• Alison’s suspension from the Green Party followed years of complaints about her gender-critical views, but her elected status had previously offered some protection

• The shift from “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria” in diagnostic manuals reflected lobbying efforts to align trans rights with gay liberation, despite fundamental differences between the two

• Affirmation-only approaches in clinical settings represent a radical departure from traditional therapeutic practice, which emphasises open, non-judgmental exploration

• The Green Party’s trans-inclusive policies were partly driven by highly emotional conference presentations that discouraged critical scrutiny

• Corporate support for gender identity politics may reflect its compatibility with neoliberal individualism and its non-threatening stance toward capital

• Victim culture and claims to vulnerability have become powerful political tools, even when the claimed victimhood contradicts material reality

• The fracturing of the left along identity lines has made unified political struggle increasingly difficult

• Working-class communities have been alienated by middle-class parties and NGOs that claim to represent them without genuine engagement

• The current anti-woke backlash may be equally authoritarian, offering no space for nuanced discussion

• Mental health labels, including gender dysphoria, need not be permanent, yet society often treats psychological diagnoses as more fixed than physical ones

Interspersed with this series focusing on psychoanalytic thinking will be a number of special episodes dealing with specific and ongoing political issues. Following our conversation last year with Daniel James on developments in the Green Party of England and Wales, an episode with Alison Teal will extend the critique of the authoritarian tendency now evident in that party. (Our episode on the authoritarian/libertarian convergence, also from 2025, outlines one of the psychological drivers of this development.) Episodes on other issues are being planned.

So, sign up or stay signed up to metapolitics in order to keep in touch with our unique mixture of in-depth psychoanalytic exploration and wide-angle discussion of politics in its psychological and cultural contexts.

The conversation moves on to consider the variety of ways in which analysts and therapists can also be political activists. Orbach, whose first book ‘Fat is a Feminist Issue’ was in 1978 an important early bridge between feminism and psychoanalytically-influenced psychotherapy, offers some interesting historical reflections on the influences each way between psychoanalysis and feminism generally. She suggests that it is useful to see the psychoanalytic contribution to politics as a whole being centred on emotions, and their relationship to ideas, and also reminds us that there are direct practical possibilities for intervention, as seen in some international examples of clinical work amongst disadvantaged communities. We end with some observations on how the socio-economic contexts within which psychoanalysis has developed, and its present base in cosmopolitan cultures, have shaped the political attitudes of psychoanalysts, though not always in the same way.

[Unfortunately, a technical issue had delayed the start of recording this conversation, and led to it being shorter than the average metapolitics episode. We hope to have the chance to continue discussion with Susie on these and other issues on a future occasion.]

Rustin, who has spent years associated with the Tavistock Clinic while maintaining his sociology professorship, explains how British psychoanalysis developed its distinctive focus on early infant development and object relations. He traces how thinkers like Melanie Klein, Donald Winnicott, and Wilfred Bion created frameworks for understanding not just individual psychology but the emotional underpinnings of social institutions and political movements.

The conversation explores how psychoanalytic concepts illuminate political phenomena: from the welfare state as a “container” for societal anxieties to Brexit as an expression of splitting and projection. Rustin explains how Klein’s ideas about the paranoid-schizoid and depressive positions help us understand political polarization, while Winnicott’s concept of the “good enough mother” offers insights into what makes societies capable of nurturing human development.

We discuss Rustin’s influential work on “the good society”—his attempt to envision social arrangements that support human flourishing by taking seriously our psychological needs for security, creativity, and genuine relationship. He argues that understanding unconscious dynamics isn’t just therapeutic but essential for creating more humane institutions and policies.

The episode addresses contemporary challenges through a psychoanalytic lens: why climate denial persists despite overwhelming evidence (our inability to bear painful realities), how neoliberalism damages our capacity for concern and mutual care, and why conspiracy theories flourish when containing institutions fail. Rustin offers his view of how psychoanalytic thinking can enrich political analysis without reducing everything to psychology.

McLaughlin, who has spent decades studying Fromm’s work and its reception, explains how this member of the Frankfurt School became simultaneously one of the best-selling intellectuals of the mid-twentieth century and one of the most marginalised in academic discourse. Despite writing prescient analyses of authoritarianism, alienation, and the human tendency to “escape from freedom,” Fromm has been largely erased from both psychoanalytic and sociological canons.

