O P Gauba Summary: Diverse Perspectives on the State-1 | PSIR Optional for UPSC PDF Download

Diverse Perspectives on the State

Organic Political Theory

The state is a central concept in political theory, which focuses on understanding "the state, its structure, nature, and purpose." Throughout history, various political theorists have offered different views on what the state is and what its role should be. New ideas can challenge or change older ones, but in political theory, both old and new perspectives can coexist, each claiming its importance. No single political idea dominates today; all are subject to ongoing evaluation.

Grasping the different perspectives on the state is crucial for engaging in public affairs. Here are some significant views:

• Organic theory of the state
• Liberal-individualist perspective
• Welfare State perspective
• Class perspective
• Communitarian perspective
• Post-colonial perspective
• Gandhian perspective
• Feminist perspective
• Pluralist perspective

The organic theory of the state, which likens the state to a living organism and individuals to its organs, is one of the earliest perspectives on the state. This theory suggests that:

• The existence and value of individuals depend on the state, just as organs depend on the organism.
• Different groups and classes in society are naturally suited for various functions, some being more crucial for the overall interest of society.

The State as an Essential Foundation of Society

The organic theory views the state as a crucial foundation of society, necessary for human existence. The ancient Greeks believed that the state is vital for both survival and a good life. Aristotle stated that humans are 'political animals' and that the state is central to human identity. He argued that individuals without the state are akin to beasts or gods, highlighting that the state comes before individuals. Aristotle explained this by stating that the state (the whole) is prior to the family and the individual (the parts), similar to how a body needs its entirety to function. An isolated person is not self-sufficient; rather, they are like a part that cannot work independently from the whole. Those who can live alone, like hermits, are exceptions. Aristotle believed that the state is natural and precedes individuals because individuals need the state to survive, just as parts require a whole.

The notion of the state as a natural institution faced scrutiny during the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century, which introduced a 'mechanistic' view of the state. However, by the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there was a return to the organic theory, seeing the state as a living entity. Edmund Burke, a conservative thinker, compared the state to a living organism that grows historically and cannot be fully understood by merely analysing its parts. With the rise of nationalism, the state came to represent the nation, a shift supported by idealist thinkers like G.W.F. Hegel, who famously referred to the state as 'God’s march on earth.'

State as a Living Organism

The organic theory of the state, which compares the state to a living organism, gained renewed attention with the rise of modern evolutionary theory. This theory suggests that political institutions evolve much like living beings, showing greater differentiation of parts.

Supporters of this theory drew parallels between the state and natural phenomena, even comparing the state's functions to those of the human body, including its systems of nutrition, circulation, and various organs. For example, Bluntschli controversially claimed that the state embodies the masculine principle, while the Church represents the feminine.

State as a Moral Institution

According to the organic theory, the state is essential not only for survival but also for achieving a good life. It plays a vital role in moral development by enabling citizens to fulfil their duties and enjoy their rights, leading to moral excellence.

The ethical foundation of the state in this theory relies on the natural differentiation of functions among individuals, as proposed by Aristotle. He suggested that some people are naturally suited to rule while others are meant to serve. This idea, historically used to justify slavery, reflects an outdated view that does not align with modern ethical standards.

The modern biological school of political theory further developed the concept of the state as a moral institution by emphasising its organic nature. They highlighted the following characteristics of organisms:

• Intrinsic Relationship: The parts of an organism are fundamentally connected to the whole, unlike machine parts that can exist separately. For instance, a hand loses its identity if separated from the body, while a wheel remains a wheel regardless of its place in a machine.
• Organic Unity and Internal Growth: Organisms show unity among their parts and grow from within, unlike machines that can be fixed by replacing parts. Organisms gradually change through natural growth.
• End-in-Itself: Organisms exist for their own sake, while machines serve external purposes. The state, like an organism, exists for its own sake, providing the basis for a good life for its citizens.

Supporters of the Biological School

Supporters of the biological school believed that the state should be viewed as a living organism. They recognized the strong bond between individuals and the state, with the state being the essential source of life and support for its citizens. Some theorists even ascribed a personality to the state, considering it a "Real Person" or a "Super Person."

