0013 At the end of the introduction, the authors list a number of dichotomies, including security and insecurity, schizorevolutionary and microfascist, autonomous desire and fear management, state insecurity and resistance movements.  But, the existential dichotomy is not listed.  Instead, the authors discuss the state in existential crisis.

The state_2b (mis)perceives insecurity and disorder when the hustle, bustle and occasional squabbles among institutions_3aCdoes not comport with the demiurge_3cC that defines_3b the state_2b as emerging from the potential of ‘domination’_1b.  For the securitization state_2b, that demiurge is fear_3cC.

0014 When the state_2b then responds to the perceived sources of insecurity, the state_2b acts against institutions_3aCpursuing their own organizational objectives_2aC on the basis of their own righteousness_1aC.  The state_2b defines some institutions_3a as dangerous_2b on the basis of promoting unsanctioned violence_1a, spreading unsanctioned information_1aand cultivating unsanctioned charismatic influence_1a.  The state2b will degrade these institutions_3aC into networks.

What about the other institutions_3aC?

Oh, they are not dangerous because they conform.

They are sanctioned.

0015 Consequently, the content level divides into conforming institutions and non-conforming networks.

0016 Even though conforming institutions_3aC (such as education, healthcare, civic administration, industry, labor, and so on) retain their originating righteousnesses_1aC, they adopt the three imperatives of domination, such as forced choice (violence, P1), restricted information (administration, P2) and reputation management (charisma, P3) according to state_2bdecrees emerging from the possibility of ‘control’_1b in a normal context_3b defined by a higher loyalty_2cC.

The situation… or is it the perspective?.. confuses.

Under the demiurge of fear_2cC, certain institutions_3aC may perceive themselves as operating under sovereign power_3bC, but they are not.  They are under suspicion by the state_2b.  They are networks_3aC that are subject to domination_2a because their righteousness_1a cannot be put into perspective_1c.

Why can’t institutions_3aC defined as nonconforming be put into perspective?

0017 Unsupervised righteousness_1a’ is not subject to the state control_1c’.

As the authors say (more or less), “The state_2c’ perceives chaos when the order of a network_3a’ (that is, its ‘righteousness’_1a’) is incompatible with the potential_1c’ of the state_2c’ (that is, ‘domination’ and ‘control’_1c’).”

0018 How long has this been going on?

The authors speculate that the basic logic of dual power (the defining power_3c’ humanizing conforming institutions_3b’ and dehumanizing nonconforming networks_3a’) goes back to the earliest states.  As such, the state_2c’ is a repressive, anti-productive force, that seeks to regulate, overdetermine, block and subjugate social relations_3aC through domination_1c’.  It_2c’ takes productive institutions_3aC and turns them into organs of state production_3b’, thus extending the reality of the state system.  It_2c’ takes productive institutions_3aC and degrades them into networks_3a’ through microfascist aggression, yielding distinctions such as schizoid (the state_2c’ is an illusion) and paranoid (the state_2c’ is out to get me and my network).

0019 What does this imply in terms of the content-level of institutions_3aC splitting into two?

 To me, it implies that the differentiated approach dissolves and a new interscope coaleses in the definition approach.  Fear_2cC, the perspective-level relational object, transcends this interscope.  Hence, the resulting interscope is existential in the sense that situation-level state_2b becomes a perspective-level actuality_2c’ within an interscope conditioned by the demiurge of fear_2cC.  Then, conforming institutions_3aC enter into the situation (or now, compliant) level of the new interscope.  Plus, nonconforming networks_3aC end up in the content (or anarchy) level of the new interscope.

0020 Here is a picture of the resulting interscope of fear_2cC.

0021 Does this match Karatzogianni and Robinson’s argument?

Yes and no.

Yes, the interscope of fear_2cC corresponds to the tenor of their argument in the section, “The State in Existential Crisis”.

No, the subsequent sections, “Anarchy and State Securitisation” and “State Terror Produces Network Terror”, deals with only the state_c’ and the anarchy_a’ levels.

0022 I suppose, if the authors had the opportunity to tweak the interscope of fear_2cC, then the interscope might look more like the following.

