Scribd Logo
Cargar

¡Te damos la bienvenida a Scribd!

  • Badie&Birnbaum Sociologyofthestate

    Cargado por

    Camille Arcinas
    6 vistas91 páginas
    sociology

    Derechos de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponibles

    PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd

    ¿Le pareció útil este documento?

    ¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

    Denunciar este documento
    sociology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    6 vistas91 páginas

    Badie&Birnbaum Sociologyofthestate

    Cargado por

    Camille Arcinas
    sociology

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descargue como PDF o lea en línea desde Scribd
    Marcar por contenido inapropiado
    de 91
    Bertrand Badie Pierre Birnbaum The Sociology of the State ‘Translated by Arthur Goldhammer Too often we think of the modern political state as a universal institution, the inevitable product of History rather than a specific creation of a very particular history. Bertrand Badie and Pierre Birnbaum here persua- sively argue that the origin of the state isa social fact, arising out of the peculiar sociohistorical context of Western Europe. Drawing on histori- cal materials and bringing sociological insights to bear on a field long abandoned to jurists and political scientists, the authors lay the founda- tions for a strikingly original theory of the birth and subsequent diffu- sion of the state. ‘The book opens with a review of the principal evolutionary theories concerning the origin of the institution proposed by such thinkers as Marx, Durkheim, and Weber. Rejecting these views, the authors set for- ward and defend their thesis that the state was an “invention” rather than a necessary consequence of any other process. Once invented, the state was disseminated outside its Western European birthplace either through imposition or imitation. The study concludes with concrete analyses of the differences in actual state institutions in France, Prussia, Great Britain, the United States, and Switzerland. “This is one of the best books recently written in France, not merely for a scholarly audience but for students and the informed public. It will be of great interest to students of political science as well as sociology, and ic constitutes a thorough and balanced analysis of the whole litera- ture on the origins and functions of the state and on its relations with society. I can't think of a comparable American book.”—Stanley Hoffman Bertrand Badie is the author of Stratégie de la Greve: Pour une Approche fonctionnaliste du Parti communiste francais; Le Développement politique; and Lexique de Sociologie politique. Pierre Birnbaum is professor of political sociology at the University of Paris and the Institut d'Etudes Politiques. Among his many other books is The Heights of Power, published in translation by the University of Chicago Press ‘A Chicago Original Paperback ISBN O-22b-03549-2 Bertrand Badie Pierre Birnbaum The Sociology of the State Translated by Arthur Goldhammer Chicago ‘Origin dt tad Bertrand Badie Pierre Birnbaum The Sociology of the State Translated by Arthur Goldhammer ‘The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London assistant professor of politcal soriology, and Pe tee srofessor of political sociology, both st the ‘herr Bimaum i pr University of Pass, 1 Pres, Chicago 60637 “The University of Caiago Pres, ‘The University of Chicago Press, Lt, London (01983 by The Univers of Ching ‘Allright rexerved, Published 1983 ‘Printed in the United States of America 90 8988 8796858483 594321 inal etl soit de plied in Pasar Pee tion Gantt get, 1973 lation Data Library of Congress Cataloging in Pubic i, end. a “The sociology of the state. Incudes iogrphi reerenes an inden 1. State, Th. 2. Pliticalsociology . Pierre, i. Tile. a 3C325.B2713 1983 306'2 92-20249 ISBN 0-226-03548-4 ISBN 0-226-03549-2 (pbk) wee Contents ‘Translator’s Note vit Introduction ix Part One ‘The State in Sociological Theory ‘The Classical Theories 3 Marx's Two Theories of the State 3 Durkheim, the Division of Labor, and the State 11 Weber, the State, and Western Rationality "7 ‘The Failure of Contemporary Sociology 28 The Neofunctionalist Model of the State 26 Toward a Critique of the Funetionalise Model 9 Part Two State, Society, and History Introduction 65 ‘State, Division of Labor, and Capitalism 67 State and Social Structure 9 State, Culture, and the Emergence of the Political System 86 ‘The Transfer of the Idea of the State from Europe to Its Colonies 93 Part Three ‘State, Center, and Power in Contemporary Societies Introduction 103 Government via the State: Power to the Bureaucracy tos ‘The State Model: France 107 A Case of Incomplete Institutionalization: Prussia us Government by Civil Society: ‘The Weakness of the Bureaucracy ‘The WeaksState Model: Great Britain The American Case ‘The State and Consociational Democracy Conclusion Afterword Notes. Index 12 321 128 130 135 139 1a 167 Translator’s Note Citations from the works of Tocqueville, Marx, Durkheim, and Weber have either been taken from standard English translations of ‘heir works, retranslated from the original French or German by me, or, in the case of a few citations of Marx, rendered into English from French translation quoted by the authors. The notes will make clear which course has been followed in each instance. For the regrettable instances of circuitous multiple translations of Marx, I spologize to the reader, but it would have cost more time to trace the sources than ‘was warranted by the possible gain in accuracy. Introduction In recent years sociology has, in « number of respects, felt the need to come to grips with history. Sociologists, who over the pst few decades have seen their discipline achieve the status of science, have tended to neglect the historical dimension in their work. despite the emphasis placed on history by the “founding fathers” ofthe feld Two approaches have since predominated. One of these is based on biology and views the social sytem as an entity ccpable of maintaining {ts identity while interacting with its ervironment. The other has been “micresociological,” involving the