0001 Last month, the Razie Mah blog presented the end of Comments on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Book (2021) “The Dawn of Everything” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  The blog is titled Looking at Graeber and Wengrow’s Chapter (2021) “The State Has No Origins”.

The question arises, “Does the weird confounded diagram developed in this commentary have relevance to other inquiries covering the human condition in our current Lebenswelt?”

0002 This blog offers an answer, by way of example.

Three years before the conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter in the constellation of Aquarius, Athina Karatzogianni and Andrew Robinson publish an article in the Journal of International Political Theory (2017, Vol. 13(3) 282-295).   The British scholars are experts in communication and sociology.  Thier article investigates the role of anarchy… er, “anarchy”… in state securitization.

0003 The weird and confounded diagram that appears in the commentary on Graeber and Wengrow’s book looks like this.

The goal of this blog is to briefly review Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article and to demonstrate that a derivation of this figure maps onto the topic.

0004 What is this article about?

The full title is Schizorevolutions versus Microfascisms: The fear of anarchy in state securitisation.  Needless to say, the terms are specialized descriptors.  But of what?

0005 According to the above figure, academics may confound the state_2b with sovereign acts and decrees_2bC.  The “state”_2b is defined.  What is defintion?  Definition₃ is the normal context bringing the actuality of a spoken word₂ into relation with the potential of meaning, presence and message₁.

The state_2b‘ is a term arising from the presence of domination_1b‘.  But, domination_2a must also be defined.  The term, “domination”_2a, emerges from (and situates) the possibilities inherent in the sole legitimate use of violence (similar to presence)_1a’, the administration of information (like meaning)_1a and the promotion and guidance of charismatic influence(like message)_1a.  I call policing, bureaucracy and maintaining reputation, “the three imperatives_1a“.  The three imperatives_1a underlie domination_2a.

0006 Here is a picture of the way that Graeber and Wengrow define “state”.  This is the path of definition (P).

0007 The way of differentiation is developed in the chapter on presence in Razie Mah’s masterwork, How To Define The Word “Religion” (available at smashwords and other e-book venues).  Even though the differentiation of an originary, undifferentiated, social world follows the logic of Peirce’s categories, the process is also historic.  Since the start of our current Lebenswelt, the society_C, organization_B and individuals in community_A have historically differentiated into three tiers of interscopes.  As a result, realization of the two types of religion, corresponding to organizational objects_2aC and a relational object_2cC, follows the logic of the differentiation of category-based nested forms and occurs in history.

Here is a picture of the three-level interscope for the society_C tier.  This is the path of differentiation (Q).

0008 Needless to say, neither Graeber and Wengrow nor Karatzogioanni and Robinson are aware of the the path of differentiation.  So, they are not aware that they confound P and Q.

For example, in the introduction, the latter authors suggest that the securitisation discourse (the administration of information, P2_1a) by the state_2b’ arises from the perception of “new threats” (charismatic influence outside of state supervision, P3_1a) and attempts to fix network flows  (through violence, P1_1a).  This also means that the normal context of sovereign power_3bC brings the actuality of sovereign acts and decrees_2bC into relation with the potential for ‘order’_1bC. However, now sovereign power_2bC is confounded with definition_3b.  The state_2b is mixed up with sovereign acts and decrees_2bC.  Plus, ‘domination’_1b is entangled with ‘order’_1bC.

0009 Here is a picture of how the confounding seems to play out.

0010 Karatzogianni and Robinson immediately go on to say that their argument is based on a distinction between states and networks.  Furthermore networks divide into two forms, such as affinity-active and non-affiliating-reactive, as well as between schizoid (non-affiliating active) and paranoic (non-affiliating reactive).  Then, they discuss the ramifications in detail.

To me, the distinction between the state_2b and its domination_2a of organizational objectives_2aC of insitutions_3aCredefines_3b institutions_3aC as networks_3a.  Order_1bC melds with efforts to control the content level_1b.  While “order” sounds legitimate.  “Control” does not.

Order_1bC establishes peace among instituions_3aC working_2aC independently based on their own righteousness_1aC.  Plus, that righteousness_1aC does not pay tribute to the perspective level actuality_2bC of fear.  

Control_1b envisions threats emanating from the open space of active desire_1aC and aims to moderate these through domination_2a (using P1, P2 and P3 of the three imperatives underlying the definition_3a of domination_2a).  Consequently, attempts_2b to supervise_2b and narrow the space_1b of righteousness_1aC, sanction_2b and outlaw_2b objects^org_2aC, and wage war_2b on institutions_3aC that do not conform to state_2b control_1b expand into the fabric of everyday life.

0011 The state’s_2b acts and decrees_2bC are not oriented to protecting civilians or non-state actors.  So, the normal context is not sovereignty_3bC, but a defining power_3b (responsible to a higher loyalty_2cC, so to speak).  Yet, this defining power_3bspeaks the language of sovereignty_3bC, just as Graeber and Wengrow do.

0012 But, who is doing the defining here?

Look at the perspective-level actuality_2cC.

Fear_2cC is not an emotion.  Fear_2cC is a demiurge, a relational object, an object that brings everyone into relation.

Fear_2cC defines_3b the securitisation state_2b.