0242 Why does the state_2b have no origin?

On one hand, the word, “state”_2b occurs in a situation-level definition_3b, supplemented by a content-level definition_3a that informs the situation-level potential_1b.  Consequently, academics debate what the potential_1b underlying the state_2b must be.  What is content-level actuality_2a?  It depends on the anthropologist.

On the other hand, sovereign power_3b virtually emerges from (and situates) institutions_3a.  Sovereign power_3b does not “originate”, sovereign power_3b differentiates from institutions_3a.  

Modern academics confound the term, “state”_2b, with the situation-level actuality of sovereign acts and decrees_2b.  This explains why social scientists are certain that there is a (content-level) causality involved in state formation and that they can figure out its definition.  In contrast, Graeber and Wengrow insist that historical contingency and what people think are relevant and cannot be theoretically defined.

0243 Oh, the confounding is so easy to do.  Here is a modified picture of the first two levels of the society_C tier.

0244 Shall I conclude that the “state”_2b should directly emerge from (and situate) the potential of ‘order’_1bC in the normal context of sovereign power_3bC?

Shall I surmise that the situation-level potential for ‘order’_1bC virtually emerges from (and situates) the content-level potentials of ‘controlling violence, administrating information and selecting who is charismatic and who is not’_1a?

0245 Graeber and Wengrow offer a pragmatic identification of the term, “state”_2b, as a correlate to a definition of the term, “domination”_2a.  In the normal context of anthropology_3a, the spoken word, “domination”_2a, directly emerges from (and situates) the potentials of exerting violence_1a, directing information_1a and manifesting charismatic influence_1a.  Thus, the “state”_2b, coincides with sovereign acts and decrees_2bC, when the potential for ‘order’_1bC meshes with potentials that define ‘domination’_1b.

0246 In short, in Graeber and Wengrow’s theory, the state_2b is an apparatus for domination_2a, by definition.

The problem?

Oh, I already noted the problem.  The situation-level potential for ‘order’_1bC virtually emerges from (and situates) the content-level potential of ‘righteousness’_1aC.

The state_2b has no origin because domination_1b is not founded in righteousness_1aC.

Unless, of course, the inquirer believes the propaganda of the day.

Recognize the possibility.