I love this concept of governance layers and of the distinction between heavy and lightweight layers. Hannah Arendt thought nation-states, described here as heavy, were tragedies. By her account, they developed as a means of organizing states once monarchies subsided and of applying the rule of law in their territories. But nationalism takes over the nation-state, Arendt says, partly transforming it "from an instrument of the law into an instrument of the nation."
Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, who essentially sees the problem the same way as Arendt, asks us to "imagine two political communities insisting on the same region and in a condition of exodus from each other." He suggests picturing a Möbius strip for this kind of layering. The "exodus" comes from his suggestion that we base states not on nations but on exiles, which of course is humanity's future (and its past, if nations were honest). Agamben's thoughts on this is fascinating, and it reminds me a lot of the layering you describe here.
Thank you so much for these sources, all new to me, who write on an area that has lately fascinated me.
I think this will become even more prevalent as the world becomes even more global. If you work in the US, live in Europe, and visit your family in Australia, which country should you fight for? Pay taxes to?
I have an initial reaction that, like many things, I think attempting to implement this at a broader scale would likely reveal problems that weren't obvious in advance (the classic small-c conservative argument), but it's interesting to try to think through what those might be, and I've been mulling over that.
Fascinating! I think the kind of global society I try to imagine like this, a multi-layered arrangement where individuals and local communities have full autonomy over their lives, while larger organizing bodies help with administrative and coordinating efforts. Obvi I'd prefer we don't have any weapons or militaries to speak of, and I don't think they're necessary, but this idea of layered governance is definitely interesting
What I like about this idea is that it amounts to bilateral disarmament in our political arms race.
It's understandable that federal elections have become a hyper partisan obsession.
Every four years since at least 2004 when G.W. Bush got his second term, people/the media have said: "THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN HISTORY!"
In a sense that can't be true. They can't all be the most important. How would they even know?
But in a sense they're right. Because there's been a upward trend the federal government's size, legislative penetration, interference in local affairs, federal regulatory accretion limiting local initiatives, etc. More and more every year. So by definition, those who control the federal government are the most powerful people to have ever held those posts, and that only increased every four years. How could we not be deeply concerned about who controls this beast we've created?
By letting some air out of the federal government and limiting it more to its original role of arbiter of trade, defense, interstate commerce, etc, and giving a lot of the power back to cities and regions, who controls the federal government will just matter a less. Hopefully, people won't be as concerned about who runs it if its role and and resource gathering ability is circumscribed.
The federal government is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Time to let the a 35,000 city states take a breath.
It's a good point about de-escalating the rhetoric around elections. I agree it's gotten pretty absurd. The "lesser evil" approach got us where we are...
Opting in and out of layers of government is a fascinating concept. I think we may see these layers like NATO or the Paris Climate Accord definitely increase in importance.
This is an interesting idea. A while ago I read a book called The Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner. In it the author travels to the countries that are purported to be the happiest on earth according to the World Happiness Index. Many of them, I noted, are smaller countries like Thailand, Switzerland, England and Costa Rica. It makes me wonder if smaller countries are better suited to being happy countries. Maybe because it's easier to foster a sense of unity and to manage the issues that arise in a country that is a more managable size? The US is, I think, one of the only large countries that rank anywhere high on WHI, and it is divided into states, which maybe helps with the issue of size. Of course, there are many small countries that do not rank high on the WHI, so I don't think size alone creates happiness. It may help though. There's a reason why Democracy took root in Greece, with its city-states seperated by mountains, and why Native Americans (Indigenous People) were able to create more democratic forms of government, with small groups spread out over a large landmass. I think that if you want to have a government that is more centered on the individual, where everyone gets enough, having a smaller group helps you meet those goals.
Loved the geography of bliss! It’s one of those books that I still bring up on chats with other people years after I read it. The one unhappy country was also small in size. Just saying.
I agree. When we're in smaller groups we can more readily affect them. Unfortunately the opposite is also true, if we are to look at the most dystopian countries in the world those are often small too. So size can't be the only constraint, it also has to be somewhat democratic, and with larger constraints in place to protect those small democratic states (there's a reason why Greece's city-states didn't last! And Germany's were largely despotic and horrible!)
Right, and I think the U.S. civil rights laws and federal courts have historically done a good job with local injustice. Jefferson might have responded that this local injustice might in part be a product of not being local enough: he hated "lubberly" county government. I'm uncomfortable, though, with the mindset that distrusts local government in any form. I mean, Madison's Federalist 10--considered to be the most innovative and influential of the Federalist essays--scares me because of its fundamental distrust of democracy and even human nature.