study of the small groups within which social interaction oceurs. Neither approach has encouraged in. {erest in history on the pat of sociologists, and neither has given prone inenee to power and domination. The gulf between sociology and history has ‘been particularly wide in much contemporary American work. Despite its wealth of empirical data, American sociology has dehberately remained ahistorical. By contrast, French historian, some of them inspired by the work OF sociologists, have for the pat several decades been using sociological methods to study social history. At present the direction of influence seems to have been reversed. Now it isthe sociologists who are trying to integrate the work of the historians into their anilyses. Sociology is becoming historical. Sociologists are applying their own models 10 Historical phenomena. This development, which to «large extent began With work done by political sociologists in the Engishepeaking coun ‘ties, who were the fist to notice the importance ofthe historical work of the sociologist Max Weber, has stimulated reseach that has proved Surprisingly fruitful. French sociology today stands in urgent need of a genuine rediscovery of history. A historical approach is needed, in particular, in studying the sociol- ay of the state, which cannot be adequately undeistood in any other way. The study of the state, which was for a long tin left 10 philoso. ‘Phers and legal scholars, is properly a matter for sociology. This is so X Introduction not because social factors determine the organization of the state and the way it operates, as certain reductive sociological theories contend, ‘but rather because the state is itself a social fact. An actor in the social system, the state is of ecurse implicated in the history of that system, ‘ut at the same time it hes a history in its own right. Only a thoroughly new comparative approach can hope to explain the evolution of the state as an actor in the social system. Such an approach wil require the use of various paradigms of sociological analysis to illuminate what historians have managed to learn about the structures of state forms as diverse as ancient city-states, empires, absolute monarchies, and modern industsal states. Historians have, of ‘course, put forward theories of their own to explain changes in the nature of the state, and one aspect of the sociological approach will inevitably be to reinterpret the historians’ theories in a new light. This is only natural, inasmuch as sociologists and historians are wont to ask different kinds of questions. ‘The authors of the present work have had some experience of the ‘methodological difficulties to be expected in taking a sociological ap- proach to history. It is all too common-in France at any rate—to deal ‘with difficulties of this sort by insisting that the sociologist should either defer to the historian or, better still, become a historian himself. Our experience has encouraged us to try a different path. One of us has ‘worked on the problem of explaining political development in socio- ogical terms. The othe: has attempted to interpret recent changes in the state in France in a fresh light. It is this earlier work that led to the ides of writing the preseat book. Needless to say, in making the attempt wwe are greatly indebted :o the work of many different historians. One more thing needs to be said: historical sociology as it now stands is a rather tenuous discipline, It is based on secondhand know! edge of an enormous ard rather heterogeneous literature, It makes two large claims: first, that knowledge of the history of various states oxists, and second, that a sociclogical interpretation of that history is possible. ‘Such sweeping claims rise a good many problems, and we do not claim to have solved all of chem, Difficulties aside, we have attempted if nothing else to provide ¢ guide to further research and a tentative theoretical model, For in our view there is a pressing need fore sociol- ‘ogy of the state that is at once aware of its own origins and capable of investigating the state in all its various forms and (highly unequal) phases of development. Part One The State in Sociological Theory 1 The Classical Theories Marx's Two Theories of the State Marx's assertions about the state ar of two kinds. On the ‘one hand he states categorically and unequivocally that “the economic structure of society is} the real foundation on which arises legal and Political superstructure.”! But when he comes to consider how other ‘ters may one day be able to build on suggestions contained in his own Work, he concludes that fature Marxists will urelybe able to improve on What they find in Capitan almost all area, “except perhaps [in regard to] the relation between the diversity of state forms and the various economic structures of society"? How are these two assertions related? The first is one of several Marxian dicta used by vulgar Manist theoreticians at the time of the Third Intemational as justification for their reductionist and deterministic version of Marxian theory. In one form or another this version of Marx remains influential today. The same metaphor of base and superstructure, with only minor modif cations, is still favored by certain tough-minded theorists who flatter ‘themselves that they have improved on Marx’s original formulation by aiding references to “the autonomy of the state,” “mediations” of one sort or another, or “determination in the lat instance.” This ab- struct brand of Marxism has unfortunately become a conceptual game, 4 machine for producing metaphors. Based on audacious readings of Marx’s works, these theories invariably ignore what Max himself saw so clearly, namely, that the phenomena they seck to explain are extremely diverse in nature. Reductionist theories come in many Yarletes, but all of them depict the state as a loyal agent of capital, Some, however, are willing to grant capitalists enough intelligence to see the wisdom of affording the state some measure of autonomy, ‘though of course only as a way of consolidating their own domination, To hold that this was Mar’s view is to deny Marx the honor of having been one of the founders of the sociology of the state. In fact, “Marx was perfectly well aware that in different societies the state takes 3 4 The State in Sociological Theory ‘Marx makes a remark that might well serve as an Feist yaa ‘Accordingly, one should not speak of “the” state but rather ae foundly different in each.