The state can be defined in a way that sees its central attribute as the exercise
of legitimate force; is based upon morality, or a mixture of the two. When it is
defined in a way that stresses the importance of force, then it can be argued that
modern states are crucially different from pre-modern states but, like all states, they
claim to exercise a monopoly of legitimate force.
Three bodies of argument contend that politics is best identified without using
the concept of the state. Behaviouralists argue that the state as a concept is too
ambiguous and ideological to be useful, and the notion of a political system is
preferable; linguistic analysts see the idea of the state as a practical institution rather
than a coherent philosophical concept; while radicals argue that the notion of the
state gets in the way of pluralist and participatory politics.
The problem, however, is that the state does not disappear simply because it is
not defined. The contradictory nature of the institution can only be exposed if we
define it, and the definition of the state as an institution claiming a monopoly of
legitimate force makes it possible to underline the state’s problematic character.
The contradictory character of the state also undermines the notion of state
sovereignty. Sovereignty can only be coherently defined as the capacity of individuals
to govern their own lives. Globalisation is only positive if it recognises differences
between countries, and works to reduce disparities so that the development of a
global government becomes a realistic possibility.Questions
- Do you agree with the argument that the state is essentially a modern institution?
- What is the best way of defining the state?
- Is it possible to differentiate government from the state, and if so, how?
- Do you see the notion of state sovereignty as irrelevant in the contemporary
world? - Why do people physically harm one another?
References
Allen, J. (1990) ‘Does Feminism Need a Theory of the State?’ in S. Watson (ed.) Playing the
StateLondon: Verso, 21–37.
Ashley, R. (1988) ‘Untying the Sovereign State: A Double Reading of the Anarchy
Problematique’ Millennium17(2), 227–62.
Barry Jones, R. (2000) The World Turned Upside DownManchester: Manchester University
Press.
Bentley, A. (1967) The Process of GovernmentCambridge, MA: Belknap, Harvard University
Press.
Bull, H. (1977) The Anarchical SocietyBasingstoke: Macmillan.
Dahl, R. (1976) Modern Political Analysis3rd edn, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dunleavy, P. and O’Leary, B. (1987) Theories of the StateLondon: Macmillan.
Easton, D. (1965) A Framework for Political AnalysisEnglewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Easton, D. (1971) The Political System2nd edn, New York: Alfred Knopf.
Easton, D. (1981) ‘The Political System Besieged by the State’ Political Theory9, 203–25.32 Part 1 Classical ideas