The Internalization–Liberty Matrix Theory: Reconsidering the Y-Axis

ByK.Kamachi

Theoretical Note #002

June 27, 2025

Series: Foundational Theories
Topic: Redefining the Ideological Axis
Author: K. Kamachi
Date: June 27, 2025

The Internalization–Liberty Matrix Theory: Reconsidering the Y-Axis (A Trajectory of Thought)

The Origin of the Question: Division in Muslim Immigrant Communities

Looking at Muslim-majority countries, a question arose: Why do immigrants, who supposedly adhere to the same Islamic faith, find themselves divided and antagonistic towards each other in European societies?

This question arose from a conversation with my Austrian colleague, friend Josef. He observed that Iranian immigrants tend to be relatively calm and rational in Europe. From this, I began to question why people who share a supposedly common religious ideal would display such fragmentation.

Josef explained that despite shared religious beliefs, several layered factors contribute to division:

  1. Sectarian Differences – Sunni-Shia divides persist in diaspora settings.
  2. Ethnic, Linguistic, and Cultural Identities – Iranians strongly identify as Persian, not merely Muslim.
  3. Competition in Host Countries – Resources, support, and status exacerbate intra-Muslim tensions.
  4. Political Affiliation with Home States – Perceptions of loyalty or alignment with regimes foster mistrust.

Theoretical Instability and the Need to Reevaluate the Y-Axis

These observations compelled a rethinking of the Y-axis in the Internalization–Liberty (I–L) Matrix—the axis representing the internalization of ideals. Unlike the X-axis (liberty), the Y-axis is vague and volatile, creating a dilemma between measurability and cultural nuance.

I recognized three primary complications:

  • Coexisting Ideologies within States (e.g., Egypt: Islamic, nationalistic, paternalistic, military values)
  • Misalignment Between Institutions and Internal Values (e.g., Turkey, U.S.: secular institutions, but emotionally rooted in alternate norms)
  • Fragmented Idealogies in Multiethnic Societies (e.g., Nigeria, Lebanon)

Redefining the Y-Axis: Structural Constraint, Not Ideological Content

Proposed Definition:

Y-Axis = Intensity of the Internalized Structure of Ideals

This focuses on how deeply an ideal penetrates mental life and shapes institutional and behavioral patterns.

Alternative terms:

  • Internalization of Normative Order
  • Degree of Ideological Integration
  • Normative Embeddedness
  • Doctrinal Gravity

Auxiliary Scalars for Evaluation

To operationalize this axis, I introduce four evaluative dimensions:

Institutional Reflection – Legal, educational, and ceremonial embedding of ideals

  • Lexical Penetration – Manifestation of ideals in public language
  • Transmission Mechanisms – Reproduction through families, education, and religion
  • Consistency Between Ideal and Practice – Congruence between belief and behavior

These dimensions bridge Foucault’s biopolitics and Anderson’s Imagined Communities, further echoed in Nada Inada’s Authority and Power—where internalization corresponds to authority, and institutional scaffolding to power.

National Typology of Y-Axis Scalars

  • Japan – Emotional norms deeply embedded, limited institutional idealization → Mid–Low Scalar
  • China – Ideological saturation via state apparatus, enforced yet fragmented → High Scalar (fragmented)
  • United States – Ideals of liberty internalized, yet susceptible to manipulation → High Scalar (multilayered)
  • Saudi Arabia – Religious ideology fully merged into law and social order → Very High Scalar

Anomalous Quadrants and the Paradox of Evaluation

Reflecting on previous discussions with Prof. Yushi Enta, I classify “ceremonial anomalous organizations” as follows:

  • North Korea – Y-High / X-Low → Totalitarian Ideal Integration (Ceremonial Authority Type)
  • Lord of the Flies – Y-Low / X-High → Unchecked Freedom in Chaos (Anarchic Ritual Type)
  • Aum Shinrikyo – Y-High / X-Mid → Closed Cult Internalization
  • Libertarian Utopia (hypothetical) – Y-Mid / X-High → Ideal-Absent Structural Disintegration

The key is not whether the ideal is “good,” but whether it functions as a coherent structural constraint.

Theoretical Reflection and Reformulation

  1. What does high internalization mean? It implies that ideals constrain actions, beliefs, and norms through both institutions and subjectivity.
  2. Does the freedom to reject ideals strengthen internalization? In liberal democracies, even the right to reject liberty is protected—raising the paradox: does this elevate or lower the Y-axis?

Hence, the Y-axis must be defined as the structural consistency and permeation of internalized governing ideals—not based on content, but on systemic integration and influence.

Conclusion: A Device for Visualizing Inner Governance

The I–L Matrix is not a tool for measuring the soul of a nation, but a framework for visualizing how a state governs from within. Regardless of whether the ideals are religious or secular, what matters is not their type, but their structural entrenchment.

References

  • Michel Foucault: Biopolitics and internal governance
  • Benedict Anderson: Imagined Communities and national identity
  • Nada Inada: Authority and Power and the dual role of internal legitimacy and external structure