Response #1 - Ryan Berg

Perhaps the most perplexing thing we have attempted up to this juncture is defining the modern state. Although Aristotle assisted us in developing an overall framework for this definition, Weber attempts to define the state more specifically, namely through its most important function—the monopoly over the legitimization of the use of physical force. Weber defines the scope of this legitimization to a given territory, also an integral part in the definition of a state. It is this violence that maintains public order and contributes to the legitimacy (in the minds of citizens) of the state. Only the use of public force is legitimate, and in the case of private force (i.e. the use of modern private security forces) must be cleared first by the state. Even the ability to defend oneself—thereby using violence—is legitimized by the state, manifested in codified self-defense laws. Implicit in this state monopoly is the idea that private violence should be prevented or punished whenever possible. Because (1) politics must necessarily take place within the parameters of the state and (2) the state is defined in terms of violence and (3) the use of violence is generally relative, the definition of politics is thus a fight over the distribution of the use of legitimate force. Politics is thus a means to an end—the use of legitimate force is used to render control while other plans are carried out. The use of violence makes the state a “dominating” entity over citizen’s lives. Modern political states have created consistency or lasting legitimacy by vesting power in the office or title, rather than the person holding the office. This is seen in Weber’s discussion of administrative means, and whether administrative staffs have ownership or are “separated” from those means. “Separation” effectively curtails political power, while at the same time enhancing the responsibility of politicians. The most ironic accomplishment, however, is that despite the “separated” nature of the administrative means, states have still managed to consolidate these means (even though they don’t explicitly own them) to gain hegemony over the use of legitimate force. Overall, I find Weber’s definition of a state quite compelling (in the sense of accuracy), but he ultimately leaves one question unanswered—whether he meant to take a normative claim saying the state “ought to monopolize violence,” or whether he meant that the citizens “accept this monopolization” is unclear. My guess is that he meant to describe the modern state in the most realistic terms possible without regard for other factors.