Chapter 10 deals with the origins of the state (or lack thereof). The first difficulty is giving a general definition for the state, which applies throughout history. At a nodal point of the argument, the authors unfortunately use a sleight of hand: after exposing the difficulties of such a definition, they conclude that many complex social and cultural systems existed in the absence of a state. This sounds like an ontological argument in reverse: "We cannot conceive of a state, so it must not exist".
They prefer instead to focus on three elementary forms of domination, de-emphasizing property rights, which are a "peculiarly Western phenomenon", but they still illustrate the three types of control (of violence, of information and individual charisma) on a case of private property. At any rate, they state that each of these forms has given rise to fundamental institutions of the modern state. Democracy (at least in its modern, representative form) cannot balance the domination institutions. Moreover, its competitive aspect has more in common with the archaic 'heroic societies' than with the ancient democracies, where public functions were assigned by lottery.
We finally get to the definition of the modern state: "a combination of sovereignty, bureaucracy and a competitive political field" each item corresponding to one of the forms of domination above. [I do not understand the use of super- and inter-statal institutions (EU, WTO, IMF etc.) as counterexamples, i.e. bureaucracies without sovereignty. They only get their authority from sovereign states, through well-defined mechanisms, not by any independent process.] This ternary framework is used to understand both history and other people's reading of it. The discussion is rather long, so I'll only list a few salient points for each example.
At the arrival of the conquistadors, America was the scene of two highly centralized states: the Aztec Empire (an aristocratic confederation) and the Inca Empire (where the king concentrated all authority). Both were easily taken over by the invaders once the center of power was captured. In contrast, the Mayan territories were divided between various regional structures, and thus much more resilient against invasion. Women played a more important role than in the two former civilizations.
Warning against reading the history of other societies through a Western grid and dismissing periods (or territories) without identifiable central rulers as insignificant or chaotic. On the contrary, focusing on these in-between times and places can help understand some "anomalous" cases of societies based almost exclusively on one of the three forms of domination:
We finally get to the definition of the modern state: "a combination of sovereignty, bureaucracy and a competitive political field" each item corresponding to one of the forms of domination above. [I do not understand the use of super- and inter-statal institutions (EU, WTO, IMF etc.) as counterexamples, i.e. bureaucracies without sovereignty. They only get their authority from sovereign states, through well-defined mechanisms, not by any independent process.] This ternary framework is used to understand both history and other people's reading of it. The discussion is rather long, so I'll only list a few salient points for each example.
At the arrival of the conquistadors, America was the scene of two highly centralized states: the Aztec Empire (an aristocratic confederation) and the Inca Empire (where the king concentrated all authority). Both were easily taken over by the invaders once the center of power was captured. In contrast, the Mayan territories were divided between various regional structures, and thus much more resilient against invasion. Women played a more important role than in the two former civilizations.
Warning against reading the history of other societies through a Western grid and dismissing periods (or territories) without identifiable central rulers as insignificant or chaotic. On the contrary, focusing on these in-between times and places can help understand some "anomalous" cases of societies based almost exclusively on one of the three forms of domination:
- The Olmecs (predecessors of all later Central Americal civilizations) were ruled by elites, but the latter's power was mostly cultural and centered around games (personal charisma).
- The Chavín de Huántar Peruvian civilization (before the Incas) used elaborate art to describe shamanic, mescaline-induced journeys. It maintained its power by control over some esoteric knowledge.
- The Natchez tribe, in 18th century Louisiana, was organized around the strong (albeit narrowly localized) personal monopoly on violence of the king.
Ancient Egypt is closer to what we would nowadays call a "state". It shares with other early kingdoms the presence of human sacrifices after the death of a ruler, highlighting the connection between violence and kinship that has an important role in establishing the hierarchy. Like Mesopotamia, Maya or China, it combined two of the three forms of domination (although which two specifically changes from state to state.) In Egypt, it was the first two principles, seemingly confirming accepted theories of social evolution: scale engenders leaders and bureaucracy. However, the first systems of administrative control appeared very early (c. 6000 BC) and in much smaller settlements (around 150 people) in the Middle East. [I am not sure this proves what the authors hope it would: size could be sufficient, but not necessary for the emergence of bureaucracy.]
I will not try to summarize the last part of the Chapter, which is a rather confusing summary of the above, interrupted by a discussion of Minoan Crete. I may still do this later...
Chapter 11: TO DO
No comments:
Post a Comment