1

Is there any agreement on what makes a state "state"?

  • Is it de facto tax collection (especially, customs)?
  • Is it the number of general-residents ("permanent-residents") in a given place?
variableism
  • 13
  • 2
  • There must be legal definitions, which is probably the most rigorous kind of definition you can find. For example the UN's chart probably defines what kind of entity can be member of the UN. – armand Sep 07 '21 at 22:58

2 Answers2

1

From Wikipedia 'State (polity)':

A state is a polity under a system of governance with a monopoly on force. There is no undisputed definition of a state.

From Etymonline:

state (n.2)

"political organization of a country, supreme civil power, government," c. 1300, from special use of state (n.1); this sense grew out of the meaning "condition of a country" with regard to government, prosperity, etc. (late 13c.), from Latin phrases such as status rei publicæ "condition (or existence) of the republic."
The sense of "a semi-independent political entity under a federal authority, one of the bodies politic which together make up a federal republic" is from 1774. The British North American colonies occasionally were called states as far back as 1630s; the States has been short for "the United States of America" since 1777; also of the Netherlands. State rights in U.S. political sense is attested from 1798; form states rights is first recorded 1858. Church and state have been contrasted from 1580s. State-socialism attested from 1850.

Many forms are tax collection are surprisingly modern. There used to be tithes for the church inc support for the poor, and customs charges and estate revenues to run government. Income tax in the modern sense only dates from 1799.

Language is use. I recommend following changes in use of the words organ, and shuttle, to highlight the fluidity of language use in practice. Concepts don't have an essence, but are defined by how we use them.

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
  • This is one of those topics where one needs to be skeptical of Wikipedia. That is the *Libertarian* definition of a state, which isn't widely recognized in political science, but it quite popular among a small, vocal community. – Ted Wrigley Sep 07 '21 at 15:59
  • @TedWrigley: "Power is not an institution, and not a structure; neither is it a certain strength we are endowed with; it is the name that one attributes to a complex strategical situation in a particular society. There are forms of oppression and domination which become invisible - the new normal." – CriglCragl Sep 07 '21 at 20:27
  • @TedWrigley: "The real political task in a society such as ours is to criticize the workings of institutions that appear to be both neutral and independent, to criticize and attack them in such a manner that the political violence that has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." Both Foucault. Just libertarians you say? Give another definition that can cover diverse regions & epochs. – CriglCragl Sep 07 '21 at 20:28
  • Foucault was a social theorist, not a political scientist, and from his rather jaded worldview that makes sense. But if we don't recognize the jadedness of his worldview, we are doing ourselves a great disservice. And I don't need to worry to much about epochs. the concept of a 'state' is a product of the enlightenment, when people began to worry about the idea of governance in the abstract, separated from cultural and linguistic divides. – Ted Wrigley Sep 07 '21 at 21:05
  • @TedWrigley: He wasn't a libertarian, so my point is made. – CriglCragl Sep 07 '21 at 21:14
  • If that was your point, congratulations! Or maybe, I'm sorry: not sure... – Ted Wrigley Sep 07 '21 at 23:06
  • I find the phrase "language is use" obscure / doesn't help. `Concepts don't have an essence, but are defined by how we use them` I don't know of good evidence for that broad definition; there isn't much to philosophize on words such as "yes" or "if" or "one" or "planet", of course that there is a solid meaning behind them which is generally expressed correctly --- the fact that we don't understand how it is shared between different languages is not a good excuse for just saying "language is use". – variableism Sep 08 '21 at 01:02
  • @variableism: I didn't think it would need saying that I'm referencing Wittgenstein, and the relevant body of work is his Philosophical Investigations. Concepts are contextual, and develop through culture of use is all I mean – CriglCragl Sep 08 '21 at 04:06
  • @CriglCragl thanks for the clarification ; all I can say is that I just don't think everything is contextual (although I would agree much is). – variableism Sep 08 '21 at 04:14
  • @variableism: I do. For the details see 'Why is a measured true value “TRUE”?' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/81655/why-is-a-measured-true-value-true/81664#81664 & 'Philosophical assumptions underlying science' https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/74408/philosophical-assumptions-underlying-science/75434#75434 Mathematics, the usual objection, is just another language. – CriglCragl Sep 08 '21 at 04:33
  • What is the universal context of an "if X than Y" statement?... Many languages share it and the general pattern of that saying is not special in any (besides the context)... – variableism Sep 08 '21 at 11:25
1

In political science, a state is territory — a geographical area — that is claimed, administered, and controlled by an established government.