* This crucial point is overloc ao work amounts to a reductionist theory of “economic deter aoe etme setae ee pagel iolpereanne ey hint to ci sciays and a we hal ter oe, he Ameen “Ny ay of cons In Pra he stat “i nothing but 2 pe periclarnemuaacr Tastes with a admixture.”* Societies that have known a feuc regi id ee mere 5 The Chascal Theories Not only in these passages but in many others as well Marx himself coffers us the beginnings of a theory of the stae that pays attention 10 the multiplicity of possible historical trajectories. From these various texts there emerges litle by litte a sociological model of the state that fs the diametrical opposite of the all too famous Marxian model of the base and superstructure, with al its reductively deterministic connota, tions and lack of historical perspective. In Marx's thought itis feuds. sm, very narrowly defined, that isthe key variable in the construction of the state. In other words, before any other sociological writer, Mack himself held that tho nature of the state is determined by a socio- Political variable and not by the relations of production alone. The absence of # feudal past in the United States accounts for the “sub- ordination” of the American state to civil society and hence to the ‘bourgeoisie. In Prussia, on the other hand, the feadal past explains not only why the state did not become an instrument of the bourgeoisie but also why it was able to press its “claims to independence.” Note that, for Marx, the “independence” ofthe state is based on its control of the civilian bureaucracy and of a powerful military and police apparatus. In fact, the state can maintain its claim to independ- ence only to the extent that it maintains control over certain specific resourees.* In Marx's conception, the state i a farcry from a mere con: densation of existing class relations. When he actually comes to develop his thinking in terms of political variables, Marx views the state as an institation. “It is," he says, “a great advance to consider the politcal State as an organism.” This “discovery” of Hegel's is essential, Marx believes, because it makes it possible to lay stzess on the bureaucracy 4s the means by which the state attempts to exert control over civil tociety. Though @ materialist, Marx is not disdain‘ ofthe supposedly purely idealistic work of Hegel Here again, an attentive reading of what Marx actually says belies the commonplace interpretetion, which is as superficial as itis dogmatic, “Hegel proceeds ftom the separation of civil society and the politcal state as two actualy different spheres, firmly opposed to one another. And indeed this separation does actually exist in the modem state”! Under the influence of particular historical circumstances, the state separates itself out from civil society as 2 dis tinct entity, founded on a bureaucratic apparatus. Later sociologist, even more appreciative than Marx of the wide rang of actual historical trajectories, reached identical conclusions, backiag them up with a ‘more satisfactory typology ofthe various state forms Its of course true that Max accuses Hegel of fling to see thatthe bureaucracy can only “defend the imaginary universality of particular 6 The Statetn Sociological Theory interest . .. in order to defend the eraateareeeee tones eae tamara. He runs that “the abolition ufc] erie vurctucecy can consist only in the universal interest becoming yal mt He crap neh rn Sins ess ond bs iol hh ep ticular interest really becoming universal.” As Marx frequen aed innuinore popnt tort nln ir tet ha no elo nate mo of bee ‘cht i nga een eee toe oly o St ta. Pefiing Wes won ovary, a tthe emer ovo so i get "She tomahn contri reper an eon own material content.""* This is the result of “the politi ev lution. : She non tho see! eo oof cna Se cst ta ae tenon on fini nd ote thr hd th mtr lech fms eevee eth i sano ‘tocnaads Wt fo pete sit whol Gockel ih 7 lose tame esate fragments, liberated the political spirit from its connexion with ci oe te at may er, he rend concen fier wold se om 0 Pas fr hi mol of bare. sano oe Fran ery, ee ye Sg) tec of Sona deepens of net examinations, and the emergence of an intemal ate fa Sry bunt compa cnet tht ey oma Sefer. ie eo es ms sting ‘out. Marx gives a very vivid description of the process of diff oe ra Son teeny Hrate Tn ih [Hegel] has constructed between civil society and the state the - tity of two hostile amies in which each soldier has the et Decne hog eon amar te say di Ms Hegel sey dese epee pie te affairs.”"” Hegel, in Marx’s view, is no vulgar idealist: ‘his description Se twenty en ooncing gee hs orn a Mag gts ne st en fo 0B oe ‘that “most of the paragraphs could be found verbatim in the Prussi: Landrecht.""* 7 The Chasen Theories Furthermore itis well known that Manx celled Liebknecht a “traly stupid individual” when the latter, in editing an edition of Hegel’ Works, described Hegel as the man who had discovered and glorified the “royal Prussian” idea of the state.” While Marx himself admitted that Hegel's work reflected the reality of the Prussian state, he saw Hegel as the theorist of the bourgeois concept of the state. At bottom Man's attitude was contradictory, since he acknowledged that in Prussia, because of the residual influence of feudalism, the state dominated society, while at the same time asking, “What remains to the political state in opposition to this essence {viz., private property]? The illusion that it determines when it is rather determined. Indeed, it breaks the ‘wil of the family and of society, but merely in order to give existence to the will of private property lacking family and society.” An, observation like the latter obviously undercuts the sociological model previously elaborated by Marx, in that it blurs the differences between, say, Prussia and the United States. In both cases the state is bound up. with private property, regardless of whether or not the state has passed through a feudal stage. Worse stil, after arguing, with astonishing sociological insight, thatthe Prussian state has nothing in common with the Swiss and that both are to be distinguished fiom the governments ‘of England and the United States, Marx went on to make the following Statement: “Nevertheless the different states of the different civilized countries, in spite of their manifold diversity of form, all have this in common; that they are based on modem bourgecis society, only more or less capitalistically developed. They have, therefore, also certain essential features in common.”