State and capital have autonomous logics yet mutually define each other

Evidence

The relative autonomy of state and capital, accordingly, concerns their autonomous logics. These in turn prompt the possibilities of state and capital defining themselves in and through each other, their strategic deployment in relation to each other, their strategic selection of elements from each other necessary for their existence and survival or to craft outcomes each defines in its best interests. But relative autonomy here concerns also the relative “need” to define themselves through - and so by means of the terms ofeach other (cf. Jessop, 1990:83-4). Neither economic nor political spheres are inherently privileged, though both at least are necessary, and mutually so. … People after all don’t live out their economic, political, social, legal, and cultural lives discretely but interactively, in interconstitutive and mutually determining terms. — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1672

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies what “relative autonomy” of state and capital actually means in this theoretical tradition — autonomous logics that still define themselves through each other.
• XREF: Connects to the broader state theory literature (Jessop, Poulantzas) and race-and-state debates in the volume. — connects to: Capital’s systemic imperatives cannot be reduced to economic rationality alone — Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism’s…, 151; Relative autonomy reframes state-capital causality as multidirectional, not base-determined — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1671; State and capital interdefine through shared mediating logics, not one dominating the other — David Theo Goldberg, John Solomos, A Companion to Racial and Ethnic Studies, 1672