A picture holds the study of politics captive. It is a picture of politics organized into sovereign states. Inside, the state’s sovereign authority maintains order. Outside of the state the absence of sovereign authority produces anarchy. To be sure, this is a highly abstract and idealized picture. Virtually no political scientist would subscribe to this simplified picture. Many political scientists have argued that this picture of politics does not accurately reflect our political reality, or that the picture is unjust and should be replaced with a different type of political order. Yet, what is revealing about this picture is that despite numerous attempts to move beyond sovereignty or re-imagine political community, this picture of political order continues to set the terms of political discourse. It is the image of political order that detractors rail against. It is also the image of politics that its defenders insist is the universal, necessary, and obligatory way of organizing political life. So, when I say that a picture holds political science captive, what I mean is this: scholars of politics remain captivated by this picture of politics because it continues to set the terms according to which we debate our political ontology. Scholars have proposed hundreds of alternative ways of organizing political life. Yet these proposals are offered in opposition to this picture. So, even those who wish to think about political order in a different way continue to be held captive by this picture of politics.