Organic Theory and Individual Rights

The organic theory posits that individual rights are subordinate to state interests. It argues that genuine individual freedom can be achieved by adhering to state laws. This perspective emphasizes the harmony between individual and state interests, similar to the relationship between an organism and its organs.

• Critics contend that prioritizing state interests over individual rights can pave the way for authoritarianism.
• They advocate for a more balanced view of the relationship between individuals and the state.

A Critical Estimate of the Organic Theory of the State

Power Structures

The organic theory of the state, which has its roots in ancient thought, was challenged by the mechanistic theory in the seventeenth century. However, its revival in the nineteenth century indicates its enduring appeal. This theory views the state as the primary institution responsible for nurturing human potential to its fullest extent. Despite its influence, the organic theory has significant flaws.

Subordination of Man to the State

One of the critical issues with the organic theory is its emphasis on the primacy of the state over the individual. This theory merges personal identity with that of the state, leading to several problematic implications:

• Individuals are seen as mere conduits for divine energy, acting passively while others take action on their behalf. This perspective undermines the idea of individuals as proactive participants in society.
• People are restricted to specific roles defined by the state, preventing them from following their own consciences and limiting their personal agency.

The organic theory envisions an 'ideal' state that dictates the relationship between individuals and the state. However, in reality, individuals embody the state and exercise its powers. There is no guarantee that these individuals will possess the wisdom, integrity, and responsibility expected of an 'ideal' state.

In practice, the organic theory places individuals under the control of state officials—such as legislators, ministers, judges, bureaucrats, and military leaders—who may be just as flawed, if not more so, than the citizens they serve. These officials might make decisions based on personal interests, whims, or short-sightedness. If their authority is perceived as absolute and unquestionable, and if citizens are expected to sacrifice for the state without question, such a dynamic could jeopardize the very survival of the state.

Historical examples, such as the Nazi and Fascist regimes in Germany and Italy during the World Wars, illustrate the dangers of this relationship. These regimes represent extreme departures from democratic values and highlight the risks inherent in the organic theory of the state.

Distorted Perspective on Freedom

The organic theory posits that individuals possess no rights against the state, thereby compromising personal freedom. It diminishes individual liberty to mere compliance with state authority. This theory overlooks the essential difference between the state and society regarding the limitations of state power.

Concerns Highlighted by R.M. Maclver

• In his book "The Web of Government" (1965), R.M. Maclver cautions that merging the concepts of society and the state can pave the way for perilous totalitarianism.
• He contends that equating society, with its varied and decentralised relationships, to the state, which undertakes specific coordinated activities, poses the risk of granting the state unchecked authority over individuals.

Critique of Erroneous Logic

• Maclver critiques the erroneous reasoning employed by certain thinkers and politicians to rationalise the curtailment of individual freedom.
• He traces this perilous line of thought to Rousseau, who introduced the notion of a social contract wherein individuals consent to certain limitations for the sake of collective freedom.
• He also alludes to Fichte and Hegel, whose ideas influenced the extreme ideologies of Fascists and Nazis.

Implications of a Distorted Perspective

• This distorted perspective on freedom, masquerading as liberty and unity, ultimately leads to the suppression of creative individuals.
• It culminates in the imposition of authoritarian control.

Denial of Equality

Organic Theory of the State

• The organic theory of the state is undemocratic because it suggests that only a few are capable of making decisions for society, much like how different body parts have specific functions.
• This theory implies that regular people cannot participate in governance, similar to how toes cannot direct the brain, which maintains inequality and concentrates power among a few.
• Historically, such beliefs have been used to justify injustices, like slavery and claims of racial superiority, by suggesting that some individuals are naturally better than others.
• However, there is no scientific evidence proving that different groups are inherently superior; variations in skills and abilities often stem from social and economic circumstances.
• Improvements in education, economic opportunities, healthcare, and cultural participation have historically allowed individuals to thrive, yet supporters of the organic theory often ignore these factors.

