Gabriel Fridegotto discussion response

Gabriel Fridegotto

Poli 480

Professor Shirk

Response paper

In the readings, especially the Timothy Mitchell reading on the limit of the state, I disagree with that the author is saying. The main point argument that Mitchell made in the article was that when discussing state sovereignty, there was no distinguishable fine line between the state and society. More concise, Mitchell mentions that there are various schools of thought. One being that the state is the most important factor when determining sovereignty. Secondly, that society plays more of a role in the sovereignty of the state. It is difficult to begin to know which is more important, without being able to define both in an accurate way. Mitchell argues that it is impossible to determine a fine line between the state and society.

I disagree with Mitchell's argument for two main reasons. The first being that I believe that sovereignty is brought more about states and their authority of society. Also, when defining society, I believe that societal institutions, such as police or the economic sector are part of the state. Therefore there would be a fine line between the workings between state and society. Real world examples can illustrate why I disagree with Mitchell. Mitchell claims that within states there are varying to which society and institutions establish sovereignty and that is coupled with state authority. I do not believe that in every state this happens. A good example of this is the state of Afghanistan, as a state it has sovereignty by definition, but with its societal aspect it is not stable. This shows that the state is the most important actor that defines a more accurate representation of final sovereignty.

The second reason why I do not agree with Mitchell's argument that there is no fine line between state and society is that society, I believe can never be stronger that state institutions. Mitchell and the other various authors in the article will disagree because they believe that societal institutions and state institutions work separately from each other. There are some differences with what Mitchell calls fundamental state organizations and the political system. The political system being government institutions such as congress. But, fundamental state organizations can be seen as major corporations which drive financial growth, and these are more society based. I do not believe this difference exist because both parts of the state work in relative cooperation to each other. A good example of this is the Aramco case, where a Saudi Arabian oil company decided to take on the role of the state. This brought up the question of what the functions of both the state and the society are? I believe in this situation both the state and society where using their functions at the same time, and therefore disproving Mitchell's theory that there is no fine line between them if they line is the same.

Ultimately I believe that the state by working with societal institutions give final autonomy and sovereignty to a nation. I believe this because societal institutions and non-societal institutions always will need to work within the dimensions of the state. Meaning that the state is more powerful than society and this causes the differentiation between state and society. These are all of the reasons why I disagree with Mitchell and his argument in the readings.  

I apologize for not posting this double spaced but when i cut and pasted it it would not let me