The state as a mixture of will and force
Others argue that the state does not have a ‘basis’ or central attribute, but is a
mixture of both force and morality. It is wrong to regard one of these as more
important than the other.
Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist, traced this view of the state back to
Machiavelli’s The Prince.Machiavelli, writing in the sixteenth century, declared
that there are two means of fighting: ‘one according to the laws, the other with
force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts’. Machiavelli argued that
the first is often not sufficient to maintain power, so that ‘it becomes necessary to
have recourse to the second’ (1998: 58). The state was seen as analogous to the
mythical creature, the centaur, which was half-human and half-beast. Gramsci
embraced this argument. The state is linked to force, he said, but equally important
is law, morality and right (Gramsci, 1971: 170). The state in this argument has a
dual character, and although Gramsci subscribed to the Marxist argument that the
state would wither away, he argues that what disappears is force, and an ‘ethical
state’ remains (Hoffman, 1996: 72).
It has become very common to contend that theories that argue that the essential
property of the state is either morality or force are ‘essentialist’ or ‘reductionist’.
By this is meant an approach that highlights one factor as being crucially relevant.
Just as it is wrong to ignore the part of the state which imposes force upon those
who will not voluntarily comply with the law, so it is wrong to downgrade the
‘civilising’ aspects of the state – the aspects of the state which regulate peoples’ lives
in ways which make them healthier and happier. The notion of a welfare state
captures this amalgam, since it is argued that the state acts in a way that is both
negative and positive – a mixture of force and will. In Britain your local hospital
is part of the National Health Service and funded from taxes that people have to
pay, but the staff there are trained to help you with health care. The hospital is
part of a state that is both negative and positive in its role.Force and the modernity argument
Those who stress the centrality of force argue that the state is far older than the
‘modernists’ assume. It is true that earlier states are different from modern ones
and lack the features described by Dunleavy and O’Leary. Force is regarded as the
defining attribute of the state. Feudal and ancient polities may have been more
partisan and less effective than the modern state, but they were states nevertheless.
They sought to impose supreme power over their subjects. We come back to Weber’s
definition of the state as an institution that claims a monopoly of legitimate force
for a particular territory. Does this mean that only the modern state is really a state,
or do all post-tribal polities act in this way (albeit less efficiently and more
chaotically), and therefore deserve to be called states as well?
Proponents of the force argument contend that differences in form should not
be allowed to exclude similarities. Once we argue that only modern states can be
called states, we ignore the problem of defining totalitarian states (like Iraq underChapter 1 The state 15