0023 The two levels of interest belong to content (Anarchy) and perspective (State).  Both terms are misnomers.  

The state is not the sovereign, because the normal context of sovereign power_3bC is reconfigured by the perspective-level demiurge_2cC of securitisation_2cC (instead of the old-fashioned term, “fear”) into a defining power_3c’.  As such, the demiurge-defined power_3c’ takes on all the characteristics of a perspective_c level.  A perspective level is typically not questioned until something horrible goes wrong.  A perspective level contextualizes the content level and the situation level in its own manners, giving state action_2c’ the appearance of judgment_2cA, necessity_2cB and universal application_2cC.

Anarchy is not complete disorder, because the normal context of institutions_3aC is reconfigured into networks_3a’ that have the character of institutions, including empowerment_3caC, disciplinary power_3baC and frame_3aaC (as discussed in A Primer on How Institutions Think by Razie Mah, available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  The authors refer to P. Virilio in this regard.  The anarchy level is seen as a mess of badly-defined freedoms, spontaneous and contingent social relations, adding risk and uncertainty in an civilizational atmosphere of fear… er… securitisation.

Virilio uses the metaphor of war, because war involves tactics to deny communication among enemies, redefining the operational space of the adversary and seizing opportunities to rework perspectives.  Applying the military metaphor to state action_2c’, Virilio coins the word “endocolonialism”.  If anything, this term should have given Karatzogianni and Robinson a hint that there is something more than State and Anarchy.  Endocolonialism, the internalization of colonial power, opens the door to the ignored compliant level.

0024 So, how does the situational compliant level transform into a state-supporting implementation of control_1c’?

The authors rely on a work by J. Scott, entitled Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed (1999, New Haven CT: Yale University Press).  The lesson boils down to this: Control_1c’ requires simplification.  Simplification serves state functions_2c’.  When securitization_2cC defines power_3c’, simplification allows rapid risk assessment and “appropriate” responses_2c’.

0025 However, simplification has consequences.  Compliant-level institutions must adjust to state_2c’ demands for control_1c’ in regards to the three imperatives_1b’, while maintaining a semblance of their original righteousness_1b’.  The problem?  Implementing the three objectives (forced choices, limited information, and requiring, yet betraying, trust)_1b’compromises the inspirations evoked by the original righteousness_1b’ of the conforming institutions_3b’.

0026 For example, when police detain a group of intoxicated young men celebrating the upcoming wedding of one of the fellows and write each one up as “exhibiting anti-social behavior”, the conforming institution_3b’ of the police fulfills its sanctioned organizational objectives_2b’ by filling in mandatory boxes_1b’ and, at the same time, calling into question the righteousness of thier peace-keeping authority_1b’.

Not all social facts fit into state-mandated boxes.  State-mandated boxes may not apply to all circumstances.  Plus, efforts to overcome the drawbacks of simplification may produce the illusion of increasing danger and need for intervention.  So, the anarchy level adjusts to being situated by the ways that compliant-level institutions_3b’  implement the three imperatives_1b’ mandated by the state_2c’.

The anarchy level may adjust by a variety of means.  Networks_3a’ may become more schizoid (that is, less responsive to fear) or more paranoid (that is, fear_1a’ becomes focused on the realness and concreteness of the state_2c’, rather than the ambiguous and atmospheric demiurge_2cC that defines_3c’ the state_2c’).  Indeed, all the young men tagged with anti-social behavior on that night belong to a variety of nonconforming networks_3a’, sending a wave of concern through social arrangements refractive to the possibility of control_1c’.

0027 In the section titled, “State Terror Produces Network Terror”, the authors explore implications for the state and anarchy levels, but not the compliant level.  This distorts the conclusion, titled “Descecuritising Society”, because the authors’ proposed alternatives to the interscope of securitisation_2cC only mitigate some of the thematic tensions between the state and the anarchy levels.

0199 In order to lay out their theory of state, Graeber and Wengrow recall their three foundational expressions of freedom: (1) the freedom to move, (2) the freedom to disobey orders and (3) the freedom to organize (and adjust) social relations.

The authors ask (more or less), “Can we speak similarly about elementary forms of domination?”

0200 Recall the equilibrium exchange between freedom and property rights.  The concept of property rights seems to be the inverse of the concept of freedom, as seen in the following figure, which appears earlier in the commentary.

