Innocence and the License to Kill: How Class Rule Produces Its Moral Categories

The essays on this site have argued that class rule operates not only through direct coercion but through the reorganization of social reproduction into institutionally separated domains, each under class-structured control.^[1] Meritocratic reasoning is the logic through which this reorganization is made to seem natural: it sorts people into categories of more and less deserving, then treats the resulting hierarchy as evidence that the sorting was justified.

But the analysis so far has said relatively little about how these categories are produced — how populations come to accept the conceptual vocabulary through which exploitation is rendered invisible and organized violence becomes thinkable. Coercion is never enough on its own. Even the most brutal class societies require their subjects to internalize a framework within which domination appears legitimate, or at least inevitable. The question here is not the one addressed in the companion essay on competing solidarities — how belonging and need-fulfillment are organized along non-class lines — but the prior one: how do people come to think in categories that make class violence possible?^[2]

The category I examine here is innocence: meritocratic reasoning applied to the question of who may be harmed. The deserving/undeserving distinction is applied here to bodily integrity itself: those classified as "innocent" are entitled to safety; those found "not innocent" forfeit that entitlement. The result is a license for violence — one that intensifies as the concept becomes more refined, and that operates only above a threshold of moral standing: below that threshold (at the species boundary, and historically at the gradient positions where populations were classified as non-persons), no legitimation is required at all, and violence is simply available without the innocence concept needing to do any work. The vocabulary keeps switching sides: the same moral categories that subordinate populations produce to articulate their suffering are captured by successive ruling classes and turned against the populations they originally spoke for — and the capture operates not only at the level of vocabulary but at the level of institutional access, through the monopolization of mediation (the community's distributed connection to the sacred seized by specialist classes whose authority becomes permanent and accumulative) that constitutes class formation in the cosmological domain.

The religious narrative traditions through which the concept has developed are more closely interwoven than they are usually presented as being.

Why coercion is not enough

If class rule could be maintained by force alone, the ruling class would need nothing more than a monopoly on weapons and the willingness to use them. Some regimes approximate this for short periods. None has sustained it indefinitely, because naked coercion is extraordinarily expensive. It requires constant surveillance, constant readiness to punish, and a repressive apparatus whose members must themselves be kept loyal — which reintroduces the problem at one remove. Living under an occupier is a crisis condition, not a stable equilibrium.

Class rule sustains itself precisely by making coercion largely unnecessary — by producing populations who cooperate with arrangements that exploit them, who enforce the rules on each other, and who understand their participation as common sense, moral duty, or simply the way things are. It helps that they benefit from the arrangement in small ways. And because class societies work this way, the process is not, strictly speaking, deception. What people need is a conceptual vocabulary within which their situation adds up — categories through which exploitation registers as exchange, hierarchy registers as competence, and violence against designated targets registers as justice or necessity. And these categories don't merely serve existing needs for moral order — they arrive before alternatives do, supplying the framework through which moral experience is first understood. The legitimation apparatus preempts rather than distorts: it provides the categories, not a rival account of categories people already have.

Meritocratic reasoning provides the general logic: some people deserve more, others less; the sorting reflects real differences; those who end up at the bottom are there for identifiable reasons. But the general logic needs specific categories, embedded in narratives, taught through institutions, renewed in each generation. How this happens, and how the specific content of the categories changes as the requirements of class rule change, is the question this essay takes up.

Class rule does not invent the capacity for symbolically mediated collective violence. It captures and industrializes a pre-existing dynamic. Symbolic self-conception — through art, ritual, and narrative — is itself a governance technology, and an ancient one: the mechanism through which human communities organize inclusion and exclusion. As the companion essay on competing solidarities argues at length, this governance technology is inherently dual.^[3] It produces solidarity and exclusion through the same neurochemical and symbolic processes. Under egalitarian conditions — the baseline for most of human evolutionary history — the duality is managed through coalitionary enforcement, group fission and fusion, and the fluidity of boundaries themselves: the same people may be included in one context and excluded in another, and the boundaries are subject to constant collective renegotiation.

Specific material conditions — the ability to store food surpluses, sedentism, defensible territory, population growth — weaken coalitionary enforcement and make permanent hierarchy possible, first within integrated practices. The mechanism through which this operated was primarily a social technology: the formation of patrilineal corporate kin groups, which bind male identity to group membership through descent, circulate women between groups through exogamy, and transmit accumulated surplus along male lines. Population-genetic evidence shows this organizational form emerging independently across every Old World region where the Neolithic transition occurred — producing the same structural dynamics (intergroup competition, male-lineage elimination, female absorption) with different populations, different haplogroups, and no contact between regions.^[4] As separation becomes further institutionalized, boundaries that were previously negotiable freeze into permanent, institutionally embedded categories.^[5] The narrative traditions I examine below — beginning with the Akkadian and early Vedic material — were not the first steps in this process. They describe not the origin of moralized violence but the refinement of legitimation categories under conditions of increasing institutional complexity. What came before them was not a world without behavioral enforcement — egalitarian communities could be just as violent, and coalitionary enforcement was regularly brutal — but a world in which the boundaries were collectively established, context-dependent, and open to renegotiation in ways that class rule forecloses.

A further point about the transition: the cosmological frameworks through which early class rule legitimated itself (divine kingship, the stranger-king's cosmic authority, priestly control of the sacred) were not inventions but captures — reorganizations of the same symbolic infrastructure that had previously enforced egalitarianism. The "enchanted universe" Sahlins documents (The New Science of the Enchanted Universe, 2022) — metahuman beings exercising authority over human communities — operated at the egalitarian baseline as part of the reverse-dominance mechanism: spirits sanctioned hoarders, ancestors punished those who sought to dominate, cosmological prohibitions maintained the conditions for communal sharing. Under early class formation, the same cosmological framework was reorganized in the service of extraction: the stranger-king claims divine descent to justify tribute; the priestly class interposes itself between the community and the sacred to extract surplus; the "rules of life" are redirected from enforcing egalitarian norms to enforcing deference to hierarchical authority.

