{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "canonicalUrl": "https://hypersubject.net/entries/2026/02/the-designated-rebel",
  "path": "/entries/2026/02/the-designated-rebel",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-27T20:51:17.000Z",
  "site": "at://did:plc:32534e3a5wza2m3omyuflhm3/site.standard.publication/3mnmnwcnftk2i",
  "textContent": "A while ago, during a sprint retrospective, I suggested significant changes to\nour \"Definition of Done.\" When I finished, the room went quiet. What did that\nsilence mean?\n\nThe silence lasted nearly a minute. Why was no one saying anything? Finally,\nthe PM broke the tension by prompting the team:\n\n{{<figure width=600 src=\"/images/the-designated-rebel/meeting-0.png\">}}\n\nHis comment further irritated me. I wondered: _Are we really going to operate\nlike this, where I suggest a top-down change and everyone silently accepts the\nnew rules?_ So, I protested.\n\n{{<figure width=600 src=\"/images/the-designated-rebel/meeting-1.png\">}}\n\nAfter the meeting, I couldn't stop reflecting on it. A quote from Žižek began\nracing through my mind: \"_Those in power often prefer even a critical\nparticipation to silence._\" I told myself I spoke up to allow people to be\nactive participants in decisions affecting their day-to-day lives. But then I\nhad to ask: Did I say what I said because I was in a position of power?\n\nAt the moment, I thought the PM was interpreting the silence as agreement and\nthat his comment was calcifying the team's passivity. Later, I realized the\nopposite was true. He was the one trying to break their stagnation; his joke\nwas the perfect bait. It was an invitation for the team to engage.\n\nThis led me to a sad realization: my objection achieved the exact opposite of\nwhat I intended. It only made everyone more comfortable in their passivity. By\njumping in to \"defend\" their right to speak, I became the Designated Rebel. I\nallowed them to stay passive while feeling good about having a champion. Now\nthey know someone will always speak up \"for\" them. I had become part of the\nvery power structure I was trying to resist.\n\nSo, did I speak up because I was in a position of power? Was I trying to keep\nthe team busy with \"pseudo-activities\" so that nothing changes while a lot is\nhappening?\n\nModern politics often functions this way. There is an ever-present urge to be\nactive and to participate. We tweet, we condemn, and we protest—all within the\ncoordinates of the system. We do a lot so that, ultimately, nothing really\nchanges. Our critical participation is exactly what allows the system to\nfunction.The best example of this is Žižek's neurotic, who endlessly talks on\nthe divan because a moment of silence might result in the analyst asking a\ncrucial question.\n\nWhile the passivity of subjects might give them breathing space to see the\nunderlying mechanism behind politics, in a space where decisions are made from\nthe bottom up, it simply locks everything down. If people refuse to participate\nin a democratic space, there is no moving forward.\n\nContemporary democracy is often an illusion to obscure the fact that a minority\nrules over an enormous majority. In that context, whatever keeps us busy\nenough—discourse, work, pleasures—to avoid revolting is \"good\" for the system.\nHowever, in a team that runs on democratic principles, decisions _require_\nparticipation. Without the critical engagement of my teammates, whatever I\nsuggest is impossible to truly implement. My \"power\" over them is only the\ninfluence I’ve earned—or perhaps I am in power and completely blinded by the\nfact that my \"rebellion\" is just the grease on the wheels of their silence.",
  "title": "The Designated Rebel"
}