Liberal-Individualist Perspective

• The liberal-individualist view of the state considers it a mechanism, akin to a machine. This perspective emerged in a specific historical context.
• In the seventeenth century in Europe, advancements in physical sciences led to the idea that society and the state function like mechanisms governed by universal laws.
• This perspective aligned with the interests of the rising middle class, especially merchants and industrialists, who flourished in a 'free market' setting.
• The liberal theory represented the social and economic philosophy of this new middle class.

Strengthening of the Perspective

• The liberal-individualist view was strengthened by advocates of the 'social contract' who linked the state's origin to liberal thought.
• Moreover, supporters of modern economics endorsed laissez-faire individualism, further solidifying the liberal-individualist viewpoint.

Theory of the Social Contract

• The theory of the social contract offers a typical liberal perspective on how the state came into being, viewing it as the result of individuals agreeing to fulfill certain social needs.
• This liberal theory, while rooted in the mechanical idea of the state, developed to emphasize the state as an artificial construct designed for mutual benefit.
• The mechanical theory implies that the state is a purposeful creation by individuals, signifying a period before and after the state's existence.
• According to this view, the state is not a natural occurrence but a tool devised by humans for their collective advantage, mirroring the common will of society.

Proponents of the Theory

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

• Hobbes, who tutored Charles II of England, wrote  Leviathan  in 1651 to advocate for the absolute power of rulers.
• He condemned the Civil War of 1642, viewing it as a threat to social unity.
• Hobbes believed a strong ruler was essential for maintaining social order.

John Locke (1632-1704)

• Locke aimed to defend the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and promoted the idea of constitutional monarchy.
• In  Two Treatises of Civil Government  (1690), he argued that people had the right to remove a tyrannical king.
• Locke advocated for a monarchy based on the consent of the governed.

Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-78)

• Rousseau, a gifted writer, inspired not only poets and thinkers but also the revolutionary movement leading to the French Revolution of 1789.
• He is regarded as a significant influence on this pivotal political event.

Later Thinkers

• Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant, Herbert Spencer, John Rawls, and Robert Nozick used social contract theory to develop their own ideas, building on the concepts of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.

Introduction to Social Contract Theory

Social Contract Theory

The social contract theory suggests that the state and society were formed through a mutual agreement among individuals. It proposes that individuals in a pre-state condition, known as the "state of nature," voluntarily agreed to form a government to protect their rights and maintain order.

The idea of the social contract has evolved over time, with different thinkers offering their interpretations. However, the core concept remains that the state derives its authority from the consent of the governed.

The State of Nature

• The state of nature refers to a hypothetical condition where individuals lived without any form of political authority or legal constraints. In this scenario:
• There was no organized industry or production, and people relied solely on natural resources for their survival.
• Individuals acted based on their natural impulses, guided by a concept of "natural law," which existed even in the absence of formal legal frameworks.
• Although people did not have recognized rights, they possessed certain "natural rights" inherent to their existence.

Different philosophers interpret the state of nature differently, as these ideas are based on reasoning rather than empirical evidence.

Hobbes's Perspective

• Hobbes depicts the state of nature as a brutal and conflict-ridden environment. He believes that humans are inherently selfish, driven by their desires and self-interest, leading to constant conflict.
• In Hobbes's view, the absence of laws and authority results in a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," where every individual is an enemy to others.
• He argues that individuals in the state of nature seek to dominate others to fulfill their desires. However, since people have similar abilities, no one can easily overpower another, leading to mutual fear and insecurity.
• In such conditions, there is no possibility for cooperation or industry, and people resort to taking what they can by force.
• Hobbes emphasizes that he is presenting a theoretical scenario to illustrate the necessity of government. He believes that concepts like morality and duty only emerge with the establishment of laws and authority.
• In this context, natural rights are seen as the powers individuals have to dominate others, and natural liberty refers to the freedom to preserve one’s life, in accordance with the law of nature.
• The law of nature encourages individuals to seek peace, relinquish some natural rights, uphold contracts, and show kindness, ultimately driving them to establish a stable government for self-preservation.