The conversation explores Fromm’s core insight, that modern capitalism creates not just economic inequality but profound psychological damage. His concept of “social character,” how economic systems shape personality structures, offers a framework for understanding everything from Trump supporters to social media addiction. McLaughlin explains how Fromm saw both Western capitalism and Soviet communism as systems that alienate people from their authentic selves and creative potential.

We discuss why Fromm’s humanistic approach fell out of favor, caught between Marxists who found him insufficiently radical, psychoanalysts who resented his critiques of Freudian orthodoxy, and academics suspicious of anyone who wrote bestsellers. McLaughlin argues that Fromm’s marginalisation reflects broader problems in how knowledge is produced and validated in universities, where boundary-crossing thinkers are often punished rather than celebrated.

The episode delves into Fromm’s vision of “socialist humanism,” a democratic alternative to both corporate capitalism and authoritarian socialism that emphasised human creativity, genuine community, and what he called “the art of loving.” We explore his influence on the 1960s counterculture, his prescient warnings about consumer society’s psychological costs, and why his integrated approach to understanding humans as both psychological and social beings offers tools we desperately need today.

McLaughlin makes a compelling case that recovering Fromm’s legacy isn’t just about intellectual history—it’s about finding resources for understanding our current crisis of democracy, meaning, and mental health in an age of algorithmic manipulation and authoritarian temptation.

The discussion opens with the inherent tension in “eco-populism”—can environmental politics become popular when climate activism increasingly alienates the public? They explore how Extinction Rebellion’s confrontational tactics have made the Green message less palatable, while the party tries to broaden its appeal to unlikely voters who see their choice as “between Reform UK or the Greens.”

A central theme emerges around the philosophical incompatibility between the party’s ecological foundations and its embrace of postmodern identity politics.

They examine the party’s transformation from anti-hierarchical grassroots movement to professional political machine, from consensus-seeking volunteers to salaried politicians with staff. This professionalisation brings electoral viability but loses the authentic connection to local communities that once defined Green politics.

Barry identifies a paradoxical convergence of libertarian and authoritarian tendencies: a party with anti-authority roots now enforces ideological purity through expulsions and disciplinary procedures. The defeat of a motion to reinstate climate emergency as central policy reveals how far the party has drifted from its founding purpose.

The conversation concludes with speculation about which UK party might first split over identity politics. With gender activists, traditional environmentalists, Muslim members, and socialist entryists all pulling in different directions, the Greens exemplify the fragmenting forces within progressive politics. As Barry notes, some movements inherently fragment because their need for ideological purity cannot tolerate the differences that inevitably emerge within any coalition.

The conversation centres on newly elected leader Zach Polanski’s vision of “eco-populism”—an attempt to broaden the party’s appeal beyond its middle-class environmental base to capture both Reform UK voters and the politically disengaged. With 85% of the leadership vote but only 38% turnout, Polanski’s mandate reflects a party increasingly divided between its ecological roots and a new generation shaped by university identity politics.

James reveals how the party’s recent conference defeated a motion to reinstate climate and ecological emergencies as central policy planks—a stunning reversal for a party founded on environmental principles. Instead, the Greens are increasingly consumed by bitter conflicts over gender ideology, with feminists being expelled or resigning over trans rights issues, creating what critics call “Greens in Exile.” The party that once prided itself on being non-hierarchical and inclusive now enforces strict ideological boundaries, with Polanski declaring “transphobes are not welcome.”

The discussion explores fascinating contradictions: an influx of Muslim members drawn by the party’s Gaza stance sits uneasily with its strong LGBTQ+ advocacy; “bright Greens” argue for nuclear power and unlimited consumption while traditional members champion degrowth; young activists push authoritarian redistribution policies that would have horrified the party’s libertarian founders.

James explains how professionalisation has changed everything—from unpaid activists meeting in church halls to salaried politicians with staff and offices, the party has gained electoral viability but lost its grassroots character. Conference attendance has dropped to 1-2% of membership, allowing small organised factions to push through radical policies that may not reflect broader member views.

The episode raises profound questions about the future of environmental politics: Can a party be truly ecological while embracing postmodern theories that deny material reality? How does the convergence of libertarian traditions with authoritarian identity politics reshape progressive movements? And ultimately, can the Greens be everything to everyone, or must they choose between environmental urgency and social justice absolutism?