0201 The fact that these two are located in the category of firstness, the realm of possibility, means that they are a monad.  They are like two faces in one photo.  I do not think that I can name the foundational monad, but it must be as sacramental as a marriage.  Two faces are in one photo because they are married.  What God has joined, let no man tear apart.

0202 This union becomes more palpable when I ask, “How can property rights be violated?”

Well, the answer is the same as the question, “How can freedom be violated?”

The obvious answer is through force.  I can steal your property.  I can stop you from leaving.  I can force you into a social configuration.

The next obvious answer is through the mitigation of one’s ability to make a claim.  I can control your property through fraud and misrepresentation.  I can force obedience by denying your freedom to disobey commands.  I can change the meaning of the word, “ownership”.

The least obvious answer is through charisma.  I can seduce you into slavery.  I can destroy order through mob action.  I can demand your admiration.

0203 Who am I?

“I” am the state.  Did someone else say that?  Louis XIV of France?

Yes, “my” three principles are sovereignty (the control of violence), bureaucracy (the administration of information) and charisma (the appropriation of honor).  

0204 According to Graeber and Wengrow, each of these principles has served as a basis for state formation.  Access to violence, information and charisma define the very possibility of social domination.  The modern nation state is configured as a combination of sovereignty, bureaucracy and competitive politics.  Each elementary form of dominationhas its own historical origins.

0205 When historians speculate about the origin of states for ancient Mesopotamia, India, China and Peru, they project these three principles backwards, in time and location.  They presume that each path culminates in a state_2b, emerging from the potential of order_1b.  “Order_1b” is confounded with policing power, administration and competitive politics.

0206 Or, should I say, that “order_1b” is confounded with domination₂, according to the following definition.

0207 Graeber and Wengrow explore the concept that a state could arise from one or two of the potentials₁ underlying the term, “domination”₂ in the normal context of defintion₃.

0208 Well, the Olmec and the Maya may have started with competitive politics.  They play “ball games” where the “ball” is a human skull (or something like that).  No wonder everyone wanted to follow the winner.

0209 What about the early large-scale societies that appear in the Peruvian Andes and adjacent coastal drainages, long before the Inca?

Monumental architecture appears in the Rio Supe region between 3000 and 2500 B.C.  Then, between 1000 to 200 B.C., a single center, Chavin de Huantar, is founded in the northern highlands of Peru.

To me, this suggests exposure to speech-alone talk before 3000 B.C., with full adoption by say, 2800 B.C.  I wonder, “Could some speech-alone talking person have made it to the coast of Peru two thousand years before the official start of the Lapita horizon in the eastern Pacific, around 1600 B.C.?”  

Hmmm, the establishment of large settlements in China’s Shandong province, on the lower reaches of the Yellow River, date to no later than 3500 B.C.

0210 Graeber and Wengrow dwell on the Chavin horizon.  Its art appears across a wide region.  Some of the pottery figures are monsters.  Do the monsters have a purpose?  Perhaps, they offer visual clues for remembering complicated mythologies, such as genealogies or shamanic journeys.  Some carved figures hold plants known for their hallucinogenic properties.  Can a “state” come together on the administration of psychoactive substances?  I suppose so.  What about today’s psychoactive propaganda?  Do our televisions offer the same appeal as the representatives of the Chavin horizon? Come experience the illusion.  Watch and enter the delusion.

0211 Graeber and Wengrow label the early civilizations of the Americas, “first order regimes”, because they seem to be organized around only one of the three elementary forms of domination.

0212 This implies that the term, “state”_2b, directly emerges from and situates the potential of “domination”_1b.  Plus, the potential of the term, “domination” arises from three independent sources, which look increasingly like meaning (exclusive control of violence), presence (various ministries trafficking in information) and message (honor our heroic deeds).

0213 Here is a picture.

0214 Can there be sovereignty without the state?

0215 Graeber and Wengrow turn their attention back to North America.

A French Jesuit, Father Maturin Le Petit, gives an account of the Natchez in the early 1800s.  He draws parallels to the reign of King Louis XIV, the self-fashioned “Sun King”.  The story that the missionary tells is both strange and familiar.

Like the Sun King, the Natchez ruler has total authority.  Unlike the Sun King, the Natchez ruler cannot delegate his power.  If any Natchez “citizen” does not live close to the Great Village, then there is no reason to obey the one who embodies the total authority of the state.