Locke's Perspective

• Locke offers a contrasting view of the state of nature, depicting it as a state of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation." In Locke’s perspective:
• Individuals enjoy liberty and follow the law of nature, which is an internal moral law guiding their actions. Most people act rationally, treating others with respect and not merely as means to an end.
• However, some individuals may disregard these moral principles in pursuit of self-interest, creating challenges in the state of nature.
• The lack of a governing authority to enforce rules makes it difficult to manage such individuals, leading to the need for a civil society.
• Locke believes that natural law comprises moral rules inherent in human conscience, and natural rights are fundamental freedoms and equality possessed by every individual.
• These rights include the protection of life, liberty, and property, as well as the authority to judge and punish violations of natural law by others.
• When individuals form a political society, they relinquish their right to act as judges in legal matters, transferring this authority to the community while retaining their natural rights.
• Locke’s concept of the state of nature is theoretical, emphasizing that individuals should be free and equal, rather than describing a past reality.

Discourse on Inequality

In  Discourse on Inequality  , Rousseau describes the state of nature as a time when people lived in peace and harmony, without the inequalities that later arose with the advent of civilization. He believes that in this primitive state, humans were equal and self-sufficient. However, as society developed, inequalities emerged, leading to the need for a civil society and eventually a state. Rousseau's view on the origin of the state aligns with Marx's ideas about social inequality.

The Social Contract

In  The Social Contract  , Rousseau changes his perspective on the civil state. He now sees it as essential for protecting freedom, rather than just a response to inequality. He famously states that while man is born free, he is often constrained by societal norms. Rousseau argues that legitimate authority comes from mutual agreements among people, as no one has natural authority over another.

When individuals enter into a social contract, they exchange their natural liberties for civil liberties and protection of their possessions. Rousseau believes this exchange is beneficial as it establishes a framework for mutual respect and authority within society.

Different Interpretations of the Social Contract

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau have different interpretations of the social contract based on their views of the state of nature, natural law, and natural rights.

• Hobbes proposes a single contract where individuals collectively abandon the state of nature, establishing both society and the state.
• This historical fiction conveys the philosophical truth that government relies on the will of the people, not just force.
• In Hobbes's view, the social contract is made among the people emerging from the state of nature, with the sovereign not being a party to the contract.
• The sovereign comes into existence as a result of this contract and cannot be a party to it.
• The contract is between each individual and all, and all with each, to set up a sovereign authority.
• By this contract, every person surrenders their natural rights and powers to a common power that will provide security.
• The social contract establishes a ruler with supreme and absolute authority, making all individuals, except the sovereign, subjects.
• All natural rights are surrendered to the sovereign, contingent upon the sovereign's ability to provide security and order.
• The powers conferred cannot be withdrawn.
• Hobbes does not allow for the right to revolt or revolution, arguing that reclaiming natural rights would revert society to a state of nature marked by anarchy and insecurity.
• This perspective led Hobbes to condemn the civil war of 1642.
• According to Hobbes, the state and society emerge simultaneously through a singular contract.
• If this contract is repudiated, it would lead not only to the overthrow of the government but also to the disintegration of society itself.
• This is why Hobbes considers sovereignty to be absolute, indivisible, and inalienable, creating an unlimited political obligation.
• Hobbes’s social contract theory appears ideal only if a flawless and infallible individual or assembly can be identified as the sovereign.
• However, the question arises: how can imperfect humans justify the exercise of such universal and absolute authority in the real world? Hobbes does not address this fundamental issue.

Locke's Perspective

Locke offers a different perspective by proposing several stages of the contract, including unanimous agreement to form a community, majority agreement to establish institutions, and agreement by property owners to taxes.

• Society, according to Locke, is created first, followed by the government. This means that if the government is dissolved, society remains intact, and a new government can be established.
• Locke views the government as a trust, obligated to act within the constitutional framework. By differentiating between the formation of society and the state, Locke places the government under society's control, rejecting absolutism.

Natural Rights and Government

Hobbes argues for absolute sovereignty, requiring an unconditional surrender of natural liberty to the sovereign, as natural liberty leads to conflict and chaos. In contrast, Locke advocates for a conditional and partial surrender of natural rights, emphasizing that some fundamental rights are essential for human freedom and cannot be relinquished.

