A definition of the State, thus, would be in terms of either: (i) the State as a concept having identifiable elements and characteristics (people, territory, government and supreme authority); (ii) forms and stages in evolution (city-state, nation-state, etc.); or (iii) the State as an idea having moral and teleological end. As such, definitions of what the State is could be based on legal, sociological or philosophical viewpoints. For Aristotle, the State is ‘an association of families and villages for the sake of attaining a perfect and self-sufficient existence’, while for Hegel, it is the ‘march of God on earth’ or ‘actualization of concrete freedom.’ These philosophical positions define the State as an end, a moral objective or a teleos for the human being.
As a rule, sociological theorists do not assign any such end or moral objective to the State. For Max Weber, ‘sociologically, the state cannot be defined in terms of its end … ultimately, one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it … namely the use of physical force’ (our italics).’5 Definitions containing the elements of the state cover either social or legal viewpoints, including international law in some cases. R. M. MacIver, a sociologist, defines the State as ‘an association which acting through law as promulgated by authority endowed to this end with coercive power, maintains within a community territorially demarcated by the universal external condition.’ Both Weber and MacIver insist on physical or coercive power as one of the significant elements in the definition of the state. MacIver’s definition also describes the constituent elements of the state, namely, authority (government), community (population), territorial demarcation (territory) and the ability to act through legal means with coercive power (sovereignty).
J. W. Garner defines the State in terms of its constituting elements as ‘a community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite territory, independent, or nearly so, of external control, and possessing an organized government to which a great body of inhabitants render habitual obedience.’6 He has covered all the four elements—people, territory, government and sovereign, which seeks habitual obedience.
Let us take a few examples of the definition of the State from legal, sociological, idealistic or class perspectives. Jean Bodin defines the State as ‘an association of families and their common affairs governed by a supreme power and by reason.’ Bodin’s definition advocates the concept of sovereignty as a characteristic of the State. The State is distinguished from other groupings including the family due to the implication of sovereignty. Bodin’s concept of the State does not present it as a natural development evolving from families. Aristotle, however, treated the family as the building block of the State.
Lenin has defined the state from a Marxian angle as, ‘an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of order, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between the classes.7 The Marxian perspective attributes the origin of the State to the emergence of private property and class differences between the propertied and the oppressed. It views the State as an instrument used by the propertied class to oppress and exploit the working class. This presents a class perspective and can be treated as a sociological analysis of the State.
There can be a variety of perspectives from which the state can be defined and explained in terms of: (i) its objectives; (ii) the nature of state power; (iii) the elements that constitute the state; (iv) its origin and purpose; (v) relationship between the individual on the one hand and society on the other; (vi) international relations, and so on. Similarly, based on the perspective one is following, it can be described differently (see Table 2.1).
Table 2.1 How the State Is Viewed
Thus, there can be a variety of perspectives and vantage points from which the State can be defined. An attempt to analyse from this angle has been done. In short, the State can be understood as an institutionalized coercive force, which is exercised through a government to which a permanently residing population in a territorial limit gives habitual obedience.
Leave a Reply