Thought this was an interesting tweet to think with à la B & T. For a while now, it's been bothering me how sloppily I've been tossing around the phrase OOW, but in this tweet, I think you see a failure to rise to the status of OOW. An OOW is an achievement, one wherein a dispute is superseded by appealing to an OOW. So while you might be able to see someone using a domestic logic or civic logic here and there, and you will, it's not technically an OOW until concessions are made for the common good. There has to be a kind of rearrangement of objects and persons.

In the tweet, then, you see both critique and also B & T's philosophical anthropology (i.e., we are beings who are moved by injustice and who are perpetually insecure). It's tempting to see "test" in the tweet, but I think even test has to do with the reflexivity of actors as they try to produce the common good by rearranging the situation (are we getting it right? have we successfully made things more efficient? how do we know?).

Coincidentally, you also see critique here. Some say it's unjust to feed kids using an industrial logic. But an inquiry into this might actually find that this is an OOW, since feeding kids through a point system is itself a rearrangement of persons and objects according to an industrial logic, and therefore an OOW. But I also think that this also points to insecurity. Justice is temporary and we are plagued by insecurity, so critique is soon to come. But then I wonder what the test is...testing might not appear. You'd probably have to conduct qualitative research to peak under the hook and see the testing. How do we know that the store is solving the problem we wanted it to solve? I guess the store would be a compromise device too...

Anyways, still thinking about this stuff! Trying to work out the key concepts...

No response required. Just thinking out loud.