This conversation offers crucial insights not just into one party’s struggles, but into the broader tensions fracturing progressive politics across the Western world.

Thank you for your interest in Metapolitics. Since we launched in April of this year, emails have gone out regularly to our subscribers with information about our latest podcast. We have now published 26 episodes, 12 of which have been conversations with guests (see list below), with the others mostly featuring Barry and Mustafa reflecting on the previous week’s conversation, though we have also looked at a few topics which we have not (yet) had a guest in to discuss. Our guests have been from different professional and academic backgrounds, and with various areas of interest. So we’ve covered a range of topics, and believe that the expertise of our guests, and our long form, in-depth approach, mean that all these episodes of Season One will be sources of insight with relevance to many daily headlines for some time to come.

We are taking a short autumnal break, and when we return in October will be starting Season Two, in which all episodes (apart from some occasional specials) will have a strong focus on how psychoanalytic understandings can provide distinctive and valuable insights into political forces and events. While hoping to build in the future on all the episodes of Season One, we want next to establish a body of accessible, conversational content around what we think is the richest and deepest psychological contribution to making sense of today’s global political environment of conflict and risk.

We will of course continue with our aims of being informed, thoughtful and open-minded, of promoting civility and avoiding esoteric language. We hope you will join us in some deep diving into the unconscious of politics.

Best wishes,

Barry and Mustafa

Season One guests

Professor Paul Hoggett on climate psychology

Dr Justin Frank on Donald Trump

Professor Maria Sobolewska on post-Brexit Britain

Professor Stuart Allan on the global future of news

Professor Demet Lukuslu on youth and polarisation in Turkish society

Professor Gary Chartier on Christianity and the nation-state

Professor Sasha Mudd on Trumpism, disconnected elites, and assisted dying

Dr Marc Palen on the meanings of free trade

Jessica Toale MP on the experience of Westminster

Dr Jeffrey Murer on Hungarian politics

Dr Lamprini Rori on Greek politics

In other episodes we discuss lone actor violence, the current convergence of authoritarian and libertarian tendencies, and the core question, ‘why is democracy so difficult?’

Our conversation reveals the unique character of Greek universities, where every political party—from New Democracy to the Communist Party—maintains active student organizations that serve as training grounds for future political elites. With 70,000 students at Athens University alone (though many are "eternal students" who never graduate), these institutions reflect Greece's polarized but vibrantly pluralistic political culture. Unlike their Western counterparts dominated by left-liberal consensus, Greek universities host the full spectrum of political opinion, creating both ideological engagement and problematic clientelism.

We discuss Greece's dramatic shift on immigration, with Rori giving us advance notice of the government's then-imminent decision to refuse all asylum applications from those entering illegally—a move that would prove controversial but reflects broader European anxieties. The conversation explores how Prime Minister Mitsotakis's New Democracy party has maintained power for seven years not through charisma but through technocratic competence, offering Greeks something they hadn't experienced in decades: predictable, stable governance.

Dr. Rori helps us understand why Greece didn't follow Hungary or Turkey's path toward illiberal democracy despite having every reason to: economic devastation, national humiliation through troika-imposed austerity, youth unemployment near 20%, and the rise of Golden Dawn. Perhaps it was EU oversight that kept certain red lines from being crossed, or the bitter memory of Syriza's betrayal when they promised revolution but delivered even harsher austerity. Or maybe, as our conversation suggests, sometimes a boring technocrat is exactly what a traumatized democracy needs to heal.

The conversation centers on Murer's concept of "psychic violence"—the unconscious processes that precede and enable both symbolic and physical violence. Drawing on psychoanalytic theory, particularly the work of Ferenczi and Klein, Murer argues that we internalise messages about who constitutes a threat through superego development, and we experience pleasure when we correctly identify these "threats"—even when they pose no actual danger.

Mustafa offers an analogy about urban dwellers who love their pets while remaining blind to industrial farming's violence, illustrating how we develop "split consciousness" that makes certain suffering invisible. The discussion explores how this operates: we're taught unconsciously what constitutes a threat, we reproduce these identifications to demonstrate belonging, and we literally cannot see the humanity of those we've learned to exclude.

