The Unsorted
On Refusing to Be Reduced, in Politics and Everywhere Else
---
There is a machine running, and it wants to know what you are.
I notice it most clearly in small moments. The first thirty seconds of a conversation, when someone tries to figure out which signal they are receiving from me. The way a friend pauses before saying something political, scanning my face. The way an algorithm, after one stray click, decides I am now a person who watches a particular kind of video, and serves me more of it until I cannot remember what I was doing on the internet in the first place.
The machine has many forms. Some of it is political. Some of it is algorithmic. Some of it is commercial. Some of it is just the texture of being alive in 2026. But it all does the same thing. It takes the strange, irregular, contradictory shape of an actual person and reduces that shape into something it can handle.
I have started to feel something quiet and stubborn refusing this. Not anger, exactly. More like fatigue with an edge. The older I get, the less I want to step into the bin.
The question I cannot shake is how a person stays whole in a world that has been engineered to make them smaller.
This essay is my attempt at an answer. Not a researched one. A felt one.
---
The Word That Should Have Stopped Us
I was listening, the other day, to a man who works at one of the big platforms. He was being interviewed on a podcast, and the way he talked about the people who use his app caught me sideways. He spoke about them the way a dealer talks about his clients. They were "users." They needed to be "kept engaged." They had "withdrawal patterns" if they were away too long. The goal was to "reduce friction" between the impulse and the open app.
He did not notice what he was saying. That is the part that stayed with me.
The word that should disturb us is user. It is the same word the medical profession uses for people with addictions. We have built an entire industry on a vocabulary borrowed from drug dealing, and we have agreed, somewhere along the line, to be addressed in that language. We pick up our phones and we are the addict in someone else's slide deck.
Once you hear that, you start to hear it everywhere. The advertiser does not see a person, he sees a wallet with a face. The algorithm does not see a person, it sees a sequence of predictions. The politician does not see a person, he sees a tribe with a postal code. The AI does not even see that much. It sees a prompt history.
Each of these reductions is profitable for someone. None of them is profitable for the human being on the receiving end.
The instinct to fight back is not paranoia. It is the most basic human refusal there is. It is the refusal to be turned into the smallest version of yourself.
---
A Map That Was Old When My Grandfather Was Born
The political sort is just the oldest version of the same trick. We do not see it as a trick because it has been running for so long.
Left and right, the most powerful spatial metaphor of modern political life, came from a seating chart. In 1789, in a hot room in Versailles, some men sat down to debate the future of France. The defenders of the king took the seats on one side. The revolutionaries took the seats on the other. The newspapers used the geometry to describe the politics. The geometry stuck.
That is the entire origin story. Two centuries of human values, hopes, and identities organized by where some Frenchmen happened to sit before the storming of the Bastille.
It was a useful shorthand once. The way "sunrise" is a useful shorthand. The sun does not actually rise, the earth turns, but nobody is going to say "earth-rotation event" at breakfast. So we keep the word and accept that it is wrong.
The trouble is that the metaphor has become the thing. We are not using a 1789 seating chart anymore as a rough map of a deeper reality. We are pretending the seating chart is the reality. We are voting on it. We are losing friendships over it. We are organizing entire lives around which side of a Versailles hall an ancestor we never met would have picked.
That map predates electricity. It predates the telephone, the antibiotic, the airplane, the satellite, the personal computer, the internet, the smartphone, and the artificial intelligence that is right now writing legal briefs in three seconds. Trying to organize how we feel about climate, about AI, about loneliness, about the future of work, with a 1789 seating chart is like trying to navigate a modern city with a hand-drawn sketch of a village that no longer exists.
You can do it. You will move. But you will not arrive anywhere useful, and you will be angry the whole way.
---
The People Who Don't Fit
I think most people sense this, even if they cannot put it into words.
When I talk to friends, real conversations, late, not the performative kind, almost nobody actually fits the bin they have been assigned. The conservative ones turn out to be quietly tender about things they would never say in public. The progressive ones turn out to be quietly conservative about things they would never say in public. The ones who voted one way are exhausted by their own side. The ones who voted the other way are embarrassed by theirs. Almost everyone, in private, has the same shape. A shape with edges and contradictions and unfinished thoughts.
The wings are loud, and they look like a majority, but they are not. They are an echo. They are amplified because they fit the format. The middle of the room is much larger than it looks, and the middle of the room is not boring centrism, it is people whose actual values do not match a checklist on any side.
The thing I notice most is that this is not country-specific. The thirty-year-old in Berlin and the thirty-year-old in Lagos and the thirty-year-old in Manila have more in common with each other than the maps will admit. They want roughly the same things. Work that means something. A place to live that they can afford. People they can love. A chance to make something that is theirs. Some peace. Some meaning. They are told they are part of opposing cultural projects, but if you put them in a room together they would probably skip the cultural project and order food.
