Author’s Note

Here, consciousness does not denote a subjective experience, but the recognition of the relation between the visible forms of civic life and the institutional conditions that govern the operation of those civic forms.  Perception is a foundational faculty that registers those forms, and scrutiny measures them against the distribution of power they purport to represent.  Recognition begins where that correspondence can no longer be assumed and institutional appearance discloses the limits of what institutions profess to embody.

This essay is a diagnostic inquiry, not a theoretical construction: it examines how the concentration of wealth conditions access to resources, how private interests influence institutional decisions and the organization of public attention, and how the resulting concentration of economic and institutional power weakens the effectiveness of constitutional restraints.  This diagnosis does not presuppose a unitary conspiracy.  Systems of incentives, legislation, administration, regimes of property, and diffused responsibility enable institutions and decision-makers to present deliberate choices as necessities.  Under those conditions, democratic forms may retain formal validity even when institutional practice no longer guarantees self-government.

Perception enters the forge of thought, where scrutiny submits appearance to the fire of consciousness.  Aphoristic thought does not fabricate what it seeks to disclose:  it condenses observations intended to distinguish democratic form from its exercise, visible participation from its capacity to affect the distribution of authority, and proclaimed sovereignty from the people’s capacity to determine the order under which they live.

The observations that follow examine how institutions normalize dependence within societies that retain democratic forms.  Here, the constitutional mandate requires public power to remain limited, equally answerable to citizens, and subject to the people’s capacity for self-government.  The coherence of these observations lies not in offering a total explanation, but in making intelligible the divergence between that mandate and a distribution of power that restricts the exercise of the self-government the mandate requires.  Like the sculptor’s incision, each observation adds no form of its own:  it reveals one.

*

*

What form does dependence take within a plural and democratic society?  Within such a society, dependence acquires political force when control over wealth determines access to the material and institutional conditions of civic life.  This relation between wealth and dependence has long animated the same ethical questions:  Who depends upon whom for survival?  Is that dependence reciprocal or unilateral?  Does wealth circulate or remain immobilized?  Does wealth sustain or supplant civic life?

Democracy derives its legitimacy from the aspiration to reconcile equality with freedom.  Yet when those who concentrate ownership condition access to resources and direct the operation of institutions, equality ceases to govern the public order and yields to relations of dependence.  Democratic institutions retain their public character, but private interests condition the decisions through which those institutions perform their public functions.  Economic inequality then denotes not only a disparity of resources but also a relation of dependence.  Even when the process is gradual, concentrated ownership and its influence upon institutions reproduce through institutional means what ancient despotisms secured by force:  the rule of the few.  Those who concentrate wealth may invoke the language of democracy while diminishing the service democratic institutions render to the common good.

Private financing sustains political campaigns and conditions legislation.  Collective decisions consequently rest less upon public deliberation than upon incentives defined by those who finance access to authority.  Funding, public visibility, and organized networks of support increasingly determine who may compete for political authority and attain it, to the detriment of civic judgment.  Participation remains formally open to citizens, but those who finance access to political authority also delimit the available choices and thereby preserve the existing distribution of control.

Political and economic institutions may present the expansion of productive, technological, and financial capacity as civic progress even when the distribution of control remains unchanged.  Claims of progress lose their civic meaning when expanded capacity alters neither who directs its use nor who receives the resulting benefits.  Institutions retain the public character of the provision of services while reserving to private interests the decisions that orient institutional operation.  The companies and entities that administer networks of energy, transport, communications, and finance subordinate essential services to criteria of private profitability.  Through prices, tariffs, and debt, those companies and entities extend access to some and restrict it for others where the law proclaims common access.  Material independence then yields to economic dependence, even when institutions present that dependence under the name of autonomy.  Through contracts, the companies that control access to those services impose conditions that once would have required the force of decree.

Under these conditions, institutions treat citizenship as an economic relation rather than as an autonomous civic condition.  They likewise treat the vote as an object of exchange and an emblem of conformity rather than as an exercise of civic choice.  Populist movements link grievance to access to power, while their leaders make loyalty a condition of access to opportunity and reward.  Through the reiteration of slogans, grievances, and public rewards, those leaders associate loyalty with acceptance within the political community and immediate response with participation.  Political institutions and movements thus condition both access to resources and the terms under which they recognize civic participation.

