Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical framework demonstrates how recursive feedback mechanisms amplify generative power across social systems, highlighting rigorous causal identification requirements.
Power can persist through law, habit, coordination, external scarcity, or organizational inertia. A narrower mechanism appears when present exercise changes a condition of future power and that change returns as greater later power. This paper proposes the term self-reproducing generative power for that mediated return. The proposal is actor-, target-, domain-, action-, comparison-, and horizon-specific. Three candidate paths receive separate treatment. A material path runs through practical exit and dependence. A counter-power path runs through contraction of viable contestation. An institutional-legitimation path runs through justificatory assertion, audience uptake, institutional conversion, and later power. Under a local differentiable model, each path contributes a chain-rule product to the one-step power multiplier. The direct persistence term remains algebraically separate. The result measures local mediated return; multidimensional stability depends on the full Jacobian and nonlinear regime. A set-valued construction defines counter-power through efficacious actions that preserve a declared viability condition. A finite-trace countermodel then establishes that an observed trajectory of power and dependence underdetermines an endogenous return loop across unrestricted model classes. The paper therefore requires edge-specific causal evidence, plausible rivals, longitudinal-confounding analysis, and strategic-response analysis. Self-reproduction, restricted closure, domination, injustice, generativity exploitation, responsibility, and legal wrong remain separate registers. The current contribution is a revisable mechanism grammar, a conditional local derivation, an identification warning, and a comparative research programme. Empirical prevalence, historical application, normative evaluation, and legal classification remain open.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wanhong HUANG (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: