The Limits of State

As part of a body of work on ‘Whole of Society’, i’ve been considering the nature of our societal structures, and their evolution in the context of the Social Age. I’ve written about this before, in terms of ‘Society – Market – State’ and the emergence of ‘New Citizenship’, as well as ‘New Guild’ and ‘Education’ spaces.

Today i’m reflecting on the linear nature of aggregation – smaller into ever larger – and questioning whether, in our hyper connected (radically connected beyond formal systems) and contracted (the abstraction of distance as our digital spaces synchronously connect us) social context, we may see something new.

The Meta-State: defined not as one large aggregation, but rather a hyper connected series of aligned micro/tribal structures.

It’s not really much of a new idea: in the UK we evolved from tribal structures to local fiefdoms and tribal kingdoms, slowly aggregated (through war, marriage, treaty and trade) into regional kingdoms and ultimately one (except in football) United one. Closely following this connection was the ability to plan national infrastructure – road networks (toll roads into nationalised public ones), rail networks, national health services and so on, with local to national democratic representation.

But at National level we are now increasingly tribal, with oppositional political models that separate us on geographic and ideological grounds. Our democracy is largely asynchronous and devolved, abstracted from daily citizenship: i am asked to pay my tax and abide by the law, but i’m not engaged to improve my community or take strategic decisions.

The context of the Social Age allows for alternative approaches: micro engagement in national challenges, innovation of social good through local to national networks, highly synchronous polling or perspective taking, weighted models of voting or engagement tied into social good, and so on. We could create more synchronous models of democracy.

And with it, consider the questions of security, infrastructure, and obligation.

I’m interested in another aspect of this: subscription versus tax. Historically we paid tax, government provided infrastructure, and kept us safe. But much of our social infrastructure is technical, global, fragmented, and free or subscription, as are many aspects of our key cultural influence – music, film, YouTube and TikTok. The obligation of subscription is different than taxation, not least because it’s discretionary and fluid. It speaks to a more individualised and curated approach, which then hints towards the potential for more micro-state approaches, connected within highly interconnected Meta-State structures.

Essentially to break apart certain unifying expectations and aspects of current States (defined by geographical boundaries, history, and established power) and replace them with more internally fluid – and perhaps hence more tolerant – structures.

Is this correct? Almost certainly not. But maybe aspects are. The questions of ‘where do you belong’, or ‘what does belonging mean’ are more likely to lead us into purposeful and coherent tribal and community spaces. And our practical action is inherently more attuned to the local (albeit the globally local context of the Social Age – local becomes an trust bond, not a distance).

#WorkingOutLoud on the broadest context of the Social Age.