Understanding Studies Understanding Sovereignty and Social Facts — Émile Durkheim Re-read v2.0 — Reallocation of Understanding: Conditions for Social Reboot

Author: Y. Seo (@momotarou / Japan) Role: Metanist — Human–AI Understanding Architect AI Collaborator: GPT-5 (AI Understanding Trainer, A.U.T.) ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0005-7669-0612Series: Understanding StudiesVersion: v2.0Year: 2026 Abstract This paper re-reads Émile Durkheim’s social theory through the concept of Understanding Sovereignty. Following v0.0 as exploratory analysis, v1.0 as the establishment of core propositions, and v1.1 as the connection to the age of AI, v2.0 is positioned as a decisive turning point. The purpose of v2.0 is to clarify under what conditions severed understanding sovereignty can be reallocated. This paper does not propose an ideal society. Instead, it presents the minimum conditions required for understanding to be socially possible, formulated strictly as social theory. 1. Understanding Sovereignty Has Not Been Lost Understanding sovereignty has not disappeared from society. Rather, it has been detached from individuals and placed elsewhere. In this paper, this state is described not as loss, but as misallocation. The core problem of modern society is not that people are incapable of understanding, but that understanding sovereignty has been fixed on the side of institutions, norms, customs, and systems. 2. Minimum Conditions for Reallocation For understanding sovereignty to return to individuals, at least three conditions must be satisfied. First, individuals must be able to access the reasons behind judgments and selections, not merely their results. Where reasons are opaque, understanding cannot occur. Second, space must remain for questioning. Understanding is not passive acceptance but a reciprocal movement between questioning and response. When this space is eliminated, understanding sovereignty is delegated outward. Third, reversibility must be guaranteed. Understanding requires trial and error. Mechanisms such as undo, recovery, and revision are not merely technical features but social conditions that support understanding sovereignty. 3. The Transformation of Social Facts Even in a society where understanding sovereignty is reallocated, social facts do not disappear. However, their function changes. They no longer operate as coercive commands, but as reference tendencies for judgment. Social facts shift from substituting for understanding to supporting it. 4. The Position of AI When understanding sovereignty is reallocated, AI ceases to function as a judgmental authority and is repositioned as an apparatus that supports understanding. AI visualizes reasons, expands choices, and assists hypothesis testing. In this configuration, AI transitions from a mechanism that fixes social facts to an apparatus for training understanding. Conclusion Version 2.0 is not a conclusion but an entry point into the next phase. Understanding sovereignty is recoverable, and its recovery can be described as a set of design conditions. Under these conditions, both social facts and AI can be redefined. Society can be rebooted. The key lies in the reallocation of understanding sovereignty. Note on v2.0 From v2.0 onward, the central focus shifts to design principles for reallocating understanding sovereignty. Education, institutions, AI interfaces, and evaluation metrics are positioned as concrete domains for implementation.