Response #1

Previous posts suggest that Weber's assertion that a state "claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force" is somehow ambiguous and open to interpretation. One claims that force is but one tool among many while another claims that force is helpful but not necessary for a state. For the purpose of sparking respectful debate, allow me to disagree with both notions.

(1) All authority at the state level stems from force.
It is obvious in the cases of a bank robber tackled by police that force is an important tool of the state. You may, however, be under the misconception that other tools exist as well. What about economic tools like taxation or regulatory tools like licensing? These as well ultimately draw their strength and legitimacy from the state’s monopoly on legitimate force. If you refuse to pay taxes, the IRS will seize your earnings directly, repossess your belongings, throw you out of your home and possibly straight into jail. While most people do not experience this, they pay their taxes knowing that this potential consequence exists. Similarly, operating a vehicle or practicing surgery without a proper license carries with it the potential to be forcibly stopped from continuing such behavior as well as more serious sanctions. There are countless state powers ultimately predicated on the potential use of force and I would be curious to hear if anyone can think of a significant state function that draws fundamental legitimacy from some source unconnected to force.

(2) The strongest force in a state is inherently legitimate.
In 1949, Communist forces pushed the ruling Kuomintang out of mainland China and onto the island of Formosa (Taiwan). For over two decades, the United States chose not to recognize the Communists as the “legitimate” authority in China. This did not change the fact that the Communist Party controlled the military, police, schools, and administration of all of mainland China. Since the inhabitants recognized their authority, they by all means satisfied Weber’s definition of legitimacy. Imagine a case in which the state is not the predominant wielder of force – in that case, the state is no longer the legitimate authority and the more powerful force will inevitably replace the state and claim its legitimacy. In time, the largest force always becomes the legitimate force.

Response #1

Response to: Politics as a Vocation by Max Weber

Near the beginning of his essay, Weber asserts that the defining characteristic of the state is its position as the “sole source of the right to use violence” (32), but he also acknowledges that many other tools are available to the state. After reading this admission of alternative means, I became interested in what other techniques states use to achieve their goals. Clearly other methods exist, or else life would be consumed by constant threats and abuse by the state. The most obvious device outside violence for me is the ability of the state to deprive citizens of freedoms and options, such as when states prohibit certain goods or jail people. The reverse of this is also true: another option for rulers is to provide incentives to follow or obey state policy, including production bonuses or merit recognition. The state may also use psychological strategies to enforce its will, by publicly honoring citizens, by inciting a culture of paranoia, or even by relaxing social norms. Spiritual tools also exist for certain countries, ranging from instituting a theocracy to acknowledging or disregarding the holidays of various religions. For every aspect of human life, there is a way the state can attempt to insert its influence and control, but all these other techniques rest on the foundation of the use of force that Weber initially lays out. Whenever the state does not fully control the use of force, its political stability comes into question, and its other methods of persuasion begin to lose their potency. This is a key reason why former entities like the Roman Empire or the French monarchy eventually fell apart: they had no ultimate way of enforcing their will, due to external takeover or internal collapse of their power base. The use of violence is the essential resource for states.

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.

Response #1

My response is on “A Survey of the Field of Comparative Government” by Roy Macridis.
I was very interested to see Macridis dissect what has been the traditional study of “comparative politics”: to describe a formal organization/institution on a singular basis and not analyze and compare parallels or differences of organizations and institutions between states of all types.
Understandably, as Macridis notes it is easy to settle on working with only similar and familiar cultures as a foundation for further studies because of accessibility, availability, and cultural affinity (4), but I agree that we are now beyond that and must be less narrow-minded and limited to western thought processes if we are to legitimately compare policies, governments and peoples.
In addition to using Western terms to describe non-western governments, the study of comparative politics has been satisfied too much by titles and not enough multi-faceted detail (ie. growth, change, and development). Traditionally, the study focuses on “what happened or what is?” and not “how it got there and why?”
Comparative politics needs to connect human behavior (like what King said regarding the 1950s & 60s Behavioral Revolution) more to political and economic developments intra and inter states. This connection could help with acknowledging and addressing the informal factors in addition to formal factors that contribute to politics, economics, and society.
I’m still not convinced whether area studies programs are for the better or worse. It seems logical to focus thoughts on an area to attain expertise and to assess situations with comparable ones in comparable states if the area study is used, as Macridis recommends, as a cautious analytical concept providing controls in situations to discover and describe variables; however, that focus can contribute to generalizing and associating a stereotype with an entire region/continent/hemisphere without any true means to compare systems in an analytical way across the globe.

Welcome to CPS Section 07

Dear Students,

Welcome to the GOVT-121 Section 07 Blog! This blog is for students in Jackie Kerr's Friday 2:15 discussion section of GOVT-121 Comparative Political Systems with Professor King, Fall 2008.

This is the forum for submission of required blog entries relating to the week's readings. This space can also be used to ask questions about the readings or lectures, prepare for exams, and engage in informal discussion of themes from class.

Before beginning to use the blog, please take a look at the Blog Guidelines that I have posted below.

Cheers,
Jackie

Blog Submission Guidelines

Please observe the following guidelines in use of the section blog:

Over the course of the term all students should write at least 2 blog response entries (250-300 words) based on that week’s readings. These should be submitted on the weeks for which you have signed up at the start of the term.

Blog entries that are meant to fulfill the two response requirement should be posted by midnight on the Wednesday before section. Please also label these entries with “Response #[1 or 2]“ in the subject line so as to differentiate them from other informal comments or questions that you might post.

Please familiarize yourself with the week's entries as part of your preparation for our discussion section.

You are welcome (though not required) to post more than the required two blog entries. If a theme catches your interest, feel free to write additional responses or comments. In addition to the time we spend together in class, this is a forum for participation and sharing ideas.

Authors are expected to be respectful in their postings and are reminded that this activity is governed by the University's honor code.