The conversation takes a philosophical turn through Emmanuel Levinas's ethics, arguing that even in the face of perceived threat, we must see the humanity of the Other. Murer suggests that the denial of another's subjectivity—refusing to hear their pain—is itself an act of violence. This leads to challenging questions about identity, belonging, and the paradox that our need to belong creates boundaries that inflict harm on those excluded.

The episode concludes with a powerful reflection on the importance of listening—even to those whose views we find abhorrent. As Murer notes from his career studying Hungarian fascists: "The best way for me to contribute to anti-fascism is by listening to fascists." It's a conversation that asks us to confront not just societal violence, but our own unconscious participation in systems of harm we cannot see.

The discussion centers on Vamik Volkan's concept of "chosen trauma"—how Hungary has built its national identity around the catastrophic losses of the Treaty of Trianon, which stripped away two-thirds of its territory after World War I. Rather than working through this grief, successive generations have frozen it in place, making pain and resentment the core of what it means to be Hungarian.

They explore the striking demographic reality that shapes this politics of loss: with only 2.5 million of Hungary's 9.5 million people living in cities, the rural majority becomes the natural constituency for Orbán's narrative of historical grievance. The conversation takes an unexpected turn into economics, discovering Hungary's surprising manufacturing base—from BMW to pharmaceuticals—and questioning how this modern industrial reality coexists with a political culture still mourning a lost agrarian empire.

Mustafa draws fascinating parallels with Turkey, where Republicans celebrate the Ottoman Empire's collapse as liberation while Islamists mourn it as traumatic loss—showing how the same historical moment can generate completely contradictory political identities within one society.

The episode grapples with what Barry calls the "masochistic" nature of trauma-based identity: the psychological puzzle of why people would choose to wrap themselves in historical pain rather than moving forward. While some nations build identity around chosen glories and triumphs, Hungary exemplifies the darker alternative—a national selfhood that requires constant reproduction of century-old wounds.

It's a conversation that raises more questions than it answers, ultimately suggesting that understanding why some nations cling to trauma while others let go requires deep excavation into each society's particular history and psychology.

Our conversation reveals how Hungary's loss of two-thirds of its territory after World War I created what psychoanalyst Vamik Volkan calls a "chosen trauma"—a frozen mourning that successive generations refuse to work through, instead using it as the core of political identity. Murer explains how Orbán has brilliantly exploited this unresolved grief, transforming from a young democratic activist in 1989 to the architect of "illiberal democracy" who maintains electoral legitimacy while systematically dismantling civil liberties, press freedom, and judicial independence.

We explore fascinating parallels between Hungary and Turkey, examining how both countries use similar playbooks: media domination, judicial capture, and the construction of "common sense" that excludes opposition voices. The discussion also covers the rise and fall of the far-right Jobbik party, the emergence of the neo-fascist Mi Hazánk movement, and how rural-urban divides shape Hungarian politics.

Professor Murer offers both sobering analysis and surprising optimism, describing how Budapest's recent Pride march drew tens of thousands in defiance of Orbán's anti-LGBTQ policies, suggesting that joy and inclusion might be the opposition's most powerful weapons against oppressive politics. With elections approaching in 2026 and a new centrist challenger emerging, we consider whether Hungary might break free from its cycle of authoritarian capture—or whether the ghosts of Trianon will continue to haunt its democracy.

About Our Guest: Dr. Jeffrey Murer is Senior Lecturer in Collective Violence at the University of St. Andrews, where he brings a unique psychoanalytic perspective to the study of political violence and international relations. A leading expert on Hungarian politics and Central European affairs, Dr. Murer has spent decades analyzing how collective trauma and historical memory shape contemporary political movements.

His interdisciplinary approach combines political science with psychoanalytic theory, drawing particularly on the work of Vamik Volkan to understand how societies process—or fail to process—historical wounds. Dr. Murer's research explores the psychological dimensions of nationalism, the transmission of trauma across generations, and the emotional dynamics underlying authoritarian movements. He has written extensively on topics ranging from the rise of far-right parties in Hungary to the role of chosen trauma in political identity formation, making him one of the few scholars who can illuminate the unconscious forces driving today's illiberal politics.