I do not think people in poorer countries dream of becoming Americans. I do not think people anywhere dream of becoming a political identity. They dream of being seen. Of mattering somewhere. Of having a daily life that is not arranged for them by something they did not consent to.
That is not American. That is not European. That is human.
---
We Stopped Disagreeing and Started Hating
The thing that broke politics is not that we disagree. Disagreement is fine. Disagreement is how anything gets thought through.
The thing that broke politics is that we started hating each other for the disagreement.
I notice this in myself sometimes. Someone says a thing, and before I have processed what they actually said, a feeling has already arrived. That kind of person. I know what they read. I know what they think about every other topic. I know what they ate for breakfast. None of which is true. I have not met them. I am reacting to a cartoon I have been handed by years of feed.
Once you start watching for this, you cannot unsee it. The dinner that goes quiet when politics comes up. The cousin who is no longer invited. The neighbour who used to be just a neighbour. The colleague who has become, in your head, an avatar of everything you do not like, even though in real life he just wants to talk about his dog.
This is the deeper damage. Not the policy disagreements. The way we have been trained to look at each other.
You do not need a study to feel this. You can feel it at any family table in any country that has had a recent election.
The exhausted majority is not exhausted by political disagreement. It is exhausted by being asked, every day, to hate people who, in real life, they would happily share a meal with.
---
What Conditions Do To Us
Here is the part I had to admit, even though I did not want to. We are not free of our environment. We become some version of what life makes possible for us.
I see it in the people I know. Friends who are doing well, who feel held by their work and their relationships and their place, are usually generous. They have margin. They can absorb a strange opinion at a dinner without flinching. They can laugh at things. They have room in them.
Friends who are squeezed, by money, by fear, by loneliness, by a job that grinds them down, are tighter. Not worse people. Tighter. The aperture closes. The patience gets thinner. The world starts to feel like a place full of threats instead of a place full of possibilities. And the strange opinion at the dinner stops being something to laugh at and starts being something to fight.
This is not a moral failing. This is what humans do under pressure. A person held in a stable life will mostly produce a stable life around them. A person pushed too far on the wrong axis will close, harden, tighten, and look for someone to blame.
Our age is unusual not because the human nervous system has changed. It hasn't. It is unusual because almost every major force around us is pushing in the direction of squeeze. The labour market is being rearranged faster than people can adapt. The information environment is engineered to keep us afraid and indignant. The cost of an ordinary life has detached from the wage of an ordinary job. The communities that used to hold people have thinned. The friendships that used to ground them have moved into a feed that is, in turn, optimized to make them feel worse.
This is the machine, seen from the inside. It is not one thing. It is the sum of every modern pressure landing on the same nervous system at the same time, asking it to stay calm in a room where every light is set to flash.
If you want citizens who are open, curious, and generous, you have to build conditions in which openness, curiosity, and generosity are possible. Politics that destabilizes for advantage is not a strategy. It is a slow poisoning of the population it claims to serve. This is the moral case for boring competence. For the small dignities. For things working. For the kind of progress that does not photograph well but lets a person breathe.
And it is the case against anyone, politician, platform, pundit, who makes their money by keeping you angry. Not because their anger is wrong. Sometimes it is right. But because anger sustained year after year produces a kind of person who cannot live well, and cannot govern themselves, and cannot raise children who are okay.
---
Mature Humanism
Here is the word I have been circling.
The machine cannot give us this. It does not have the equipment. Every system designed to reduce a human to a category will, by its nature, fail at the one thing we most need right now. A way of being that holds its shape under pressure. The answer to the machine is not another machine. The answer is a posture.
Call it mature humanism.
It is not centrism. Centrism is a position on the spectrum, halfway between two flags. What I am describing is a refusal of the spectrum itself. Not just the political spectrum. The whole apparatus of reduction.
Not the historical sense of humanism, the one that put man at the centre of the universe. Closer to a personal posture. A way of doing politics, doing conversation, doing work, doing daily life, that puts dignity before loyalty, evidence before slogan, responsibility before blame, repair before ruin, restraint before outrage, the long view before the loud one.
Mature humanism does not pretend to be above politics. It has views, sometimes strong ones. It can be progressive on one question, conservative on another, indifferent on a third, curious about a fourth. What it refuses is the demand that all of these views come bundled, and that loyalty to the bundle matters more than loyalty to what is actually true.
It is mature because it can hold contradiction without panic. It can listen to a position it disagrees with and not feel attacked. It can change its mind without feeling humiliated. It can lose an argument and not lose a self.
It is humanist because it begins and ends with the person in front of you. Not the avatar, not the symbol, not the imagined enemy on the other side. Not the demographic. Not the user. Not the prompt history. The actual person, who is almost always more confused, more tired, and more decent than the version of them you have been sold.
This is not soft. It is the opposite of soft. Picking a team is the soft option. Picking a team is a holiday from thinking. Mature humanism is the work of staying awake when staying awake is exhausting.
