2. Agenda : Thesis, Ideas of Focus, Claims/ Assumptions, Method

The tension between citizens and populations is central to the book. The former are subject of the nation-state, while the latter are objects of the welfare state. However this distinction though conceptually neat plays out very differently on the ground. Chatterjee goes into the logic of its conceptual segregation and the sociobiology of their overlapping in the real world. Moreover, the first point that  Chatterjee strives to make, is that the nation-state creates both these categories. It does for its own proliferation and the resulting reality often feeds into the logic of the state. The extent of this point clashed with the neatly segregated notion. Both notions do agree that nation-state creates the two categories. However, the idea of segregation gives the implication that populations only exist within the parameters of welfare, and that such a category does not play out in the day to day functioning of the nation-state where civil society, as in citizens,  functions. The shift in Chatterjee's argument is to move away from notions of welfare and citizenship and focus on linking the nation-state and governmentality           

Governmentality is shown to be a legitimate aspect of the state functioning simply because it addresses two specific limitations built into the condition of a nation. The first is that the state must find a menses to address those identities that marginal to dominate framework. The key word here is mobilization. To treat all such identities as individual citizens are to lose sight of the fundamental contractions between the dominant and the marginal. Thus the social mobilization incorporates the identities as a population group into the national structure while also keeping the contradiction in focus. The second reason has to to do with limited resources. 

Political society is thus an acknowledgment of the governmental tendencies nation-state. It is also a means of incorporating population groups into proper political thought and consideration. 

Scott's work covers vast areas of human history, ingenuity, policy, and structure. In this Scott's own effort ironically, is in an exercise in making visible the operations statecrafts' legibility and the consequences of the same. His examples work as clusters, each illustrating a key pattern, the reiteration of key ideas. Authoritarian High- Modernism becomes the key concept that pins down the functioning of legibility in all its complex manifestations. To be sure this concept both refers to and is deployed with the western historical framework, and is thus less a theoretical suggestion, and more a conceptual characterization. Authoritarian High- Modernism runs through the book, connecting to various historical events and practices, however breaking down its use in the book, and restricting its connection to the object of legibility, their key idea's can named. They are a simplification, direction, and preference. Before expanding on the three, a word on the method of their articulation is required. Scott traces the prevalence of these ideas in political policy, scientific analysis, technological function, and social practice. In each instance is chosen with the aim of illustrating one or more of these ideas. Thus, beginning with the idea of simplification, Scott shows how the functioning of the map which simplifies the complexity of located environment into mere topographic and navigational features, functions similarly to agricultural scientific research, which often simplifies complex pedological, vegetational process and features into controllable variables. The second aspect of direction, Scott points out is a particular feature of the modern state. While earlier statecraft argent had the agenda of extending and marinating power over society, modern arrangement's have the implicit notion of bettering society. That is, with the agenda and function of directing society towards a preferred formation or conduct. It is here that preference comes into play. This direction or betterment is not merely conversed but sold, where the social entities are taught to prefer the direction. Thus scientific reformation is not merely followed but is made to be expected and preferred. What this means, however, is that the social entities come to adopt the many simplifications made by the statecraft. To 'see' in another away is not only to contradict but is to impede direction, thus Authoritarian High- Modernism covers both repressive and ideological tactics of legitimizing arrangements.

What must be noted here is that Authoritarian High- Modernism is ultimately a form of knowledge that the statecraft both subscribers and prescribes. This knowledge is communicable and replicable for it approaches situations in its forms and is, itself a formulaic. Technê, Epistêmê, are the predominant conceptual aspects of this knowledge and Scott remarks that Western civilization has favored the two. Scott offers a challenge to the two, which is explored in the final section of the book. The concept is that of Mētis which involves experiential knowledge. The difference Scott points out is that such experiential gained sustain contact with the studied situation pay due attention to the complex relationships present in the situation. Moreover, the perceived or learned complexity is left intact as it can not be communicated without proximate experience.