Chapter 3: Politics and the State
Defining the state:
“A political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders, and
exercises authority through a set of permanent institutions”
‘State’ has been used to refer to many different things, and has been understood from 4 different
perspectives:
1. Idealist
- As made known by Hegel, who identified three ‘moments’ of social existence – family,
civil society and the state (“an ethical community underpinned by mutual sympathy”)
- This is critiqued for its reverence for the state and for its failure to distinguish between
institutions that are in the state and those outside the state
2. Functionalist
- Focuses on role or purpose of state institutions
- Central function of a state seen as the maintenance of social order
- This approach is adopted by neo-Marxists who see the state as a mechanism through
which class conflict is perpetuated
- Critique: any institution that maintains order (even family, media etc) can be seen as
part of the state
3. Organisational (the approach used by Heywood)
- Defines state as the apparatus of government in its broadest sense i.e. institutions that
are public and responsible for collective organisation of social existence
- This distinguishes clearly between state and civil society (“a private sphere of
autonomous groups and associations, independent from state or public authority”)
Within the organisational approach, there are 5 key features of the state:
1. Sovereignty
- States exercise absolute and unrestricted power, stands above all other associations and
groups in society
2. Recognisably ‘public’
- In contrast to ‘private’ institutions of civil society
- These public bodies are responsible for collective decision making, while private bodies
satisfy individual/small group interests
3. Legitimacy
- The state’s decisions are usually considered binding as they are claimed to be made in
the public interest, i.e. the public legitimises the state.
4. Instrument of domination
- State authority is backed up by coercion and has the monopoly on violence
5. Territory
- The state’s jurisdiction is geographically defined and encompasses all those who live
within its borders
4. International approach
, - Views the state as an actor on the world stage, the basic ‘unit’ of international politics
- Here, it both looks outwards (not included in the earlier definitions) and inwards
- Statehood also depends on formal recognition by other states, e.g. a criterion for being
part of the UN
The definition of a state by international law includes four features
- A defined territory
- A permanent population
- An effective government
- The capacity to enter into relations with other states
History of states:
- Emerged in 16th and 17th century Europe as a system of centralised rule that went above
all other institutions and groups
- The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 concluded the 30 Years’ War and established the
principle of territorial sovereignty, which formalised the modern notion of statehood
- Different reasons given for why the state was formed, some say it was for the ability to
fight wars (Tilly, 1975) and others say it was economic and related to the transition from
feudalism to capitalism (Marx, Engels).
- In the 19th century, the nation-state emerged – a sovereign political association within
which citizenship and nationality overlap, one nation within a single state
- This European concept of statehood spread to other continents, especially during
process of democratisation following WW2
Different theories of the state – a contested concept
- What is the nature of state power?
- Whose interests does the state represent?
Four contrasting theories of the state:
1. Pluralist state
- Rooted in liberalism and thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
- Belief that state acts as an ‘umpire’ in society
- Based on assumption of state neutrality – seen as impartial arbiter
- Hobbes and Locke looked at political obligation, the grounds on which the individual is
obliged to obey and respect the state. They argued that the state rose out of a voluntary
agreement (social contract) made by individuals that recognised the sovereign power
who would safeguard them from insecurity, disorder and brutality of the ‘state of
nature’ – without which individuals would live in chaos and danger
- Liberal theory – the state as a neutral umpire is capable of protecting groups and
individuals from encroachment on their rights by others
- Hobbes saw the need for an absolute and unlimited state, Locke defended a more
limited state that protects life, liberty and property
- Pluralism asserts that, within liberal democracies, power is widely and evenly dispersed.
State is not biased in any way. This is based on the assumptions that the state is
subordinate to government and that the democratic process is meaningful and effective,
responsive to public opinion
Defining the state:
“A political association that establishes sovereign jurisdiction within defined territorial borders, and
exercises authority through a set of permanent institutions”
‘State’ has been used to refer to many different things, and has been understood from 4 different
perspectives:
1. Idealist
- As made known by Hegel, who identified three ‘moments’ of social existence – family,
civil society and the state (“an ethical community underpinned by mutual sympathy”)
- This is critiqued for its reverence for the state and for its failure to distinguish between
institutions that are in the state and those outside the state
2. Functionalist
- Focuses on role or purpose of state institutions
- Central function of a state seen as the maintenance of social order
- This approach is adopted by neo-Marxists who see the state as a mechanism through
which class conflict is perpetuated
- Critique: any institution that maintains order (even family, media etc) can be seen as
part of the state
3. Organisational (the approach used by Heywood)
- Defines state as the apparatus of government in its broadest sense i.e. institutions that
are public and responsible for collective organisation of social existence
- This distinguishes clearly between state and civil society (“a private sphere of
autonomous groups and associations, independent from state or public authority”)
Within the organisational approach, there are 5 key features of the state:
1. Sovereignty
- States exercise absolute and unrestricted power, stands above all other associations and
groups in society
2. Recognisably ‘public’
- In contrast to ‘private’ institutions of civil society
- These public bodies are responsible for collective decision making, while private bodies
satisfy individual/small group interests
3. Legitimacy
- The state’s decisions are usually considered binding as they are claimed to be made in
the public interest, i.e. the public legitimises the state.
4. Instrument of domination
- State authority is backed up by coercion and has the monopoly on violence
5. Territory
- The state’s jurisdiction is geographically defined and encompasses all those who live
within its borders
4. International approach
, - Views the state as an actor on the world stage, the basic ‘unit’ of international politics
- Here, it both looks outwards (not included in the earlier definitions) and inwards
- Statehood also depends on formal recognition by other states, e.g. a criterion for being
part of the UN
The definition of a state by international law includes four features
- A defined territory
- A permanent population
- An effective government
- The capacity to enter into relations with other states
History of states:
- Emerged in 16th and 17th century Europe as a system of centralised rule that went above
all other institutions and groups
- The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 concluded the 30 Years’ War and established the
principle of territorial sovereignty, which formalised the modern notion of statehood
- Different reasons given for why the state was formed, some say it was for the ability to
fight wars (Tilly, 1975) and others say it was economic and related to the transition from
feudalism to capitalism (Marx, Engels).
- In the 19th century, the nation-state emerged – a sovereign political association within
which citizenship and nationality overlap, one nation within a single state
- This European concept of statehood spread to other continents, especially during
process of democratisation following WW2
Different theories of the state – a contested concept
- What is the nature of state power?
- Whose interests does the state represent?
Four contrasting theories of the state:
1. Pluralist state
- Rooted in liberalism and thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
- Belief that state acts as an ‘umpire’ in society
- Based on assumption of state neutrality – seen as impartial arbiter
- Hobbes and Locke looked at political obligation, the grounds on which the individual is
obliged to obey and respect the state. They argued that the state rose out of a voluntary
agreement (social contract) made by individuals that recognised the sovereign power
who would safeguard them from insecurity, disorder and brutality of the ‘state of
nature’ – without which individuals would live in chaos and danger
- Liberal theory – the state as a neutral umpire is capable of protecting groups and
individuals from encroachment on their rights by others
- Hobbes saw the need for an absolute and unlimited state, Locke defended a more
limited state that protects life, liberty and property
- Pluralism asserts that, within liberal democracies, power is widely and evenly dispersed.
State is not biased in any way. This is based on the assumptions that the state is
subordinate to government and that the democratic process is meaningful and effective,
responsive to public opinion
