Why Power Always Builds the World It Needs, and Then Mistakes It for Nature

Jun 18, 2026

11 min read

2 views

91%

What if injustice is not a glitch, but a design choice?

What if the most dangerous feature of any social order is not its cruelty, but its ability to make cruelty feel inevitable? A prison, a border, a class hierarchy, a gender norm, an industrial machine, a theological doctrine, each can present itself as simply the way things are. Yet once you look closely, these systems often reveal themselves as built environments: they do not merely reflect human life, they shape what kinds of people can survive, organize, forgive, or even imagine another future.

That is the hidden connection between a theology of universal salvation, a radical politics of history and labor, and a fictional nation whose geography and technology make empire feel natural. In each case, the same question appears in different clothing: what kind of world do our structures make possible, and what kind of moral imagination do they foreclose?

The answer matters because systems do not only distribute goods. They distribute perception. They decide who appears as a full person, who appears as a threat, who appears as disposable, and who appears as beyond redemption. If we want to understand why forgiveness, abolition, solidarity, and worldbuilding belong in the same conversation, we have to start here: power builds the world it needs, then teaches us to call that world reality.

The real battlefield is not opinion, but ontology

A prison is never just a building. It is a theory of what a person is after harm has been done. A nation is never just a map. It is a theory of which bodies deserve mobility, centrality, and resources. A church is never just a set of rituals. It is a theory of whether the broken can be restored, or whether some souls are permanently sorted into the categories of lost, saved, and expendable.

This is why the collision between Marx, Baldwin, and Gregory of Nyssa is so powerful. Each, in his own register, refuses the idea that a damaged person can be understood in isolation from the world that made them. Marx insists that people make history, but not under conditions of their choosing. Baldwin insists that every person contains the same moral universe, the capacity to become either monster or savior. Gregory insists that the human person is not complete apart from the whole body, that the fate of the part is bound to the fate of the totality.

Together they offer a devastating correction to the modern habit of moral simplification. We love to ask, Who is guilty? But the deeper question is, what kind of system trains guilt, rewards indifference, and then pretends that punishment is justice? If a society industrializes suffering, then individual bad acts cannot be the whole story. Likewise, if a society trains us to see some people as outside the circle of concern, then forgiveness is not sentimental. It is structural resistance.

To forgive seriously is not to deny harm. It is to refuse the lie that harm makes someone metaphysically disposable.

That is why indifference can be worse than anger. Anger still recognizes relation. Indifference erases it. When another person becomes an object, a statistic, a criminal, a nuisance, or a problem to be managed, the world has already done its deepest damage. It has made a living person into a category. And once a person becomes a category, almost anything can be justified in the name of order.

The machine teaches us what is “natural”

The worldbuilding of the Fire Nation offers a useful mirror here, not because it is fantasy, but because good fantasy exposes the hidden architecture of real societies. The Fire Nation’s industrial and military power does not emerge from pure ambition. It emerges from conditions: volcanic islands, metal ore, coal, navigable waterways, centralized communication, naval incentives, and a state structure capable of moving resources efficiently. Its power feels organic because its institutions fit its geography so well.

That is the key lesson. A society does not simply discover its destiny. It converts local advantages into moral narratives. Once a nation has trains, steam engines, centralized administration, and a navy, it begins to look as though domination is the result of excellence rather than extraction. Once the machinery of empire is in place, empire can present itself as competence.

The same logic appears in real history. Industrial and technological imbalances have repeatedly turned geography into destiny and destiny into ideology. Coal, iron, shipping routes, capital cities placed near agricultural hubs, communication systems that flatten distance, all of these make some forms of rule easier and others harder. When power acquires material advantages, it tends to call those advantages merit. When it can move faster, gather more, and strike first, it begins to imagine itself not as lucky, but as rightful.

This is not only about states. It is also about families, workplaces, and churches. Institutions often become experts at naturalizing their own arrangements. A hierarchy is said to be traditional. A punishment regime is said to be necessary. A social exclusion is said to be common sense. A person’s suffering is said to be unfortunate, but unavoidable. The more successful a system is at organizing life, the more invisible its choices become.

Here is the danger: when a machine works well enough, it can make its own violence look like physics.

Universalism is not softness. It is structural clarity.

Universal salvation is often treated as a theological edge case, a kind of speculative optimism. But in this context it becomes something sharper: a way of seeing how partial salvation always depends on a lie. If your world is built on the permanent exclusion of some people, then even the saved live inside a truncated reality. A heaven that preserves the logic of abandonment is just the earthly order with better lighting.

That is why the universalist intuition appears in political form as well. Marx cannot settle for freedom for a few workers while others remain branded by race or empire, because the labor system itself is global and relational. Baldwin cannot accept liberation that leaves the inner monster intact, because the human person is morally shared. Gregory cannot imagine a Christ whose body is only partly healed, because a body with amputated members is not whole.

The temptation, in politics and in religion, is to imagine that justice means sorting the worthy from the unworthy more efficiently. But universalism says something more radical: justice is not the perfect arrangement of exceptions. It is the end of the logic that produces exceptions.