# Thus, after giving a highly imaginative description of the distinct lusjectories followed by England, Prussia, and the United States in their historical development, Marx went back to a mechanistic vision that suffers from all the defects of the views so often ascribed to him, and in $0 doing he abandoned the subtlety ofhis earlier arguments.®® These two aspects of his thought are also visible in his analysis of the Bonapartist state, This work is better known, even if its bes: passages are rarely cited for the simple reason that they stand in such sharp contrast to the wiews usualy ascribed to Marx. He stresses that in France the “executive ower with its enormous bureaucratic and military organization, with its ingenious state machinery ... with a host of officials numbering half million, besides an army of another half million, this appalling parasitic body, . .. enmeshes the body of French society like a net and chokes all its pores.” The bourgeoisie “spotheosized the sword; the sword 8 The State in Sociologea! Theory rules it."** This explains why “the struggle seems to be settled in such way that all clase equally impotent and equally mute, fll on their cnees before the rifle butt,”** Se ux Fe is point, which he believes to be crucial, several nearer arte aa independent power."*” Though frequently disregarded, this part of ‘Mari’s analysis shows that he continued to be faithful to his early view ‘that, in certain historical circumstances, the state, by eee from civil society. Commentators on Marx almost always ee a copes a a ae Librium between the antagonistic social classes (as Engels puts 7 SS the moment a certain independence in relation : ott xe of a ‘ef bot af thee enplaaton ly on infastrctral considerations to account for the independence of the state, an independence ae 9 The Classical Theories particularly explicit form in The Gernan Ideology. According to Marx, the division of labor conditions both the formation of social classes and the formation of the state:*® “The greatest diviion of material and ‘mental labour is the separation of town and country. The antagonism between town and country begins with the transition from barbarism to civilisation, from tribe to State, from locality to nation.” It is of course true that Marx does not approve of the division of labor, because it “offers us the first example of how . ... man's own deed becomes an alien power opposed to him, which enslaves him instead of being con. trolled by him.” Unlike modem sociologists of the state, Marx con. ddemns such a division of labor, which entails structural differentiation ‘and which, as he sees it, prevents society from achieving a reconciliation itself and moving on to a new form of community, But while Marx deplores the consequences of this sort of division of labor, whose aboli- tion he deems absolutely essential, he does nevertheless take note ofits existence. At the same time Marx is even more corcemed to mark his distance from a functional view of the differentiated state, despite the attractiveness that such a view held for him. For the bureaucratic ‘machinery that had grown up in France or Prustia inorder to asvare the state's independence of action had tured out, as Marx saw it, to be profoundly dysfunctional, Far from being the result of a rational division of labor, the bureaucratic state bore the stigma of its parasitic oxigins. For Marx, the Second Empire was an “appalling parasitic body, ‘Which enmeshes the body of French society like a net and chokes all it ores.” Deprived of any social fimetion and reduced to the role of a Parasite, the state had fallen completely into the hands of the ruling lasses, which used it asa too.”® Marx attacked this state repeatedly: in his eyes it was a “parasitic excrescence,” “the orgy ofall the canonical elements,” “society's supematural freak,” “2 boa constrictor” whose servants were a “swarm of vermin,” “wellpaid sycophants” who ex- Ploited the people.” The bureaucracy, no longer a necessary ingredient of the state's autonomy, now seemed to Marx a mere parasite rather than a guarantor of independence.™ It may be added that itis hard to understand why the bourgeoisie needed the bureaucracy at all if it was in fact as worthless as Marx seems to think. ‘At this stage Marx was no longer interested in the idea that the bu- reaucracy is an institution that arises from the functional division of labor: he now views it merely as an instrument of the bourgeoisie. This leads to the conclusion thet “state power is not suspended in midair.” Ft has lost all semblance of independence: “The state power, apparently soaring high above society, was at the same time itself the greatest 10 The State in Sociotoical Theory scandal of thet society and the very hotbed of all its corruptions. . . « [Bonapertism] is, at the same time, the most prostitute and ultimate form of the state power which nascent middle class society had com- smenced to elaborate as a means of its own emancipation from feudal- {sm,”% The political sciology of the state has been forgotten, as has ‘the notion that the state's pattem of development is determined by the presence or absence of a feudal past. Marx seems here to agree with Engels that the state “is normally the state of the most powerful, economicaly ruling clas, which [thereby] becomes also the politically ruling class”°7 In the Communist Manifesto, Mark and Engels had ‘written that “the executive of the modern state is but e committee for ‘managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie."