "Recognizing the Value of 'Observational Divergence': Building a Fault-Tolerant Order" will challenge, at the epistemological foundation, our obsession with "unity" and "certainty." We will argue that a healthy society must, in its institutional design, leave sufficient space for "heresy," "minorities," and "failed experiments."
Next, "Empowerment and Negotiation: Increasing Society's Overall 'Available Margin'" will transform the conceptual tools we used in Chapter 7 to analyze "soft violence" into a guide for action toward building a more just order. We will explore how, by reducing "structural violence," we can systematically raise the "available margin" of marginalized social groups, thereby creating the material and psychological preconditions for genuinely equal, meaningful negotiation.
Finally, "From the 'Consensus of Violence' to the 'Resilient Consensus'" will provide a comprehensive summary of the core differences between these two forms of consensus. We will paint an ideal picture of "resilient consensus" and use it as a mirror to reflect on our present situation and the small yet significant responsibility each of us, as "observers," can bear.
This final chapter is a difficult turn from "deconstruction" to "construction." It is no longer merely describing "how the world is," but boldly imagining "how the world could be better."
Recognizing the Value of "Observational Divergence": Building a Fault-Tolerant Order
The first step, and the most fundamental one, on the path to "resilient consensus" lies in a profound "epistemological revolution." We must fundamentally change our attitudes toward "divergence," "error," and "uncertainty."
Within the logical framework of the "consensus of violence," "observational divergence" is seen as a "system bug" that must be "converged" and "eliminated" as soon as possible. Whether it is the state's law or the revolution's terror, their ultimate aim is to establish a single, correct, indubitable "official version of observation." Behind this extreme pursuit of "unity" and "certainty" lies a profound "conception of truth" originating from the pre-modern world: the belief that there exists a single, absolutely correct "reality," and that all "observations" inconsistent with it must necessarily be "errors" arising from stupidity, evil, or delusion.
Quantum uncertainty relations concern the joint description of particular physical quantities, while poststructural and postmodern thought address language, knowledge, and power; together they are not one unified interdisciplinary proof. RC understands reality as an open process on the basis of its own axiomatic chain concerning the ground of possibility, observational locking, and available margin. The value of other bodies of thought and research is to display intelligible forms of this generative structure at different levels and help the book describe social mechanisms precisely, not to supply RC with external authority.
Once we accept this more humble, more complex "view of reality," our understanding of "observational divergence" will undergo a 180-degree transformation.
"Divergence" Is No Longer a "Threat," but a "Resource"
In a complex, ever-changing world full of uncertainty, the most important quality for a system's survival and evolution is not "efficiency" or "strength," but "diversity." Biodiversity allows ecosystems to resist disease and environmental change; intellectual diversity allows a society to continuously generate new knowledge, new art, and new solutions.
And "observational divergence" is precisely the fundamental precondition for maintaining a society's "intellectual diversity." Every "heretical" viewpoint, every "discordant note" from the margins, may contain some important fact overlooked by the mainstream "observational consensus," or point toward a precious "seed of possibility" for an entirely new future.
The Lesson of Scientific History: The entire history of science is a history of "observational divergence" overcoming "observational consensus." Copernicus's heliocentric theory was initially regarded as absurd "heresy," challenging the millennium-old "macro-observational consensus" of the Church and the Ptolemaic system. Wegener's theory of continental drift was ridiculed by all mainstream geologists. Yet these very "divergences," considered at the time to be "deviant," were ultimately proven to be "new observations" closer to the truth, leading to scientific revolutions. A scientific community that suppresses "observational divergence" is necessarily a rigid, dead community.
The Vitality of the Market Economy (Ideally): The reason the market economy is theoretically considered dynamic is precisely that it is an arena that encourages "observational divergence." Every entrepreneur is an "observational diverger." He has "observed" a need unmet by the mainstream market, or a more efficient mode of production. His venture is an experiment in transforming his own "divergent observation" into a new, successful "commercial consensus." In this experiment, the vast majority of "divergences" will fail, but as long as a few succeed, the entire economic system can achieve innovation and evolution.
