Why are There Different Theories of the State Which One do You Find Most Useful and Why - Assignment Example

Running header: Theories of the State Student’s name: Name of institution: Instructor’s name: Course code: Date of submission: Why are there different theories of the state? Which one do you find most useful and why? Introduction The state has for a long time been a key issue in the study of sociology and politics. There are many people who think that the state is very important to people while there are others who think that the state is not very important to people (Domhoff 1993). I personally think that the state is important because it is part of the society. I also think that the state is important because most human beings live within states and therefore need to understand the concept of the state because they relate to it directly. There are many different philosophical, religious, sociological, political and other theories that try to explain why states exist in society and what their functions are (Gaventa 1982). A state can be defined as a political unit of people who reside in a certain territory or area and are administered by the highest authority or rule of that land, usually the government (Gilbert & Howe 1991). Currently, there are over 190 states that exist worldwide. Machiavelli was the first to use the term state in one of his books called ‘The Prince’ (Haney & Pollard 2003). Since then, the concept of the state has been met with a lot of debates and questions concerning its origin, purpose, advantages and disadvantages (Gilbert & Howe 1991). This paper will attempt to find out why there are different theories of the state. The paper will also describe the theory that I think is most useful and give the reasons why I have chosen that theory. Theories of the state are those theories that try to explain the origin of states (Haney & Pollard 2003). These theories try to find out where states originated from and why they came into being (Haney 2002). Theories of the state demystify a number of issues related to the coming into existence of different states and the factors that led this existence of the states (Haney 2000). They also explain the various political and social processes of decision making in regard to the state. The emergence of states is well explained using different theories of the state that have been proposed by different sociological, political, religious and philosophical scholars (Lachman 2003). All these fields of knowledge have different theories that have been put across to try and explain various matters to do with states such as their origins, their importance, their disadvantages, when they originated and why they came into existence (Haney & Pollard 2003). I think that it is crucial for mankind to understand the way his or her life is organized or governed so as to live a better life (Gilbert & Howe 1991). It is also important for people to understand the societal and political organization that they live within so that they can be better citizens (Haney & Pollard 2003). There are many different sets of theories that try to explain the origin of states. Different scholars have come up with different theories that all seek to explain matters of the state. Why there are many different theories is the question that many people seek answers to (Gaventa 1982). One cannot be too sure which theory to believe because there are numerous theories that have been proposed to explain why states exist and where they originated from (Haney 2000). I am of the opinion that it is important for people to critically evaluate the correctness of each and every theory of the state so as to find out which theories are the best in trying to explain issues of the states such as its origin and purpose (Gilbert & Howe 1991). There are traditional theories about the origin of states that are usually rejected in favor of modern ecological theories and hypothesis (Gaventa 1982). It is said that for the first 2 million years of man’s existence, he lived in villages or bands which were thought to be completely autonomous (Gilbert & Howe 1991). At around 5000 BC, these villages began to form bigger political units. This aggregation of villages into much larger political units occurred at a very fast pace and at around 4000 BC, there was the formation of the first ever state in the world’s history. This state was taken as one autonomous political unit that was made up of different communities within its territory that had one centralized government (Domhoff 1993). This centralized government had the power to decree and enforce laws, draft men for war or work and to collect taxes (Haney 2000). The development of the state has been described by many scholars as one of the most far-reaching and notable political developments ever to take place in the history of man. However, the concept of the origin of the state is still largely misunderstood by many. This explains the many theories of the state that exist because different people understand the concept of the state differently (Haney & Pollard 2003). According to Haney and Pollard (2003), not one of the numerous theories of the state is self sufficient or fully satisfying. I tend to agree with this view point because there are many different theories that do not make sense and they have no basis. They are not based on facts or any recognizable evidence (Gaventa 1982). An example is the theory by Aristotle that the state is natural and does not need to be explained. Another example is a theory which argues that the state is a historical accident that happened by chance. These theories do not have any reliable hypothesis and cannot be taken as factual and reliable (Gilbert & Howe 1991). Most of the theories of the state are said to fail at one point or another. However, there are certain theories that have been said to produce more convincing results as compared to the many that exist (Domhoff 1993). This failing of many theories explains why there are many theories of the state. More and more people are still trying to find out why the previously existing theories are failing and in the process of doing so, they are coming up with more and more theories, hence the existence of many theories of the state (Haney 2002). All these theories of the state that exist are supported by some and strongly disregarded by others. The people who disregard certain theories usually try to formulate other theories to support their reasons for disregarding the already