** It would be possible to cite many other passages in which Marx seems to take a reductionist approach to the theory of the state. In such passages the other Marxian theory of the state, the theory that emphasized the state's genuine independence from both civil society as a whole and from the bourgeoisie a: a ruling class, seems to have vanished, giving way to the view that the state is but a “servile” instrument of the ‘most powerful social and economic forces. This reductionist view has persisted to this day and has led to any number of economist readings fof Marx in which the state, though perhaps allowed some marginal autonomy, is denied aay inherent reality of its own. An evolutionary view of the development of the state is @ logical consequence. Since the emergence of the state is associated with the inception of private prop- erty and with the resul:ing breakdown of what is assumed to have been the harmonious existence of communal societies, the state is no longer soon as having any history of its own, Its birth, growth, and decay are all bound up with the Zate of capitalism, just as capitalism ite i the successor of ancient slwery and feudalism and must one day give way to communism. The end of the state is identical with the end of capi- {alist society: “The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of ‘things and the direction of the processes of production."“° Thereupon the state must be relegated to “the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax."*4 Because the history of the state is bound up with the history of pri vate property (except in the special case of oriental despotism), the state comes into being and develops solely in response to the dictates of capital and the whins of the owners of capital. In this final presenta- 11 The Chasia! Theonies eae ee ied state, then, the state's course of development. ar and alvays the sae, igs ofthe petelr testo the sooty within which it fit tats wing and ulietly whos sey Durkheim, the Division of Labor, and the State Durkheim, the father of modem sociology, is fequently presented 45 the antiMary, the sociologist of conservatism, itegration, end con duns For fabs Sart aa a of conflict, of socal antagonism, of ineluctable historical transforms. tions. Durkteim, on the other hand, guces asthe apostie of peaceful and stable industrial societies, of societies capaile of harmonious development. Marxist theory is thus reduced to the clase struggle, and Durkheimian theory to industial society. Now, a: we have already attempted to demonstrate, this deseription seriuly distorts Marc's work We may now add that it does no justice to Duckheims either, 1 is true that Duriheim, taking a point of view diametrically op. posed o that of Mas, concentrated mainly on the analy of cose development due to an increasing division of labor. Marx dd not view the division of labor as a crucial variable except in certain youthful work, whereas Durkin baled that, hy iself, te ven of labor Gould account forthe transformation of soci sstem. In thi respec, ukheim's thought was deeply colored by the kind of organics thinking prevalent inthe ninetnth century, according to which social history could be explained by the division of labor because societies, Un ogee 2 he tn specialization of their organs, each of which is responsible for per forning certain specific functions = abutticin, towers, hl eihewed ect gait doctn, h suffered from drawing too close a parallel between the bclogeal oweanism and the socal body. He showed, for example, how social Structures may change thelr function. He thus put anend to the identi Seaton of organs wih functions that had seve este bas of mos ‘ronal, ora theo, sch as those of Bod and de Mate. ‘or Durkheim, then, the division of labor became an instrument of ‘modomity rather than of consewatism, Traditions reected. the historical transformations that were destroying the old power structure and caled for a return to what they regarded 25a ratural division of responsibilities that made the old order alegtimate one. Dutkteimy on the other hand, showed how the constantly increasing division of labor tives rs to new structures and hence new forms of power, 12 The Staten Sociological Theory ‘Among these new forms of power is the modem state, Durkheim stressed the fact that “the greater the development of society, the gear te devlpment of te ae Testa ie on eran oe tions and becomes increasingly svolved in all other social fy conidia an onshing tom, Arc centeation partie advancesinczation. One has ony to compare what che sete Is today in agget ationsuch as France, Germany, or Haly with wht it vias in the Mile Ages to see thet change has always worked inthe same direction...» No historia law is more dimly established than this one: Durteim has hee formulated an evolutionary conception of social transformation in whch the necesary dvisin cf bor ene rise of the state. Aware of the pect tore eet, Dusk, ike Mar, doe, however, show that certain societies, in which the state developed to a particular degree, shared similar fates. But since he is more interested in the remote origins of social systems and focuses mainly on anthropological works, he is less aware than Mare of the extreme diversity of modem processes of politcal centralization, and he i much moc tached than Marx 10 sarromly evolutionary view of sie fomation. He supose that s ays develop according to the same 1a. Dre ns eantlzaon ad ste Dung sient process, The necessity of dio of aber ges eto he ate He dos not se ding on the historical circumstances, some soci Ahrcop 2 polled cer dren fom what he uoestands bythe notion ofa state, This prevents him ftom understanding the differences between France and Tay, for example. Nor dos he recognize how both of these countries differ from, say, the United States, a society o 1 rr ceeds, however, Dati does sem wing pt 8 Jess one-dimensional view, Thus he admits that “not all tates are ofthe same nature,"** and that “different types of society should not be con- fused with different forms of the state: twosocities may be of different types and yet govemed inthe same way.”