Idealistic Theory

The Idealist view of the State draws on the tradition of philosophical idealism, a search for ideal destiny or moral end. It idealizes the State and glorifies it as the epitome of human destiny. The State is an end itself. It has its teleos, final purpose. And this final purpose is the destiny of human being also so far as their freedom, self-realization and perfection is concerned. The State becomes an omnipotent, omni-competent, ethical and moral institution because it is the march of God on earth. The purpose of the individual and that of the State are identical. This tradition is based on the doctrine of Plato, Aristotle, Hegel, Green and Bosanquet. It is also called philosophical or metaphysical theory of the state.

The Greeks like Plato and Aristotle were of the view that the State is self-sufficing. In the State alone, the individual was capable of living the good life and realizing the highest ends of his existence. According to Garner, this became the basis of a doctrine that ‘idealizes the State and glorifies it almost to the point of deification.’ J. W. Garner identifies the following features of the theory.¹⁰³

• The State is regarded as an end rather than a means
• The State can do no wrong and whether good or bad, its authority must be respected and obeyed as resistance against its commands or revolt against its authority is wicked
• The State has an existence apart from the people who compose it and has a mystical, super-personal entity above them
• The State possesses will, rights, interest and even morality of its own

We may analyse the main features of the Idealistic theory under the following broad groups: (i) State as an end, (ii) State as an ethical institution, and (iii) State as the guarantor of real freedom.

Firstly, the Idealist theory treats the State as an end in itself. The State is presented as a culmination or realization of a super-personal and abstract idea. For example, Aristotle treated the State as the highest stage of associative instinct of man and was of the view that man is a social animal; it is the ‘nature’ of man to live in the state. Hegel elevated the State as the march of God on earth and realization of an ethical idea. In the hands of the idealists, the State becomes an embodiment of a Spirit, an Idea, a pre-given purpose or objective. The realization of this Spirit or Idea or purpose in the form of the State makes the State as an end in itself.

According to Aristotle, the ‘nature’ of a thing is what it is capable of—the nature of a seed is to grow and become a plant and fructify. The fully developed and mature stage of a thing shows its true nature. Similarly, Aristotle argued that the nature of a man is to grow and realize its potential in the state. The State is the highest and fully developed stage of human nature and its associative instincts. As such, the appearance and existence of the State is an end in itself, the association of man as the State.

Hegel’s idea of the march of God on earth implies that the appearance and growth of the State in its various capacities, forms and types has been the journey of the Spirit, a divine idea, and of freedom. Wayper elaborates, ‘… the development of the Spirit is the development of Freedom, and human history is thus history of Freedom. Human history culminates in the State in which the Spirit finds its final embodiment.’¹⁰⁴ Thus, the state, for Hegel is the final abode of Spirit, which is the expression of freedom. The State is an end in itself, as it presents the final embodiment of the idea of freedom and abode of Spirit.

Hegel traces evolution of the State by using the dialectic method of evolution. Every stage of social existence has opposing forces—’thesis’ and ‘anti-thesis’. The conflict between the two gives birth to a reconciled position, a synthesis. For example, family and ‘civil society’ produce the State as a synthesis. According to Hegel, family represents moments of ‘particular altruism’. Family members set aside one’s own interest for the sake of other family members; they demonstrate the value of altruism. For example, father/mother offer their food to the children when there is limited food. But the sphere of this value is particular, small and limited to close family members. The civil society, the society at large, is an arena of ‘universal egoism’. The sphere is this universal, wider and includes all members of society. However, the altruistic motive is replaced by competitive (ego) motive. An individual places his or her own interest before others. However, there emerges a third stage, which combines the two—altruism of family and universalism of civil society. The State is the result of this synthesis and embodies universal altruism.¹⁰⁵

Further, the State is regarded as an end in itself also because it has a real personality. For Hegel, the State is ‘a self-conscious ethical substance and self-knowing and self-actualizing individual’.¹⁰⁶ It possesses rights of its own which necessarily override any apparent conflict with the right of the individual. Rights of individuals are nothing but derived from the State and individual cannot have real rights contrary to and in conflict with the state. In fact, Rousseau’s idea of civil liberty, guaranteed only by the General Will, hints at the same. The State possesses will, rights, interest and even morality of its own. However, for some of the Idealists, e.g. Green, the State is not an end in itself but only a means for to the development of man. The State exists for man and not man for the State.

