The claim
“An agent can be highly competent relative to one established governing regime while possessing little capacity to reorganize when that regime ceases to support viable activity.”
What it does not say
“Institutions are not organisms, and regulatory failure is not literally disease.” The audit’s verdict on Canguilhem: an “illuminating philosophical analogue, not a co-foundation”. It cites Canguilhem (LIT-817), which is Unavailable and takes no edge; the reading of him it needs is Giroux’s and Vissio’s, who quote the book (LIT-1861, LIT-1876). Nor does it say Canguilhem would draw the correspondence: he refuses normativity, and so health, to a society, which “is not an individual, because it is not an organism endowed with a purpose and a totality that are obtained by a specialized system of devices of regulation” (Canguilhem 2012, pp. 76–77, as Giroux quotes it), and for which, as Vissio reports New Reflections, “there is not a social pathology”. The correspondence is the record’s, between his concept and its own.