{"resolved":true,"match_type":"uuid","source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","requested_by":"printed_page","book":{"source_type":"original_book","book_id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","id":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","uuid":"24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title":"The Stack On Software and Sovereignty","normalized_title":"thestackonsoftwareandsovereignty","author":null,"edition":null,"publisher":null,"year":null,"isbn":"9780262029575","isbns":["9780262029575"],"parsed":true,"ai_readable":true,"document_type":"book","page_count":517,"navigation_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","title_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/title/The%20Stack%20On%20Software%20and%20Sovereignty","fixed_page_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","path_api_url_template":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/book/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page/{printed_page}","read_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/read/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341","page_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/page","search_url":"https://workshop.closeclaw.top/api/ai/books/24410bf1-91f1-4e6b-9613-e64f0132d341/search"},"page":{"printed_page":447,"pdf_page":461,"physical_index":461,"physical_index_base":0,"printed_page_status":"recognized","page_sha256":"4f3acd6d2275798aec50946ffb2a388f19ed6ce00139673ea3d1a4cafcf800df"},"chapter":"Fheck The Stack |On Software and Sovereignty Benjamin H. Bratton","content":"As discussed in the City layer chapter, we lack an adequate legal and political understanding of the “ refugee ” as a generic position, as opposed to an exceptional situation. It is always not enough to say that we cannot solve a refugee problem by producing a new refugee problem because, for better or worse, the identity that anyone and everyone shares of the stateless person dislodged from her home is the identity that each of us navigates when the shadow of some other utopia or dystopia sweeps over us in which we have no role to play. That namelessness and uselessness can also be another name for statelessness. Given the contemporary mania for revanchism, based on claims of primordial occupation going back centuries or even millennia, it is worth asking once again if the values we place in the notion of home and homeland are more dangerous than whatever comfort of continuity they may promise. This would be a good starting point to designing cohabitation. It does not answer for us how to solve the puzzle of inclusion, always based on exclusion as a shared condition, or even if solving that is the point. It does point us away from conventional discussions of the legal unipolarity of a single regime of “ rights ” for citizens and noncitizens and toward another one about partial citizens, temporary citizens, dual-, triple-, and quad-citizenships, or away from this legal position altogether perhaps. It is complex enough to map stateless persons. It is perhaps more so to make room for personless states, or for corporations of multiple persons that are afforded religious and speech metarights above and beyond those of the humans that they aggregate. Swatting at flying robots all day and night can ’ t possibly keep the natural order in place.\n\nOn the contrary, the normalized exception, inverting interior and exterior also inverts the utopian and dystopian projects, even across the same interfacial hinge of the subdividing wall. The oscillation of the enclave and the camp may work variously as the cause or the effect of the proliferation of our overlapping surplus of utopias, absorbing design programs into its demands and spinning out the accidents of political subjectivity that characterize the City layer of The Stack. What is clear is that in this overlap, as each of us is, at every given moment, inside some Cloud polities that actively recognize us as Users or citizens, outside of others that may or may not, and inside others that do not recognize us, even as we move around geographies in what it may imagine to be their jurisdictions, that our continuous transactions with the physical and virtual envelopes of our habitats never resolve into any absolute political space that can make last-instance claims on whatever or whoever is passing through. No one addressing scheme can finally exclude others. Accordingly the plans and programs of the designers of that space, regardless of their own valorizations of an absolute architecture, have even less durable authority on those claims and those identities. The site is itself a microcosmic platform but only even in relation to others, at the same or different scale. As the borders cross you, you must be able to come as well as go. The interfaces that cohere the site as a surface of interest are only ever interfaces to or from another site, and if for no other reason than this, the platform geopolitics of the User must design entrance to be as dominant a function as exit.\n\nNotes\n\n447","previous_page":446,"next_page":448}