Fragmented Governance is the structure presented within the chapter, and can be distilled down to the maxim of ethical relativism, no one’s truth or idea of the good (Good) can superses anyone else’s. While this structure cannot be placed in a dichotomistic comparison to holographic governance, like hierarchical governance and atomistic governance could otherwise be, there is still great value in making comparisons to all three, especially that of the holographic structure. They are more similar than they are different, but one big way of describing the difference is the relationship between One and one. In fragmented governance, any one could effectively be the One, but they would be unable to maintain that status on a perpetual basis. Yet this is seen as an equitable solution to provide even political power to all individuals in the society, allowing an aspirational of their status. It is considered by the authors to be postmodern in nature, and as a reader I would agree. Additionally, the investigation of the same comparative tools between the governance structure provides a unique circumstances for the ascribed belief system. Here, the authors notes that there is not able to be a belief system at all, because the existence of a belief system for a fragmented society would be “antithetical to its nature”. This is a unique challenge that must be overcome if ever such a society would need to be experimented with. As I see it, a society tends to have one or a handful of belief systems, and that is what tends to make the society cohesive.