The Organismic or organic view treats ‘the State as real person’, as if it is analogous to a living organism with similar functions. The Greeks hit upon the idea of the State as an organism. According to Wayper, this was to seek an answer to the question: ‘What is the State and why do men obey it?’ The answer which the Greeks found is ‘… that the State is an organism of which men themselves are parts and which is therefore greater than they are. It is real and they are merely abstractions’.96 It is conceived as a whole body and individuals its parts. For Plato, the analogy of the human body helps in understanding the classes and the functions in the Republic; for Aristotle, putting the State ‘prior’ to the individual.
Thus, the organic view of the State treats the State as an inseparable abode of the individual for fulfilling his/her self. Plato thought that each individual by integrating as per his/her capacity and inclination—reason (the ruler), passion/spirit (the watchdog) or acquisitiveness (the producers)—in the Republic, would serve the cause of justice. Aristotle’s ‘man as a social animal’ was destined to realize himself only in the state. Delving as such, the Greeks provided a philosophical basis to the organ-body interdependence analogy between the individual and the State and also to the concept that the State is a natural institution with higher moral and ethical goals.
The theory found its advocates in German thinkers in the nineteenth century, partially as a reaction against the mechanical or artificial view of State spread by the social contract theory. Fichte, Schelling, Krause and others were the early starters with Bluntschli as the leading advocate of the theory.
Fichte argued that the interdependence of the individual and State is similar to a biological person in which each part is constantly maintaining the whole body and is itself being maintained. Relationship of each individual to the State stands in the same manner. Bluntschli went to declare the State an ‘image of the human organism’.97 In declaring the State as such, he also declared the State as ‘masculine in character’ and contrasted with the church, to which he assigned attribute of femininity. Bluntschli saw the State as a ‘living spiritual organic being’, a moral organism.
In the nineteenth century, British sociologist, Herbert Spencer sought to apply methods of biology in understanding society; analogy between society and natural organism. He drew a parallel between the evolution and growth of social structure and biological organism. He attributed elements of resemblances—’ sustaining system’ (ailment in body and production in the state), ‘distributing system’ (circulation in body and transportation in the state) and ‘regulatory system’ (nervous system in body and governments and armies in the state).98
Three significant formulations based on biological/organic analogy present the essential characteristics of organism. Firstly, intrinsic relationship between parts and the whole, i.e., part of a body namely hands, eyes, ears or heart all will not work if taken away from the body and lose their significance and essence. Secondly, an organism shows organic unity of its parts as it grows from within by internal adaptation. Thirdly, an organism exists as an end in itself.99 The State also possesses these characteristics and must be regarded as organic. In explaining the Organismic view, Garner says:
It is a biological conception which describes the State in terms of natural sciences, views the individuals who compose it as analogous to the cells of a plant or animal, and postulates a relation of interdependence between them and society such as exists between the organs and parts of a biological organism and the whole structure.100
It appears that Organismic view is an attempt to seek a basis for individual–State relationship where individuals are dependent upon the whole and the whole is conditioned upon the parts. In this sense, the State becomes an ‘organism of organisms’, whole composed of the individuals. This sounds as a very workable proposition of interdependency. It promises to resolve the individual–State anti-thesis; why should the individual obey and follow the State and why should the State work for the betterment of the individuals, the parts.
Though it appears that the liberty of the individual is not opposed to the objective of the state, in practice, however, it amounts to negating any rights of the individual against the state. The organic view of the State threatens to sacrifice the individual to society. There is no liberty for the individual and interdependence may become a metaphor for submission of the individual to the state. Neither is there any space for different associations of the individual.
This theory seeks to incorporate biological methods of study in political theory. The State does not have a physical structure. The analogy may not hold good when we trace the origin of the State and the evolution of the individual. Many states may not evolve as a human body does. For example, many states may emerge out of empires and unlike an organism, growth, decline and death may not relate to the state. Barker remarks that ‘the State is not an organism, but it is like an organism’.101 Notwithstanding the fact that in contemporary times, this theory has not many followers or advocates, the Organismic view highlighted the requirement for unity of the state.
Leave a Reply