The capture operated specifically through the monopolization of mediation. At the egalitarian baseline, the connection between the community and the sacred/metapersons was either distributed (anyone could dream, enter trance, participate in collective ritual that was the spirit-contact — Lewis's Mbendjele polyphonic singing, the San healing dance where anyone can enter n/um) or carried by specialists whose authority was context-specific, non-accumulative, and revocable through the same coalitionary enforcement that suppressed any other would-be dominator. The shaman whose rituals failed lost standing; the healer who tried to leverage ritual authority into political power was subject to ridicule, ostracism, or lethal sanction. Under class formation, the mediating function was monopolized: the priestly class controlled access to the sacred (only they could read the omens, perform the rites, interpret what the spirits demanded), their authority was permanent and hereditary rather than revocable, and the position generated material accumulation (tribute, offerings, tithes, temple lands). This is the commodification sequence's stage 1 — imposition of dependence — operating in the sacred domain: the community's direct access to the sacred is progressively eliminated (the destruction of alternatives) and replaced with dependence on whoever controls the replacement (the priestly class). And the retention mechanisms are analogous to those NSBD identifies for material dependence: once the priestly class monopolizes interpretation, anyone who claims direct spirit-contact outside priestly channels is marked as dangerous — witchcraft, heresy, demonic possession — performing the same function vagrancy laws perform for those who try to live outside wage dependence. The Reformation's elimination of priestly mediation (Luther's "priesthood of all believers") was a partial reversal of this monopolization — but one that simultaneously installed the property form's own sacred order (the Calvinist work-ethic that Bataille and Weber trace), replacing one monopoly with another rather than restoring distributed access.

Sahlins groups both configurations — the egalitarian distributed access and the class-captured monopolized mediation — under a single category ("the enchanted universe") opposed to modern disenchantment. This obscures the class-formation transition the present essay traces by making it appear that hierarchy arrived with the Reformation rather than having operated within the "enchanted" framework for millennia before it. The narrative traditions examined below — beginning with the Akkadian Atra-Hasis and the early Vedic material — inherited and refined legitimation categories that early class rule had already installed within the cosmological frameworks Sahlins describes: the captured mediation was already in place; what the narrative traditions added was the moralization of the categories (the shift from power-based hierarchy to moral accounting that the next section traces).^[6]

Categories in common: the Indo-European dialogue

The narrative traditions through which most of the world's population has been taught to think about hierarchy, violence, and moral worth did not arise independently of each other. The conventional treatment — "the Greeks believed X, the Hebrews believed Y, the Indians believed Z" — obscures a history of sustained interaction.

The linguistic evidence runs deep. Languages as geographically distant as Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Old Norse, and Gaelic share cognate terms not only for basic vocabulary but for specifically hierarchical concepts: deva and deus (divine being), raj and rex (ruler), dyaus pitā and Zeus patēr and Iū-piter (sky father). These trace to a common ancestral language spoken roughly five thousand years ago by populations whose descendants spread from the Pontic-Caspian steppes across Eurasia.^[7] The shared vocabulary tells us that certain hierarchical concepts — patron-client obligations, sky-father worship, the transactional logic of sacrifice — were already in circulation before the dispersal. But the full apparatus of kingship and warrior aristocracy developed later in different branches: Anthony notes that raj/rex may originally have designated a custodian of ritual order rather than a king, and the warrior-aristocratic complex visible in the Ṛg Veda crystallized around 2100-1800 BCE in the Sintashta culture, well after the main dispersal. What traveled with the initial spread was a set of institutions — oath-bound patron-client contracts, guest-host obligations, reciprocal sacrifice — not a fully formed hierarchy.

The connection runs deeper than shared origins. The societies that developed from these common roots remained in sustained contact through trade, conquest, migration, and the movement of ideas along routes connecting the eastern Mediterranean to the Indus Valley and beyond.^[8] The Achaemenid Persian Empire, spanning from Egypt to the borders of India, was a conduit for exactly this kind of exchange; Greek mercenaries served Persian kings while Persian administrative concepts influenced Greek political thought. None of this means every tradition borrowed directly from every other. But treating them as hermetically sealed "civilizations" developing in parallel is historically untenable. They were in dialogue — sometimes direct, sometimes mediated — and the categories through which they understood hierarchy, violence, and moral worth bear the marks of that dialogue.

The shift in the form of legitimation as class societies become more complex is therefore not an artifact of cherry-picking from unrelated traditions. It is visible across interconnected traditions developing in conversation with each other, under broadly comparable pressures of class formation.

From power-based hierarchy to moral accounting

The earliest narrative traditions associated with institutionalized class rule share a characteristic feature: hierarchy is grounded in superior power rather than moral justification, and the suffering of subordinates requires no account. In the Akkadian Atra-Hasis, the gods create humans to perform the manual labor they find tedious, periodically cull the population when it grows too large, and ultimately attempt a total genocide — averted only because one god breaks ranks and warns a single chosen individual. The gods send the flood not because humans have sinned but because they are too noisy — in the Atra-Hasis and related texts, "it is human clamour that is responsible, and the senior god, or gods, decide to take severe punitive measures to secure peace and rest" (Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths, 2013). In the Enūma Eliš, cosmic order is established through generational violence: younger gods overthrow older ones, the world is built from the dismembered body of a defeated goddess, and the victor's authority rests on that capacity for destruction. Marduk receives kingship only after showing that he can annihilate and re-create a constellation at will; "by giving it, they had surrendered all power" (Lambert). The Enūma Eliš was itself composed to legitimate a specific political change — Marduk's elevation over the older gods Anu and Enlil, reflecting Babylon's rise to supremacy over Nippur.^{[9] [10]}

The early Vedic tradition — a cousin rather than an independent development, given the shared Indo-European heritage — operates in a related register, though it already contains elements that point toward moral accounting. The Ṛg Veda depicts a cosmos ordered by divine combat: Indra slays the serpent Vṛtra to release the waters, establishing himself as "the king of that which moves and that which rests" through martial prowess (1.32). The divine order (ṛta) is not yet a moral law but a principle of cosmic regularity — "Order and truth were born from heat as it blazed up" (10.190) — maintained through sacrifice and reciprocity between gods and humans. This reciprocity is transactional: "So let praises flow back and forth between the two, between us who are mortals and you, the immortal" (1.26). The gods are honored because they are powerful, their favor secured through offerings, and "the sacrifice made Indra grow greater" (8.14). Where the Puruṣa Sūkta (10.90) grounds social hierarchy in cosmic anatomy — "His mouth became the Brahmin; his arms were made into the Warrior, his thighs the People, and from his feet the Servants were born" — position derives from ontological origin, not moral desert (Doniger, The Rig Veda, 2005). The Ṛg Veda's reciprocity does not require that subordinates deserve their position, only that they fulfil their ritual obligations.^[11]

What unites these traditions is a legitimation structure in which the behavior of the powerful requires no moral justification. The framework provides no account of why subordinates deserve their position — it simply does not require one. If the most powerful beings in the cosmos treat their inferiors as expendable, then expendability is part of the order of things.