---
The Vertical
If left and right are the horizontal, mature humanism describes a vertical.
The horizontal is the argument we are stuck in. Who is more left, who is more right, who drifted, who betrayed, who went too far, who sold out. It moves left and right but it does not move up. It is the same argument, in different costumes, every season.
The vertical asks a different question.
:::vertical-box:::
It asks whether you are willing to be wrong. Whether you can describe the other side in language they would recognize, instead of in the cartoon you have been handed. Whether you can distinguish between an opponent and an enemy. Whether your conviction is in the position, or in the rage. Whether you would rather win, or rather understand. Whether you can sit with the discomfort of complexity, or whether you need someone to blame by sundown.
You can be politically conservative and mature on the vertical. You can be politically progressive and mature on the vertical. You can also be either of those and deeply immature, in which case the politics is just the costume the immaturity is wearing this year.
The horizontal will keep shifting. Conditions change, generations change, the same person will move on the horizontal across a lifetime as the world moves around them. The vertical is the thing that stays. It is the thing that lets a society absorb a shock without tearing itself apart. A country full of mature liberals and mature conservatives can have ferocious arguments and still function. A country full of immature anything cannot.
And the vertical applies far beyond politics. There are mature founders and immature ones. Mature artists and immature ones. Mature parents, friends, partners, citizens, neighbours, all on the same axis. The horizontal lies tell you who is on your side. The vertical tells you who is worth listening to in the first place.
I have started to believe that the only thing that really matters about a person, in the end, is where they are on the vertical. Everything else is decoration.
---
What It Looks Like to Live This
I am not interested in a philosophy that does not show up in the day.
For me, mature humanism looks like small things. It looks like not retweeting the rage bait that has been engineered to make me furious at someone I have never met. It looks like not assuming the worst about the colleague who voted differently. It looks like not punishing the people in my life for their political identity by treating them as suspicious on every other axis of being human.
It looks like reading something written by someone I suspect I disagree with, and reading it generously. Not to be converted. To understand the texture of the disagreement, instead of the caricature.
It looks like choosing people who can think over people who can perform. In elections. In hiring. In friendships. Anywhere I have a choice.
It looks like keeping relationships across the line. Real ones. Not as political projects. Just as people. This is the hardest part, because the sorting has cut deep, and many of these relationships have to be rebuilt almost from scratch.
It looks like resisting the smaller versions of the same reduction. The phone that wants me in a feed instead of a room. The platform that wants me watching instead of making. The brand that wants me defined by what I bought. The hashtag that wants me flattened into a slogan. None of these are politics. But they are running the same play. They want me smaller because smaller is easier to sell to.
And it looks, mostly, like protecting the part of me that does not want to be sorted at all. Holding on to things in my life that have nothing to do with any of this. Mountains. Books. A long meal with people I love. A morning that is mine before the world starts pulling on me. The slow pleasure of becoming good at something. The wings are loud because they have nothing else. The unsorted life has more in it.
This is a kind of politics too, by the way. The choice to live a fuller human life than your identity card wants you to live is itself a political act in an era that wants you reduced to a tribe.
---
The People I Want to Be Around
I keep returning, in my own life, to a simple test.
When I imagine the people I most want to be around. The people I want my future kids to grow up around. The people I want as neighbours, colleagues, friends, partners, allies. None of them are characterized by a political position. None of them are characterized by a follower count. None of them are characterized by what app they built, what country they were born in, what algorithm they trained.
They are characterized by a way of being.
They are calm without being detached. Curious without being naïve. Kind without being soft. Decisive without being cruel. They have convictions but they are not their convictions. They can disagree with me about almost anything and I would still trust them with my keys, my house, my time, my kids.
If those are the people I want to be around, then those are the people I should try to become. And if those are the people I want to be around, then those are the people I should try to surround myself with. Not just at the ballot box. Everywhere. In the friend group. At the dinner table. In the company I build. In the feeds I follow. In the country I help shape, by the small daily acts of refusing the sort.
The wings are loud right now because the conditions favour them. The platforms are loud because reduction is profitable. The maps are loud because they were drawn for old problems and nobody has had the courage to redraw them. All of this can change. Slowly, quietly, without drama. Through the boring work of building stable lives, stable institutions, stable communities, where the tightening does not get triggered, where the algorithm does not get the satisfaction, where ordinary decency starts to feel possible again.
No party will see this first. They will see it last, if they see it at all. They are built out of the sorting they would have to abandon.
But I know what I am voting for. In every kind of vote. Including the ones that have no ballot.
I am voting for the unsorted. For the whole human. For the kind of person who does not need me to be on a team in order to treat me like a person. The mature humanists, whatever label they happen to be wearing this season.
If you have read this far, you probably are one. You always were.
The map was just wrong. The machine never had you.