Through political science, philosophy and academia in general, there is always talk about “the state.”* I not talking about sub-state entities, in countries such as the United States, which are referred to, confusingly enough, as “states.” This article aims to define what a state is, despite the fact that the definition itself is highly debated, and to ask if a state can really ever be neutral.
In 1918, sociologist Max Weber defined a state as a “human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory,” which such force only occurring to the extent “to which the state permits it” and that such an entity is “considered the sole source of the ‘right’ to use violence.”[1] In my view, this definition it is a bit too confusing with the word “human community” as that could include organizations that aren’t really states, but it is a good start. Omali Geshitela, a black nationalist, clarifies the definition a little bit, saying that a state is simply organized bureaucracy, the police department, the army, the navy, the prison system, and the courts.[1] This falls in line with one of the definitions provided by Black’s Law Dictionary which asserts that a state is “the system of rules by which jurisdiction and authority are exercised over such a body of people” rather than a definition saying that the political system is a ‘state,’ since that would be referring to the international level. [2]
Now, that it is clear that the state is referring to a “system of rules” and “organized bureaucracy,” it is clear to distinguish this from a government. As Peter C. Lloyd writes, a government is simply the “expression of interests or demands…making of policy decisions, laws, or orders…putting into effect or administration of those decisions…[and] adjudication of disputes that arise over the implementation of those decisions.” [3] This definition falls in line with the idealized role of government, which is that the government will act as a mediator of conflicts in society and that decisions will be made by small groups of people in the said government. [4] Black’s Law Dictionary‘s definition shows that a government is simply part of the state, as it determines how a state (or organization) is regulated; which a government is an organization through which “a body of people exercises political authority,” is an expression of “sovereign power” or can narrowly refer to the executive branch of the government [5]
To sum this up, when someone refers to the state (i.e. “smash the state!”) they are talking about the system of rules and organized bureaucracy, while reference to the government is more contextual, but usually it refers to an organization where political authority and sovereign power is exercised and expressed. Interestingly, this also means that one could advocate for the end of a state, but still support the creation of a government, since the two do not necessarily have to be connected.
Now onto the big question of them all: is the state neutral? As Valerie Bryson points out, radical critics believe that “the state is not neutral between competing groups in society, but is structured around class and/or male interests” leading to a patriarchal state. [6] To be more specific, some critics see the state as a “reflection or instrument of prevailing patriarchal or capitalist class interests” while some radical feminists see the state as an “arena of conflict which may be systematically biased against women.” [7] In my view, these critics are definitely right. There is no doubt in my mind that the state serves certain interests, as governments currently do, in general. However, I would say that states can be progressive and on the side of people, as seen with Latin American states and numerous others outside American imperial control.
Sheldon Wolin brings up a great point about states, writing again about the interconnected nature of corporations and the American state. He writes that after World War II, there was “increasingly open cohabitaton between corporation and state” with both of them becoming the “main sponsors and coordinators of the powers represented by science and technology.” [8] Wolin later writes that what seems like reductions in state power “are actually increases” and that the incorporation of state and corporate power “need not always require…that corporate representatives [engage] in policymaking” but it is exercised in certain contexts. [9] This policymaking apparatus, which the public has little say in, especially in rich industrialized states, is not part of the government, it is part of the state. Coming back to Wolin, throughout his book, writes about the union, partnership, merger and joining of corporate and state power on numerous occasions. [10]
Such a merger of corporate and state power is expanded greatly by Michael Parenti. In his book, Parenti argues that the state is a force for corporate America, writing that: “the state is more than a front for the economic interests it serves; it is the single most important force that Corporate America has at its command.” [11] This means that Maureen Webb’s argument that globalized surveillance would lead the corporate sector to become an “agent of the state” is wholly misguided and just wrong [12] Parenti later writes that “behind the corporation stands the organized power of the state,” that corporations “can call on resources of the state” and that the state “is not merely a puppet of the capitalist class” since it must, in order to fulfill its “task of bolstering the capitalist system…must sometimes resist particular corporate interests.” [13]
Other than a state being skewed to capitalist and patriarchal interests, there are a number of other interests that must be put into consideration. These include race-based and class interests. State policies are definitely skewed, in general, to support those of a higher class (the rich) and of a certain race (white people). Additionally, there is the idea of a “straight state” which is that, at least for the US, homosexuality and citizenship were a “type of status…configured…[and] conferred…by the state,” with ‘the closet’ serving as a “deliberate state strategy.” [14] Another way of taking the term “straight state” is different, but still important: the idea that the state serves the interests of straight people above those who are gay, bisexual, trans* and non-binary.
