Do states inadvertently depend on the stateless?

To what extent does the concept or operational implementation of boundaries and nation states quite necessarily both depend on and inadvertently amplify the ongoing and relentless human displacements we currently observe?

We might say that the existence and sustainable continuity of boundaries and associated patchwork quilt of international relations (quite beyond the intermittent discontinuities of conflict) is the abstract or symbolic notion of a certainty and self-enclosed identity that is always and already intelligible only from within a broader context where such security or certainty is anything but guaranteed.

Beyond implicit psychological dimensions here, the issue seems to be quite substantively one of entropy. To maintain sustainable systemic continuity both nation states and the overall gestalt and (often) dysfunctional system of international relations itself requires a way to directly or (indirectly) offset the inevitable entropy generated by those systems.

The cost of human security is simultaneously and irreducibly a distributed and stateless insecurity that no contemporary framework, analysis or application of political science seems quite sophisticated enough to successfully engage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.