Mere parallelism of psychological events does not give us the state, for a distinguishing type of subjective event must be selected if we are to characterize the state, the family, and other social groups. Kelsen is entirely correct in criticizing those theories of the state which invoke parallelism but neglect to specify the particular “contents of consciousness,” “since not every and any group manifestations formed upon the parallelism of psychic processes is able to constitute that community.” That subjective event which is the unique mark of the state is the recognition that one belongs to a community with a system of paramount claims and expectations. This recognition of belonging does not necessarily imply an indorsement of this state of things. The essence of the state is this recognition, and the individual may indorse or deplore the fact without abolishing it. One need not be sentimentally bound to the order; it is enough if the order is noted. This unique experience is never found unassociated with other subjective events. The recognition is usually amplified by pride in belonging to the state, and by a determination to enforce the order upon one’s self and others. One’s recognition of the order is usually accompanied by an idealization of one’s participation in it, by an idealization of the order itself, and by a condemnation of deviations from it. All this is frequently expressed as the “sense of justice” which is the foundation of certain theories of law and the state. The subjective event which marks the state is usually manifested in various “externals.” Thus the use of coercion is well-nigh universal. The externals may be broadened to include behavior which may be treated as a substitute for coercion. Ordering and obeying relationships which function in a coercive crisis may continue when peace comes. There may be an apparent “elaboration backward” of processes antecedent to coercion in foreign and domestic affairs, and this may obviate a resort to the _ultima ratio_. The regulation of the use of coercion, and the maintenance of a certain degree of mobilization during non-crisis periods, devolves upon “leaders,” who may preside over initiations, goods distribution, and general ceremonials. The process by which “heads” are selected may involve electoral colleges, elections, and agitations. It is worth observing that in the description of political processes terms are employed which often carry no “subjective” connotations on their face. But in fact every term unavoidably carries subjective implications, and if these be ignored, there is danger that social theory will hypostatize “patterns” or “traditions” as extra-subjective entities, endowed with distinctive energies and amenable to special laws.