I love this concept of governance layers and of the distinction between heavy and lightweight layers. Hannah Arendt thought nation-states, described here as heavy, were tragedies. By her account, they developed as a means of organizing states once monarchies subsided and of applying the rule of law in their territories. But nationalism takes over the nation-state, Arendt says, partly transforming it "from an instrument of the law into an instrument of the nation."
Italian philosopher Giorgio Agamben, who essentially sees the problem the same way as Arendt, asks us to "imagine two political communities insisting on the same region and in a condition of exodus from each other." He suggests picturing a Möbius strip for this kind of layering. The "exodus" comes from his suggestion that we base states not on nations but on exiles, which of course is humanity's future (and its past, if nations were honest). Agamben's thoughts on this is fascinating, and it reminds me a lot of the layering you describe here.
Thank you so much for these sources, all new to me, who write on an area that has lately fascinated me.
I think this will become even more prevalent as the world becomes even more global. If you work in the US, live in Europe, and visit your family in Australia, which country should you fight for? Pay taxes to?
This is a really interesting question; thank you.
I have an initial reaction that, like many things, I think attempting to implement this at a broader scale would likely reveal problems that weren't obvious in advance (the classic small-c conservative argument), but it's interesting to try to think through what those might be, and I've been mulling over that.
Fascinating! I think the kind of global society I try to imagine like this, a multi-layered arrangement where individuals and local communities have full autonomy over their lives, while larger organizing bodies help with administrative and coordinating efforts. Obvi I'd prefer we don't have any weapons or militaries to speak of, and I don't think they're necessary, but this idea of layered governance is definitely interesting
That would be so amazing. And I have some ideas about the weapons thing (tomorrow's post!) I'll be curious to know your thoughts!
What I like about this idea is that it amounts to bilateral disarmament in our political arms race.
It's understandable that federal elections have become a hyper partisan obsession.
Every four years since at least 2004 when G.W. Bush got his second term, people/the media have said: "THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN HISTORY!"
In a sense that can't be true. They can't all be the most important. How would they even know?
But in a sense they're right. Because there's been a upward trend the federal government's size, legislative penetration, interference in local affairs, federal regulatory accretion limiting local initiatives, etc. More and more every year. So by definition, those who control the federal government are the most powerful people to have ever held those posts, and that only increased every four years. How could we not be deeply concerned about who controls this beast we've created?
By letting some air out of the federal government and limiting it more to its original role of arbiter of trade, defense, interstate commerce, etc, and giving a lot of the power back to cities and regions, who controls the federal government will just matter a less. Hopefully, people won't be as concerned about who runs it if its role and and resource gathering ability is circumscribed.
The federal government is sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Time to let the a 35,000 city states take a breath.
I'm so with you!
It's a good point about de-escalating the rhetoric around elections. I agree it's gotten pretty absurd. The "lesser evil" approach got us where we are...
Opting in and out of layers of government is a fascinating concept. I think we may see these layers like NATO or the Paris Climate Accord definitely increase in importance.
Totally. See my post tomorrow on the topic 😆
This is an interesting idea. A while ago I read a book called The Geography of Bliss by Eric Weiner. In it the author travels to the countries that are purported to be the happiest on earth according to the World Happiness Index. Many of them, I noted, are smaller countries like Thailand, Switzerland, England and Costa Rica. It makes me wonder if smaller countries are better suited to being happy countries. Maybe because it's easier to foster a sense of unity and to manage the issues that arise in a country that is a more managable size? The US is, I think, one of the only large countries that rank anywhere high on WHI, and it is divided into states, which maybe helps with the issue of size. Of course, there are many small countries that do not rank high on the WHI, so I don't think size alone creates happiness. It may help though. There's a reason why Democracy took root in Greece, with its city-states seperated by mountains, and why Native Americans (Indigenous People) were able to create more democratic forms of government, with small groups spread out over a large landmass. I think that if you want to have a government that is more centered on the individual, where everyone gets enough, having a smaller group helps you meet those goals.
Loved the geography of bliss! It’s one of those books that I still bring up on chats with other people years after I read it. The one unhappy country was also small in size. Just saying.
I agree. When we're in smaller groups we can more readily affect them. Unfortunately the opposite is also true, if we are to look at the most dystopian countries in the world those are often small too. So size can't be the only constraint, it also has to be somewhat democratic, and with larger constraints in place to protect those small democratic states (there's a reason why Greece's city-states didn't last! And Germany's were largely despotic and horrible!)
Right, and I think the U.S. civil rights laws and federal courts have historically done a good job with local injustice. Jefferson might have responded that this local injustice might in part be a product of not being local enough: he hated "lubberly" county government. I'm uncomfortable, though, with the mindset that distrusts local government in any form. I mean, Madison's Federalist 10--considered to be the most innovative and influential of the Federalist essays--scares me because of its fundamental distrust of democracy and even human nature.