The State: meaning, definition and elements
State. A five-letter word. However, it represents more than it seems.
Introduction
Today, I want to speak to you about what the State is. Besides, I’m interested in discussing its main elements. To do this, I’m going to set out the most relevant theories and definitions of the State, and then I’ll put out my point of view on this. Later, I’ll analyze the main elements of the State.
I acknowledge this topic is complex and admits different perspectives. For this reason, I want to make some preliminary remarks about how I’m going to address it.
Preliminary clarifications
How can we study the State? In general, there are two different ways. One of them is in historical terms, namely, by addressing how the State has been throughout history. That involves the study of its formation, evolution, particularities, and so on. However, this perspective isn’t helpful insofar as it pays more attention to historical details and singularities of every case. That may end up being misleading.
Another approach is the normative one. It doesn’t care about what a State is, but what should it be. These theories set political projects and agendas about changes that people should implement to achieve the best form of State. This perspective turns out to be useless in terms of knowledge, and I’ll put it aside.
The third approach is conceptual, and it sets out different models of understanding this institution. It entails the classification of these interpretations and provides a general picture of the State. That’s going to be my approach by explaining the most relevant models and contributions.
Theories of the State
In general, there are three theories of the State that represent different conceptualizations of this institution. I refer to class, pluralist, and elitist theories. Although they are the most important, I want to add my perspective by setting forth what I have called the geopolitical approach.
The class theory
Most class theories have been Marxist. Indeed, Marx is the yardstick for these theories. He tended to reduce States to economic power relations. In his view, States are an epiphenomenon of the economy. The primary function of the State is to ensure the dominant mode of economic production and social hierarchies. There have been intense debates on how much autonomy the State has. Aside from these intellectual quarrels, we can claim that these theories consider the State an instrument, machinery that allows the ruling class to subdue the rest of the population and maintain its social privileges.
I don’t want to overlook those radical authors, such as Charles Wright Mills and William Domhoff. They adopted an empiricist perspective in their study of the State. They considered it a less unified entity, composed of diverse institutions and branches colonized by power elites and class fractions. They are an exception in this school of thought because most class theorists consider the State a passive and unitary institution. The modes of economic production define the State because it is largely the central politicized place of capitalist society. Therefore, the State reproduces the cohesion of the modes of economic production and their systemic contradictions.
The pluralist theory
The pluralist theory, nevertheless, focuses on explaining only modern democratic States. In this respect, its scope is limited, as well as its explanatory power. In this perspective, modernization represents a shift in political power from kings to people. It was a troubled process that entailed the institutionalization of protests against the king by widening political participation. That meant the emergence of parties and pressure groups representing a plurality of interests in society. The combination of contestation and participation led to the formation of genuine democracy, or a polyarchy, as Robert Dahl called it.
In this model, parties represent the interests of individual citizens, and classes are merely one among many interest groups. These groups don’t have equal powers, and they get involved in the competition to achieve more influence in institutions and advance their interests. So, in this view, the State has no autonomous power because it is ultimately a place, not an actor. Hence, party and pressure group politics radiate inward to control the State. Besides this, this theory regards the State as unitary and systemic insofar as it considers classes, sectors, pressure groups, and so on, as analogous and systemic in their competition with one another.
The elitist theory
The elitist theory provides a different approach that focuses on the autonomous powers of the State. In this regard, defenders of this theory argue that an organized and centralized minority can control and defeat the unorganized population. They also talk about the control of different resources, such as economic, ideological, or military. They are a source of power that makes the circulation of elites possible. In this way, they consider the political power as a dynamic relation between the State and society.
Other authors of this theory focused on centralized State powers. They stressed the role of different institutions that constitute the State. I’ll address this dimension of the State later. For now, I want to point out that some scholars have highlighted the distributive role of the State. So, this central institution is a rational actor that prioritizes its interests. At the same time, it preys on society by stripping it of its resources.
In general, this theory holds that the State is an actor. As such, it has the power to intervene in society. Hence, the State has autonomy thanks to those resources it controls because they constitute its power. That makes it a rational actor that looks for its well-being.
The geopolitical approach
The former theories overlook a crucial aspect of the State, and that is its geopolitical dimension. In this regard, I have to stress that it isn’t only a set of different centralized institutions that concentrate resources, but also a way of organizing the space. Indeed, the State transforms the space it occupies through those institutions that constitute it. That allows it to mobilize and extract those resources it needs to exist and compete successfully in the international realm.
We can’t dismiss that those resources the State gathers are the pillars of its power. So, it depends on them to exist, and that’s possible through a suitable organization of its territory. That organization determines the extraction of resources. In this way, the State obtains the power it needs to have autonomy. So, the State is a geopolitical organization that reflects its power in how it organizes the space to extract those means it needs to survive.
In addition to this, we shouldn’t overlook another important fact. I refer to the international environment in which the State operates. All in all, the State doesn’t live in the air, and world politics is important because of its effects on domestic politics. I spoke about this several times.
Hence, when we analyze the State, what it is and does, we have to take into account not only its role in domestic politics but also on the global stage. The geopolitical fragmentation of the world boosts rivalry, and countries compete to survive and achieve a dominant position in this realm. So, the State is also a geopolitical structure in this sphere, and it operates in an uneasy environment. Besides, its existence also depends on the mutual recognition of States. That means every State needs to be accepted in the international community to exist. That makes relations between countries possible.
Elements of the State
What elements constitute the State? Its power structures formed by different institutions. I refer to those who operate in critical fields for the existence of the State. That is the case of the military, law enforcement agencies, courts of justice, prisons, intelligence agencies, the diplomatic corps, and the bureaucracy that coordinates and articulates these institutions and other departments to extract resources from society and control its members. If I had to sum up in a few words the institutional core of the State, I would say the executive branch insofar as it is the most powerful of all.
The State is a highly centralized organization, and it has a territorial dimension that no other institution has. That allows it to exercise massive control over a specific territory. To do so, it has coercive means at its disposal. They also facilitate the extraction of all types of resources it needs to survive. I want to summarize in a few words what the State is ultimate. To do so, I’m going to cite what Theda Skocpol said about this. “The state properly conceived is no mere arena in which socioeconomic struggles are fought out. It is, rather, a set of administrative, policing, and military organizations headed, and more or less well coordinated by, an executive authority.” In brief, the State’s critical elements are the administrative and coercive organizations I have already mentioned.
Question of the day
Question of the day! What is the most relevant element of the State for you? Post your opinion in the comments section below, and I’ll check it out.
Bibliography used:
Strayer, Joseph, On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State
Strayer, Joseph, Medieval Statecraft and the Perspectives of History
Gilbert, Felix (ed.), The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze
Tilly, Charles, Coercion, Capital, and European States: AD 990-1992
Mann, Michael, The Sources of Social Power
Poggi, Gianfranco, The Development of the Modern State
Anderson, M. S., The Origins of the Modern European State System 1494-1618
Spruyt, Hendrik, The Sovereign State and its Competitors
Le Goff, Jacques, La Baja Edad Media
Giddens, Anthony, The Nation-State and violence
Disclosure: Some of these links are affiliate links where I’ll earn a small commission if you make a purchase at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.