Understanding the state in contemporary society

Understanding the state in contemporary society


Introduction

The aim of this blog is to look at the concept of the nation-state in contemporary society. Before doing so, I want to remind us of the definition of society that we have been using:

A social system made up of many smaller parts or institutions (including the family, the church, prisons, schools and social groups) living and working together in the pursuit of both self-interest and social harmony.

Society is made up of both its parts and the way that these parts are put together and organised. Therefore, it comprises of both organisations and social relations.

Probably one of the organisations in our modern lives is the ’state’: it is how we define ourselves; how we describe who we are (’I am an Australian’); we even claim our rights and the responsibilities we carry in terms of the state. It is linked with the quality of our lives (compare our lives to those people living in Zimbabwe), our identity and the daily interactions we have with both others and institutions (the laws of the land, bureaucracies and so on).

So, it is for this reason, the topic area of the state is one that crosses all academic fields and is an area that encroaches all dimensions of our lives: therefore, we cannot disconnect it from other aspects of our lives. This includes the fields of: politics (citizenship, immigration, law and order); economics; health and welfare; education; and as I mentioned above, identity.

Before proceeding, however, it is important to remember that ’states’ are not natural – they too are socially constructed. That is, the boundaries that define different states have been constructed over centuries of conflict, wars and negotiations. Political boundaries as we now them, have only come into existence over the last few hundred years – they are determined by humans and can and do change. East Timor, for example, went from being a Portuguese outpost, to a sovereign state, to being part of Indonesia to a sovereign state again: all in the space of a few decades.

Many academics have asserted that the international system of states, multinational corporations and organizations that exists today began in 1648 at the Peace of Westphalia – though many still dispute this.


Understanding the state

It is important to distinguish the nation and the state – but before doing so, I want to emphasise that, because of the above reason, we need to look at the state in a holistic manner considering the political institution, the nation and its society within a global manner.

Particularly in a time of globalisation, the state is not insulated from other parts of the world. The autonomy of the state is affected in many ways and by various global forces. While the state has borders, many global forces do not (for example environmental problems, terrorism and kinship networks)

Therefore, while Australia maybe an island geographically, it is not isolated from what is happening around the world. Even looking at today’s newspaper, you can see how international events are impacting on Australia: the global financial crisis, the swine flu pandemic the fact that Channel 10 may cancel the Simpsons because the producers are asking too much money!

There is an important distinction between the nation and the state that must be understood.

The state – like the term country – is a political institution that claims sovereignty over a given territory. Within this territory, the state has a monopoly over the use of force and attempts to control and define power. While defined by borders, the state’s territory can always be breached in both major ways (such as invasion) and minor ways (such as refugees arriving).

As a political institution it is ruled by bureaucracies and laws – which intertwine. Think of how passports are both bureaucratic and legal instruments: you need one to travel and to get pass border control. If you do not do this, you will be delayed. If you cross borders without one, then you will be arrested.

In contrast, the nation is culturally defined. It is a community of people who claim to have a common culture. Therefore, while the state is a political grouping, the nation is a cultural grouping. So we have Greece as a state – but the nation of Greeks can extend to many different parts of the globe. This is the same when we hear the term ’The nation of Islam’ – this is not a country but a cultural grouping.

Importantly, we need to also understand that this is not a homogenous grouping – there are a wide variety of different groups represented within the nation of Islam – so even the term ’nation’ can be seen as somewhat problematic.

People living in a state may share a common citizenship but have very little else in common: think about the many different ways that Australians would spend the Easter weekend: for some Easter is a religious festival, for others it is nothing more than an excuse to party hard. Even for those who see it as a religious festival, the type of ceremony followed, the language spoken and the way it was spent all vary considerably.

We must remember that no state is uni-cultural: even the most homogenous states such as Japan have diversity (including the very different culture from Okinawa). In this way, all states have multiple nations inside them. Therefore, we can think of multi-cultural as meaning one state containing many nations.

The political institution of the state comes into existence through a constitution. Interestingly, the Australian constitution does not recognise our rights as citizens but depends on the law courts and judgements. In contrast, states like the USA build their citizenship rights into the constitution


An imagined community


Despite not really having anything in common except a shared citizenry, we imagine that we are a ’national’ community and all have something in common. So we see Grant Hackett or Ricky Ponting on television and we feel an affinity towards him for no other reason than he is Australian.

