Cognitive Autonomous Zones: against “framework fundamentalism”

In my previous post on the “cash value” of truth, I explored how Pragmatist philosophy offers a way to test beliefs through their practical consequences. Is something, as William James would put it, “good in the way of belief”?

Today I want to develop that thinking further by approach a specific problem: what I would call framework fundamentalism. In doing so, I want to propose a solution borrowed from anarchist theory and grounded in practical philosophy.

We use frameworks to organise complexity. But if we don't regularly examine frameworks themselves, become the complexity from which we're trying to escape. It's a paradox.

The problem: “framework fundamentalism”

Let's start by distinguishing between two things that often get confused. Orthodoxy is subscription to a framework. You might use a framework because it’s useful, because your community uses it, and/or because it helps you navigate a particular area or problem.

This can be “open” approach to using frameworks. An orthodox user of a framework remains willing to test it, revise it, and abandon it necessary.

Framework fundamentalists, on the other hand, are unconditionally wedded to a framework. It's an important distinction, as fundamentalism is always “closed”. They become independent of human experience. They become what one commenter calls “the idolization of formalism” – i.e. frameworks detached from living practice.

Thinking through complex problems requires cognitive flexibility, and framework fundamentalism destroys this. It instead created rigidity, oversimplification, and overgeneralisation. Moreover, it treats frameworks as beyond questioning.

You may have seen this before. For example, an academic defends a theoretical framework as if it's doctrinal; the senior leadership of an organisation clings to a strategic planning model despite repeated failures; an individual develops cognitive habits so mechanical that novel problems are forced into familiar categories.

I've seen my work on the Essential Elements of Digital Literacies used as some kind of “checklist” rather than as a launchpad for conversation and thought. Framework fundamentalism is a kind of mind virus where something meant as a tool turns into something that constrains thought.

As I noted in my post on books as luxury goods, frameworks can become what I called “dead metaphors.” That is to say, they continue to structure our thinking without our awareness that we are being constrained. We inherit frameworks, use them, pass them on, and rarely stop to question whether they still serve their purpose.

Framework fundamentalism is the institutionalisation of dead frameworks. It’s what happens when we stop noticing that frameworks are just tools and start treating them as truths.

The solution: Cognitive Autonomous Zones (CAZ)

To think about what a healthy approach to frameworks might look like, I want to borrow a concept from anarchist theory: the Temporary Autonomous Zone (TAZ). It's a concept from Hakim Bey’s theoretical work on spaces that elude formal structures of control.

Before I get into that, though, I need emphasise that I'm talking in a positive light about the TAZ as it has been adopted and adapted by activists, artists, and theorists to describe liberatory spaces. Hakim Bey (Peter Lamborn Wilson) is a deeply troubling individual and I want to be clear that nothing in this post should be read as endorsing or excusing his indefensible views.

The TAZ concept describes temporary spaces that are designed to dissolve and re-form elsewhere before regulatory power can crush them. I think there's something genuinely useful here for thinking about frameworks.

There are several characteristics of the TAZ worth mentioning in this regard:

• Liberate an area of land, time, or imagination. Bey explicitly included imagination alongside physical space. This is what anti-frameworks do: liberate areas of imagination from the control that frameworks can exert over perception.
• Dissolve before the state can crush it. TAZ is not about permanence but about strategic impermanence. Applied to frameworks, this means frameworks should dissolve before they can ossify into dogma.
• Intensification rather than perfection. The aim of the TAZ is to intensify everyday life, not create utopia. Anti-frameworks similarly intensify awareness of how frameworks shape perception. We don't need “perfect” alternative frameworks, but rather a heightened awareness of how the current ones are constraining.
• Glimpsing alternatives, not providing blueprints. TAZ provides “a brief glimpse at post-revolution utopia” without claiming to be a permanent solution. Anti-frameworks similarly glimpse what’s possible beyond current constraints, without proposing perfect replacements.
• Not an exclusive end in itself. The TAZ coexists with other structures rather than replacing all organisation. Anti-frameworks similarly don’t reject all frameworks, but rather work alongside more established structures for thinking.

