Statehood

This week we read and discussed the pathology of how states are formed which relied heavily on European history relying on three different authors and theories. Jackson relied heavily on the reformation and the relationship between the church and state to explain the rise in statehood, Spruyt focused on the relationship between the local institutions and the monarchy, while Tilly believes that coercion (war and force) were the only things that mattered in explaining how states became the norm. Sometimes while reading it is important to keep in mind why these concepts are important to understand where the author is “going” with his thesis and also understand how these concepts fit into the larger picture of what we are learning in class, which I would like to address here.

During our discussion in class we had at least two people comment on how all of these readings were very narrow in focus, whether it is because all three authors only write on Europe’s history of becoming a state or because the authors all seemed to only cover so much and neglected to mention many other facts and circumstances that lead to the formation of the state. Each author observes the formation of the state through a given lens and fits the given facts and circumstances that led to the formation of the state to the author’s thesis. This means that all three authors write about essentially the same history and set of facts but manage to come up with three different theories on how the state formed. We can take and apply these concepts to other non European states and see the pathology of how the state formed through each lens. I believe that the ultimate test does a theory hold water would be to apply them outside of the given example that an author uses. For example we could look at the formation India’s state under the British rule that created a lasting state structure that would stick around until the twentieth century.

Tilly might argue that the institutions that were necessary to support the coercive forces that ruled in India led to the creation of the state. In order to colonize India the British needed a monopoly of power over the fragmented Indian local rulers which was easily achievable because of the technological advantages that the British had, a point that Tilly emphasized. Furthermore, the British Empire profited from the colonization of India which led to them becoming an even greater force making them a capitalist coercive trajectory because they had the perfect mixture of capitalism and force. In the end when India became independent, many of the governmental institutions that the British Empire created to support the rule over India remained intact and the institutions that were created after British rule were modeled after the British system.

            Jackson’s argument comes up short when applied in India which may prove that it is too narrow to be a solid thesis. In India we do not see the power struggle between the secular and religious worlds that led to the creation of the state, religion in India was not unified like the Catholic Church to be considered a central actor. The British may have used religion to legitimize ruling India by spreading Christianity, but the driving for really was economic therefore the religious aspect came second. India did not have its own “Protestant reformation” that led to the state.

            Spruyt may argue that the political deals between the local rulers and the British played a central role in the creation of the state. The British could not have had the rule over India that they had without the aid of the local rulers. Volumes of books could be written on the relationship between the local indigenous rulers and the British Empire which would support Spruyt’s theory of how the state was formed. Because of these deals, the British were able to create the institutions to rule over India.

            Truthfully each author must remain narrow in his or her thesis in order to not take on too much which does leave holes in the argument and while examining the rise the state in any given country it is probably best to see different aspects and combine different arguments as a reader. In the case of India Spruyt and Tilly's thesis complement each other to give a solid perspective. The rise of the state was an important concept to study because it reminds us that internationally recognized states are a relatively new concept in the eyes of human history. Also it helps define what a state is and how a state becomes a state, which helps answer are certain territories today sovereign states.