Once institutions establish relations of dependence through control of energy, transport, communications, and finance, the exercise of power extends into the administration of perception.  Organs of the State select and disseminate public information, while media organizations and digital platforms favor what captures attention over what encourages scrutiny.  By repeatedly circulating content that elicits immediate reaction, these actors can lend claims an appearance of certainty and reduce the space available for scrutiny.  By favoring continuous reaction, they impede sustained attention until institutions and political movements can treat immediate response as evidence of participation.  Overt coercion loses its centrality.  Through the sustained selection and repetition of information, those actors narrow the conditions under which citizens can recognize relations of subordination.

Institutions of the State and private institutions preserve concentrated power when they protect the advantages of those who exercise it and diffuse responsibility for the consequences of that exercise.  Legislative rules, administrative decisions, and regimes of property reproduce the concentration of wealth, sustain accumulation, and impede the attribution of responsibility.  Institutions disguise deliberate decisions as inescapable imperatives.

Where continued access depends upon loyalty, the worker safeguards a livelihood; the journalist preserves access; the citizen defends an interest upon which the citizen’s position depends.  Each decision appears justified when considered in isolation, but together those decisions sustain an order in which diffused responsibility makes accountability harder to assign as relations of dependence deepen.  The question is not whether wealth exists, but whether those who control wealth use it in service of the common good.  When they make accumulation an end in itself, they direct wealth away from the enlargement of freedom and institutionalize relations of dependence.

Differences among political orders preclude treating them as equivalent.  The examples that follow do not equate them, but show the diverse mechanisms through which political authorities organize relations of dependence and subordination.  In Russia, authorities present the concentration of authority in the State as a guarantee of stability.  By restricting political autonomy and distributing opportunities selectively, those authorities bind material security to loyalty to power.  In China, administrative authorities connect the distribution of opportunities and prospects of social advancement to mechanisms of political supervision.  These authorities thereby subordinate economic opportunity to administrative order.

In the United States, economic success carries social legitimacy:  wealth serves as proof of merit, while public and economic institutions often attribute failure to individual deficiency rather than to the conditions that distribute opportunity and risk.  This judgment presents inequality as the consequence of individual conduct rather than the product of institutional conditions.  To this legitimation of economic success, populist nationalism adds another source of political legitimacy by defining the national community through economic and cultural grievance and promising to restore a sovereignty portrayed as diminished.  In several Latin American countries, populist movements of differing orientations give political expression to inequality and historical exclusion through promises of restoration.  In both political settings, populist forces bind grievance to loyalty and present the promise of restoration as a foundation of authority.

Beneath these variations lies a common principle:  those with greater economic and political capacity influence decisions concerning access to resources, the distribution of benefits, and the allocation of costs.  Legislation, the administration of the State, regimes of private property, and institutional management give effect to those decisions, channel the resulting benefits toward sectors with greater capacity for influence, and distribute the corresponding costs across broader sectors of the citizenry.  When institutions present that outcome as a natural consequence of the existing order, they remove from public judgment the decisions that produce it and preserve the relation of subordination.

In the speculative economy, the possibility of enrichment depends upon unequal access to information, the timing of entry and exit, liquidity, and the capacity to absorb losses.  Promoters and operators of digital currencies and speculative financial instruments present them as means of emancipation from centralized power, yet the organization of those markets distributes information, liquidity, and exposure to loss unequally among those who administer transactions, those who possess the means to exploit fluctuation, and those who bear its consequences.

Within these markets, value ceases to be grounded in labor and comes to depend upon volatility; financial actors multiply wealth through fluctuation rather than production.  Behind the rhetoric of decentralization stand brokers, major investors, and platforms that control information, liquidity, and the execution of transactions, thereby distributing the prospects of gain and loss unequally.  Platforms and financial actors that proclaim the transparency of these markets nevertheless depend upon uncertainty, which they exploit rather than reduce.  Those who design and employ certain financial instruments and practices deliberately convert volatility into a source of profit and make instability a commodity.  Market advocates may present that instability as freedom, yet only those who command sufficient resources can absorb the losses without forfeiting their position.