A society that treats all "observational divergence" as a "threat" to be eliminated is like a species that kills all "abnormal" individuals to prevent genetic mutation. In the short term, it may maintain a high degree of "purity" and "stability," but in the long-term evolutionary competition, it will inevitably be eliminated by history for losing its capacity to adapt to change.
Building "Fault-Tolerant" Institutions: Providing Shelter for "Failed Experiments"
Recognizing the value of "observational divergence" means that, in institutional design, we must shift from pursuing "absolute correctness" to constructing a "fault-tolerant order." The core spirit of this order is not to "prevent" errors, but to establish a mechanism ensuring that when errors occur, their cost is limited, controllable, and we can learn effectively from them.
This requires us to leave sufficient space for "possibility" and "experimentation" at all levels of society.
- Political "Permanent Opposition": A resilient political system must constitutionally guarantee the existence of a legal, ever-present "opposition." The value of the opposition lies not in whether they are "correct," but in their very "presence" constituting an eternal "check" and "reminder" to the rulers' "macro-observation." Their "observational divergence" forces the rulers to provide more thorough justification and defense for their decisions. They provide a channel for "minority" voices unpopular in mainstream public opinion. More importantly, they offer the entire nation a "backup driver." When the ruling party's "observation" is proven disastrously wrong, voters can, through peaceful, procedural means (elections), switch to the opposition's "observational" path without resorting to costly revolution.
- Social "Subcultural Enclaves": A healthy society should be like a tropical rainforest, not a meticulously pruned French garden. It should allow the existence of various "subcultural" and "countercultural" "enclaves" or "autonomous zones." In these spaces, people can experiment with different lifestyles, artistic forms, and modes of community organization. The vast majority of these "experiments" will likely fail, even appear absurd. But they are like society's "R&D department," constantly exploring new boundaries of possibility for the entire culture. A society that attempts to mold all citizens into identical "standard parts" is necessarily a culturally uncreative, lifeless society.
- Individual "Right to Trial and Error": At the individual level, a resilient society should provide maximum "right to trial and error" for its members. This means establishing a strong social security "safety net" (including unemployment insurance, public healthcare, affordable housing, etc.). The purpose of this "safety net" is not to support idlers, but to reduce the "cost of individual failure." Only in a society where one does not have to pay the price of "falling into the abyss" for a single job loss, a single business failure, or a single mistaken marriage choice will its members dare to take risks, innovate, and pursue uncertain but potentially enormously rewarding life paths. A society that deprives its citizens of the "right to fail" effectively deprives them of the "possibility of success."
From "Decision" to "Negotiation": Redefining "Governance"
Recognizing the value of "observational divergence" also means redefining the meaning of "governance."
In the model of the "consensus of violence," the core of "governance" is the sovereign's "decision." That is, at a moment of conflicting opinions, a final authority makes a single "correct" decision and enforces it with coercive force.
In the model of "resilient consensus," the core of "governance" should shift to "negotiation" and "adaptation." The governor is no longer an "omniscient engineer" holding the truth, but more like a humble "ecological gardener." His task is not to design a "perfect" plant, but to cultivate a healthy "soil" in which different plants can grow together.
This means that the process of governance must be an open, inclusive process allowing different "observers" to participate. It requires establishing effective "feedback mechanisms" that can promptly hear voices from the grassroots, warnings from minorities, and signals of "experimental failure," and accordingly, flexibly, adjust its course.
This shift from "decision" to "negotiation" will undoubtedly sacrifice some "efficiency." A democratic process full of wrangling and compromise will never make decisions as quickly as a dictator's command. Yet, at the cost of short-term "efficiency," what it gains is the entire system's long-term "resilience" and "sustainability." It may move more slowly, but it moves more steadily, because it can avoid the irreparable "catastrophic errors" that a single "absolutely correct" "observer" might commit.