existing theories. This further explains the existence of many different theories of state (Gilbert & Howe 1991). Theories of the state started being formulated very many years ago by ancient scholars and classical writers (Gaventa 1982). Such theories are usually referred to as traditional theories of the state. Philosophers such as Aristotle were not familiar with any other form of political organization (Gilbert & Howe 1991). He is an example of a traditional theorist who came up with a traditional theory of the state. The reason behind Aristotle claiming that the state was natural was because he had not come into contact with any other form of political organization during his lifetime (Domhoff 1993). He had only known the existence of the state as naturally occurring and that is why he proposed the argument that the state does not need to be explained or described because it occurs naturally. He thought that the state was natural and did not require explanation or description (Haney 2000). It is wrong to think that the state is natural because history reveals that states came into existence long after human beings had lived for very many centuries. His thoughts were disapproved during the age of exploration when more and more people started becoming aware of themselves and the things around them. It was during this time that it was realized that not all people throughout the world lived in states (Haney 2002). There were those who lived in tribes and independent villages. They made the state to appear less natural and thus the need for explanation of the states arose (Haney & Pollard 2003). Throughout history, there have existed many different theories of the state. However, not all of these theories are still credible. For example, those with a racial basis are no longer accredited as worthy of being discussed (Haney 2002). The other theory that is also discredited is the one which proposes that the state is a creation of the people’s genius (Domhoff 1993). There is also the theory that claims states are a historical accident which just occurred and they cannot be understood or explained (Gaventa 1982). This means that the state is a form of accident that occurred at some point in history and one cannot fully explain why the state came into existence or where it originated from (Gilbert & Howe 1991). There are various reasons why there are many different theories of the state. One major reason is the fact that theories of the state began being formulated very many years ago (Domhoff 1993). Traditional philosophers and scholars began formulating theories of the state very many years ago before there advent of newer and more reliable methods of research (Haney 2000). As society becomes more and more advanced, many different and more reliable methods of carrying out research have been discovered (Gilbert & Howe 1991). These methods have been as a result of technological advancements and the exposure to more and more knowledge. As knowledge became more and more advanced, scholars found better ways to explain the origin of the state (Gaventa 1982). These new ways were more accepted and the old ones that did not make sense were widely rejected (Haney 2002). As people rejected the old theories that did not put forward convincing arguments, they came up with alternative theories to try and explain the origin of the state. These alternative theories are the contributing factor to the existence of very many theories of the state (Haney & Pollard 2003). According to Carneiro (2008), the serious theories of the state can be divided into two. These are voluntaristic theories and coercive theories. He further notes that voluntaristic theories are those which argue that at some point in time, who voluntarily, naturally and spontaneously gave up their sovereignties (Domhoff 1993). These people went ahead to unite with other communities to form a bigger political unit that was called the state. Examples of theories that fall under this broad category include the social contract theory that is associated with Rousseau (Gilbert & Howe 1991). This theory has been disregarded as being a mere historical curiosity because no such contract is ever known to have been entered by man (Gaventa 1982). There are also modern voluntaristic theories such as the ‘automatic’ theory which is much more accepted than the traditional voluntaristic theories (Haney & Pollard 2003). This theory states that the invention of agriculture brought about a lot of changes to society. Agriculture is said to have automatically brought about a surplus in the amount of foods accessible to human beings. This excess amount of food gave man the opportunity to break away from agriculture and venture into other activities such as pottery, weaving and masonry among many others (Gilbert & Howe 1991). This led to an extensive creation of division of labor. The division of labor brought about occupational specialization which developed into a political integration that united previously independent and autonomous communities into different states (Haney 2002). British archeologist, Gordon Childe V was associated with this theory (Haney & Pollard 2003). The automatic theory is seen to have many loopholes. I do not agree that agriculture automatically produces a surplus of food. This is evident from the fact that there are very many agricultural regions all over the world but most of them produce no such surplus (Gilbert & Howe 1991). In fact, in some regions, many people are suffering from inadequacy of food and other agricultural produce (Haney & Pollard 2003). Other examples of voluntaristic theories of the state include the hydraulics hypothesis proposed by Karl Wittfogel. All these theories had their weaknesses and were rejected at some point. Other theories were formulated to replace them and explain why the rejected ones were wrong (Haney 2002). Coercive theories on the other hand are those that depict the use of force in the formation of the state (Gaventa 1982). According to coercive theories, human beings were not guided their own enlightened self interests to form states. These theories claim that human beings were forced or coerced by political powers to shift from the system of the autonomous villages to the state system (Haney 2002). These theories propose the states were formed as a result of war in which the defeated sides had no choice but to be subjects of the winning side. These theories are synonymous with writers such as Franz Oppenheimer, Gustav