LITERATURE REVIEW: THEORIZING STATE-SOCIETY INTERACTION
2.6. Re-reading Weberian state
Max Weber views interpersonal relations within society as relations of power and dominance or authority upon the institutionalisation of power (Weber 1972, cited in Lambach, 2004, p. 10). The primary objective of these organisations is to construct and enforce an order which would structure their member's social relations by suggesting or forbidding kinds of behaviour or forms of interaction among their members or towards outsiders. If relations of dominance form the basis of the said associations, then they are considered Herrschaftsverbände. One particular case of these associations of dominance is
the political association (politischer Verband). Such political association relies on the use of power to implement its order within a limited territory. Finally, the state is a distinct political association characterised by the legitimacy of its "monopoly of physical violence"
(Weber, 1972, p. 28) and the resulting sovereignty within its territory.
Migdal has criticised Weber's definition of the state as conveying the misleading image of the state as an omnipotent structure. Migdal is undoubtedly aware that Weber was talking about an ideal type definition of the state. However, he still claims that Weber's definition inhibits critical thinking about "real-life states that do not meet this ideal." (Migdal, 2001, 14). The problem for Migdal is that, "with Weber's definition as the starting point; variation can be conceptualised and measured only as of the distance from the ideal type." (Migdal, 2001, 15). However, a closer look reveals that Migdal misreads Weber in two respects. First, Weber does not suggest that the state is the only association able to create rules. Like Migdal's own position, Weber posits the state as a particular case of the Herrschaftsverband: a social organisation structured by relations of dominance and authority. Second, it is a mistake to read Weber as providing his ideal type definition with a normative outlook that the state ought to be the predominant authority within society.
Migdal's allegation of a faulty reception of Weber's work cannot be inferred from an orthodox reading of Weber's original work.
We can infer from the writings of both the scholars that they share a similar theory of the state that is constructivist. The common ground between Migdal and Weber is the central role they assign to social organisations. These associations, for Migdal, recommend specific manners of behaviour that people ought to assimilate in their approaches to existence. In the model propounded by Weber, a different kind of social order is represented by associations. These associations embody sets of rules that are
enforced among their members through relationships of authority. The basis for both the Weberian kind of authority and Migdal's concept of social control is the attitudes towards rule that range from rational compliance to emotional support and affirmation (Lambach, 2004, 11). So, where Migdal has characterised society as a blend of social organisations, Weber has presented it as a set of overlying and crosscutting orders of a higher authority.
Furthermore, both Weber and Migdal do not view the state as a structure that exists somehow outside or above society. Instead, the state is assumed to have a distinct entity as only one among a multitude of associations within society, even though it exhibits specific unique characteristics that no other associations share (Lambach, 2004)
If one considers these two approaches together, what comes out is a model society that is a collection of associations that strive to maximise the reach of their respective orders. The state, a significant association, attempts to expand its social control over all of society, both geographically and socially. The state enters a struggle of opposing orders with social associations who fight its attempts to sway its members. Finally, it is all about who gets to make the rules and whose rules are obeyed. This model has a resemblance to Thomas Callaghy's theory of state formation. Callaghy (1984, cited in Lambach, 2004) notes that state making requires formulating a new definition of authority that opposes the existing ones. The struggle for dominance occurs with internal social groups and external groups, organisations, and forces for compliance, resources, and the fulfilment of social and political interests. Thus, it becomes a struggle for internal control, political unification, and external security.
European state-building history in the late Middle Ages and early modern times resembles this state model. During this period, centralised political authorities replaced the old feudal structures. This centralisation process had little in common with
'state of nature' assumptions. In this process, there was the absence of any acts of association or social contract. The general population had a minor role to play and did not figure much into the equation. While, early modern rulers were confronted with alternative power centres like local lords, the rising city bourgeoisie, and the clergy, resisting their attempts to increase the state's reach. The 'state authority, which is essential for a dominant organisation, had to be managed through conflict and accommodation with other organisations. According to Charles Tilly (1985), the route it took was primarily defined by legitimacy over the use of strength. He notes that legitimacy is how other authorities can be made to confirm the decisions of a given authority. He adds that other authorities are more likely to confirm an authority's decisions that control considerable force. According to Tilly, it is made possible by fear of retaliation and a desire to maintain a stable environment.
Thus, the state usually features a prominent position when one thinks about politics from the above discussion. The dominance of the state in the politics of Western countries and the daily lives of their citizens is so overwhelming that it is hardly questioned.
The study and works of Joel Migdal remind us that the state is a kind of social organisation.
It is an institution of society that is highly specific to the current historical context. Another important observation in his study is that the state does not exist outside or above society but is a part of society. Besides, these two institutions regularly influence and reshape one another. Migdal's argument points to the fact that most states do not conform to the ideal type of the strong state that is prevalent in our thinking. Sometimes states find it difficult to implement their policies due to the strong influence exerted on the outcome of state policies by strongmen and social authorities. The state is then left with the option of either accommodating these forces or breaking their social control.
Englebart (1988), in his study of Sub-Saharan Africa, has shown that efficiency from state institutions is ensured when they work in congruence with informal institutions and norms. Efficiency, according to Englebart, is also ensured when they are more endogenous to their societies and are historically embedded in domestic social relations. It is true even in developed nations. Such thinking can also be employed while looking at state-society relations and the policy process in developed countries. An example can be cited of the Corporatist theories of politics, which highlights the role of interest groups in the policy process. Similarly, the veto player models have already incorporated selected non-state actors into their analysis.
In conclusion, we can claim that it would be wrong to restrict political concepts beyond the nation-state as mere speculations about the future. In many parts of the world, politics has become an activity often conducted outside the domain of the state.
When thinking about the world's various regions, we need to be careful not to generalise the experience of the Western state and apply the same to analyse other states. Social forces in every nation have interacted and moulded the state authority in their exercise of power. Therefore, it is essential not to restrict one's view only on the state while trying to locate the original seat of power but also to consider society's varied associations to understand the power and scope of any authority truly.