Such a framework works tolerably well in societies where the ruling class is small, its grip on daily life limited, and most of the population kept in line through tribute, military threat, and the sheer difficulty of organizing resistance. It creates problems as class societies scale up. Larger populations require broader participation — soldiers who march willingly, cultivators who produce surplus without constant supervision, administrators who enforce rules in the ruler's absence. The legitimation apparatus must do more than normalize the power of the strong. It must give the subordinate population reasons to cooperate that go beyond fear of punishment.

Moral accounting enters here. The shift occurs in each of the traditions discussed. It differs considerably depending on local conditions, but the underlying logic is consistent. The new traditions redefine suffering as something merited. The cosmos acquires a moral accounting. Good behavior is recorded and rewarded; bad behavior is recorded and punished. This does not lead to a decrease in violence — there is none — but it does change how violence is justified: by reference to the victim's moral status rather than the perpetrator's power.

In the Brahmanical development of Vedic thought, moral accounting takes the form of karma and saṃsāra — the doctrine that one's position in the social hierarchy reflects the accumulated moral balance of past lives. The person born into a subordinate caste is not arbitrarily placed there; they are experiencing the consequences of prior actions. The system is comprehensive: every form of suffering has a moral explanation, and every form of privilege is earned. The system makes all hierarchy simultaneously deserved and self-chosen — not by the person in their current life, but by the moral agent whose karmic trajectory they inherit. Resistance becomes cosmically irrational: to reject one's station is to reject the moral order itself, compounding the debt rather than discharging it.^[12]

The Egyptian tradition illustrates the transition from power-based hierarchy to moral accounting within a single civilization across more than a millennium. In the Old Kingdom (c. 2686-2181 BCE), the pharaoh reigned as an incarnate god whose authority "required no explicit articulation or discursive justification; instead, it found overwhelming expression in the huge edifices of the pyramids" (Assmann, The Mind of Egypt, 2003). By the Middle Kingdom (c. 2055-1650 BCE), this brute legitimacy gave way to a "rhetoric of motives" that justified political measures in terms of an underlying structure of responsibility (Assmann). The Judgment of the Dead emerged: the heart of the deceased was weighed against the figurine of Ma'at, the goddess of truth, and "every lie caused the pan with the heart on it to descend" (Assmann). This is explicit moral accountancy — but the Egyptians maintained a distinction between the moral consequences of one's deeds and random misfortune ("the blow of events"), which was not moralized but attributed to chaos and countered by magic. It was only in the New Kingdom (c. 1550-1069 BCE), with the emergence of what Assmann calls the "theology of will," that "phenomena that had previously belonged to the external sphere of contingency became readable in religious terms" and the cosmos acquired something close to a complete moral ledger. The afterlife enforced the existing moral code rather than inverting it: "classical Egyptian texts make no mention whatsoever of the idea of inversion by which in the next life the poor shall be made rich and vice versa" (Assmann). The Judgment of the Dead bound this world and the next together, giving the subordinate population a stake in compliance that outlasted their earthly existence.

In the Hebrew tradition, the development is more contested and more visible in the texts themselves. The book of Job stages the tension directly: a man who has committed no wrong suffers catastrophically, and when he demands an explanation, the divine response is not moral but hierarchical — who are you to question me? But the more revealing feature of the text is its treatment of Job's family and animals. God and Satan destroy his children, servants, and livestock as instruments of a wager. Their suffering is not a moral problem within the narrative — the text does not even register it as suffering. They are collateral in a test of Job's faith, and the "restoration" at the end confirms their status: Job receives new children and new livestock, as though the dead were replaceable inventory. The text dramatizes the failure of moral accounting — Job's suffering is not merited, and the resolution is power rather than justice — but it also dramatizes what the pre-moral-accounting framework looks like for those who don't morally count: their destruction requires neither justification nor excuse, because they are not moral subjects at all.^[13] That communities preserved and canonized the text suggests that the tension between power-based hierarchy and moral accounting was felt as a genuine problem within the tradition — one that could not simply be papered over.

The universalization of moral worth — and its paradox

The next development — visible in both the Christian and Buddhist reform movements, emerging under broadly comparable conditions of imperial consolidation and social stratification — appears at first to take an emancipatory turn. Both traditions assert, in different vocabularies, something like universal moral worth. In the Christian formulation, divine love extends to all regardless of merit;^[14] the divine is reconceived not as a capricious power but as a being whose defining attribute is compassion. In the Buddhist formulation, all sentient beings are caught in the same cycle of suffering, and liberation is in principle available to all regardless of birth — a direct challenge to the Brahmanical doctrine that caste position reflects karmic merit.

Both traditions emerged from and spoke to populations for whom the existing legitimation frameworks had become insufficient. The Roman imperial context that produced early Christianity was one in which the traditional civic religions of the Greek and Roman city-states had been stretched far beyond their original social base; huge populations of slaves, displaced peasants, and conquered peoples had no meaningful place in a religious framework organized around citizenship and patronage. The Buddhist movement emerged in a context of urbanization and commercial expansion in which the rigid varna system and its Brahmanical legitimation were increasingly at odds with the lived experience of merchants, artisans, and laborers whose actual social positions did not match their ritual classifications.^[15]

Both reforms respond to a legitimation crisis: the existing categories could no longer make class rule seem natural to a sufficient proportion of the population. And both initially disrupted the existing moral order — a framework in which the fundamental categories of hierarchy (divine vs. human, pure vs. impure, chosen vs. unchosen) were called into question.

Here is the paradox, and the crux of the argument. The universalization of moral worth does not eliminate the logic of moral accounting. It refines it. If everyone is in principle capable of moral worth — if divine love or liberation is available to all — then those who fail to attain it have failed on their own terms. The earlier frameworks, in which the gods were simply more powerful and the weak simply expendable, left room for resigned acceptance: the universe is cruel, the powerful do as they please, and there is no moral claim to be made. The universalized frameworks close this exit. If everyone could be saved, those who are not saved bear responsibility for their own damnation. If everyone could follow the dharma, those who suffer must be suffering for a reason.

