Meta-Power Over Relational Valuation In Post-Labor Societies: A Discussion Of Envisaged Normative Ordering

Extensive delegation of productive labor to artificial intelligence raises a question of justice: who may determine which relational qualities confer institutional standing when material provision depends less directly on individual work? This paper examines the institutional conversion of situated relational conduct into consequential evaluation. A generative–relational account distinguishes observed manifestations, attributed comparisons, selected criteria, and the authority to apply them. The analysis follows these interfaces through material entitlement, historically consolidated evaluative orders, unequal opportunities for participation, and the constitution of normative authority. It then examines how institutional decisions alter the evidence available for later assessment and how AI-mediated proxies and portable records extend the reach of evaluative judgments. The paper identifies meta-power in the capacity to govern criteria, consequences, cross-context circulation, and the terms of institutional revision. Hypothetical comparisons distinguish purpose-limited judgments from generalized reputation systems and examine differences in public justification, evidential validity, procedural contestation, and remedial reach. Heterogeneous relational histories can support context-sensitive judgments while leaving comprehensive comparisons and institutional purposes open to substantive disagreement. The resulting framework specifies investigable conditions for the governance of relational valuation and continuing public contestation under possible post-labor arrangements.