This is a process that has seen the state described as an ’imagined community.’ This concept of imagined community is an important one and was originally discussed by Benedict Anderson (1991).

Benedict Anderson defined a state as "an imagined political community [that is] imagined as both inherently limited and sovereign". This imagined community should be seed as different from an actual community because it cannot be based on face-to-face interactions between its members. Rather, we imagine an affinity based around some shared values. Therefore, according to Anderson, a state:

…is imagined because the members of even the smallest nation will never know most of their fellow-members, meet them, or even hear of them, yet in the minds of each lives the image of their communion.

These communities are imagined as both limited and sovereign. That is, they are limited in that they are seen to have "…finite, if elastic boundaries, beyond which lie other nations." They are sovereign insofar as no monarchy can claim authority over them – an idea arising because of modernity:

...the concept was born in an age in which Enlightenment and Revolution were destroying the legitimacy of the divinely-ordained, hierarchical dynastic realm. Coming to maturity at a stage of human history when even the most devout adherents of any universal religion were inescapably confronted with the living pluralism of such religions, and the [direct relationship] between each faith’s ontological claims and territorial stretch, nations dream of being free, and, if under God, directly so. The gage and emblem of this freedom is the sovereign state. (pp. 6-7)

Finally, a nation is an imagined community because "regardless of the actual inequality and exploitation that may prevail in each, the nation is always conceived as a deep, horizontal comradeship. Ultimately it is this fraternity that makes it possible, over the past two centuries, for so many millions of people, not so much to kill, as willingly to die for such limited imaginings."

According to Anderson, creation of imagined communities became possible because of ’print-capitalism’. That is, capitalist entrepreneurs printed their books and media in the ’national’ dialect rather than exclusive languages such as Latin in order to maximize circulation. As a result, readers speaking various local dialects became able to understand each other, and a common discourse emerged. Anderson argued that the first European nation-states were thus formed around their "national print-languages."


The state and government


There is a need to make a distinction between the state and government: governments come and go, but the political institution of the state remains. So when Kevin Rudd replaced John Howard as Prime Minister, but the political institution of the state remained the same.

The state exercises power through different organs including:
• Executive power (government, military, police, prisons and public bureaucracies)
• Legislative power (parliaments which pass laws) and
• Judicial power (courts which pass judgements and set precedents)

It is easy to see how the state through all these dimensions can regulate all aspects of our lives.


The state and power


Importantly, you also cannot disconnect the state from politics: because politics is all about relations of power. Here we must consider the nature of power and how it is distributed between a centralised institution called the state and the rest of us.

Consequently, citizens must always remain vigilant to ensure that their rights are not impinged upon: we must constantly consider whose interests are being represented. So when we see changes to laws, we must consider who do they benefit? Do they reinforce or challenge current power structures? What are the long-term consequences of these changes?

There are many critics that raise concerns about the ways states exercise power both within and outside their borders, while others believe that the state should have a greater role in our lives. Many see that the role of the state should be somewhere in the middle: involved in the public sphere but leaving the private sphere to individuals

Out of the major supporters and critics, three broad theories have emerged:
• Liberal: where the bed is neutral and works on consensus. The state is seen as being the only legitimate power and without it you have anarchy
• Pluralist: again the state is seen as neutral. The state is also independent and it mediates between different groups as a plurality of competing interests emerge
• Marxist: here the state is seen to exist only to protect the interests of capitalists and is in constant struggle between the capitalists and workers


Conclusion


The state is a key element of modernity: never before in history have sovereign lines described as border been such an important element of the global landscape. Today we see barbed wire between states and the rights of citizenship clearly protected.

However, we cannot think of the state as something separated from social, political and economic processes: all these influence the state dramatically. In this way, the power that the state distributes should not be seen as neutral but may be considered as cementing and promoting certain powerful interests. Consequently, we must remain vigilant and always be prepared to challenge its authority – ensuring it remains a servant of the people.

We will return to the issues of the state when we discuss globalisation: the question that many have asked is whether the processes of globalisation are eroding state sovereignty and what the implications are: does it benefit us or detract from the quality of our lives.


References
Anderson, B. (2006/1991) Imagined Communities, New, London, New York: Verso
Arvanitakis, J. (2009) Contemporary Society, OUP, Melbourne