However, merely leaving space for "divergence" in concepts and institutions is far from sufficient. If the majority of society's members are, from the very start, deprived of the ability and resources to participate in this game of "negotiation" due to poverty and discrimination, then the so-called "openness" and "pluralism" can only be hypocritical empty talk. This leads us to the second, more practical path toward "resilient consensus."
Empowerment and Negotiation: Increasing Society's Overall "Available Margin"
For a truly meaningful "negotiation," the participants must be relatively equal. A starving unemployed person worried about tomorrow's survival and a billionaire capitalist backed by a powerful legal team -- even if seated at the same negotiating table, their dialogue can never be "equal." Every word and action of the latter carries the heavy weight conferred by his structural power; the former, apart from his moral appeal, has almost no bargaining chips at all.
Therefore, a "resilient consensus" cannot be built upon a social structure with extremely unequal power and resources. Any attempt to bypass the issue of "distributive justice" and merely talk about "pluralistic dialogue" can only be a self-deceiving "idle chatter."
The second core path toward "resilient consensus" is the commitment to systematically, continuously fighting against the "structural violence" we analyzed in Chapter 7, with the ultimate goal of maximizing the "available margin" -- especially for marginalized and disadvantaged groups -- of the entire society.
Only when the vast majority of society's members have been liberated from those suffocating "invisible violences" of survival and discrimination, possessing basic security, dignity, and a sense of control over the future, can they become true "citizens" capable of participating in the construction of social "consensus."
From the Myth of "Equality of Outcome" to the Enrichment of "Available Margin"
Here, we need to clarify an important concept. What we pursue is not a mechanical "equality of outcome" that eliminates all differences. For differences in individual talent, effort, and luck will always exist. What we pursue is a more fundamental, more dynamic "tendency toward equalization of available margin."
This means that the goal of social institutional design should be:
- To ensure that everyone possesses a "baseline" of "available margin" that is guaranteed and cannot be deprived. This baseline includes decent education, universal healthcare, safe housing, and social security capable of maintaining basic dignity when encountering unemployment or misfortune. This "baseline" is the basic precondition for ensuring that everyone can participate in social life as a "person," not as a "biological being" constantly struggling for survival.
- To continuously, through progressive taxation and wealth transfer, "curb" the "excessive concentration" of available margin. When a tiny minority controls the vast majority of society's wealth and resources, their "available margin" becomes so large that it can be easily converted into the power of "assessment alienation," "converging" and "depriving" everyone else's "available margin." This extreme "wealth polarization" is the greatest corrosive agent of "negotiation," because it turns the entire society into a "hostage" of a handful of ultra-rich.
- To provide "compensatory" empowerment support for those groups who, due to historical reasons or structural discrimination, are already at a disadvantage in their starting point of "available margin." This is not merely out of "compassion," but to repair the "health" of the entire social ecosystem. A society that systematically wastes the potential and wisdom of certain of its members over the long term is, as a whole, necessarily pathological and fragile.
The Three Pillars of Empowerment: Education, Organization, and Discourse
To achieve this enrichment of "available margin," marginalized and disadvantaged groups require systematic "empowerment" at three levels.
- Empowerment Through Education: Education is the most fundamental and longest-lasting investment in raising an individual's "available margin." Education here refers not only to the transmission of knowledge, but more importantly, to the cultivation of "critical thinking." A good education should teach students how to identify and deconstruct the "discursive hegemony" we analyzed in the previous chapter, how to examine the power relations and historical biases hidden behind those seemingly "self-evident" "common sense" concepts. It should equip students with the ability to "read the code," enabling them to see through the blueprints of those "invisible iron cages." Only with this "cognitive" empowerment can an individual transform from a passive "information consumer" into an active "meaning creator."