The idea of community ceases to govern institutional operation when institutions appropriate shared resources and institutionalize relations of dependence.  By converting access to those resources into a source of unilateral advantage, institutions replace reciprocity with exploitation and collaboration with submission.  Institutions in the service of concentrated wealth present as order a distribution that produces deprivation.  When the State bases institutional stability, or holders of private wealth base their economic position, upon the needs of others, they can present the resulting arrangement as legitimate while binding those who depend upon it to the unequal conditions on which that arrangement rests.  By reorganizing who depends upon whom for access to shared resources, institutions alter the public terms through which citizens judge order, justice, freedom, and citizenship.

Institutions alter the terms of citizenship as well when material dependence conditions access to employment, essential services, and civic participation.  Institutions and public discourse then treat purchasing power as a measure of freedom and present the ability to choose among predetermined options as a sufficient measure of citizenship.  Democratic forms remain, while concentrated power restricts the effective scope of choice.

The restriction of choice constitutes a constitutional deviation when public authorities exercise power through legislation, the administration of the State, and the regime of private property in ways that depart from the constitutional mandate, and the organs charged with limiting power fail to contain that departure.  Legislative bodies deepen the divergence between mandate and exercise when they allow legal norms to consolidate the concentration of power they are charged with limiting.  The constitutional framework then remains formally in force, while the effective distribution of power contradicts the direction established by that same framework.

Examining this divergence makes it possible to distinguish the formal validity of the constitutional mandate from the realization of that mandate in the exercise of power.  Perception registers the visible continuity of institutions; scrutiny determines whether institutional exercise still answers to the mandate that legitimates them.  Recognition begins when scrutiny ceases to regard that continuity as sufficient proof of correspondence between mandate and exercise.  Scrutiny then reveals when institutions preserve the terms of freedom, participation, and consent while reducing freedom to permission, participation to visibility, and consent to conformity.

The extent of this divergence varies among societies. In Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden, and Estonia, as well as Costa Rica and Uruguay, political representation, public oversight, and the rule of law contribute in differing degrees to containing the concentration of power, subject the administration of the State to supervision, and limit the influence of private wealth upon public decisions. Taken together, these mechanisms bring the exercise of power closer to the constitutional mandate without eliminating the influence of private wealth upon public decisions or securing complete correspondence between the constitutional mandate and the actual exercise of power. These mechanisms contain the divergence, but do not eliminate it.

Institutionalized dependence endures wherever constitutional restraints, public oversight, and the institutions charged with limiting concentrated power cease to operate effectively.  It endures when constitutional restraints fail to contain concentrated power, when the institutions charged with enforcing those restraints permit that power to expand, and when democratic procedures retain their formal validity while the effective scope of choice diminishes.  The vote then retains its civic form, but a distribution of power that electoral exercise itself cannot alter limits the vote’s capacity to modify the distribution of authority.

Under these conditions, democratic forms remain, although they cease to contain the concentration of power.  Participation remains visible, but loses the capacity to alter the distribution of authority.  Scrutiny recognizes this divergence, but cannot by itself eliminate it or restore self-government.  Democracy may perish without the disappearance of its institutions:  public action yields to administration, judgment to necessity, and the people, though still proclaimed sovereign, cease to determine the order under which they live.

*

Selected Bibliography

• Aristotle.  Nicomachean Ethics.  Translated by Terence Irwin.  2nd ed.  Indianapolis:  Hackett Publishing, 1999.
• Aristotle.  Politics.  Translated by Carnes Lord.  2nd ed.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 2013.
• Augustine.  The City of God against the Pagans.  Edited and translated by R. W. Dyson.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1998.
• Carr, E. H.  What Is History?  Edited by R. W. Davies.  2nd ed.  New York:  Penguin Books, 1987.
• Marx, Karl.  Capital:  A Critique of Political Economy.  Vol. 1.  Translated by Ben Fowkes.  London:  Penguin Books, 1976.
• Polanyi, Karl.  The Great Transformation:   The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time.  Boston:  Beacon Press, 2001.
• Rousseau, Jean-Jacques.  Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality among Men.  In The Discourses and Other Early Political Writings.  Edited and translated by Victor Gourevitch.  Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• Smith, Adam.  An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.  Edited by R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner.  2 vols.  Indianapolis:  Liberty Fund, 1981.
• Thomas Aquinas.  Summa Theologiae.  Latin-English Edition.  Cambridge:  Blackfriars in conjunction with Cambridge University Press, 1964–1981.
• Tocqueville, Alexis de.  Democracy in America.  Translated by Harvey C. Mansfield and Delba Winthrop.  Chicago:  University of Chicago Press, 2000.