A state, by that definition, is in contrast to a nation, which is a community of people with social, cultural, or ethnic cohesion. In times of peace states generally have well-defined borders, either defined by 'natural' geographic boundaries or by treaty with other states. But during periods of conflict a territory may be contested: claimed by various different states, or by non-state actors working within a given state or states. In some cases a government will collapse completely, leaving an administrative vacuum in which various small groups contest for power, none of which can establish control or administer the normal functions of government (e.g. Somalia). These 'failed states' persist as long as surrounding states continue to honor the borders established with the original (now failed) state, on the expectation that a new government will eventually form within that territory.

There is a long and difficult tension between the concepts 'nation' and 'state'. In some cases powerful, established states, through conquest or colonization, lump together various small nations and ethnic groups to create an overarching, 'artificial' state, with predictable internal conflicts (e.g. India). In other cases, clearly defined nations are split up among various different states, creating 'stateless' peoples (e.g., the Kurdish people). In still other cases a drive towards nationalism — the effort to subdue a diverse state under the control of a culturally, ethnically, and/or religiously homogenous national group — produces suppression, oppression, and other problematic outcomes. But none of this confusion affects the basic distinction that 'state' refers to delineated territory and 'nation' to groups of people.

variableism
  • 13
  • 2
Ted Wrigley
  • 17,769
  • 2
  • 20
  • 51
  • Many early states only had systems of tribute, rather than administrating, eg Aztecs, Ancient China. City states founded colonies, which were about trade routes rather than territory. – CriglCragl Sep 07 '21 at 20:40
  • https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nation "1b : a community of people composed of one or more nationalities and possessing a more or less defined territory and government. Canada is a nation with a written constitution." A nation *can be* a group of people with a shared culture and language, as in sense 1a - or it can be essentially the same as a state, as in sense 1b. – causative Sep 07 '21 at 21:05
  • @causative: Yes, the terms are used fluidly in common parlance, sometimes even as synonyms. The sharp distinction only really pertains to political science discussions. A lay person can conflate the nation of Israel with the state of Israel; that's more problematic in academic discussions. – Ted Wrigley Sep 07 '21 at 21:08
  • @TedWrigley No, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism "Civic nationhood is a political identity built around shared citizenship within the state. Thus, a "civic nation" is defined not by language or culture but by political institutions and liberal principles, which its citizens pledge to uphold." – causative Sep 07 '21 at 21:12
  • @causative: It's still an identity group, not a territory. Please be reasonable. – Ted Wrigley Sep 07 '21 at 23:07
  • @TedWrigley It's an identity group that is identified with the territory - "Civic nationhood is a political identity built around shared citizenship within the state." Civic nationalism is the sense in which America is a nation, or Canada is a nation. Civic nationalism is the political theory behind Webster's definition 1b. – causative Sep 07 '21 at 23:57
  • @TedWrigley Civic nationalism stands in opposition to ethnic nationalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_nationalism . It's not right to say that ethnic nationalism is the only kind. – causative Sep 08 '21 at 00:35
  • @causative: I did not use the phrase ‘ethnic nationalism’, and was quite careful to include social and cultural cohesion. That ought to cover civic nationalism. Again, please be reasonable. – Ted Wrigley Sep 08 '21 at 00:45
  • @TedWrigley accusing me of not being reasonable is an ad hominem. In your post you said, "lump together various small nations and ethnic groups to create an overarching, 'artificial' state, with predictable internal conflicts," giving India as an example. This is the perspective of ethnonationalism, in opposition to civic nationalism, in which many ethnic groups may be part of the same nation. – causative Sep 08 '21 at 00:50
  • Let us [continue this discussion in chat](https://chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/129381/discussion-between-ted-wrigley-and-causative). – Ted Wrigley Sep 08 '21 at 01:05