The institutional trajectories of both traditions bear this out. Within a few generations of its founding, the Roman imperial apparatus absorbed Christianity and reworked its universalism into a system of moral accounting more thorough than anything it replaced. Sin, confession, penance, absolution, heaven, hell, purgatory — a complete ledger system in which every action is recorded and every soul assigned its proper destination. The compassionate divine becomes the all-seeing judge; the universality of divine love becomes the universality of divine jurisdiction.

As Buddhism spread and existing class structures across South and East Asia absorbed it, a parallel process unfolded. Existing class structures layered the doctrine of universal liberation onto existing hierarchies rather than substituting it for them, and institutional Buddhism reintroduced the karmic framework — supposedly transcended by the Buddha's teaching — to explain why some beings were closer to liberation than others.

What universalization accomplishes, in practice, is the further moralization of violence. In a framework where the gods are capricious, violence against the weak is simply what happens — regrettable, perhaps, but not a moral statement about the victim. Where moral worth is universal and suffering merited, violence against the "guilty" carries the full weight of cosmic justice. The victim is not merely harmed but judged. And because the judgment is moral rather than merely coercive, it enlists the compliance of victim and bystander alike: it encourages the victim to accept their suffering as deserved; it reassures the bystander that what they are witnessing is justice rather than brutality.

Innocence as a technology of legitimation

In the earlier frameworks — power-based hierarchy, naked domination — "innocence" is barely a meaningful category. When the gods of the Atra-Hasis decide to drown humanity, the question of whether the victims are innocent does not arise, because the framework provides no moral criterion against which innocence could be assessed. The victims are simply weak. Even in the Job narrative, which dramatizes the problem, the resolution is not the vindication of innocence but the reassertion of power: God does not say Job is innocent and therefore should not suffer; God says I am God and you are not.

Innocence becomes meaningful only when the legitimation framework shifts to moral accounting — when suffering is reconceived as merited and the cosmic order is understood as just. At that point, "innocence" names the condition of not having merited harm: the state of being, in the terms of the moral ledger, in credit rather than in debt. And its primary function is not to protect those who possess it — but to license violence against those who do not.

The etymology of "scapegoat" illustrates the threshold precisely. The word derives from Tyndale's 1530 translation of Leviticus 16: "escape goat" — the goat sent into the wilderness bearing the community's sins on Yom Kippur. In the original ritual, the goat's innocence is openly acknowledged. No one believes the goat sinned. The high priest explicitly transfers the community's sins onto it by laying hands on it and confessing over it. The operation is transparent: we are loading our pollution onto an innocent being because the ritual form permits it. This transparency is possible because the goat has no moral standing whose violation would create a contradiction — you can openly say "I am transferring my sins onto this innocent being" without moral problem, because the being's innocence carries no moral weight in the framework. When Girard extends the mechanism to human victims, transparency becomes structurally impossible: you cannot openly say "I am loading my sins onto this innocent person" without the operation collapsing, because a human victim's acknowledged innocence would block the violence. The "misrecognition" Girard identifies as structurally necessary — the community genuinely believing the victim caused the crisis — is necessary specifically because the human scapegoat has enough moral standing that acknowledged innocence would be a barrier. The animal scapegoat needs no misrecognition because it needs no legitimation. The transition from animal to human scapegoat is the transition from a legitimation register where the victim's suffering requires no moral account to one where it does — which is the same transition this essay traces from power-based hierarchy to moral accounting.

The concept gains its phenomenological force from something it recodes rather than invents. There is a pre-evaluative register — observable in the parent-infant bond and extending to any being whose vulnerability is perceptible — in which responsiveness to visible need operates before moral accounting begins.^[16] The infant's cry produces the response; you don't evaluate whether they deserve comfort. What the innocence concept does is capture this pre-discursive responsiveness and recode it into the moral-accounting framework: the being who triggers the response is classified as "innocent," and the responsiveness that required no justification is recast as the appropriate reaction to a moral status — one that can be assessed, granted, and revoked. The recoding transforms what was unconditional into something conditional. This is what makes the concept so effective as a legitimation technology: it grafts itself onto a real capacity that people recognize from their own experience, which gives the moral-accounting framework an experiential anchor it would not otherwise have. The tenderness you feel toward an infant or an animal feels like evidence that innocence is a real moral property rather than a constructed category — which is precisely what the concept needs you to believe in order to do its work on those classified as not-innocent.^[17]

The logic runs as follows. If harm is simply what the powerful inflict on the weak, there is no need to establish the victim's guilt before harming them — and no moral residue when they are harmed. But once suffering is reconceived as merited, harming someone requires that they be shown to deserve it. The concept of innocence provides the negative space within which this demonstration operates: it defines the default condition from which people can fall, and it is the fall — the loss of innocence, the demonstration of guilt — that authorizes the violence.

Innocence is meritocratic reasoning applied to bodily integrity. And just as the deserving/undeserving distinction in other domains is circular — people are poor because they are deficient, and their poverty is evidence of their deficiency — so the innocence/guilt distinction is circular in practice. Those who are harmed are presumed to have merited it; those who are not harmed are presumed to be innocent; and the structure of class power determines the distribution of harm, which then becomes its own justification.

When a state declares war, it must reclassify the target population from "people" to "enemy" — and it does so by withdrawing innocence. The state presents the enemy population as guilty: of aggression, of harboring terrorists, of threatening "our way of life," of supporting a regime that has crossed some line. The specific content varies; the formal operation is constant. Revoking innocence authorizes the violence. The concept of "collateral damage" reveals the logic at its most refined: even within the enemy population, a residual distinction between "combatants" and "civilians" is maintained, not to prevent civilian deaths but to moralize them. Civilians killed in a bombing are regrettable because they were innocent; combatants killed alongside them require no regret.

The same logic operates domestically. The person convicted of a crime loses their innocence and, with it, a portion of their claim to bodily integrity — which is why societies that formally recognize human rights tolerate forced labor in prisons, solitary confinement, and casual prison violence. The sex worker whose assault is dismissed as "part of the job." The homeless person whose beating provokes no outrage. The undocumented migrant who drowns at sea. In each case, the withdrawal of innocence — through moral judgment, legal classification, or simple social contempt — makes the violence invisible as violence.^[18]

The concept also operates asymmetrically with respect to gender and age. The phrase "women and children" in wartime discourse does real work: it identifies the categories of people whose innocence is assumed, which simultaneously implies that adult men's innocence is not assumed — that men, by virtue of being potential combatants, are presumptively guilty and therefore legitimate targets. The innocence framework, operating along gendered lines, produces the result that male lives are valued less in contexts of organized violence — a fact that is simultaneously real, widely felt, and almost never analyzed in these terms, because the concept creates the illusion of natural moral intuition rather than ideological product.