*® He maintains that history“¢ cnught to provide the scciology ofthe state with “useful indications He asks what itis that distinguishes federal states Srom other types of states. And he even goes so far as to remark that “the state in Russia is not a product of soriety but something extemal to it, The Russian state has alvays tried fo act on Russan society from the outside, The analogy between this siuation andthe situation in China, as we poin cout lst year, is worth noting”? 13 TheClaseal Theories Unfortunately, the nonevolutionary conception of the state implicit in the above romarks isso radically at odds with Durkheim's belief that ‘the division of labor is a uniform process invariably improving the dis- tribution of social functions that he does not evea attempt to follow Out its consequences. Had he tried to do so, he might have cast doubt ‘on his faith in progress, on his belief that the normal course of develop- ment leads to an integrated, harmonious society in which the state plays a specific and constant role Durkheim’s last word on the state, or “governmental organ” as he call it, is that itis a “normal phenomenon” that “results from the very progress of the division of labor.” His interpretation of social history is well known, In societies where the division of labor is unknown, he argues, solidarity cannot arise from the division of tasks and so must be Produced by strong extemal constraints imposed by custom, religion, ‘and collective representations in general. This “mechanical solidarity,” 4s he calls it, is therefore the result ofa large measure of social control, By contrast, as society becomes more dense, divisicn of labor becomes indispensable, and this encourages the growth of “organic solidarity,” Which is connected with @ functional apportionment of tasks. At this point, solidarity becomes a consequence of the interdependence of the social actors rather than of external constraint. The intensity of col lective representations decreases, social control loses its force, and the State is free at last to develop as a “istinct organ.” With the state there emerge new legal rules. Thus the growing auton- ‘omy of the state leads to the development of administrative law. Antici ‘ating recent work in political sociology, Durkheim observes that “his- tory surely shows, in very systematic fashion, that administrative law is ‘as much more developed as societies approach a mort elevated type.”*! Indeed, he says, “if we may again borrow biological terminology, which, though metaphorical, is none the less useful, we may say that [adminis. trative rules] determine the way in which the cerebro-spinal system of the social organism functions. This system, in common parlance, is designated by the name, State." ‘Taking his cue from Tocqueville, Durkheim traces the history of the State viewed as the unique agency of centralization. He shows how the state “progressively extends a more compact system over the whole sur face of the territory, a system more and moze complex with ramifica- tions which displace or assimilate preexisting local organs.” He further shows how the state gains control over education and communication ‘and how it gathers statistics to help it organize its activities. These 14 The State in Sociologia! Theory functions are part of the state's “normal” activity, inasmuch as the state 1s the organ of “reflection” and “deliberation.” It acts as 2 “pran,” which controls certain other activities. “The essential func- ton ofthe state,” Durkheim tell us, “sto think.” ‘The siate is now viewed as the organ of rationality. This explains why it must not trail along aftor its citizens. The role ofthe state “is hot to express the unconsidered thoughts of the crowd but rather to add to them more mature thoughts, which, precisely because they are ‘more mature, cannot fall to be éifferent."* In other words, by viewing the state asa functional instrument, Durkheim seems to be saying that its growing power is leptimate. This explains why some commentators hhave argued that one cin explain the suecess of Durkneimian sociology ‘under the Third Republic and the reason for its introduction into the Ecoles Nonmeles (or teacher training schools) in terms ofits use by then powerful political forces to achieve autonomy and combat the power of the Church: Durkheim's work stood for the uniqueness ofthe state and for its distinetive nature compared with other forees in civil society." ‘Two important attributes of any genuine state were highlighted by Durkheim’s stress on the development of administrative law and the state's struggle with the Church over contol ofthe French educational system, He further indicated how the action ofthe state helps to weaken the hold of social groups over their indviduel members. “The essential function of the state,” he tells us, “sto liberate individual personalities. Merely by exerting pressure on the elementary societies of which it is rade up, the state prevents those societies from using their influence to repress individuals, as they otherwise would do." As he puts it, “the stronger the state, the more the individual is respected."® ‘Thus the rise of the state leads to the emancipation of its citizens, ‘who gain freedom from the control of peripheral social groups and local allegiances as well as from the hold of the Church. Such, indeed, was the purpose of the Third Republic, in which the state fought the Church, sent its schoolteachers to carry the good Republican word to the most outlying provinces, sought to nationalize local politics, and began building # bureaucracy. For Durkheim, bureaucracy “defines the state, The state is a gioup of functionaries, sui geners,”"** bound to- ‘gether by “authority” and “hierarchy. Like Weber, Durkheim de- ‘votes lengthy analyses to the formation of an autonomous bureaucracy, whereby insttutionalization becomes possible. He shows how the agents of the state must act according to the “general interest,” how even in 1S The Classical Theories Private life their behavior is determined by their function, and how the civil servant must give priority to his position as an agent of the state cere an om nina ee soaps conan es ate ei pe men nen Se ee at obliged to maintain its distance from civil society ia order to insure that it would remain an instrument of clear, rational ‘thought. so ae iy ir tet a above “castes, clases, comporations, coteres of every sort, and every kind of economic person.” Thus Durkheim believed that ‘the progress sri ee lo es tre always leads to alienation. While Manx ‘Tecognizes that the growth of the must always be combatted. Furthermore, whereas for Durkheim the Sac a ‘all the organs of the state become. ‘ears, eyes, arms, and legs enabling ‘the owners of property to act.”