The discussion reveals the hidden emotional costs of democratic representation. While most attention focuses on the obvious stressors of political life—brutal working hours, social media abuse, constant scrutiny—Barry and Mustafa explore a more subtle psychological burden: the cognitive dissonance of somehow holding space for contradictory constituencies. Jessica mentioned this as both rewarding and stressful, and they dig into why managing such diversity of opinion might be democracy's most demanding requirement.

They spend considerable time on a troubling modern development: how television cameras in Parliament may have inadvertently degraded the quality of democratic debate. Jessica's insight that MPs now perform for their constituents rather than engage in genuine parliamentary dialogue leads to broader questions about whether transparency always improves democratic processes. The cameras were introduced to open up government, but if they encourage theatrical behavior over substantive debate, have they achieved the opposite of their intended purpose?

The conversation also examines the impossible contradictions of political leadership. Voters seem to want leaders who are simultaneously "one of us" (relatable, authentic, down-to-earth) and exceptional (visionary, energetic, capable of leading). How do politicians navigate this paradox? And has social media made it even more difficult by creating constant pressure for performance rather than governance?

Perhaps most troubling is their discussion of democratic legitimacy in an era of declining turnout. Labour's 2024 "landslide" was built on historically low voter participation. When an MP might win their seat with as little as 20-25% of their constituency's support, what does democratic representation actually mean? They consider whether non-voting represents apathy, contentment, or a crisis of faith in democratic institutions.

Jessica's journey from international development consultant to first-time MP offers a fascinating window into contemporary British politics. She describes the surprisingly entrepreneurial reality of becoming an MP—receiving a budget and essentially being told to set up a business from scratch, complete with hiring staff, finding offices, and managing public money while emails from constituents start flooding in from day one.

The conversation reveals striking contrasts between public perceptions and parliamentary reality. While television coverage focuses on adversarial theater, Jessica describes extensive cross-party collaboration through All-Party Parliamentary Groups, behind-the-scenes cooperation on legislation, and genuine friendliness once MPs step outside the chamber. The architecture itself, with its confrontational two-bench setup, seems designed for adversarial politics in ways that newer parliaments have deliberately avoided.

As Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Office, Jessica explains this peculiarly British role that bridges government and backbenchers—a position that sounds anachronistic but serves crucial modern functions. She also discusses the ongoing modernisation efforts, from turning men's toilets into women's facilities (a surprisingly recent development) to making parliamentary hours more family-friendly.

The conversation touches on broader democratic challenges, including the 2024 election's 60% turnout and the ongoing crisis of trust in political institutions. Jessica's response is refreshingly hands-on: door-knocking every Saturday with a goal of visiting every household in her constituency before the next election.

About Our Guest:

Jessica Toale is Labour MP for Bournemouth West and Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Foreign Office. She has a PPE degree from York University, a master's in urbanization and development from LSE, and is a qualified barrister. Before entering Parliament, she worked as an advisor and consultant in foreign policy and international development, coordinating UN campaigns that reached 170 countries, and served as a councillor in London's West End.

Barry and Mustafa explore some unexpected territory in their reflection on Marc Palen's "Pax Economica: Left-wing Visions of a Free Trade World." Palen's book reveals a forgotten history where socialists, feminists, and anti-imperialists championed free trade as a weapon against imperialism and pathway to peace. This tradition has been so thoroughly erased that today's left automatically opposes free trade, ceding the entire discourse to corporate interests.

The conversation takes some fascinating turns as they realize how Trump's current trade policies are essentially cosplay from the 1890s—complete with McKinley references and 19th-century rhetoric about reciprocity. This leads them to think about concepts like "free trade" and "protectionism" as essentially empty signifiers that different political movements fill with their own meanings and purposes.

They spend time puzzling over why free trade hasn't been a major public issue in British politics (unlike in Turkey, where it carries heavy imperial baggage), and end up in an unexpectedly extended discussion about AI and automation. If robots can do everything domestically, what happens to the traditional rationales for international trade? Does this push us toward a new era of economic nationalism—not for ideological reasons, but purely practical ones?

The conversation meanders in the way good reflections do, touching on everything from the Ottoman Empire's experience with forced trade agreements to whether AI could ever replace psychotherapists. It's the kind of discussion where they don't reach neat conclusions but do clarify why these seemingly technical economic issues might be more politically crucial than they initially thought.

