The facilitative state and the symbolic potency of mutual obligation

This paper discusses ambiguities of mutual obligation at the levels of: defining the ne,v political middle ground, policies for dealing with non-compliance, the analytical frames that are used to support it, and discourses of contract. It concludes by locating these ambiguities within the cultural anthropological notion of symbol. As a symbol. mutual obligation has the power to confound its critics - criticism of the notion and its inconsistent policy prescriptions is generally not assessed as right or wrong, bur rather is rendered irrelevant.