*§ For Durkheim ‘the state is the func- emacs aa ewe ‘state would appear to be totally divergent. * php ire po eR Seontr nes ae ae ann ncn Src AS ee on nto close and hold together is a veritable sociological monster.”*” Similarly, in Suicide, Durkheim contends that “whereas the state swells to the sufficient pressure on individuals, the latter, not bound ‘together in any ee ‘one another like so many molecules. of liquid, [generating] bi . . lat ee ‘together, fix themselves in place, and estab- — wach et eo pe arn ee aye 16 The State in Sociological Theory ae par foto aint at ee only arene among a plethora of secondary powers, ade lai oer, SERIDUNEL sate tirsen wenpowrtctoay nal In reality, though, Durkheim's view is more an extension of 1 wea a Mn’, seb Duna nd Tose a Tee es of pon neem on soe a se fam ot Pew, ma ani te nes mona woh te eet foe indares onus tah te caus ances) ee ee Bens, menos he of a ytic state, he explains how this can happen ay orcnsety mel bat rahe intra of a earth st of as tesa La dal ampedina by ap tint a. cs a ty somaie ey. Fahemor, hes ai mts rn cee tat ote el anh gel ln ship with the dominant social class), whereas for both Tocqueville sot i matey mca ets Cea eed ay tpt, ter i a0ng seats since : ‘Shs the nomal van of labor des not alway gv sie 0 asin far taupe dapie te din of a ee ene k cpainloged fom of elope Sh show rn nal ty ent sows Coreen tot eid ete ees py ear i addr akon soprac, Be upett te en often pene of a eritance,” the emergence of a new organic solidarity may ‘component loge it fae Gude enemas omnes tome ae cece wea et he epeuon ens oin relies on infrastructure” rather than on the specific historical a of a given society to explain the dysfunctional iressscarenyicees Wings eget we hin ae ep Sig ten a i congo get he ‘consequences (in either his Division du travail social or his Lecons ie sociologie), not did he choose to take a fresh look at the nature of t eee ee ey ten tong satay i difeent pro, qe eect ed seeat tanec aeoten Gp tnsenang 17 The Clasiat Theories how, in a society as far from being meritocratic as capitalist society, the state is a far ory from a mete functional organ of “clear thought”), Durkheim did not dare to take the next step. He ccntented himself with emphasizing the inevitably pathological character of the state in mass society. He preferred to remain silent as to the functions assumed by the state in a class society. Whereas Marx, by establishing a close link between the state and a dominant social class, gave prominence to one Particular model of the state, Durkheim emphasized chiefly his concept Of the “normal” division of labor, which enabled him to view the state a a mere functional organ. Now, both Marx and Durkheim had a dual vision of the driving force in social transformation; both showed them- selves aware to some extent of the multiplicity of sate forms produced by specific historical trajectories, Hence both migh have renounced an evolutionary view of history that inevitably leads to a reductionist theory of the state. This same dilemma also confronted Weber and stil confronts much recent work in sociology, as we propose to show next Weber, the State, and Westem Rationality Despite their richness, both the Marxist and Durkheimian theories of the state remain incomplete for the reasons we have seen, Since the state docs not occupy a central place among the concerns of either Marx or Durkheim, their reflections on the emergence and construction of the state as an institution remain tenuous and contradictory. By contrast, the state is a central feature of Max Weber’s work, the true fountainhead of modem political sociology. The great German sociologist was the first to consider political phe- ‘omen as specific data with a logic and history of their own. No longer 4s politics explained, as in the general models of Marx and Durkheim. by the relations of production or the division of labor. Now it containg its own determinants. From Weber's time onward, Historical sociology has been called upon to explain political phenomena in terms of a “‘materialism’”® based on political or military considerations, amaterial ism thet has tumed out to be just as powerful a tool as economic ma. teriaism. Change in social systems is influenced not only by the means of production but equally by the “means of administation.”™ Weber was interested primarily in domination, subordination, au- thority, might (puissance), and power (pouvoir). His reconstruction of social history was based on looking at transformation in the mode of government, For example, feudalism can be explained in terms of a certain type of control over the material means of domination, as a 18 The Staten Sociological Theory regime of private property in the instruments of violence and diffuse appropriation of the mesns of administration. French sociology, which has been influenced more by Marx and Durkheim than by Weber, has only recently begun to see much im- portance in the latter’s work. Those French sociologists who have paid attention to Weber have focused mainly on his methodological writings and his view of the social system, on the role played by the concept of ‘values in his thinking, or, again, on his treatment of bureaucracy. Yet 4 central feature of Weber's work is its systematic use of historical saterials. The first sociologist to use history in so important @ way, Weber chose to present his sociology of domination and hence of the state in 2 historical Hight. Rather than follow the nineteenth-century theorists in propounding evolutionary models, Weber employed an analytic method and at- tempted to work out 2 typological classification. He analyzed social relations that exist to one degree or another in all societies. Initially, at least, he therefore avoiied writing history when he studied a society. Instead, he tried to distinguish three main forms of legitimate domina- tion: the charismatic, the traditional, and the rational. Rational domi- nation operates through an agency such as the state, No claim is made that those types of domination succeed one another in any particular order. "This is not the place to undertake a full analysis of Weber's sociology ‘of domination. We need only recall that for Weber charismatic domina- tion is made possible by the appearance of a personage “endowed with supematural or superhuman strength or character,” person capable of being regarded as a “messenger from God” and therefore as a “leader” (Fahrer).”