We begin this presentation with some questions: Why the State? What purpose does the state serve? What conditions would seem to make the state necessary? You might want to make some notes and answers to these questions for yourself at this time and then see where you match up with the points presented in both the text and these notes.
These are the questions we attempt to answer in this section of the course. I start with two very general ideas about communities and resources. The first of these is derived from the Ecological analysis of Garrett Hardin -- the Tragedy of the Commons. The second is developed from the work the anthropologist Robert Carniero -- Scarcity of resources.
This concept was originally proposed by Garrett Hardin. The commons is an English tradition carried over to New England. It holds over from the feudal past, from the era of yeoman and peasant in England. The commons was just that -- common ground held by the village for the benefit of the entire community. Since the ground is collectively held all are responsible for its use and maintenance, but no one is specifically responsible. It is also the case that one can use the commons to its fullest without bearing any cost for that use (any contemporary situations of that type? How about our air, public lands, rivers?). The tragedy, according to Hardin, occurs when the land is overused as each seeks to maximize his own profit from it and at no direct cost to himself.
I found a link to a Multi-User Domain where you can play a Tragedy of the Commons Game. You may wish to check this out. Let me know what you think of the game. The game is explained on one page and played on another.
The Tragedy of the Commons game was presented by Oliver Holle and Markus Knell as a computer tournament at the SASE-Conference on Complex Modelling for Socio-Economic System, Vienna, March 21-23, 1996, at the IHS (Institut for Advanved Studies), 1060 Wien, Stumperg. 56.
See notes at end for additional sources.
Stark describes in some detail the laboratory demonstration by Messick et al. You should read this carefully as it suggests why and possibly how the state may have come into existence. Note especially how the selection of leaders changed the exploitation of the commons but also affected the distribution of the 'wealth' in the experimental community.
The next section suggests another, related way in which the state comes into existence.
Robert Carniero, an anthropologist, suggests that surpluses and the governments arise in human environments with marked differences in the resources that are available to human groups. The first condition is a plain in which the resources are unlimited and uniformly distributed. Under these circumstances, groups will produce only what they need to survive under comfortable conditions (something like the proverbial South Sea Island paradise). If in this situation any one person or group attempts to dominate, to control, the subjugated group simply packs up and moves off to a new locale where they can continue to live in the manner to which they have become accustomed. If growth is rapid enough, then the area at the center of the plain of uniform resources will become circumscribed, that is land (a major resource) will be in short supply. We will return to this condition later.
Now consider a situation in which the resources are limited or very unevenly distributed as might occur where there are river valleys running through desert country -- something like Western Colorado. It is not easy to get away from the controlling, dominating group. Usable land becomes scarce and the group's members are constantly arguing over use, access etc. Or better yet imagine that you live on the West Coast of South America where there are many steep river valleys that are fertile, but are interspersed in what is otherwise a desert. Under these conditions, it is difficult to survive or to escape from a controlling group. Carniero hypothesized that in these kinds of circumstances, the need to regulate and parcel out the use of land gave rise to power groups (governments). These governments then created surpluses that were used to enhance their power and to spread the control of the group to adjoining valleys and so on. In this manner societies as we know them today (what we have called civilizations) came into existence.
Interestingly enough, the world's first civilizations all arose in environments that meet the conditions put forward by Carniero: Egypt in the Nile Valley, the Mesopotamians in the Tigris / Euphrates Valleys (the so-called Fertile Crescent) and the Yellow (Yalu) River valley in China. The Aztec and Mayan cultures did not arise in desert surrounded river valleys, but they did arise where fertility and surplus were only created through central control and development of irrigation projects in an environment that was otherwise hostile to the people and their survival.
Consider these ideas in the context of what Stark says about the experiment based on the tragedy of the commons, and on the discussion by Mancur Olsen as to the necessity of the state. Share these with the rest of the class in the discussion topic: Tragedy of the commons.(See discussion thread for some suggested points to consider)
Note that in the situation of circumscribed resources that population size in relation to the available resources becomes critical. Once a population reaches a certain size in relation to these resources, the state seems to become a necessity (a functionalist argument). In addition to allocation of resources, size means increase in numbers that must be coordinated, it also means often diversity among the members of the society. In small communities people share experiences, they do much the same thing to obtain a living (survive), they know one another well, they are linked by kinship. Emile Durkheim described these kinds of societies as having a single collective conscience based on the shared experience. Where this collective conscience exists, deviance is low, each knows his or her place and the contribution expected of him or her to the community. Conflict is minimal since there are few resources to fight over, and there are virtually no differences among the members of the community.
