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.

0028 This article appears in the Journal of International Political Theory (2017, vol 13(3), 282-295).  So far, my examination describes how the weird confounded diagram developed in the commentary on David Graeber and David Wengrow’s Book (2021) “The Dawn of Everything” is relevant to Karatzogianni and Robinson’s argument.  This blog retells the story.

The weird diagram confounds two independent paths of articulation.  The path of Graeber and Wengrow is the way of definition (P).  After all, they are academics.  Academics are devoted to defining their terms.  The path of Razie Mah is the way of differentiation (Q).  The differentiation of a nested form into the society_C, organization_B and individual in community_A tiers takes place in the chapter on presence in the masterwork, How To Define the Word “Religion”.

Here is a picture of the situation and content levels of definition (P) confounded with the same levels of the society_C tier (Q).

0029 The above diagram does not include the perspective_c level of the society_C tier (Q).  Karatzogianni and Robinson open by describing the securitisation state as exploiting and promoting an atmosphere of fear.  Fear is the object that brings everyone into relation_2cC.

Consequently, this confounding (P and Q) is put into perspective by a demiurge_2cC, an entity standing above sovereign power, and this demiurge_2cC defines the state_2b.

0030 This configuration produces a split in the content level of defined_3a institutions_2aC.

Some institutions_3b’ attempt to work with the state_2b.  These conforming institutions_3b’ bring sanctioned organizational objects_2b’ into relation with the potential_1b’ of the three imperatives of domination_1c’ as well as the institution’s original righteousness_1b.  This is useful for the state_2c’, which relies on conforming institutions_3b’ to situate institutions_3a’ that (for whatever reason) cannot or will not conform.

Conforming institutions_3b’ perform microfascist activities for the state_2c’, increasing the possibility of state control_1c’through forcing choices, limiting and misleading information, as well as protecting reputations.  These activities are built into sanctioned organizational objectives_2b’ that presumably emerge from (and situate) the potential of the institution’s original righteousness_1b’.  According to my reading this article, Karatzogianni and Robinson do not clearly ideate this side of the splitting. 

Other institutions are downgraded (often, by state interference) into networks_3a’.  Nonconforming networks_3a’ bring unsactioned organizational objectives_2a’ into relation with the potential of ‘unsupervised righteousness’_1a’.  Conforming institutions_3b’ are ofted viewed by the anarchy level as state apparatuses_3b’ whose organizational objectives_2b’ are compromised by the fact they follow the rules, even when not necessary, lie and cover up_1b’.

0031 How do nonconforming networks_3a’ respond?

Not as the state_2c’ would like them do.  The state_2c’ now occupies the perspective level of an interscope that expresses the path of definition.  Remember, the perspective level typically comes into play on;y when there is a failure on the situation level.  In other words, the perspective level is taken for granted, until something goes wrong.

Here is the interscope of securitisation_2cC.

0032 Once again, what about the response of noncomforming networks_3a’ on the anarchy level?

Unsupervised righteousness_1a’ inspires organization objectives_2a’ that appear schizophrenic (they are listening to the voices in thier heads instead of the state) or paranoid (they think that the state is the one to fear, rather than the demiurge that defines the state).  Consequently, the two actors of importance in Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article belong to the state and the anarchy levels.

0033 So, what is lacking in this article?

Situation-level institutions_b’ end up being drained of their original righteousness_1b’ due to their compromise with the defining power_3c’.  Conforming institutions_3b’ lose respectability by enforcing the three imperatives that underlie the word, “domination”_1b’.  Conforming institutions_3b’ lose respectablity by sacrificing their original righteousness_1b’ in the process of enforcing the three imperatives_1b’.  Yet, conforming institutions_3b’ maintain respectablility by being the only ones whose organizational objectives_2b’ are sanctioned by state decree_2c’ and therefore less likely to suffer capricious state action_2c’.

0034 It makes me wonder what the word, “respectable”, really means.

The sociological and psychological dynamics of the compliant level are ripe for exploration.

Coloration tells the story.

0035 So much for the political theory aspect of Karatzogianni and Robinson’s article, what about the “international” aspect?

After all, the article appears in the Journal of International Political Theory.

Well, in the introduction and the conclusion, the authors speculate that the security state may be a response to the anarchy generated by… or may be a strategy to control the wealth and innovations produced by… or may aim to wrest control from…

… global capitalism.

Which makes me wonder, “Could global capitalism be a demiurge, just like securitisation?”

If so, then Graeber and Wengrow’s weird confounding diagram is relevant.

And, the prior steps should apply to the following perspective-level nested form.

0036 The rest is left as an exercise for the intrepid inquirer.