0216 What does this imply?

Sovereign power_3b is a normal context₃, not an actuality₂ or or a potential₁.  The Natchez ruler_2b is sovereign_3b, but only for those within the Great Village at any moment in time_1b.  The sovereign_3b stands above all other institutions_3a, because sovereign power_3b arises from the potential of one type of righteousness_1a: order_1b.  On one hand, order_1b is not the same as violence, knowledge or charisma.  On the other hand, it_1b may be.

 0217 Graeber and Wengrow go over examples of apparent anomalies, where the normal context of sovereign power_3b is operational, yet the actuality_2b does not meet the definition of a state₂, emerging from the potentials of exclusive control over force₁, knowledge₁ and charisma₁.  Besides the Natchez, the authors mention the Suillah, along the White Nile, as well as the Chavin and Olmec, already mentioned.

0218 Then, the authors turn their attention to one apparently reliable indicator of state formation: mass killings at royal burials.  Such mass killings are familiar to students of ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and China.

For example, mass killing marks the beginning of Egypt’s first dynasty, starting in 3100 B.C.

Yet, sovereignty is clearly evident during the predynastic periods, starting around 4000 B.C.  Modern archaeologists speculate about the material conditions behind the transition.  However, these matter-oriented speculations distract from the main point of Graeber and Wengrow’s insights in layers A:A’ and B:B’. What goes on in people’s minds matters.

0219 What is going on in people’s minds at these mass killings?

Well, let me speculate.  The king is dead and I serve the king so, let me get in line to serve the king on his journey to the source.

Or, let’s get rid of these throwbacks to a bygone era.

0220 Clearly, the state_2b, as the actuality of sovereign power_3b, differentiates from all other organizational objectives_2aand institutions_3a.  Yet, the state_2b remains like an organizational objective_2a in regards to three principles₁ that may be endowed with righteousness_1a (control of violence₁, adminstration₁ and charismatic status₁).

0221 Of course, these principles associate to domination_2a, but so does the word, “outlaw”.  The state_2b is like an outlaw_2b that works for the good of its institutions.  In contrast, the outlaw_2b, is defined solely by self-interest.

Here is a picture of the definition of the term “outlaw”_2b, as opposed to the “state”_2b.

Just something to think about.

0222 Starting around 3500 B.C., during the proto-dynastic period of Egypt, petty monarchs are afforded fine burials all along the Nile Valley.  These petty kings give every indication of maintaining military and administrative control in their respective territories.  Graeber and Wengrow ask (more or less), “How do we get from these monarchs to the massive agrarian bureaucracy of First Dynastic Egypt?”

0223 Could it be about death?

The authors imagine debates about the responsibilities of the living to the dead.

Here is an institutional diagram for each little kingdom along the Nile.

0224 The dyadic actuality_2a consists in two contiguous real elements, the living (people) and the dead (ruler).  The contiguity is placed in brackets.  The brackets contain a modern term, “responsibility”.

However, I must keep in mind that the term, “responsibility”, is an explicit abstraction.  The ancient substance in the brackets is not an explicit abstraction.  The ancient substance arises in various questions.  Does the dead hunger?  Does the dead thirst?  The answer is apparent.  Grave goods include bread and pots of fermented wheat beer.

0225 Two innovations, one agricultural and one ceremonial, reinforce one another.  Agricultural improvements include ploughs and oxen, introduced around 3000 B.C.  Ceremonial innovations include networks of obligations and debts, centered around the provisioning of the dead.  Facilities dedicated to baking and brewing appear, first, alongside cemeteries, then later, near palaces and grand tombs.  By the start of the First Dynastic (around 2500 B.C.), bread and beer are manufactured on an industrial scale, enough to supply seasonal armies of corvee laborers working on royal constructions.

0226 The transition from proto-dynastic to First Dynastic differentiates the above institution into the Egyptian state_2bCand the people’s “religious” obligation to the afterlife_2aC.  The conundrum about the local ruler_3aC blossoms into separate social levels for the Pharoah_3bC and the people_3aC.  Order_1bC arises from righteousness_1aC.

0227 Needless to say, the Pharaoh’s order_1b does not reduce to the actuality of the term, “domination”_2a.