Consider, for example, the Lakota Sioux as portrayed in Dances with Wolves. Note how decisions were made and by whom. There was no central government nor any permanent body of people who decided what would be done under any given set of circumstances. A Council was called together, the issue debated and the action decided upon.
When the community grows larger and encompasses people of different backgrounds they no longer all experience the same events and think alike, no longer are all people doing exactly the same kinds of things (with maybe a functional sexual division of labor). Complexity and size make it difficult to achieve consensus as was done among the Lakota Sioux on a regular basis. Not everyone is able to gain access to the resources necessary to maintain him or herself in the community or in the larger society. Certain things must be provided for -- the so-called public / collective goods and services:
Take a moment and jot down some examples of these kinds of services.
We will take the state to be the organized embodiment of the political decision making process. The state will have a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The state will also be expected to provide for the internal and external security of the members of the community or society. The state must also find some way to pay for the provision of these services -- thus taxes, i.e., a way in which the members of the community share the burden of providing the services. To help it achieve these ends the state will use force if necessary.
The state has the monopoly on the use of force and will use it to keep the members of the community in line, to maintain internal security. We are currently in a period when people are frightened of one another, especially people who are different from themselves -- in terms of class, of morals or whatever. Crime is seen as contributing to these fears and feelings of insecurity.
To compensate for the insecurity we seem to want to increase the use of force to maintain our own security. We want to lock up those people who seem not to want to obey the rules of the community. However, sometimes the application of that force leads directly to conflict within the community between groups of people -- often this conflict then leads to the additional application of force.
As I write these notes there have been a couple of incidents in Florida and in California that illustrate this point. In both, young men were detained by the police because they were doing something illegal. In both cases the communities to which the young men belonged felt the use of force was excessive and responded by turning out in numbers and attacking the police. This led to an increased application of force (more armed, riot squad policemen).
The summers of 1967 and 1968 saw such events occur with disastrous results in Detroit, Los Angeles, Chicago and other cities.
The Vietnam war brought out protesters that were stopped by police and National Guard units. The end result was finally the shooting of unarmed students at Kent State in 1972.
Force if repeatedly and inappropriately applied can lead to a weakening of respect for the state, often necessitating the increased application of force to maintain order. See the examples above of the United States during Vietnam era with President Nixon's use of force and the increased reaction to it, and the riots that occurred during the hot summers of the Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s.
In the United States our laws and the constitution carefully spell out the conditions under which force may be used. Our philosophy is rooted in two documents: The pre-amble to the Declaration of Independence; and the Constitution of the United States and its the Bill of Rights. These documents spell out this situation, i.e., when a people may use force for what purpose. These points are also brought up from time to time in memorial speeches: note also the closing comments in President Lincoln's Gettysburg address.
If the people subject to the power of the state see the use of force and of power as occurring legitimately, according to rules we all agree upon, then there will be little reaction to the force. If we do not, then there will be reaction to the force, even within an absolute dictatorship such as that represented by Stalin, Hitler, and others. Note that all of these dictators had to maintain constant surveillance and strong police forces to keep the people in line. As soon as any weakness showed, the people rebelled and replaced the repressive use of force with less repressive means of control.
Since the state has a monopoly on the use of force it is almost inevitable that the state (people in control of it) will use that force for their own ends unless otherwise checked. History is replete with examples of this kind of action. Such unrestrictive use of force and power will produce the repressive state.
As the harvesting experiment showed, and as has been demonstrated again and again in real situations, those with power will tend to use that power for their own ends. The force that is available to them will be used to put down otherwise peaceful demonstrations.
Consider what happened in Tien Amein square in China several years ago, consider what happened in Hungary in 1956, in Poland at the beginning of the Solidarity movement, in the Soviet Union in the spring of 1991, in Latvia, Estonia in the spring of 1991, in Bulgaria, Romania and Albania. In the American South in the 1960s, throughout the United States in the late 60s and early 70s (the Vietnam war years). In every instance force was used in an effort to maintain power and to control the expression of the people. And in nearly every instance that use of power backfired on those in power.