The gendered asymmetry is not incidental to the innocence concept but structurally produced by it. The innocence framework assigns moral standing in proportion to perceived vulnerability and lack of agency. Women and children qualify as innocent to the extent that they are coded as passive, dependent, non-agentic — as beings to whom things happen rather than beings who act. The moment a woman exercises agency in ways the framework cannot accommodate (the sex worker, the woman combatant, the woman who crosses a border without authorization), innocence is withdrawn and violence is available. The same applies to children, though the withdrawal operates along different lines: "childhood innocence" was raced white from its consolidation — Black children were denied the cultural status of childhood and therefore its protections, while working-class children were denied it through a fifty-year class conflict in which their families' dependence on child labor was reframed as parental deficiency.^[19] The innocence of "women and children" is not a universal moral intuition but a class- and race-specific construction: it applies fully only to those whose gradient position grants them membership in the moral community, and its application narrows as gradient position descends. Colonial administrations classified indigenous women as sexually available — not-innocent by definition — making sexual violence against them invisible as violence. The class-stratified honor code the framework document traces through fifteenth-century France calibrated whose violation registered as a political fact: a servant woman's rape barely counted as a crime, because her class position had already withdrawn the innocence that would have made the violation legible.^[20]

The gendered asymmetry intersects with the racialized asymmetry to produce a specific compound: the adult male from a racialized population loses innocence earlier, more completely, and more consequentially than any other category. The "superpredator" construct in 1990s US criminal-justice discourse applied the innocence framework's full force to Black male adolescents — children by age, classified as non-innocent by the intersection of race, gender, and the threat-coding the framework generates. The incorporation gradient determines the distribution: the closer to full membership, the more the gendered innocence applies (white women's innocence is the most protected; white children's the most assumed); at the exclusion end, even women and children are classified as non-innocent, and the innocence framework ceases to do protective work for anyone. Below the moral community entirely — at the species boundary — the gendered asymmetry disappears, because the innocence concept does not apply: the suffering of male and female animals is equally invisible, not because gender has ceased to matter but because the beings themselves do not register as moral subjects.

The innocence concept's gendered operation connects to the broader pattern of compensatory dominion the framework traces: wherever class rule faces pressure, one available response is to offer men from subordinated classes private dominion over women as compensation for their public subordination. The innocence framework is the moral infrastructure through which this compensation operates. The man who cannot protect "his" women and children has failed the test the concept sets — and the failure is experienced as emasculation rather than as evidence that the arrangement is designed to produce failures. The concept thus binds men to the arrangement through the very anxiety it generates: the threat of innocence-loss for those they are supposed to protect becomes a motive for compliance with the structures that produce the threat.

Why the concept intensifies what it claims to restrain

This development usually passes for moral progress. But it is more fundamentally a refinement of the legitimation apparatus. Under universalized moral worth, violence becomes not merely justified but compassionate: correction, purgation, the painful but necessary consequence of the victim's own moral failure. And the more refined the concept, the more thorough the license, because the criteria for losing one's innocence can be calibrated to whatever the class structure requires. A society without the concept — one in which harm is understood as the exercise of power, full stop — may be brutal, but it cannot moralize its brutality. A society with the concept can do unlimited violence to those it classifies as non-innocent, and experience that violence as justice. Colonial powers found the inhabitants of expropriated lands "guilty" of savagery, paganism, or inefficient land use; criminal justice systems warehousing surplus populations find them "guilty" of offenses whose criminalization is itself a product of class legislation.^[21]

The property form gives this calibration its most refined institutional basis. The developmental sequence traced above runs through cosmological and religious traditions. Under capitalism, the innocence concept is recast in the vocabulary of contract and credit, and the sorting operates not through priestly mediation or divine judgment but through the institutional architecture of the commodity form itself. And the sorting is maintained not only through argument but through affect: the companion essay on taboo traces how the property form generates a specific taboo-structure in which disgust, shame, and aversion enforce the boundaries the innocence architecture draws, pre-reflectively, before any argument is consulted.^[22]

The transformation begins where subsistence alternatives are destroyed and populations made dependent on wage labor. The people whose commons were enclosed, whose self-provisioning was criminalized, are classified not as victims of a political process but as vagrants: idle, disorderly, refusing to work. The Elizabethan vagrancy statutes that criminalized the population the enclosures had created already contain the innocence/guilt sorting in its capitalist form: the "deserving poor" (children, the elderly, the disabled, those who cannot work) retain a residual innocence; the "undeserving poor" (the able-bodied who do not work) are guilty, and their guilt authorizes forced labor, the workhouse, transportation. The categories predate capitalism: the medieval distinction between the "shame-faced poor" and the "sturdy beggar" is an earlier version. But the property form gives them a new basis. Under feudal moral accounting, the poor person's suffering might reflect divine will or karmic debt. Under capitalist moral accounting, it reflects a failure to sell one's labor, which the arrangement presents as a choice. What the prior taboo-structure had marked as sacred and inalienable (the community's obligation to its members, the reciprocity that Sahlins documents as enforced by witchcraft sanctions against those who hoarded rather than redistributed) is inverted: self-sufficiency replaces reciprocity as the moral norm, and dependence on others, which the prior order took as the ground of social life, becomes evidence of moral failure.^[23]

The wage contract refines the sorting further. Formally free exchange between formally equal parties makes exploitation invisible as exploitation because both parties consented. If you signed, you agreed; if you agreed, you cannot claim to be harmed; if you claim to be harmed, you are in breach. The innocence of the employer is structurally guaranteed by the contractual form: the contract certifies that no coercion occurred. The worker who organizes or strikes is doubly guilty, in breach of contract and a threat to order. The property form makes exploitation durable by structuring behavior below the threshold of reflection; the wage contract's legitimation surface operates continuously without anyone needing to enforce or justify it in each encounter.^[24]

