Ryan Ciaciek
Aug 9, 2017 · 2 min read

Great work. Only issue would be the use of the term “deep state” here. Often “deep state” is a stand in for a set of hidden people, secret panels, or undisclosed ruling committee etc. The “deep state” is a term constructed by the right to basically argue there are special people pulling strings that otherwise would not have been pulled (they are the cause of problematic policy and ideas) rather than the regular state/the state itself in all of its forms everyday social service provision, bureaucracy, infrastructure (or lack thereof), and basic beliefs (nationalism/patriotism/borders/policing etc). The term itself is less critical of existing social relations, authority in itself, and modes of power while indicating if certain people, better authorities, or groups were removed things would be ideal or exemplar. For example, healthcare providers, social workers, teachers, university profs or students, can all participate in normal, routine, and non-questioned activities or ideologies and this supports or reproduces colonialism, surveillance, and self-policing as much as the largest state institutions etc. Politicians and political parties do not seek to grant Indigenous peoples and the over 600 communities of them living in Canada their rights to sovereignty and this is as oppressive as any other state appendage. The “deep state” term also views power operating in a top-down, determinist, and structural way as opposed to functioning from the bottom up, chaotic/unplanned, and interpersonal-relational. While I think your completely correct with your assessment of the police and related surveillance appendages of the state the “deep state” term doesn’t do anything for your argument and could lead people away from power itself and into realms of changing government or renewing democracy. Surveillance isn’t only done by police/securitization industries, the private sector is the largest collector of data and goes where the state cannot “deeper” into our daily lives that the state itself.
****Most of the intel used by law-enforcement or apparatuses of social control is self-generated by internet users & content creation on social medias. We tell the world our political affiliation, sexuality, physical appearance, shoe size, and daily activities. Authorities use FB and social medias to build cases and identify peoples without any malicious or sinister intent — we give it to them and show them who we are socially related to. This is the control narrative of the internet we give everything personal of ourselves over to institutions (banks, media companies, utilities, services etc) for increased security and flexbility/personalization in financial and/or social transactions. The surveillance aspect is not just top-down — we are exhibitionists (performers for others purview) and voyeurs (constantly watching others performances) when using the internet.*******

We support many non-structural aspects of coloniality, colonial governance, and collectively consume its products and culture because we benefit from it. Foucault’s concepts of governmentality and discipline align with anarchist Gustav Landauer’s view of the state and power — that is to say social relationships and ideologies we forge inside and outside of institutions. They would add more to your brilliant work as the term “the deep state” does. Keep it up.