Take some time to make notes, answer this question, then come back to this outline. Make notes and put them in the discussion to share with others. Note what they have said and comment on that.
Laws and constitutions will help to delimit the power of the state. In our history the first such document to attempt this was the Magna Carta of 13th Century England.
A constitution and laws are not enough by themselves. The Philippines had a constitution guaranteeing democracy similar to that of the United States, but that did not stop Ferdinand Marcos, Chile has a constitution, but that did not stop Pinochet from taking over, China has a constitution but that did not prevent the central politburo from crushing the student demonstrations. The Soviet Union had a constitution but that did not stop Stalin and his successors.
In each of the above instances, the power of the state was used against the individuals and in contradiction of the constitution.
A constitution and laws by themselves are not enough to tame the state. Power must be dispersed among competing elites so that each keeps an eye on the other, keeps the other from getting too powerful or out of control. A problem in the Soviet Union was that there did not exist a powerful elite to control or offset the military and KGB who were threatened by the changes taking place in the Soviet Union. If there had been before the break up of the old Soviet Union, the military and KGB would have had to proceed much more slowly, they would have had to share power and decision making as they apparently did in Latvia.
In the United States powerful interests shift alliances as their interests shift. In this manner, groups have gained greater power and participation in the way the country is governed. Note that the Blacks could not have pulled off the Civil Rights movement without the help of powerful people and politicians in the North. Johnson sent the U.S troops into the South to guarantee admission to Alabama schools, federal troops were used to enforce civil rights throughout the country, as were the federal courts. Note that often it was the national guard troops of opposing state governors that was used to bring about this change.
Today we see a shift in the groups whose interests are being catered to. These shifts may threaten the privileges of many, but the threats will be blunted by the existence of competing groups with different interests that are as powerful as those in office.
Newt Gingrich and the (then) Republican Minority put together a 'Contract on America' to achieve some changes. This contract represents some radical changes in the way America does business -- politically and economically. The House passed many of these changes, but the entire process was slowed and nearly halted in the senate where a different powerful elite held sway.
Because of the existence of the equally powerful, competing elites, we are assured that the laws will be enforced and followed to some degree. The excesses are mitigated by the competing elites. But do notice that it is the interests of these elites that are served and in passing the interests of the people are sometimes served.
What do the power structures that underlie the state look like? Three important books in this area: C. Wright Mills, "The Power Elite" -- discusses national, international power structures; Floyd Hunter, "Community Power Structure," -- an analysis of power in Atlanta Georgia; and Robert Dahl, "Who governs here," -- analysis of power in New Haven Connecticut. Each of these social scientists attempted to answer the above question. Two of the books report on empirical examination of the evidence (Community Power and Who Governs), the other presents an extended essay presenting a plausible case for the national and international power structure.
The studies by Hunter and Dahl touched off a controversy that has not entirely been resolved. Hunter, a sociologist who believed in the existence of an elite, used a technique similar to socio-grams or networking to identify the power structure of Atlanta. He came up with an elite structure, a small group of "key influentials" that manipulated events and decisions behind the scenes. If a decision came to a vote in the community, it was only to ratify what had already been decided by this group. The group met in social clubs, board rooms or the traditional smoke filled back-rooms to decide the fate of many projects in Atlanta.
Robert Dahl ( a political scientist at Yale) took exception to this view of the power in the community. Using a different methodology, Dahl found a "pluralistic" power, decision making structure. He went to the newspapers, read the accounts of how important decisions were made in the community, looked at the groups that were involved and how the people were heard through these groups. His analysis clearly demonstrated that there were many groups involved in the decision making of the community. True there were elites at the top of each of several structures (education, business, city government, religion and special interests), but through these group structures the individual citizen had his or her influence on the decision. The final decision was also made in public votes on the issues.
These analyses demonstrate two diametrically opposed power structures in the community, each using a different method for identification of the structure. Robert Presthus ("Men at the Top") studied two communities in upstate New York using both techniques and found both types of power structure -- elitist in one community and pluralist in another (actually a combination in each, but with a greater tendency toward one or the other). The elitist power structure was found in a one industry dominated community, the pluralist power was in a community without that kind of domination.