I know that this article does not cover everything about the state, but hopefully it makes one think about the faux-neutrality of a state. Lest us forget that for liberalism, the state’s “primary and legitimate function is “to protect its members from dangers” outside its borders and “to secure citizen’s rights within” the said states. [15] To be clear, I am critical of state power, especially when it overreaches, but I still feel there is a need for state intervention, but that could change in the future. I end with a quote by French philosopher Simone Weil in February 1945, which I think is very powerful since I’m still grappling with its implications:
“Whether the mask is labelled Fascism, Democracy or Dictatorship of the Proletariat, our great adversary remains the Apparatus [the State]—the bureaucracy, the police, the military. Not the one facing us across the frontier of the battlelines, which is not so much our enemy as out brother’s enemy, but the one that calls itself our protection and makes us its slaves. No matter what the circumstances, the worst betrayal will always be to subordinate ourselves to this Apparatus [the State], and to trample under foot, in its service, all human values in ourselves and others.” [16]
Notes:
* For examples of this, see here, here, here, here, here, and here. I agree with what Canaday writes in pages 4-5 of her book, The Straight State, noting that conceiving the state as Wendy Brown does (“not a thing, a system, or a subject”) is appreciated, but it is “hardly a clear recipe for historical research” and that a state is what officials, such as “top decision-makers…[and] bureaucrats at all levels” do.
[1] See pages 1-2 of my paper titled ‘Mexico: A State in Crisis‘
[2] Gardner, Bryan A. 2006. Black’s Law Dictionary (Third Pocket Edition). 672. St. Paul, MN: Thomson West.
[3] Lloyd, Peter C. 1968. Political Systems and the Distribution of Power. 72. London: Tavisock Publications Limited.
[4] Parenti, Michael. 1983. Democracy For The Few (Fourth Edition). 1-2. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
[5] Gardner, 316.
[6] Bryson, Valerie. 2003. Feminist Political Theory: An Introduction(Second Edition). 153. London: Palgrave Macmillian.
[7] Ibid, 93, 196.
[8] Wolin, Sheldon. 2008. Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism. xxvii. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[9] Ibid, 58.
[10] Ibid, 63, 67, 92, 112, 135, 143, 195, 200, 238, 284.
[11] Parenti, 341.
[12] Webb, Maureen. 2007.Illusions of Security: Global Surveillance and Democracy in the Post-9/11 World. 107. San Francisco: City Lights. See my article titled ‘Fareed Zakeria’s False narrative and mass surveillance‘ where I also talk about Maureen Webb’s book.
[13] Parenti, 342.
[14] Canaday, Margot. 2009. The Straight State: Sexuality and Citizenship in Twentieth-Century America. 255-6. Princeton: Princeton University Press. When I originally wrote this article, I missed that on page 6 of the book, Canaday clearly defined what she meant by a straight state, writing that:
“The state does not just direct policy at its subjects [rather] various state arenas are themselves sites of contest over sex/gender norms, and therefore structured by those norms. This is, in large measure, what it means to say that we have a “straight state.””
[15] Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Modernity. 145. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
[16] Wittner, Lawrence S. Rebels Against War: The American Peace Movement, 1941-1960. 95. New York: Columbia University Press, 1969.
ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.
Donate