This raises the issue of what is meant by a state. At this stage, let
us ignore some complicated academic arguments and settle upon a
working definition (Box 2.1) from Max Weber [1864–1920], a liberal
German sociologist.
BOX 2.1 DEFINITION OF ‘STATE’
This reflects the way most people probably see the world today. The
globe is seen as divided into a series of exclusive geographical areas
(countries or nations), each of which has a government whose people
recognise its authority to maintain order amongst them, by force in
the last resort if necessary. This government may, of course, be
divided into central, regional and local levels and executive, legislative
and judicial arms, but all these bodies are seen as a system for taking
decisions on behalf of the nation (or society) and maintaining law and
order.
Politics without the state: tribal societies
This is a picture we shall be questioning later. For now let us point
out that until very recently ‘tribal’ groups have been ‘discovered’ in
the forests of Papua New Guinea and Brazil living apparently
undisturbed by the governments which purport to represent them at
the United Nations. Of course such tribal groups may be thought of
merely as traditional ‘mini-states’ and as only a minor deviation from
Weber’s model. However, social anthropologists who study such
groups in detail have shown convincingly that tribal societies may
differ radically from the state model of government.
Social anthropologists often avoid the use of ‘tribal’ in this con-
text as implying a condescending view of the peoples concerned as
SYSTEMS 27Power
An organisation ‘that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the
legitimate use of physical force within a given territory’.
(Weber, in Gerth and Mills, 1948: 78)