Nietzsche saw the linguistic connection but misidentified its direction. In the Genealogy of Morals, he derives the moral concept of guilt (Schuld) from the material concept of debt (Schulden), tracing how creditor-debtor relations establish an equivalence between unpaid obligation and the right to inflict pain. He located this in archaic societies and treated it as the raw material from which priestly ressentiment constructed the guilt apparatus. But the conflation of debt and guilt is not archaic. It is intensified by the property form, and most thoroughly at the stage where debt interposes itself between households and already-commodified necessities. Financial mediation, the stage the companion essay on the commodification sequence identifies as the point at which debt becomes a mass relation between formally free persons and things they once provided for themselves, universalizes the Schuld/Schulden conflation.^[25] Creditworthiness becomes a moral category. The person who meets their obligations is responsible; the person who defaults is irresponsible. Student debt registers as "investment in yourself," and the graduate who cannot repay experiences what is happening to them as personal inadequacy rather than as a structural condition. The homeowner who took on a mortgage designed to fail, originated and securitized and sold before the first missed payment, is guilty of buying a house they could not afford. Medical debt transforms illness into moral failure: the person who cannot pay was insufficiently prudent, insufficiently insured. In each case, the institutional architecture produces the default and the innocence/guilt sorting assigns responsibility for it to the person the architecture was designed to exploit.

Nietzsche's misidentification has a predecessor. Before debt can be moralized, mutual aid must first be reframed as gift-giving — as an act that creates quantifiable obligation. The anthropological tradition from Mauss through Sahlins to Graeber treats this transition as a matter of quantification: gifts become debts when money allows them to be precisely measured. But this conflates categorically different social relations. Communal sharing — open-ended mutual aid with no accounting — does not generate enforceable debts, because the social conditions that would make enforcement possible (hierarchy, a creditor class with coercive capacity) are precisely what egalitarian societies suppress. The Inuit proverb Graeber himself cites — "by gifts one makes slaves and by whips one makes dogs" — identifies the mechanism his framework cannot explain: treating sharing as a gift, something for which thanks are owed, reframes the relationship from one between equals into one between creditor and debtor. The proverb is a counter-norm, actively maintained, that defends communal sharing against reframing as gift exchange. What the commodification sequence destroys is not "the gift economy" but the enforcement that kept communal sharing from being reframed as gift exchange — and the Schuld/Schulden conflation becomes possible only after that enforcement has been broken.^[26]

At advanced stages, the sorting becomes self-reinforcing through balance-sheet binding: households carrying mortgages, student loans, medical debt, and childcare costs cannot withdraw their labor without risking default on all obligations simultaneously. The binding operates within formal freedom. No one is legally compelled to work. But the consequences of not working are distributed across every dimension of reproduction. And the innocence concept is the mechanism through which this binding is legitimated: the person who defaults is not a victim of an arrangement that made every necessity conditional on uninterrupted income but a person who failed to manage their obligations. A society that made housing, healthcare, education, and childcare available as unconditional provisions would have no use for the creditworthiness sorting. A society that commodified all of them needs it, because the sorting is what makes the binding invisible as bondage.

The cost ratchet intensifies the mechanism. As housing costs, credential requirements, and healthcare expenses rise, each driven by accumulation dynamics rather than by the population's needs, the threshold for maintaining innocence rises with them.^[27] The person who could stay current on a mortgage at one income level becomes guilty of overextension when prices rise and wages don't. The person who could afford credentials at one price becomes guilty of insufficient investment when credential inflation raises the bar. The ratchet tightens binding on those in the middle, those with enough provision to lose but not enough margin to absorb shocks, while loosening it at the bottom, where there is nothing left to forfeit. This is why the middle is most susceptible to the innocence framework's appeal: they have the most to lose by being reclassified, and the most invested in the distinction between themselves and those below.

But the innocence/guilt sorting under the property form does not operate only through institutional mechanisms (contract, credit score, legal status). It operates through affect. The companion essay on taboo traces how the property form installs a specific selfhood, what Graeber calls the avoidance body: the enclosed, self-sufficient person constituted by what it owns rather than by its continuity with others, whose boundaries are policed inwardly by shame and outwardly by disgust. The innocence concept is what connects the avoidance body to the moral-accounting framework. Those who maintain the avoidance body's standards, who keep their dependency private and their composure intact, retain innocence. Those who cannot, because material deprivation makes it impossible, forfeit innocence at the affective level before any legal or financial judgment is passed. Poverty becomes disgusting precisely when it makes the avoidance body impossible to maintain: when bodies leak, when hygiene fails, when private functions become public. At that point the victim's suffering does not merely fail to trigger sympathy; it triggers revulsion that blocks sympathy, because their visible degradation reads as evidence that they have "given up," that they lack the discipline the property form rewards. The "genteel poor" who maintain the avoidance body's standards despite adversity retain innocence; the visibly destitute do not. This is the innocence concept operating at the affective register: not a judgment reached through argument but a boundary-alarm firing before any argument is consulted, maintained by the same taboo-structure that makes the property form's sacredness feel natural.^[28]

What unites these developments is that the property form does not replace cosmological or religious moral accounting but absorbs it. The debtor is not only financially irresponsible but morally deficient: lazy, improvident, lacking self-discipline. The welfare recipient is not only drawing public funds but failing the test of self-sufficiency that the arrangement equates with moral adequacy. The incarcerated person is not only legally guilty but morally degraded, and the legal guilt is itself a product of class legislation that criminalizes the conditions the arrangement produces. At each stage the innocence concept is refined and extended, and at each stage the refinement makes the arrangement harder to see: the more thoroughly the victim's guilt is established, the less visible the structure that produced the conditions the guilt is assessed against.

The internal critics — and the limits of their critique

Every major religious tradition has generated, from within its own resources, currents that recognize something close to what this essay describes — that the conceptual categories through which adherents understand their relationship to the divine and to each other can become obstacles rather than aids. Understanding why that insight never generalizes into structural transformation is part of the argument.

The Sufi tradition within Islam insists that legalistic religion — the meticulous sorting of actions into permitted and forbidden, the accounting of merit and sin — can become a barrier to the direct encounter with the divine that is the actual point. The great Sufi teachers consistently warn against confusing the categories with the reality they claim to describe, and against the spiritual arrogance of those who believe they occupy a privileged position because they keep such good moral books. Meister Eckhart and the apophatic tradition within Christianity make a parallel move: Eckhart's insistence that one must "let go of God" to encounter God is a direct challenge to the institutionalized moral-accounting apparatus, an argument that the divine cannot be captured in the ledger of sin and merit. Within the Jewish tradition, strands of Kabbalistic and Hasidic thought emphasize divine immanence in ways that cut against the hierarchical separation of sacred and profane, worthy and unworthy. Within the Indian traditions, Advaita Vedanta's insistence on the identity of ātman and brahman dissolves the karmic categories from the inside: if the self is ultimately identical with the ground of being, then the entire apparatus of karmic accounting operates at the level of illusion.