Secondly, the State has been exalted as an ethical institution and guarantor of real freedom. This is premised on the view that State being an end itself and culmination of certain purpose or idea, can be useful and beneficial for realizing higher goals by individuals. These higher goals can be, as Aristotle says ‘sake of good life’ or as Hegel says, ‘actualization of Freedom’, or as Green would say, ‘the fulfillment of a moral capacity without which man would not be man’. Generally, ‘ethical’ means standards or principles of moral conduct. The goal of moral development of man is the integral purpose of the state. This is because ‘the State contains within itself, and represents, the social morality of all citizens; it is “realization of moral idea”.’¹⁰⁷ Aristotle says that ‘the State comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life’. He hints that the goal of the State is to secure a moral and good life for the individual. Conversely, the individual, by performing duties and enjoying rights, is able to achieve moral development in the state. One may argue that this prescription may have its problem, as Aristotle never gave the slaves, any right to participate in the activities of the state. And to this extent, the Aristotelian State at best could be only partially or reluctantly an ethical state. The State as a ‘moral organism’, needs to be moral for all.

For Hegel also, the individual realizes real freedom in the State. This is because the State itself is an embodiment and ‘actualization of freedom. This implies that the State cannot act ‘unrepresentatively’. All laws enacted by the State are expression of freedom and individual must follow them, as they are their wills only. Green, however, puts ‘freedom’ of individual in terms of ‘right of man to make the best of himself. The State, as such, must remove those conditions that hinder the right of man to develop his self. Such hindrances may include illiteracy, alcoholism, poverty, etc.

In summing up the premises of Hegel’s statement that the State is ‘a self-conscious ethical substance and self-knowing and self-actualizing individual’, Joad and Garner agree that three ‘paradoxical results’ follow.¹⁰⁸ Firstly that the State can never act unrepresentatively; even the arrest and locking up of a burglar represents a burglar’s will. Secondly, the relations that bind the individuals with fellow men and to the State, form an integral part of the individual’s personality. This means no one can act as an isolated individual, but only as an integral part of the state. This means, as Dr Bosanquet, an English idealist puts, even in rebelling against the State the individual rebels with a will he has obtained from the State. As such, the State in times of rebellion is divided against itself. Thirdly, the view that ‘the State contains within itself and represents the social morality of all citizens’ means that moral relations of each individual have been merged in social morality vested in the State. However, does this mean that the State itself is moral or that it is bound by morality in its actions? The State is not bound by any morality either with respect to individuals or other states. If the State is the only embodiment of morality or the ethical substance, how can there be a ‘moral offense’ in what the State does. The State is exempted from moral obligations, as the State is omnipotent and the repository of all morality. These premises and conclusions have led both Garner and Joad to remark that these are ‘but a short to the absolutism and omnipotence of the State and the sacrifice of the individual’ or a ‘step to complete doctrine of the absolutism of the State.’

This formulation puts the State above any questioning and doubt and individual is asked to submit to its will. Aristotle paid his tribute to this view by saying that the State is a creature of nature and man is a political animal and thereby asking that individual must submit to the State for self-realization. Hegel conceived the State as ‘the reality of the ethical idea, the manifest self-conscious, substantial will of man, thinking and knowing itself …’.¹⁰⁹ If the State is nothing but the epitome of individual liberty and as Joad says, representing and containing within itself all an individual’s social aspirations, and at the same time fulfilling all his social needs, it can logically claim absolute authority upon the individual.¹¹⁰ By putting mystical, idealistic and moralistic characteristics, the State is given absolute authority. Because of this, this theory is also known as the Absolutist theory of the state. Thus, we find the seed of the absolutist State in the formulations of the Idealist view of the state.

Briefly, it may be said that the Organismic view looks at the State as biological organism and having a biological personality, the Juridical view treats as a legal or juristic personality and the Idealistic view terms it as a real and moral personality. From the practical point of view of governmental and community relations, the concept of legal or jurist personality of the State has played an important role in enforcement of legal rights, duties, tax obligations, property rights, etc. Though the Idealist view has found little contemporary relevance, its focus on moral development of individual in the State finds its reflection in the welfare functions of the state.