- Empowerment Through Organization: Atomized, isolated individuals have no capacity to resist powerful "structural violence." The only way out is to "organize." Strong, independent labor unions can provide collective bargaining power for workers in their struggle against capital's "assessment alienation," thereby reclaiming part of the "assessment power" over "labor value." Active, community-rooted non-governmental organizations can provide support networks for marginalized groups ignored by the bureaucratic system (such as the disabled, those with rare diseases), and represent them in raising their voices to the government and society. The existence of these "intermediary organizations" is the "reservoir" and "amplifier" of society's "available margin." They gather the weak forces of countless individuals into an organized force capable of contending with more powerful power structures.
- Empowerment Through Discourse: Finally, platforms and tools must be provided for "silenced" groups to create and disseminate their own "discourse." This means breaking the monopoly of mainstream media by a small elite and capital, and encouraging and supporting the growth of independent media, alternative art, and community publications that can reflect the experiences and "observations" of marginalized groups. When a long-stigmatized group can tell "its own story" to the entire society through its own films, music, and literature, rather than passively living within "stereotypes" defined by others, they have achieved the most profound "self-empowerment." They are not only fighting for material interests, but also for the most fundamental "cultural leadership" in defining "who I am."
Through these three pillars of empowerment, a society's overall "available margin" can be systematically raised. And only in a society where "available margin" is relatively abundant and balanced can the "negotiation" we aspire to -- based on reason and respect -- transform from a "luxury good" for a small elite into a "daily practice" in which all citizens can participate.
In such a society, when "observational divergence" appears, people will no longer be inclined to immediately view it as a life-or-death "existential threat," but will be more likely to see it as a "shared challenge" that can be addressed through dialogue, compromise, and collective learning. For they possess sufficient "security" and "psychological margin" to tolerate uncertainty, listen to different voices, and imagine possibilities beyond "zero-sum games."
This brings us to the final conclusion of the entire book: a depiction of a new form of "consensus" worthy of our struggle.
From the "Consensus of Violence" to the "Resilient Consensus"
Our entire journey has revolved around the core concept of "consensus." Now, at the end, we can clearly conduct a final comparison of two fundamentally different forms of consensus. This is not only a theoretical summary, but also a choice of values.
The "Consensus of Violence": A Solid Fortress Built on Fear
The "consensus of violence" -- whether its external form is theocracy, monarchy, revolutionary dictatorship, or algorithmic governance wrapped in the garb of "technological neutrality" -- shares the same internal structural characteristics.
Its epistemological foundation is "the doctrine of one truth." It believes in the existence of an absolutely correct "macro-observation"; all divergence is "error" to be eliminated.
The core of its power operation is "forced convergence." It pursues efficiency, unity, and certainty, tending to use top-down "decisions" to end all disputes.
Its ultimate source of legitimacy is "violence." Whether naked physical violence or hidden structural violence, the ultimate stability of its order depends on an irresistible ultimate threat capable of inflicting pain and fear.
The social form it shapes is a "solid fortress." It has clear boundaries, strict hierarchies, and a unified ideology. It can effectively resist external shocks, but consequently becomes rigid, fragile, and lacking in internal creative vitality. It is an "entropy-reducing," closed system that, to maintain its own "purity," constantly expels internal "impurities" through violence.
Its demand on the individual is "obedience." It requires the individual to unconditionally unify their own "observation" with that single "official observation." What it cultivates are "subjects," "cogs," and "players," not independent "citizens."
The greatest temptation of the "consensus of violence" is its promise of "certainty" and "security." In a world full of chaos and uncertainty, this promise holds eternal appeal for human nature that craves order and peace. Yet this security comes at the cost of "possibility" and "freedom." It is a solid, but suffocating, "patriarchal home."
The "Resilient Consensus": An Open Ecosystem Growing Through Dialogue
In contrast, the "resilient consensus" represents a new, more mature, and more challenging vision of order.
Its epistemological foundation is "process ontology." It acknowledges that the world is complex, uncertain, and plural. It does not pursue an ultimate "truth," but is committed to maintaining a "process" itself -- one in which different "observations" can compete, learn from each other, and co-evolve.
