independent of the ruler — a morality of the state
Machiavelli and Obama
the state has its own reasons
calculate them — job of early modern political scientists — often based on geography — long-term goals
the political as a separate logic — separated from all other concerns — a separate system with separate laws — a revolution like Adam Smith regarding the economy
Divine right
the state as a human body in which the king was the soul and the brain — the subjects were the limbs
the leaders as mediating between heaven and earth
divine kingship made the king acceptable
important for Protestants — to have a direct connection with God — no need to go through the Pope in Rome
first class — on the first states …
theocracies …
cf. Roman cult of kingship
inherited in Constantinople — Caesaro-papism of the Byzantine empire
continued through the Middle Ages
intercede with god on behalf of his people
implement the will of god on earth
king as anointed
a way to deify the king
the Middle Eastern tradition enters Europe via Rome
Hebraic symbolism
as a result the king became Christos kuriou, the Son of God
transformed into a sacred person — “the anointed one”
“Most Christian” French king
they had a bottle of sacred oil — used at the coronation
The king as priest
Solar cult
long European tradition
picked up by Louis XIV
The body of the king
all parts of his body were holy — dared not cut off his hair, beard or nail
the whole court focused on the bed-chamber
the hierarchy of courtiers depended on their distance from the body of the king
helping him go to the toilet was a high-prestige job (Starkey) — “Keeper of the Stool”
bowing before the king’s bed even when he was not present
the sacred body could only show itself rarely
could not look him in the eyes
Cf. Ottoman empire — silence of the court
legend of “sleeping kings” who one day would return
denying the death of the king — Carolus redivivus — the return of Charlemagne
distribution of the death body of the king to his followers — buried in different places
cf. the distribution of bread in the Eucharist
as a way to diffuse sovereignty over the realm
royal kiss
spread the saliva around
every vassal could take a bit of the king with them home
reliquary containing the king’s hand — cure people
kings of England — curing epilepsy by distributing coins with their image
cramp rings
And the power of rhetoric too
Daniel Philpott, “Sovereignty”
“Sovereignty” as
“supreme authority within a territory”
the authority above the law — the one who makes the law
“This is the quality that early modern states possessed, but which popes, emperors, kings, bishops, and most nobles and vassals during the Middle Ages lacked.”
the state as “the political institution in which sovereignty is embedded”
The holder of sovereignty
possesses authority
the right to command and the right to be obeyed
not just authority though, but supreme authority — supremacy endemic to modernity
Max Weber — the state as …
“an institution with a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence”
Sources of legitimacy
god, history, constitution, economic growth, the future
Territoriality:
Territoriality is a principle by which members of a community are to be defined. It specifies that their membership derives from their residence within borders
also a modern feature
Sovereignty as undivided
Bodin and Hobbes — how it had to be one person — sovereignty cannot be divided …
but parliaments, etc.
the people!
The absoluteness of sovereignty
absoluteness refers not to the extent or character of sovereignty, which must always be supreme, but rather to the scope of matters over which a holder of authority is sovereign.
but clearly sovereignty can never be absolute …
there must be lot’s of things that the sovereign is not in control over …
Internal and external dimensions
conceives of external sovereignty as constitutional independence — a state’s freedom from outside influence upon its basic prerogatives
external sovereignty depends on recognition by outsiders. To states, this recognition is what a no-trespassing law is to private property …
Assessment
for
“independence” — and “democracy”
empires, lacking in sovereignty, tend to be run by authoritarian means
against
endless wars
free hand for genocides
cultural heterogeneity
Move away from sovereignty
UN Declaration of Human Rights
Responsibility to Protect
European Union
On Philpott’s Catholicism …
quoting Catholic thinkers — Bertrand de Jouvenel and Jacques Maritain …
cf. EU as a new-Catholic project — the Catholic church critical of the state, the nation and international law
A much smaller world
Michael Massing, “Luther vs. Erasmus: When Populism First Eclipsed the Liberal Elite.” The New York Review of Books, February 20, 2018
Skinner, Genealogy of the state
essentially contested concept — it is always ideological
genealogy as a way around it — bring out other ways of talking
US media: state as “apparatus of government”
widespread discussions of “statehood” “powers of the state” — end of 16th and beginning of 17th century
state — a specific type of civil association — people living subject to a ruler — head of state
but there are others at the time — realms, nations — but state wins out
semantic drift of sorts — Renaissance discussions — advice to princes — how a ruler should act in order to maintain his state — mantenero lo stato —
stato, status, standing
look after the body of the people — coup d’etat — against your status as a ruler
keep people secure and safe and prosperous — your maintaining your position from maintaining this thing that gives you status
head body metaphor — Kantorowicz — “two bodies of the king”
natural body — an official body as head of state
