John Law’s “Ordering and Obduracy” revisits Organising Modernity in order to ask how durable power persists within worlds supposedly defined by movement, contingency and flux. His central proposition is that organisation should not be understood as a stable noun, but as organising: a continuous, materially heterogeneous process involving people, documents, architectures, machines, accounting systems, codes and routines. Yet this processual ontology raises a problem: if everything is movement, why do asymmetries of power remain so stubbornly in place? Law answers through obduracy, the persistence of ordering across change. First, power becomes durable when strategies are delegated into materials: accounting systems, safety interlocks and buildings carry modes of ordering beyond individual intention. Secondly, organisations endure through multiplicity rather than coherence; enterprise, administration and vocation may conflict, but their partial overlap prevents collapse. Thirdly, beneath such differences lies a shared strategic pattern Law calls the logic of the return, in which centres gather representations from peripheries and send back commands, thereby stabilising asymmetrical relations of calculation and translation. The Daresbury Laboratory provides the case study: its scientific, managerial and administrative orders differ, yet each depends on centres, flows and returns that make certain voices articulable while silencing others. Law’s conclusion is politically acute: modern ordering is not merely plural but hegemonically strategic, making some forms of knowledge, subjectivity and power durable while rendering non-strategic voices almost unthinkable. Obduracy, then, is not the opposite of process; it is process hardened into inequality.