Holosocial

The second sentence is the warning and the reason the term exists. A group that includes everyone sounds like the end of endosocial organization, since a membrane with nothing outside it appears to be no membrane at all, and Marsh blocks the inference. Universal inclusion can be exosocial, meaning genuinely open with conduits running freely, or it can be endosocialism operating at global scale under a mono-empire, in which case the structure is intact and simply has no remaining outside. Everything that makes an endogroup harmful survives that expansion. There is still an endo-ideal, still a negative image constructed from within rather than found beyond a border, still enforced membership and still the same transfers. What changes is that exit becomes impossible, since there is nowhere left that is not the group. Marsh's account of the mono-empire fills this in. The Anglo and Germanic group became the global endo-ideal through transcendental industrial-scientific endo-idealism and is currently being replaced by the mono-empire, and anger is increasingly treated as universally unacceptable as the entire world is expected to be sublated under it. Her observation about what the weakening of lower endogroups produces is double edged in the same way, since both exoself and endoself attributes are becoming more common as smaller endogroups dissolve under a transcendental one, and which of the two a person develops depends on whether the dissolution opened conduits or only removed shelter.

Cosmopolitanism makes the case for a moral community coextensive with humanity, and world government proposals from Kant onward have treated universal inclusion as the resolution of intergroup conflict. Critics from the realist and postcolonial traditions have long warned that a universal order tends to be a particular order that has won, and empire studies documents exactly that pattern. Karl Popper's open society is the nearest positive parallel and Hardt and Negri's Empire the nearest critical one. Marsh's term is unusual in refusing to settle which of the two a holosocial arrangement is, holding both possibilities in one definition, which makes the word a question about a structure rather than a verdict on it.