the absolutist view of the state — develops in two strands
divine rights
contract theories
Republicanism
we will talk more about this next week …
Contract tradition
the body of the people would have all the power
they can set up any kind of power — but the government is the mere delegates of the people — they are agents
tyranny is the usurpation of the power of the people
the people are sovereign and the people are the state
the argument against the Stuarts in 1640 — John Milton — lasts 11 years
the body of the people, or state — we can remove any ruler we regard as an enemy to the state
Levellers, and other critics
the reading for today
relationship between the king and the law
and parliament
the role of a standing army — cf. connection to 2nd amendment of the US constitution
Reaction
a number of writers just go back to the divinity of kings — Filmer
but some writers — Hobbes — against both Filmer and the divinity of kings
Hobbes’ theory of the state
1651, Leviathan, the natural condition of mankind
Chapter 13, Leviathan:
“From this equality of ability ariseth equality of hope in the attaining of our ends. And therefore, if any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies; and, in the way to their end, which is principally their own conservation and sometimes their delectation only, endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And from hence it comes to pass that, where an invader hath no more to fear than another man’s single power, if one plant, sow, build, or possess, a convenient seat others may probably be expected to come prepared with forces united to dispossess and deprive him not only of the fruit of his labor but also of his life or liberty. And the invader again is in the like danger of another.”
“Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time or war where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”
Skinner’s assessment:
scathing attack on the populist theory of the state
Hobbes: the people can’t have power — the natural condition is not a social condition — it is a-social
it is grounded on an illusion — there is no such thing as a body in nature — no community — there are only individuals
Sovereigns are just representatives — no genuflection to monarchs
no lawful authority unless you have given a consent
God has nothing to do with it — Filmer is mere superstition
politics is man-made
A sovereign is just an authorized representative — what is this?
court of law — you have authorized someone to speak in your name — you have a representative in a court of law
he is speaking in my name — but his actions are attributable to me — I am the author — the sovereign is an authorized representative
Who are they representing? they are not representing the body of the people since there is no such thing
the people is not a political entity — there can be no covenant
democracy cannot work that well — convenanting with each other
You are made one person when you are by one person represented
you are no longer a multitude — the people comes to constitute itself as a one — you have one will — you are one person
the sovereign represents the state — this is the person created by the state — it is a fiction — by fiction — this is the seat of sovereignty — the person we call the sovereign is just the person representing the person of the state
if you don’t obey your representative, the people will fall apart — return to a “natural condition”
Subsequent developments
very influential in European law — Pufendorf, 1717 — the state exists as one person, distinct of those of individual members, this is just a moral person, cannot act in its own name, must be representative
Vattel, Jus gentium — the state is a distinct moral person — the duty of the sovereign is to preserve the welfare of the state
Blackwell — a sovereign state — everyone talks this way
End of the 18th century — attacked by Jeremy Bentham
violent attack on Blackstone — rise of classical utilitarianism, Fragment on Government
legal arguments should be based on real persons — this is all completely meaningless
Fictions have no place in the law — they are never talking about the state — Austin mentions the state in order to dismiss it — we are only referring to the actual sovereign — state and government are the same
Hegelian theory of the state end of the 19th century
brought back into English thought
the state is a rational person — Schmitt — this is a real person — the identity of corporate persons
Empiricism
Harold Laski, 1919 — make the state purely operational
state and sovereign are drifting apart — sovereign is “commmand without being commanded” — unitary and absolute —
after World War I — states are no longer sovereign — court of international justice
there is a superior jurisdiction — sovereignty no longer belongs to the state —
The person of the state is immortal — you cannot do without this idea — it does not work in contract law
sovereign debt — who is the debtor — you can’t say it’s the people — 2008 — the people was not asked
On the ontological status of the state
The state as a protection racket (Tilly)
Analogy between the formation of states and protection rackets operated by organized crime
asserts control over territories and offers protection from external and internal threats
in exchange for taxes from the residents of these territories
eliminating or neutralizing rivals within a given territory, thereby establishing a monopoly on the use of force
in order to fund their wars, these proto-states had to extract resources from the population, which they justified as necessary for protecting the population from external threats
framing tax collection as a form of providing a protective service
Cf.