Buddhist practice, particularly in its Chan and Zen expressions, pursues a comparable dissolution: the categories through which we evaluate and sort experience are themselves the obstacle, and direct perception — seeing suffering rather than judging the sufferer — is both the method and the goal. Even the Daoist tradition, emerging from a different civilizational context, converges on a recognizably similar insight: that the concepts through which we organize moral and social life are human constructions imposed on a reality that does not share their structure, and that wisdom requires learning to perceive what the categories obscure.

The cross-cultural convergence is itself significant. These are not parallel inventions in hermetically sealed traditions. As argued above, the traditions in question were in sustained dialogue, and the recurrence of the insight across all of them suggests it is a response to something real — a genuine recognition that the legitimation apparatus distorts perception. Anyone who has spent time with these traditions knows that the best of what they produce — the quality of attention, the dissolution of judgmental categories, the encounter with other beings as beings rather than as instances of moral classifications — is not fake. It is an art and an achievement, and any framework that cannot account for it is incomplete.

But the insight has a characteristic limitation, and it is the same in every tradition. The mystical currents consistently locate the problem in cognition — in the individual's attachment to concepts, in the mind's tendency to confuse categories with experience, and thus to misperceive reality. The solution, correspondingly, is contemplative: meditation, prayer, ascetic discipline, the cultivation of interior stillness. What the mystics do not ask — what their framework is not equipped to ask — is why the categories exist in the first place. Who produces them? Whose interests do they serve? Why do the institutional structures that generate them remain untouched by even the most profound individual realizations? The Sufi master who dissolves the categories in contemplation still lives within a social order that enforces them. The Zen practitioner who sees through conceptual thought still inhabits a monastery sustained by the surplus labor of the peasants and artisans who feed it. The categories remain in force for everyone else — and the existence of the mystical path, far from threatening the legitimation apparatus, can be absorbed into it as evidence of the tradition's profundity: proof that liberation is "available" to anyone who sincerely seeks it, which restates the meritocratic logic at a higher register. The cooptation operates at two levels. Ruling classes capture the moral categories themselves — innocence, guilt, desert — and turn them against the populations that produced them. But they also capture the critiques of those categories. Authenticity migrated from ontology through fascism to self-help. Radical freedom became the philosophical warrant for neoliberal self-responsibility. Contemplative dissolution traveled from the monastery to the battlefield and the corporate mindfulness retreat. The vocabulary of escape is as portable as the moral categories it claims to dissolve, because both are formally empty enough to be filled by any authority that seizes them.^[29]

None of this is an argument against contemplative practice or the capacity it cultivates. A companion essay argues, drawing on the same cross-cultural evidence, that the capacity for wider empathic perception — seeing needs rather than judging desert — is species-typical and real, and that its development is part of what any emancipatory project must involve.^[30] The argument is about sufficiency. Individual transformation of perception, however genuine, cannot substitute for the transformation of the material and institutional conditions that produce the categories. The legitimation apparatus is a social product, generated by class-structured institutions to serve class-structured purposes, and meditation will not dissolve it, any more than thinking differently about money will dissolve wage labor.

Below the threshold

The preceding sections have traced how the innocence concept sorts populations within the moral community into those whose suffering counts and those whose does not. But the concept also operates at a second level — the boundary of the moral community itself. Below that boundary, the innocence concept does not need to do explicit work, because the victims' suffering is not taken seriously as a moral fact requiring management — not because it is unperceived but because taking it seriously is affectively prohibited. The need-recognition mechanism fires cross-species (pain cues, death-avoidance behavior, distress vocalizations are readable by the same perceptual systems that respond to infant distress), and the evidence that it does — children's baseline moral concern for animals, slaughterhouse workers' first-kill trauma, consumers' motivated mind-denial when reminded of the meat-animal connection — demonstrates that what operates at the species boundary is not the absence of perception but the suppression of the response perception generates. The violence is not simply available; it is made available through a training that turns the shame mechanism inward on moral concern itself.

The threshold is visible in the scapegoat analysis. The Levitical goat's innocence can be openly acknowledged because the goat has no moral standing whose violation would create a contradiction. The transparency that is structurally impossible with a human scapegoat (Girard's misrecognition requirement) is structurally unnecessary with an animal one. This is not because animals are less innocent but because their innocence carries no moral weight in the framework. They are below the threshold where innocence operates.

The gradient of legitimation-work is continuous. At the top — full members of the moral community — violence requires the most elaborate legitimation apparatus: the redemptive-violence structure that makes the enemy ontologically evil, the moral-accounting system that establishes the victim's guilt, the innocence architecture that must first revoke moral standing before violence is permissible.^[31] At intermediate positions — populations conditionally included — violence requires reduced but still necessary legitimation: the scapegoat mechanism, the withdrawal of innocence through criminalization or enemy-designation. Below the moral community entirely — at the species boundary in its contemporary form, and historically at gradient positions where populations were classified as non-persons — the legitimation apparatus operates not through explicit justification but through the suppression of the moral response that would require justification. The question of whether the victim deserved their suffering does not arise — not because the capacity for suffering is unperceived but because the training that codes concern for it as sentimental or childish has done its work deeply enough that the question feels like a category error. The shame mechanism that elsewhere polices one's own bodily permeability here polices one's own moral permeability — the capacity to be affected by suffering the gradient says should not matter.