What if we thought of anti-frameworks as Cognitive Autonomous Zones (CAZ)? These temporary structures would help us examine and step outside the frameworks that usually organise our thinking. The CAZ provides a space where our usual cognitive habits, rules, and structures are suspended for reflexive examination.

Anti-frameworks open up spaces for cognitive play. As I've previously quoted Nemesis as noting, the anti-framework is a “temporary, reflexive structure or process meant for noticing how frameworks constrain perception.” They “organize thinking only long enough to expose the limits of organization itself.”

This is what cognitive autonomous zones do: liberate areas of imagination.

Practical applications of the CAZ

So how do you actually create Cognitive Autonomous Zones? How do you resist framework fundamentalism in your own thinking?

1. Recognise the signs

A good place to start is by noticing when frameworks have become fundamentalist in your own work:

• Is this framework treated as beyond questioning?
• Has it been rendered independent of practical testing?
• Do you defend it like orthodoxy or test it like a hypothesis?

2. Time-box frameworks

Next, decide to consciously use a framework only for a defined period – say, during a project, a for a particular year (calendar or academic), or a particular phase.

After this period, pause and ask yourself: Did this framework serve its purpose? What did it enable? What did it prevent? When the period ends, let the framework dissolve rather than perpetuating it just through habit.

3. Rotate frameworks

Apply different frameworks to the same problem in succession. Each is a way of modelling reality, so notice what each one reveals and conceals. How does your perspective shift when you apply framework A, then framework B, then framework C? This builds framework awareness, both in yourself and others. You start to see frameworks as perspectives rather than truths.

4. Step outside

Schedule times when you deliberately operate outside your usual frameworks. For example, in a meeting, explicitly put to one side your normal assumptions. In a project, add in a phase where normal rules are suspended. Deliberately create spaces for cognitive play happens, where you’re not trying to solve problems but trying to see them from fresh angles.

5. Test through consequences

Use William James’s test of “cash value.” What are the practical consequences of using this framework? Is it working? What is it costing you? Does it generate the insights you need? Is it preventing you from seeing something important? Abandon frameworks with low cash value.

Frameworks work best when treated as temporary, contextual, plural, and are explicitly recognised as such.

Addressing some objections

Before I conclude, let me address what I imagine would be three common responses to this approach.

• “Won’t temporary frameworks cause instability?” – Framework fundamentalism creates brittleness, not stability, and rigid structures shatter under pressure. The capacity to shift perspectives and adapt approaches (cognitive flexibility) is what enables us to navigate changing environments. Also, anti-frameworks don’t mean operating without any structure. TAZs coexist with other forms of organisation, and anti-frameworks work alongside more established frameworks. I'm not advocating chaos, but rather strategic awareness and temporariness.
• “Don’t we need stable frameworks?” – Of course. But stability built through testing and revision is different from stability built through dogma. Pragmatism shows that tested beliefs can be held firmly while remaining open to revision. You can commit to a framework seriously and use it in earnest while still knowing that it's provisional.
• “Isn’t this just relativism?” – No. Some frameworks work better than others for particular purposes in particular contexts. Testing through consequences provides grounds for evaluation. Taking a fallibilist approach isn't saying that “anything goes” but rather that everything is testable.

Next steps

Framework fundamentalism treats thinking structures as permanent, fixed, and beyond questioning. They become, in effect, means of cognitive control and prevent the very flexibility and adaptation that complex thinking requires.

Anti-frameworks create Cognitive Autonomous Zones: temporary structures for thinking, where frameworks are tools tested by consequences rather than dogmas defended against experience. What if we designed anti-frameworks as approaches that disappear strategically, that dissolve before they can become oppressive, that exercise power through impermanence?