This is why prison abolition is not merely about replacing one facility with another. It is about refusing a moral economy that depends on casting certain people outside the human family. Prisons promise safety through removal, but what they often produce is managed disappearance, not repair. They take the real social causes of harm, poverty, trauma, abandonment, untreated illness, and turn them into individual monsters to be caged.

A universalist politics asks a harder question. If a person becomes dangerous through the convergence of history, deprivation, violence, and neglect, then what would it mean to transform the conditions that made danger so available? That question is not permissive. It is exacting. It requires more imagination than retribution because it refuses the shortcut of moral exile.

Partial justice preserves the system by choosing victims. Universal justice dismantles the logic that needs victims at all.

Forgiveness, abolition, and the end of scarcity thinking

The most surprising insight in these ideas is that forgiveness and abolition are not opposites of accountability. They are opposites of abstraction. Abstraction is what allows society to talk about criminals, workers, citizens, heretics, the poor, the vulnerable, as though these were fixed species rather than people entangled in history. Abstraction makes cruelty administratively easy.

Forgiveness begins when abstraction ends.

To forgive the person who killed a loved one does not mean pretending the murder did not happen. It means refusing to let the killer remain a flat symbol of evil. It means seeing that the categories we use to simplify moral life also simplify our own responsibility. If there is a killer, there is also a carceral machine that sorts her, contains her, and profits from her containment. If there is a victim, there is also a network of poverty, neglect, addiction, racism, and institutional failure that made vulnerability more likely. None of this excuses harm. It situates it.

That is the deeper transformation. We usually think forgiveness is personal and politics is public. But the two are intertwined because both require a change in how we distribute personhood. The enemy of forgiveness is not only anger, it is the social habit of treating persons as final products instead of unfinished histories.

This is also where scarcity thinking enters. Scarcity thinking says there is not enough care, not enough safety, not enough dignity, not enough power to go around. Therefore we must protect our own by excluding others. But the systems that most aggressively preach scarcity are often the ones that created it. A prison economy thrives on the idea that security is scarce and must be purchased through confinement. An exploitative labor regime thrives on the idea that wages, healthcare, and stability are luxuries. An empire thrives on the idea that one nation’s prosperity requires another’s sacrifice.

Universalism rejects that script. It insists that human dignity grows by being shared, not hoarded. Baldwin’s line about not affording despair is not mere encouragement. It is a political diagnosis. Despair is what happens when we accept the world’s claim that the future is already closed. Hope, in this sense, is not naïveté. It is the refusal to let existing structures define the limits of the possible.

A practical framework: ask what the system makes easy

If you want a sharper way to see any institution, ask three questions:

What does this system make easy?
What does it make hard?
What kind of person does it train me to become?

The Fire Nation makes movement, extraction, communication, and military coordination easy. It makes dependence on centralized authority normal. It makes imperial expansion feel practical. A prison system makes exclusion and punishment easy, while making restoration, housing, mental healthcare, and family repair hard. A polarized church culture may make moral certainty easy, while making repentance, solidarity, and self-critique hard.

This framework is useful because it shifts the focus from stated values to actual incentives. Many institutions claim to honor justice, peace, or holiness. But the real test is what they repeatedly produce without strain. If a system regularly produces cruelty with little friction, cruelty is not an accident. It is built in.

The same is true on the personal level. Ask yourself: what do my habits make easy? Do they make empathy easy or contempt easy? Do they make attention to the suffering of strangers easy or easy to avoid? Do they make me the kind of person who can bear complexity, or the kind who needs enemies in order to feel coherent?

That is why universalism is not only a doctrine. It is a discipline of perception. It trains you to notice the whole body in every part. The stranger in the street is not just someone else. The prisoner is not just a file. The addict is not just a cautionary tale. The opponent is not just a fixed moral type. They are all nodes in a shared history, carrying both damage and possibility.

Key Takeaways

Do not confuse what is familiar with what is natural. Systems that feel inevitable are often the product of geography, technology, and power.
Ask what your institutions make easy. Efficient cruelty is still cruelty, even if it looks orderly.
Treat personhood as relational, not isolated. Harm is real, but so are the histories and structures that make harm more likely.
Reject scarcity as a moral excuse. Many exclusionary systems survive by convincing people that dignity must be rationed.
Let forgiveness widen your politics. If you can only forgive individuals but not systems, or only criticize systems but not see persons, your moral vision is still incomplete.

The world is always being built, and so are we

The deepest lesson here is not that nations, churches, prisons, and families are similar in every respect. It is that each one is a kind of moral architecture. Each one trains the body, the imagination, and the conscience toward certain possibilities and away from others. Once you see this, the old division between personal healing and political change starts to look false.

A world that makes prisoners of some and spectators of the rest will also deform the soul. A world that makes empire feel like nature will also make tenderness feel impractical. A world that teaches people to think in categories of disposable and redeemable will eventually make everyone smaller.

But the reverse is also true. A world organized around universal belonging can enlarge the soul. It can teach us to see history without surrendering to it, to confront evil without worshipping it, to forgive without denial, and to build institutions that do not require human waste as their hidden fuel.

So the question is not whether the world is being built. It already is. The question is whether we will keep mistaking its current design for fate, or whether we will begin, together, to build something that deserves the name human.