The core of its power operation is "negotiation and adaptation." It pursues resilience, diversity, and adaptability. It believes that better decisions emerge from open dialogue that includes as many "observational divergences" as possible.
Its ultimate source of legitimacy is "consent." This consent is not a one-time, coerced "signing on," but a continuous, dynamic "process of participation" that can be revoked and renegotiated at any time. The stability of its order depends on its members' heartfelt "trust" in the fairness of its procedures.
The social form it shapes is an "open ecosystem." Its boundaries are blurred, its structure flat, full of "noise" and "redundancy." In the short term, it may appear "chaotic" and "inefficient," but it thereby gains powerful "antifragility." It welcomes "mutations" (i.e., observational divergence) and can screen from them the direction of "evolution" that adapts to new environments. It is an "entropy-increasing," open system that maintains its vitality through continuous exchange with the outside.
Its demand on the individual is "participation." It requires the individual not merely to be a passive recipient of order, but an active "co-builder" of order. It encourages the individual to bravely express their own "observation," earnestly listen to others' "observations," and bear their own responsibility in the difficult process of seeking "consensus" amid difference.
The "resilient consensus" promises not a once-and-for-all "security," but a more precious and more courage-demanding "possibility." It acknowledges that freedom necessarily comes with risk; dialogue necessarily comes with painful friction; openness necessarily comes with anxiety about the unknown. It is a vibrant but challenging "wilderness."
Epilogue: Scars, Choices, and the Responsibility of the Observer
Our journey began with a scar, and should now return to this scar.
We already know that scars are the indelible marks left by violence, but they are also the foundation upon which new orders are built. Human history is a history of new violence constantly creating new scars.
The "consensus of violence," in essence, tries to cover the wound with a thick, rigid "scab." It tries to make us forget the pain, forget the divergence, forget the voices "silenced" by violence, thereby maintaining a false, fragile "healing."
The "resilient consensus," by contrast, chooses a more difficult path. It chooses to face the scar directly, acknowledge its existence, and "re-observe" it as an eternal "reminder" of our own fragility. It reminds us that any attempt to "cure" all of society's "diseases" once and for all through a single "grand surgery" will only create deeper, unhealable wounds.
It tells us that true "health" is not the absence of wounds, but a powerful "self-healing capacity" to coexist with wounds and learn from them.
Moving from the "consensus of violence" toward the "resilient consensus" is not a smooth road with clear signposts. It is not an "engineering project" that can be accomplished overnight through a single revolution or a single code of law, but a never-ending "practice" that requires each generation, in its own concrete circumstances, to constantly make choices and act.
And in this "practice," none of us are powerless bystanders. For we are the most basic "observers" of this world.
Every choice we make about what to consume is a vote for a certain economic "observational consensus."
Every choice we make about what information to share, which opinions to like, contributes to a certain discursive "observational consensus."
Every choice we make about how to treat the "others" around us -- those whose skin color, faith, and class differ from ours -- we are, through our actions, defining the boundary of this society's "observational consensus": whether it is closed or open.
Perhaps we cannot change the entire world's operating logic. But we can at least, within our own capacity, strive to become a more responsible, more self-reflective "observer."
To see the voices "silenced" by mainstream discourse.
To challenge the "common sense" that rationalizes "structural violence."
To protect the "heretics" and "minorities" who provide diversity for the entire ecosystem.
To practice, in our own lives, that difficult virtue of respecting difference, embracing uncertainty, and always remaining patient with "negotiation."
This may be trivial. But countless such small shifts in "observation," when they converge, may, like water wearing away stone, erode the first tiny crack in that seemingly impregnable fortress of "consensus" forged by violence -- a crack leading toward a more open, more just, and more possibility-filled future.
And this, perhaps, is all we can take away -- and the most precious hope of all -- after having gazed so deeply upon that ancient scar.