The transition between these registers is not a sharp line but a gradient, and populations can be moved across it. The colonial "civilizing mission" operated precisely at this transition: populations classified as not-yet-persons (the "childhood of the human race," requiring tutelage) occupied an intermediate position where some legitimation was required but the full apparatus was not. Chattel slavery operated further down, deploying the institutional toolkit for managing captive sentient populations developed through animal domestication — breeding management, natal alienation, ownership of offspring through partus sequitur ventrem — because the populations it targeted had been reclassified below the threshold where the innocence concept applied.^[32]

Contemporary animal agriculture occupies the position where the apparatus reaches its deepest operation. Seventy billion land animals are bred annually as property, their reproductive biology restructured to maximize output, their confinement conditions producing the pathologies that confirm their classification as beings whose suffering does not count. The legitimation apparatus does not sacralize this violence, unlike earlier forms of animal sacrifice. It does not declare the victims guilty or withdraw their innocence. But the classification has not eliminated the perception of suffering — it has made taking the perception seriously feel like a violation of the avoidance body's requirements. The evidence is convergent: slaughterhouse workers describe their first kill as traumatic (shaking, pity, the impulse to flee) and the subsequent numbing as destruction ("it kills you on the inside") rather than as the clean absence of perception (Victor and Barnard 2016); children classify animals as "not OK to eat" before they know where meat comes from, and the justification strategies that make the practice livable develop with age (McGuire et al. 2025); consumers actively deny animal minds when reminded of the meat-animal connection (Bastian et al. 2012, replicated Jacobs et al. 2024); the spatial segregation of slaughter from consumption, the procedural compartmentalization within the facility itself, and the linguistic euphemism ("processing," "harvesting") are architectural investments in concealing something that would not require concealment if it were truly unperceived (Pachirat 2011). The suppressed recognition leaks: elevated community crime rates track slaughterhouse employment specifically, controlling for other manufacturing with comparable demographics (Fitzgerald et al. 2009), and the condition is continuous rather than post-traumatic because the exposure never stops (MacNair 2023). This is the innocence concept's work at maximum depth: the point at which it no longer operates through the explicit withdrawal of standing but through the affective prohibition against acknowledging the moral response the need-recognition mechanism has already generated — shame applied to empathic scope, so that the boundary-drawing that determines who enters the domain of moral consideration operates not by foreclosing perception but by foreclosing the acknowledgment of what has been perceived.^[33]

The circularity identified earlier in this essay — those who are harmed are presumed to have merited it; those who are not harmed are presumed to be innocent; the structure of class power determines the distribution — operates most completely here. The circular justification (classify as deficient, treat accordingly, point to the conditions the treatment produces as evidence that the classification was warranted) runs without friction, because no countervailing claim is available. The beings whose cognitive and linguistic capacities differ from those of the species doing the classifying are treated as beings whose needs do not generate moral claims — and the conditions under which they are kept (which produce stereotypies, immunosuppression, skeletal collapse, and behavioral pathology) are cited as evidence that they are the kind of beings for whom such conditions are adequate. If the evaluative framework the present essay traces is worth dismantling, the consistency test asks why it should be dismantled only above the threshold where it has already been forced to do its most elaborate work, while left intact at the point where it operates without resistance.

The historical record confirms that the classificatory apparatus applied to gradient-bottom human populations was borrowed from the apparatus already operating on animals. The breeding language through which class and racial degradation was articulated — Jefferson, Darwin, the eugenicists all cited livestock breeding as the template for human classification — means the species boundary is not merely analogous to the class gradient but historically generative of it: the source vocabulary from which human expendability was articulated. Meritocratic reasoning applied to bodily integrity was first practiced across the species boundary, then extended upward along the gradient to populations whose humanity was denied or diminished. Dismantling the concept where it operates on humans while leaving it intact where it operates on the beings from whom the classificatory apparatus was derived addresses the first dimension of the problem (sorting within the moral community) but not the second (the boundary of the moral community itself).^[34]

What follows

If the argument above is correct, then "innocence" is not a moral foundation to be defended but a conceptual technology to be understood and dismantled. The observation underlying it — that, relative to some specific act, a given person bears no responsibility — is valuable. But its generalization into a character trait, a permanent classification, a condition that can be lost and whose loss authorizes harm, is ideological through and through.

Any political movement serious about ending class rule must learn to operate without this concept — must refuse, both rhetorically and organizationally, to sort people into the innocent and the guilty as a basis for deciding whose needs matter. The two dimensions this essay has traced — the sorting within the moral community and the boundary-drawing that determines who enters it — are both required targets, because dismantling one while leaving the other intact moves the problem rather than solving it. The alternative is the insistence that bodily integrity, like subsistence and care and belonging, is a universal need that cannot be legitimately made conditional on moral performance or on membership in a category. No one's needs are forfeited by their actions or by their classification. A society organized on the premise that they can be has built the machinery of unlimited violence into its moral foundations.^[35]

The implication applies with particular force to war, criminal justice, and colonial expropriation — the contexts in which the innocence framework does its most visible work. But it applies equally to the less visible, everyday operation of the concept: the quiet withdrawal of concern from those judged to have brought their suffering on themselves, the reflexive sorting of victims into those who "deserve" sympathy and those who do not, the entire apparatus of moral accounting that teaches people to experience solidarity as something that must be earned rather than something that is owed. As long as that apparatus is in place, class rule has a renewable resource: a population that will enforce its own subordination, and feel righteous doing so.

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor W. The Jargon of Authenticity. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.

Anthony, David W. The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Assmann, Jan. The Mind of Egypt: History and Meaning in the Time of the Pharaohs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003.

Bataille, Georges. Theory of Religion. New York: Zone Books, 1992 [1973].

Chakravarti, Uma. The Social Dimensions of Early Buddhism. Delhi: Oxford University Press, 1987.

Doniger, Wendy, trans. The Rig Veda. London: Penguin, 2005.

Girard, René. Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977 [1972].

Graeber, David. Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Brooklyn: Melville House, 2011.

Lambert, W. G. Babylonian Creation Myths. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013.

Lewis, Jerome. "BaYaka Pygmy Multi-Modal and Mimetic Communication Traditions." In Chris Knight and Jerome Lewis, eds., The Social Origins of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Max-Neef, Manfred. Human Scale Development: Conception, Application and Further Reflections. New York: Apex Press, 1991.

Meeks, Wayne A. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

Miller, William Ian. The Anatomy of Disgust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. On the Genealogy of Morals. Translated by Michael A. Scarpitti. London: Penguin, 2013 [1887].

Olivelle, Patrick, trans. The Early Upaniṣads: Annotated Text and Translation. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Ratnagar, Shereen. Trading Encounters: From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age. New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Sahlins, Marshall. The New Science of the Enchanted Universe: An Anthropology of Most of Humanity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022.

Sahlins, Marshall. Stone Age Economics. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton, 1972.

Schopen, Gregory. Bones, Stones, and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Buddhism in India. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 1997.

Weber, Max. The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Translated by Talcott Parsons. London: Routledge, 2001 [1905].

Notes