Peace lily went on, 'In a prison cell, two prisoners were having a conversation. The senior—who spend longer in prison—gave advice to the junior one—who recently enter into the prison, 'My first advice,' said the senior, 'there are only two rules in this prison, mate. Are you listening to me? One: You do not write on the walls. Two: You obey all the rules.''And my second advice, 'You cannot make a man by standing a sheep on its hind legs. But by standing a flock of sheep in that position you can make a crowd of men.'Then peace lily proceeded, 'Our investor asked the minister, 'State ... tell me Mr. Minister, why does state exist?''At first, historically, there were colonies, when these colonies decided to unite, so there existed a state,' the minister replied. 'In recent years, there are increasing prominence of writings on the theories and structure of the state. Yet, such views are highly diverse and conflicting regarding the main features of the roles and functions of the state. Indeed, there is not even a universally agreed definition of the meaning of the concept.According to James McAuley, one feature on which there has been agreement, is the importance of the state, which, by the nineteenth century, had become the key political actor in most developed countries. At its peak in the United Kingdom, the state promised to intervene directly to provide care and support for its citizens from cradle to grave. Over the past 30 years, however, the ideology, nature and forms of state intervention have changed dramatically.Central developments have featured a ‘hollowing out’ of state powers, in a whole series of moves towards more regulatory and less interventionist roles for the state. This has taken place against a background of increasing privatization and market liberalization.It is possible to conceive of the state in two main ways. First, as the apparatus of rule of government within a particular geographical area; and secondly, as the social system that is subject to a particular set of rules or domination. Although Hall and Ilkenberry confirm that there is much disagreement, they suggest a composite definition of the state would include three main features. A set of institutions staffed by the state’s own personnel, at the centre of a geographically bounded territory, where the state has a monopoly over rulemaking.Despite the difficulties in reaching any agreement on a definition of the state, one thing is clear, that the state has a direct influence on all our lives. Importantly, through its key institutions, we as individuals often feel that we experience the modern state in a way that is very different from other institutions in our society. As opposed to the somewhat nebulous and sometimes shadowy concept of the state, the family, for example, is often seen as a much more direct part of our experience. We feel we know about it at first hand. We can all offer some ‘commonsense’ definition of what the family is, or at least what it should be. Most feel that they are in a position to comment on the relationships within the family, and the functions and roles it should perform. This is not so as far as the state is concerned. Most often the state is seen as highly abstracted, or at the commonsense level as something separated from everyday life, which sets about imposing its will from above through a detached and inaccessible bureaucracy.The state may not necessarily take on an overt interventionist role to enforce its desires, however. Rather, it plays a crucial role in determining what is, and importantly, what is not, socially acceptable behaviour. The state, however, still largely ‘frowns’ upon other forms of alternative living. The state can also sometimes, directly use the force of law to support its views. More broadly, the social security system, tax system, financial benefits and agencies of social intervention remain structured by a dominant view. The state also seeks to identify ideologically what is and what is not political. This is done in part at least, by defining what is deemed legitimate and what illegitimate, what is legal and what illegal, those who are ‘deserving’ and ‘undeserving’. Most crucially, it occurs by defining what is properly seen to be in the public domain and what in the private.States are immaterial and nonphysical social objects, state can exist without societies, since it is a mere construct. There are, however, also societies within which the state is not highly developed. Indeed, there are even a few societies that it may be reasonable to refer to as ‘stateless’. The Nuer of southern Sudan and the Jale of the highlands of New Guinea, are two examples of such societies. These are often based on hunter-gatherer economies and do not have the need to co ordinate large numbers of people, or control the use of stored resources, within a fixed territory. They therefore tend not to depend on central organizations or have a recognizable state organization. Likewise, small-scale agrarian societies, while often operating within a fixed geographical location, rarely have clearly demarcated boundaries or a clear political organization.Elsewhere, chiefdoms involve a ranking of people and a centralized authority. The chief is the inheritor of office, and performs a series of administrative roles: such as the distributor of resources, the arbiter of the legal system, and perhaps even religious functionary. It is also possible to find examples of non-industrialized societies where the concept of the state is somewhat more highly developed. Here, people are recognized as being a citizen of a territorially defined political unit, and status derived from lineage becomes less meaningful. State organization, as it does exist, surrounds the authority of central control, the co-ordination and structuring of different social groups, for example, slaves, bureaucrats, priests and politicians.The state itself has, of course, changed its form over time. In Europe, the embryonic nation-state emerged from around the fifteenth century, and largely achieved a full-blown form by the nineteenth century. The nation-state that has emanated since then largely consists of a ‘people’ or ‘peoples’, expressing their right to self-determination, and within a ‘sovereign’ territory. Further, they claim the right to defend specific geographical boundaries against real or imaginary aggressors, irrespective of the persons who actually govern them. Moreover, within the modern nation-state, a government is seen to have authority over the area and is the ultimate power within it. The modern nation-state marks the replacement of absolutist rulers by a set of rules administered by a state-organized bureaucracy. It is in this that the state is seen to achieve legitimacy.The state is relatively new in human terms, and the nation-state even more so. Its original form was primarily that of the ancient empire, the Assyrian, Egyptian, Minoan, Mycenean, Macedonian, being clear examples, or the city-state as demonstrated by the regimes in Babylon, Athens, Sparta and Rome.The development of the state coincides with the development of other crucial social phenomena. These include written language, the growth of the centralized management of surplus economic production, in the shape of