The conversation meanders through some fascinating territory—from old theories about crowd psychology to very current questions about why the Democratic Party seems so disconnected from working-class concerns. They spend time on immigration, which Barry describes as a "treasonable issue" because people on both sides see their opponents as fundamentally betraying something sacred.

And they end up having quite an extended discussion about assisted dying—prompted by Sasha's recent column—where they wrestle with whether legalizing it might end up making death a cheaper option than actually helping people live decent lives.

It's the kind of conversation where they don't reach tidy conclusions, but they do clarify why these issues feel so intractable.

In this illuminating conversation, Dr. Marc Palen challenges everything we think we know about free trade by revealing its forgotten progressive history. While today's free trade is associated almost exclusively with right-wing economics and corporate globalisation, Palen's groundbreaking research uncovers a powerful tradition where socialists, peace activists, and anti-imperialists championed free trade as a tool for international cooperation and social justice.

The discussion explores the crucial distinction between what Palen calls the "Marx-Manchester tradition"—socialist internationalists who saw free trade as progressive—and the "Marx-List tradition" of socialist nationalists who embraced protectionism. We examine how figures like Karl Kautsky and Lenin represented these different approaches, and why the protectionist tradition ultimately became dominant within left-wing movements.

Dr. Palen explains his concept of the "unholy trinity"—neo-colonialism, neo-mercantilism, and neo-liberalism—that hijacked and corrupted the left-wing vision of free trade after 1945. The conversation also addresses contemporary relevance, from Trump's tariff policies that echo 1890s protectionism to how artificial intelligence might fundamentally alter the economic rationales for international trade.

The discussion examines how Chartier's "radical consociational" model builds upon existing power-sharing systems while proposing something entirely new—political organisation freed from territorial constraints. They explore real-world examples of consociational democracy in Belgium, Switzerland, and Lebanon, analysing what makes these systems succeed or fail and whether they offer insights for Chartier's more radical proposal.

Central to their reflection is the question of practicality: can society really function when neighbours might belong to entirely different legal systems? How would fundamental services like taxation, infrastructure, and law enforcement work in a deterritorialised world?

Our conversation explores how liberal elites have become disconnected from ordinary people's lives, making core democratic values feel abstract and irrelevant. We discuss the role of technology in fragmenting social bonds, the paradox of fighting authoritarianism while maintaining respect for political opponents, and whether liberal democracy can renew itself without abandoning its fundamental principles.

Professor Mudd also shares her insights on polarization as a "social contagion," the importance of disaggregating the "77 million" Trump voters rather than treating them as a monolith, and why local political engagement may hold the key to democratic renewal. We conclude with discussions of assisted dying and the philosophical question of whether we should aim for happiness or goodness in life.

The conversation begins with Chartier explaining his preference for the term "liberalism" over "libertarianism" or "anarchism," emphasizing his commitment to human variety and diversity within a broad liberal tradition rooted in Aristotelian concepts of human flourishing. He argues that states are inherently illegitimate due to their lack of consensual foundations and the inevitable corruption that comes with concentrated monopolistic power—a corruption that affects not just bad actors but well-intentioned people who may cause harm through ignorance or misguided benevolence.

Chartier introduces his alternative vision: a "consociational" model of fluid, network-based associations that transcend territorial boundaries. Drawing on the work of reformed political theorist Johannes Althusius, he envisions overlapping voluntary networks where people can affiliate based on shared values—whether religious communities following Catholic canon law, Jewish law, or Sharia, or more secular associations—while maintaining the crucial ability to exit without geographic dislocation.

The hosts probe the practical implications of this model, particularly around economic issues like taxation and the provision of public goods. Barry questions whether Chartier's critique of human nature that condemns state power wouldn't equally apply to network-based governance, while Mustafa raises concerns about power imbalances between comprehensive ideological groups and more limited associations like hobby clubs.

Chartier acknowledges that his model won't eliminate human nature's capacity for mischief but argues it would distribute power more effectively and reduce opportunities for abuse through voluntary association and ease of exit. He draws parallels to the just war tradition, suggesting his Christian anarchist approach could appeal beyond theological circles while remaining grounded in natural law thinking about peaceful voluntary cooperation.

This episode offers listeners a unique perspective on political theory that challenges conventional thinking about state authority and presents an alternative vision for social organization based on voluntary association, human flourishing, and the practical limitations of concentrated power.