Resolution Theory vs Postmodernism: Critique, Authorship, and the Governability of a Shared World

Postmodern critique is often brilliant as diagnosis: it exposes how institutions launder interests through neutrality, how categories can oppress, and how power shapes what counts as “reasonable.” This paper argues that the same intellectual posture becomes dangerous when imported as an operating style for governance. The reason is structural. Large-scale public life cannot function without legible closure: identifiable points where uncertainty is settled into binding decisions. When critique dissolves closure into endless context, responsibility diffuses into “the system,” truth-tracking collapses into rhetoric management, and moral language is repurposed as factional enforcement. Resolution Theory (RT) offers an alternative: critique with closure. RT distinguishes explanation from authorship and treats responsibility as an assignment that must land at resolution points, even under deep systemic explanation. It further specifies a hand-off protocol from authorship-finding to blame/repair, and a minimum viable author criterion to prevent “distributed responsibility” collapsing into authorlessness. The result is a governance-compatible form of critique: one that can expose power while preserving corrigibility—truth-testing, decision, revision, and repair—in a shared world.