taxation and the use of organized ‘legitimate’ state forces to guard against internal threat and external enemies. Also important in the development of the mentiones states was that they had a centralized belief system or ideology, usually in the form of a state religion. Their leaders were invested either with god-like status, or with the power of the gods as their agents. Often the earliest state managers were priests in states based on theodicy.In every society, individuals become acquainted with a political system in ways that often structure their reaction to political events and their perception of what politics is about. People, in this sense, have, at some level, to ‘learn’ what political issues and politics are. Most people live their lives sticking to their own political ideology, their own set of values, of understandings and beliefs. This is, of course, usually inconsistent over time, made up of a mixture of self-interest, self-evident ‘truths’, inconsistent or partially understood ideology, personalized reference points, life history experiences and interactions with other ‘politically’ motivated individuals, organizations and groups.One important starting point is the consideration of just how in any given society individuals learn what is, and what is not, political. Likewise, people must also come to understand what is, and what is not, of political relevance and importance at any particular time.One important starting point is the consideration of just how in any given society individuals learn what is, and what is not, political. Likewise, people must also come to understand what is, and what is not, of political relevance and importance at any particular time.Within our society, power exists in many forms and on many levels. Hence, Anthony Giddens argues that power can be seen as a transforming capacity in all humans. It allows people to intervene in a variety of events throughout the world in order to alter them. However, in trying to develop a sociological concept of power, we must also recognize that the actions of human agents manifest in very different figurations of social relations. This leads us directly to consider the ultimate importance of the concept of power.Michael Mann suggests that power emerges constantly in human societies. He further identifies four organizational sources of power as follows: Ideological Power, which emerges from the fact that humans seek to operate in terms of meanings, norms and rituals. It is ideologies that meet these needs. As such, ideological power can be ‘transcendent’, standing apart from society in a sacred way, such as religion, or ‘immanent’, dispersed through society by group cohesion and a sense of shared membership;Economic Power, which derives from production, distribution, exchange and consumption. It is best expressed through a class structure.Military Power from competition for physical survival. It produces direct control within a concentrated centre and the effect of indirect coercion on surrounding areas.Political Power, which comes from the control of a physical territory and its population by a centrally administered regulation, concentrated in the state.So, it can therefore be reasonably claimed that all modern states are nation-states, with distinct political apparatuses, holding supreme jurisdiction over a demarcated territorial area, backed by a claim to a monopoly of coercive power, and enjoying a minimum level of loyalty from its citizens.A further defining characteristic of the nation-state is that most of those living within its boundaries and structured by its political system are citizens of that state, with rights and duties directly relevant to that state. Finally, modern nation-states are often directly associated with the wider concept of ‘nationalism’. The two are, however, by no means synonymous.Clearly, not only do people recognize the state, they also ‘believe’ in it and see it as having ‘legitimate’ roles in their everyday lives. Most accept its right, albeit sometimes reluctantly, to structure and restrain their day-to-day existence. The majority respects at least some of its institutions: the Government; Parliament; the Law Courts; the Police; and the Military. Most are aware that they no longer live under the rule of all-powerful sovereigns, rather that they inhabit nation-states within which law and order and politics have become highly specialized endeavours. Politicians, for example, periodically offer themselves to gain popular support for the right to control public policy and the nation’s strategy and resources. Police forces and the military are authorized by the state to use force to maintain internal order and protect state boundaries from external threat.'""Perhaps," Peace Lily was about to end the story, 'discussion between our investors and the minister is still long, both openly and secretly. But, let's finish the story about them and allow me to tell you what Robert Nozick argued, that, without states, we would have Mafia like gangs trying to extort 'protection' money from everybody. Eventually, one gang would be one dominant and suppress all the competing gangs. It would establishing a monopoly on the use of violence to compel obedience. Isn't it dangerous? And Allah knows best.'"Dawn had arrived, she brought three paintings, the first one was a white horse with all its burden; the second was a classic road racing bike with all its rigid rules; and the last one, was a unique painting sketch, a Vespa scooter with its wit and smile. Time to leave, Peace Lily and Wulandari were saying TaTa to each other, they both then sang Enya's song,One by one, my leaves fallOne by one, my tales are toldMy oh my! She was aiming too high ****)
Citations & References:
- Shankar IAS Academy, Environment, 2018, Shankar IAS Academy Book Publications.
- Richard P.F. Holt, Steven Pressman, and Clive L. Spash (Ed.), Post Keynesian and Ecological Economics: Confronting Environmental Issues, 2009, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited
- Ian L. Pepper, Charles P. Gerba, Mark L. Brusseau (Ed.), Environmental Pollution Science, 2006, Elsevier
- Daniel J. Phaneuf & Till Requate, A Course in Environmental Economics: Theory, Policy and Practice, 2016, Cambridge University Press.
- S.A. Smith, The Oxford Handbook of the History of Communism, 2014, Oxford University Press
- Robert Service, Comrades! A History of World Communism, 2007, Harvard University Press
- David Levinson (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Homelessness Vol. 1 & 2, 2004, Sage Publications
- Katherine Brickel, Melissa Fernández Arrigoitia and Alexander Vasudevan (Ed.), Geographies of Forced Eviction: Dispossession, Violence, Resistance, 2017, Palgrave
- Megan Ravenhill, The Culture of Homelessness, 2008, Ashgate
- James W. McAuley, An Introduction to Politics, State and Society, 2003, Sage Publications
- Robert Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, 2013, Basic Books
*) "Lestari Alamku" written by Gombloh
**) "Willy" written by Iwan Fals
***) "Spectre" written by Jesper Borgen, Anders Froen, Tommy Laverdi, Gunnar Greve, Alan Olav Walker, Lars Kristian Rosness & Marcus Arnbekk
****) "One By One" written by Roma Ryan, Eithne Ni Bhraonain & Nicky Ryan
[Session 4]
[Session 1]