Ratzenhofer and Ludwig Gumplowicz. They were commonly known as the conquest theorists, depicting that war was the reason behind the formation of the state (Gaventa 1982). They seemed to support the views of Heraclitus who wrote very many years ago that “war was the father of everything”. Despite the fact that these coercive theories all had certain major deficiencies, certain scholars have written that the role played by war in the formation of states cannot be overlooked. In one way or the other, war played a decisive role in the formation and rise of states (Gilbert & Howe 1991). Other theories of the state include the Marxist theory which argues that ideas of the state can best be understood when divided into three broad subject areas, namely, pre-capitalist states, capitalist states and post-capitalist states (Gilbert & Howe 1991). This is despite the fact that the ideas of the proponent of this theory, Karl Marx, kept on changing severally as he grew older. Marx further talks of the bourgeois states and the communists states in his theories that try to explain states and their origin (Gaventa 1982). Marxist theories of the state were class analytic approaches which usually focused on the structural relationship of the state to capitalism as a system of relations between various classes (Haney 2002). There are also the Weberian theories of the state. They are called so because they were proposed by Max Weber. These are organization-analytic approaches which usually focus on the way in which different states are constituted by autonomous sources of power (Gilbert & Howe 1991). The Weberian theories of state states operate on the basis of institutional dynamics and logistics. These theories further argue that there are usually variable forms of interaction between the state and other sources of power within the society (Haney 2002). The other set of theories of state is the micro-foundational approaches. These theories revolve around the different ways in which states root their actions (Gaventa 1982). These actions are thought to be rooted in strategic dilemmas, motivations and interests of people who occupy certain positions within the state (Gilbert & Howe 1991). These theories seem to dig deeper to try and find out what the interest of different parties were as states were being formed. All the theories of the state revolve around the broad categories that have been mentioned in this essay (Haney 2002). The reason why the theories of the state are so many is because different people have different opinions and ideas regarding the state. Old theories are continuously being disregarded whereas new theories are being formulated to further explain the origin of the state (Gilbert & Howe 1991). The theory of state that I find most useful falls under the micro-foundational theories. This theory is most useful to me because it is the most convincing. In trying to understand the origin of the state, it is important for one to view the actions of those who hold various leadership positions in various states (Haney & Pollard 2003). It is important to try and understand what motivates these people who hold various positions within the states. According to these theories, understanding why one is motivated to want to lead a state can help in understanding how the states came into being and how important they are to the society (Gilbert & Howe 1991). The people who occupy position within the state usually have various strategies of leading these states so as to maintain their control over the states. These people are sometimes faced with strategic dilemmas, especially when their strategies seem not to work (Gaventa 1982). For one to want to hold positions within a state, they must be interested in something. They must be motivated by something that drives them to seek these positions (Gilbert & Howe 1991). These motivation factors are important in understanding the origin and importance of the state. The factors that contribute to the formation of the state can be revealed through reviewing what motivates the leaders of these states (Gaventa 1982). I also find the micro-foundational theories the most useful because they are the most recent theories to the state to be formulated. This means that theories are most likely to be reliable because they are based on the latest hypothesis about the state (Gilbert & Howe 1991). The micro-foundational theories try to derive explanations about the state from abstract theories of the strategic or rational decisions that are made by individuals who are part of the state (Haney & Pollard 2003). I prefer this theory because it emphasizes the need to solve a problem by analyzing every small detail or micro-level of individual actions that led to the formation of the state. This theory does not decide first that analysis of rational action will be adequate to fully explain the idea of states (Domhoff 1993). Conclusion In conclusion, there are many theories of the state because of the fact that different people have different opinions and ideas about the emergence of states. Some of these theories have been found to be accurate but most of them have failed to adequately and accurately explain the origin of the state. The theories that I support are those based on micro-foundational approaches because they are modern theories that emphasize on finding the root of the emergence of the state. References Domhoff, GW 1993, ‘Class conflict or state autonomy in new deal agricultural policy: yet another counterattack on a theoretical delusion’, Political Power and Social Theory, vol. 8, pp. 45-47. Gaventa, J. 1982, Power and powerlessness: quiescence and rebellion in an Appalachian Valley, University of Illinois Press, Urbana. Gilbert, J & Howe, C 1991, ‘Beyond ‘state vs. society’: theories of the state and New Deal Agricultural Policies’, American Sociological Review, vol. 56, pp. 204-220. Haney, L & Pollard, L 2003, Families of a new world: gender, politics, and state development in a global context, Routledge, London. Haney, L 2002, Inventing the needy: gender and the politics of welfare in Hungary, University of California Press, Berkeley. Haney, LA 2000, ‘Feminist state theory: applications to jurisprudence, criminology, and the welfare state’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 26, pp. 641-666. Lachman, R 2003, ‘Elite-self interest and economic decline in early modern Europe’, American Sociological Review, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 346-372. Read More