Understanding the Modern State - Essay Example

IS WEBER STILL A RELEVANT THINKER FOR UNDERSTANDING THE MODERN By Introduction Political scientists have always strived with settling on a common definition for a “state”, and to this day, the matter remains a controversy unsolved. Generally, the average definition of a state that can be offered would refer to it as a form of rule over a sovereign territory. Additional constituent parts of a state include having an executive, the courts, bureaucratic ways, and related institutions. In as much as a state is overly confused for a government, the two are different entities. This is chiefly so because while a government may be temporary, that comes and goes, a state remains constant. In the light of these, various theories have been devised in seeking to address the modern understanding of a state. One of the key theories is that of Max Weber, and it doubles up as being one of the most controversial theories regarding the state definition. The following discussion text seeks to justify that Max Weber’s thinking with regards to modern state has been, and remains relevant. The modern State In justifying Weber’s thoughts about the modern state, this discussion will first highlight the acceptable definition of the modern state, and thereafter compare it with his version of the same. Poggi (1990, p.19) defines the state as an organization, for which to exist, there needs to be political power which is inflicted on the civil population through guided resources, rules, and roles. The key idea of a state is to have purposes and interests aimed at creating unity and distinctiveness. This is one of the key characteristics of the modern state. Unlike the outdated (previous) definitions of the state, political power is no longer entitled to personal rulers, dynasties or individuals for them and their followers to benefit from. What this means is that political activities did not possess as much purpose, continuity, and intensity as the modern state offers by institutionalizing them to the entire populations. Again, the new system has fixed (defined) spatial boundaries which adds up to the other characteristic of the new state; a territory. Territory simply represents an area with defined boundaries governed by a particular authority. A territory is important in telling the extent to which the enforcement of law and jurisdiction of a portion of earth covers. In addition to jurisdiction and law enforcement, the authorities in charge are mandated with protecting the dwellers of the said territories from external encroachment. The variation between the previous and the modern definition of state territory is that in the new one, state has a physical (hard) context as well as a non-physical (soft) one. The “land” or “soil” part is covered under the hard part. The soft on the other hand garners the title of being a “motherland”, meaning it is the origin and dwelling place of its population. In short, the modern state is not entitled to some territory; rather, it is a territory in itself. In the previous nature of the state, the constitution or purpose was chiefly political, with everything containing some political basis to it. However, in the redefined state, it goes beyond pure politics and into nationhood. Concisely, a state will contain not only political grounds, but concerns for oneness as well. Rather than considering its dwellers as just “a population”, the modern state creates a nation out of the population. Nationhood overshadows the pre-modern, purely political systems which, owing to the limitation in terms of institutionalization was encroached with flaws such as discrimination based on say, race, class, or ethnicity. Nationhood replaces the identification of territory within religious, ethnic, linguistics, or other discriminating bonds (VanCreveld 1999, p. 59). In their place, it seeks to define a population within territorial uniqueness, ruling systems (governments), and military achievements to mention but a few. In application for instance, people from state X might meet beyond their borders, but upon identifying themselves as from originating from the same nation, find it much easier to cooperate or coexist. The final and most important creating factor of the modern state is the law. Laws can be compared to the values in a culture. To some extent, a state can be defined as a culture. The reason for this is that once territory has been identified, the population there within becomes the citizen body, and an authority is mandated with manning it. This governing party requires rules in order to play its roles such as providing military defence, maintaining nationhood, and maintaining law and order. These rules represent the law. The idea of modern state to incorporate legal commands is that the sovereignty of it depends on the level of their manifestation (Mann 1984, p. 185). In a nutshell, the law is the language of a state in contemporary times. Max Weber’s theory of State Max Weber, a modern scientist defined the state in terms almost similar to the above, but only differing in the intensity of application. His basic definition of the state is that it is made up of a community under which monopoly is mandated upon a common authority to apply [physical] force within defined boundaries. Max Weber felt that force was an important tool for a state to apply both within and beyond its boundaries for the