the way organized crime outfits force businesses to pay for protection money to avoid damage, essentially offering a “service” that is often a protection from threats that the racket itself poses
The state and war
“War Made the State”
needed substantial resources to raise and maintain armies
the necessity to fund these wars led these leaders to extract resources—typically in the form of taxes—from the populations within their territories
to enforce tax collection, these leaders developed mechanisms of administration and control, which necessitated the creation of a bureaucracy and legal systems
the need to finance wars provided both the incentive and the means for the centralization of authority and the development of state institutions
over time, these war-making entities transformed into states with clearly defined boundaries, a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within those boundaries, and the capability to extract and redistribute resources
“The State Made War”
Once these state mechanisms were in place, the state itself became a primary driver of warfare
the centralized authority of the state, with its ability to mobilize economic and human resources, made larger-scale and more sustained conflicts possible
states engaged in wars to protect their interests, expand their territories, and maintain their sovereignty against both internal and external threats
The process was self-reinforcing:
wars led to the creation and strengthening of states, and powerful states engaged in more wars.
Cf. Mancur Olson
on roving and stationary bandits
in an anarchic environment without a sovereign, “roving bandits” (those without a fixed base of operation) plunder wealth from the populations they can overpower
as these bandits realize that a consistent and predictable source of wealth can be obtained by settling down and assuming control over a particular territory, they become “stationary bandits”
These stationary bandits find that
by providing some level of public goods and security, and by ensuring that the economy of the controlled area is not destroyed by their theft, they can extract more wealth over the long term
a symbiotic relationship between the population and the bandit is formed, leading to the development of more organized and institutionalized governance, which can be seen as the genesis of the state
FOR THE PRESENT I should to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him;
To see an endless multitude of people not merely obeying, but driven to servility?
not from a Hercules nor from a Samson, but from a single little man. Too frequently this same little man is the most cowardly and effeminate in the nation, a stranger to the powder of battle and hesitant on the sands of the tournament; not only without energy to direct men by force, but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common woman!
When not a hundred, not a thousand men, but a hundred provinces, a thousand cities, a million men, refuse to assail a single man from whom the kindest treatment received is the infliction of serfdom and slavery, what shall we call that? Is it cowardice?
Obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement: it is not necessary to deprive him of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it.
Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.
You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows—to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free.
Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces?
how it happens that this obstinate willingness to submit has become so deeply rooted in a nation that the very love of liberty now seems no longer natural.
There are three kinds of tyrants
Some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance.
It is incredible how as soon as a people becomes subject, it promptly falls into such complete forgetfulness of its freedom that it can hardly be roused to the point of regaining it, obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say, on beholding such a situation, that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.
Thus custom becomes the first reason for voluntary servitude. Men are like handsome race horses who first bite the bit and later like it, and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to enjoy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings.
Plays, farces, spectacles, gladiators, strange beasts, medals, pictures, and other such opiates, these were for ancient peoples the bait toward slavery, the price of their liberty, the instruments of tyranny.
The earliest kings of Egypt rarely showed themselves without carrying a cat, or sometimes a branch, or appearing with fire on their heads, masking themselves with these objects and parading like workers of magic. By doing this they inspired their subjects with reverence and admiration, whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused, it seems to me, amusement and laughter. It is pitiful to review the list of devices that early despots used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. Indeed they always fooled their victims so easily that while mocking them they enslaved them the more.
I COME NOW to a point which is, in my opinion, the mainspring and the secret of domination, the support and foundation of tyranny.
the bureaucrats that surround the throne
These wretches see the glint of the despot’s treasures and are bedazzled by the radiance of his splendor. Drawn by this brilliance they come near, without realizing they are approaching a flame that cannot fail to scorch them. Similarly attracted, the indiscreet satyr of the old fables, on seeing the bright fire brought down by Prometheus, found it so beautiful that he went and kissed it, and was burned21; so, as the Tuscan22 poet reminds us, the moth, intent upon desire, seeks the flame because it shines, and also experiences its other quality, the burning.
Dancing kings
The question of being
The ontological status of the state
in what sense does the state exist?
where is it?
Early modern metaphors:
as family etc
what it means to investigate metaphors — what is possible