I leave it to the reader to draw conclusions from this to the work of Dahl and Hunter. Note that one study takes place in the South, the other in New England. What are the political traditions in these parts of the United States? Until very recently, how many political parties existed in the South? Which one? Why?
Mills, in Power Elite, discusses the existence of the 'military- industrial complex,' a term coined by Dwight David Eisenhower when he left office. Mills argues that as we have become increasingly a managerial, corporate society. Individual autonomy has given way to control by elites in pan-national organizations. Decisions are not made, we drift into actions with no deliberate planning or participation of the electorate. Consider why we should have been involved in the Persian / Arabian Gulf, fighting to 'free' Kuwait. What interests of the people of the United States were at stake? I mean the PEOPLE, not corporate interests. Why did we go to war in Viet Nam? What National interest was at stake? Twenty years ago we left, the communists did indeed take over, but are we any worse off for it? Why do we become involved in Central America? Whose interests are we protecting in Guatemala, in Nicaragua? Why do the people of the Mexico and other central and Southern American states so distrust the U.S. government? Why have we not been actively involved in Boznia-Herzogovenia, and Croatia (we were not at the time this question was written!)? Who authorized the sale of arms to Iran, for what purpose? Is that in the interest of the PEOPLE of the United States?
In Power Elite and White Collar, Mills discusses how we have become separated from the decision making process and how many decisions reflect the interests of business and the military and not that of the ordinary person in the street. Read them, they are enlightening. As you read these works pay particular attention to his discussion of Publics and Masses and the change in the nature of the middle class in America. Consider whether or not the economic changes in the past two decades (the reported decline in the size and influence of the middle class) will have any political impact.
As the country has become larger, it has become increasingly difficult for everyone to participate in every decision, thus a representative democracy. (Some evidence suggests that there never has been complete absolute, one person, one vote democracy in the United States -- recall that the vote in the early 19th century was limited to people of means, people who owned property. Women and blacks were excluded. Until very recently -- mid '60's -- substantial numbers of people could not vote on school bond issues in Colorado because they did not own property that would be affected by the vote.)
Direct participation requires us to have the interest and information about the issues, very few of us have either. In the last congressional election many students that I talked with were not aware of the issues and did not care about them. They were not informed about the issues, did not understand them.
Interestingly enough the technology you use for this course may provide a means to change some of this. The internet bristles with political discussions. More and more members of Congress and the Senate are going 'online' to present their views to constituents and provide them with means to voice their opinions. It may become possible for us to feed votes directly to the members of Congress and the Senate instead of relying upon the political pollsters.
There are a number of different types of political / state structures around the world. The Western Industrial nations seem to be dominated by a form of free enterprise, modified capitalism (modified in that it is not entirely free market, these are carefully regulated sometimes for the benefit of the business and sometime for the benefit of the people). One or two have varying degrees of state socialism -- the Netherlands, Sweden and Great Britain, even Germany. Other non-Western societies have a form of more powerfully centralized state socialism, including Japan. Each of these has consequences for the businesses and the people who attempt to make the businesses go. What about the everyday life, the every person on the street? Does the kind of political structure make any difference? For whom? Discuss this, share your views with others in the class by placing them in the discussion topic: So What? (See discussion thread for suggestions.)
In this topic we have presented some of the thinking about the development and need for the state. Early human communities probably had no need for a separate formal state structure to make decisions and to resolve conflicts. As populations have grown, conflicts have increased and a need to resolve those conflicts (or to protect us from them) has arisen. The solution may have been the state. Once the state comes into existence there comes a need to make sure that it serves the needs of the groups and not those of privileged individuals. The progress of the political structure seems to have been the case of protecting us from these kinds of excesses.
Murdoch University, Australia provides links to additional original sources, including Hardin's 1968 article.
An example from the perspective of Systems Information Management group (computers).
| Unit 8: The Family | Unit 9: Religion and Religious Behavior | Unit 10: Politics, Power and the State | Unit 11: Work and Education |
| Topical Outline of Course | |||
Copyright © 1996, 1997 by Richard H. Anderson, the Department of Sociology and the University of Colorado at Denver.
This page last revised: April 09, 1999. Please contact Richard H. Anderson (randerso@carbon.cudenver.edu) if you experience any problems or have comments about these pages.