® From the first, Weber stresses that the power of the charis- matic leader is “alien to the economy.” He emphasizes the degree to which this type of power acts without administrative guidance and is therefore to be contrasted with both traditional domination and rational domination. Weber then goes on to consider the “routinization” of, charisma, which may, for example, occur when the question of choosing ‘successor to the leader arises. But Weber rejects any evolutionary inter- pretation and points out that charismatic power can just as easily tum {nto traditional domination as it can lead to bureaucratization. There is ‘no unique law of history With the aid of a large number of historia! examples, Weber also shows how the routinization of charisma allows for an adaptation to ‘economic necessities, though he is far from arguing that such necessities 19 The Casica Theories cause charismatic power to emerge. In cme chan -merge. In particular, te spends a good re rn pert nti er sceting dstaction between the feudlim of fel (ee per. sonal contract) and the feudalism of benefices (which 1 sotial actors arise to meet the economic needs o Sand which needs of the lord an ites tells us, has developed mainly in the Islamic Middle Eat andin nds), Histone proses can therefore have mor than one outsome, Weber does not ee charismatic domination a something that oxcurs only in societies remote from our own in ime or space. Amnong the ie ffances of charsmatio domination that he cites ae the plebisciary vacies headed by Cromwell, Robespiere, and Napoleon, Thus endece of thei legacy on the fat and submisivenes ofthe mass fres them, convent, tose economic ens fo defend the Supposed material bases of use.” Found in al periods of history, cava tha pn se te ae the way scey i stated or, as inthe cae of antuthonaan cha . to economic measures designed to pleas the populace, meason ace, me that must be implemented by sn admiisnaion aheay i lee ee to the advent of the charsmati leader. The number of functicos ter may be fulfilled by charismatic fomns of domination ie theefore lrg, onsnne deminaion may cho gett to many type of pita type of political aystem will new spe. No ney fa I ineviubly succeed & cha- We have gone into some deta i ‘1 Some detail regarding the charismatic form o an institution, Charisma, he argues, gives way to one form or other of Inpesonal power, and this may in tum be fllowed by now forms of hasama that an emerge even in highly steutred stitutions (neh at Political partes). We hope that this account makes clear the deeply anteveutont tendons in Weber’ thought, tenders that it 8 sosilogy not only from Marx’ but also from Durkheim "vin of nomal oc development Hae a sad, it remains true that traditional dominti 2 jon ion, as the name implies, Belongs to the past and is incompatible with modem form of Society. It “rests on the sacred character of attitudes tranemitted theough time and. thu acepted.”™ For our purposes, the main point to herp 20. ‘Tae State in Soctotegical Theory in mind i hat traditional domination i fequently associated with he eter power of bid. The Jord malta conte ove hi nde ling, whe help he needs to administer his trator, ether by feeding them at his own table, remunerating them in kind, or awarding trical, sates wows in connection vith efor 0 de wih ihe robles inherent inthis ort of aministetion, in which obs could passed on from father to son, The state countered this’ ‘pimona™ Sper by eating bueirsy Dd nthe leg” fom dor ination, This is the third category in Weber's typology, which was tended to avoid an oversimplified evolutionary approach. Bat te totion of fega domination isin fact colored, paps nagvertnty, by the sort of evolutionary thinking that infuensed most nineteenth century sci philesophy an tha continues fo einfuentil ven ode. “In every sphere," Weber tls us “in tate church army, party, fim, interest group, asoition, foundation, et. the development “modern forms of association is quite simply identical with the develop- rent and constant growth of buremuersic forms of adminiuation, Buses i, 40 t sak, the spore of the tmodem Wee stte."” Furthermore, “the grat modem state is abcutely dependent on 2 bareaucente ass. The lager the stat. the more unconditional this isthe one." At this point we move into seond dimension of type ory. Moem societies ae characterized by the emerapee of exclave Teal domination, whi is vealed chiefly troup the foration and development of an institutionalized bureaucracy, literally the is of the contemporary state. : Spy ae, yn ter, mean a politi of te sional character in which, and to the extent that, the adminttve agency sveceail claims, in enforcing is regulations, a menopoy of lepimate physical fore." The author of Boonomy and Soctey ix cles many pase in which he analyzes at length what he ks tbe the to esentiel instruments of the sate, leptimate lence and 2 bureaterais administration. He shows how the ené of feudal came about thanks tothe conentation of military power andthe ue of 2 ‘ype of army no longer dependent on sof vgs Dut rater bse on the pla paymen: of wages othe sors by the lord. He also em- has the way in which the mer” tate “expropiate the inde pendent ‘pate forces that svat inthe posession of administrate power." Thus it is passible to argue that, according to Weber, 2 state ‘comes into being and becomes modem when it puts an end to all patri- 21 ‘The Classical Theories ‘monial aspects of office and severs all ties betweea the performance of

    También podría gustarte