good of those living in the state. In simplified form, Weber’s thought was that a state was a legitimate form of dominating over a mass or population (Weber 1991, p. 77). The issue of politics also features in Weber’s thinking about the modern state. According to him, politics are the key concern of a state, and that in politics, there is a constant struggle to share influence or power, or rather affect the sharing of the same amongst different populations living within a state. The intensity of Weber’s theory under politics is that he recognized three types of authority which should be termed legitimate. The first is inherited authority, and is the one in which authority is shared down a bloodline as is the case in England. The second type of authority is “grace authority”. Weber defined this as authority gained after performing heroic acts, or if one has a charismatic leadership qualities. The final and widely recognized form of authority is that one gained through a specific process outlined in the rules or laws of a territory (state). This is what elections represent. Elections are legitimate means of choosing an authority. In this type of granting power, the leader becomes a servant of the state. This in turn relates to the overall modern state in that there is authority, yes, but it has to work in providing success and wellbeing of its citizens. The other point which coincides with the modern definition of state from Weber’s version is nationalism, although it is presented in a rather controversial manner. Max Weber stated that nationalism could be achieved in various ways, but the surest way would only be through sovereignty, sovereignty in this case representing inflicting some form of authority over another polity. In short, Weber felt that struggles or world conflicts such as WW1 and the Civil War were the reasons why western states are developed today, and again, depict more nationalism than states which have never been through such (Scaff 2011, p. 271). Europe and America are offered as the case examples. Weber felt that exercising sovereignty helps define weak states, and the strong ones can offer support, in which this entire process would result in unity thus nationalism. Weber compared Europe to Africa. Europe has been through major wars and is today ranked in the first world. Africa on the other hand remained unshaken, only experiencing minor conflicts. The lack of mega conflicts as Weber states is the reason why most of Africa remains in the third world. Additionally, the Americas and Europe are now calm while Africa is experiencing genocide, civil wars, and many cases of human rights infringement. Conclusions In comparing Weber’s way of thinking towards the modern state theories, most of the guidelines offered are similar. The first similarity is that both acknowledge the presence of politics in state affairs, and that politics constitute the larger portion of the state. Additionally, the two agree that politics are matters aimed at the distribution of power to the wider population in which equality is a key concern. The two theories both overshadow the previous state definitions which would personalize power leading to inequality and discrimination of minority populations (Skinner 1989, p. 90). The final similarity under politics is that in as much as politics exist, they should work for the good of the population by providing and protecting them from internal or external encroachment. Power is distributed according to fixed rules, or law in both theories. In the modern state, institutionalizing power is the only legitimate way of doing so. In Weber’s definition, three forms of distributing power (authority) exist, and are legal as much as the population feels they are legitimate. This therefore shows a similarity between the two in that both recognize laws, or rules which govern the state. Finally, the two statements point at nationalism as the most important role of a state. Nationalism is simply creating unity within a territory by discarding internal sources of conflict or discrimination such as ethnicity or class (Mills 2013, p. 235). The only difference is that while the modern state theories do not implicate conflict as the only way to achieving nationhood, Max Weber feels that conflicts and wars are the only sure way to unite diverse populations. All in all, the point of both ideas is to create unity, thus nationhood. Bibliography Mann, M1984, ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: its Origins, Mechanisms and Results’, European Journal of Sociology, 25, pp.185-213. Mills, MA 2013, Identity, Ritual and State in Tibetan Buddhism: The Foundations of Authority in Gelukpa Monasticism. Routledge. Poggi, G1990, The Nature of the Modern State, in his The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press. Scaff, LA 2011, Max Weber in America, Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press. Skinner, Q 1989, The State, in Terence Ball, James Farr and Russell L. Hanson (eds.) Political Innovation and Conceptual Change’, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 90-131. VanCreveld, M1999, The Rise of the State: 1300 to 1648, in his The Rise and Decline of the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber, M1991 [1918], Politics as a Vocation, in H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, trans. H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul). Read More