Understanding Studies Understanding Sovereignty and Social Facts — Émile Durkheim Re-read v2.1 — Design Principles for the Reallocation of Understanding Sovereignty

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: v2.1Year: 2026 Abstract Version 2.1 develops the problem setting established in v2.0, focusing on the design principles required for the reallocation of understanding sovereignty. This paper does not propose concrete institutional or technical solutions. Instead, it articulates abstract conditions under which understanding can be exercised as a social function. These principles are intended to be applicable across multiple domains, including education, institutions, AI systems, and evaluation frameworks. 1. Design Principles as a Perspective Understanding sovereignty is not restored through individual willpower or ethical intention. It depends on whether conditions that allow understanding to be exercised are structurally available. In this paper, such structural conditions are referred to as design principles. These principles do not prescribe specific solutions, but rather define abstract constraints that can be applied across heterogeneous domains. 2. Principle 1: Accessibility of Reasons Understanding cannot occur in environments where only outcomes are presented and the reasons behind judgments and selections remain opaque. Access to reasons—or at minimum, the ability to question and inspect them—is a prerequisite for maintaining understanding sovereignty at the individual level. 3. Principle 2: Institutionalized Permission to Question Understanding is not passive acceptance of given answers, but a reciprocal process of questioning and response. When questioning is treated as exceptional or deviant behavior, understanding sovereignty is inevitably delegated outward. For reallocation to occur, questioning must be institutionally permitted and treated as a normal mode of interaction. 4. Principle 3: Guaranteed Reversibility Understanding emerges through trial and error. In environments where failure immediately produces irreversible consequences, individuals tend to choose compliance over understanding. Mechanisms such as undo, revision, and recovery are therefore not merely technical features, but social conditions that support the exercise of understanding sovereignty. 5. Principle 4: Non-Fixation of Optimal Solutions When a single optimized answer is continuously presented, the space for understanding disappears. Understanding requires a margin of choice. By presenting multiple options alongside their assumptions and limitations, systems preserve the conditions under which understanding sovereignty can be exercised. Conclusion Version 2.1 does not offer a method for restoring understanding sovereignty. Rather, it organizes the minimum design principles required for understanding sovereignty to be exercised. Understanding sovereignty should not be treated as a value to be protected, but as a condition to be designed. Version 2.1 serves as a conceptual foundation for the transition from social theory to applied design domains. Note on v2.1 From this point onward, concrete domains such as education, institutional design, AI interfaces, and evaluation metrics can be analyzed as experimental fields for reallocating understanding sovereignty.