Locke contends that individuals give up their natural right to judge and punish offenders of natural law in their own cases and in the cases of others, transferring this right to the community, common power, or government, which acts as an umpire. This right is surrendered on the condition that the rights to life, liberty, and property will be protected and preserved.

Society and Government Authority

Society has the right to monitor whether the government is using its powers according to the agreed terms. This means the government must have the people's consent to govern, as the people have the ability to reason, understand right from wrong, and act on their conscience. If the government fails to do its job properly, the people have the right to replace it with a new one. This idea of being able to revolt against an unjust government is an important part of Locke's beliefs.

Justification of the Glorious Revolution

• Locke supports the Glorious Revolution of 1688, when James II was removed from power in England and William and Mary became the new monarchs.
• He bases this support on the idea that the people have the right to revolt against a government that does not fulfill its duties.

Right to Property

Locke views the right to property as a basic natural right that individuals cannot give up to the government. He argues that property comes from a person's labor. When someone combines their labor with natural resources, they gain exclusive rights to the resulting product, and this does not require the approval of others.

Taxation Theory

• Locke's perspective on taxation is based on the idea that citizens have a right to their property.
• He believes that the government should only take what is necessary for its operations and cannot take more without the property owner's consent.

Rousseau's Social Contract

Rousseau, like Hobbes, proposes a social contract that leads to absolute and indivisible sovereignty. However, Rousseau differs by emphasizing popular sovereignty, where sovereignty resides with the people rather than a separate ruler.

Collective Rights

• Individuals give up their natural rights to the collective when entering the social contract.
• What they lose individually, they regain in an improved form as part of the group.
• This arrangement benefits everyone because when one person is in danger, society collectively comes to their aid.
• Sovereignty is indivisible but shared by each member of civil society.

General Will and Individual Freedom

Rousseau's idea of popular sovereignty, based on the general will, is a significant contribution to modern democracy. The general will is united, infallible, and all-powerful, similar to Hobbes' concept of the sovereign.

Liberty and Civil Society

• Rousseau acknowledges the importance of liberty in the state of nature but argues that as populations grow and resources decline, individuals can no longer enjoy natural liberty as they once did.
• The diminishing natural resources threaten individual liberty, prompting people to unite for self-preservation, leading to the creation of civil society to protect their freedom.
• Maclver explains that the uncertain liberty of the state of nature is exchanged for the guaranteed and expanded liberty within the social order.

Law and Freedom

For Rousseau, law is not just compatible with liberty; it is necessary for its realization. Political obligation is resolved when the government is entrusted to the true sovereign, the general will. This allows individuals to obey themselves while remaining as free as before.

Freedom under General Will

• Acting against one's own will under the general will does not mean losing freedom.
• The constraint of the general will ensures greater freedom, reconciling individual and collective freedom.
• Rousseau's idea that "man can be forced to be free" summarizes this concept.

Understanding the General Will

The general will is a key part of Rousseau's ideas and is different from other forms of human will. Rousseau highlights that "the general will is always right" and represents the will of a citizen who prioritizes the common good over personal interests.

Actual Will vs. Real Will

• Later interpretations distinguish between actual will and real will to clarify Rousseau's distinction between particular will and general will.
• Actual will reflects immediate self-interest, while real will embodies ultimate collective interest.
• Actual will is temporary and inconsistent, whereas real will is stable and determinate.
• True freedom is found in overcoming actual will and following real will, aligning individual interest with the community's common good.

Transitioning to General Will

Individuals may not always be able to tell the difference between their actual and real will. This issue is resolved by transitioning from particular will to general will. The general will aligns individual and collective interests, representing the highest aspirations of every individual.

Spirit of Citizenship

• The spirit of citizenship guides individuals toward the right path, helping them overcome the confusion created by particular will.

Rousseau's View on Civil Society and the State

• Rousseau's perspective on civil society and the state evolves significantly throughout his work.
• Initially, he perceives civil society as a manifestation of superior will, emphasizing the strength and determination of the people.
• However, later in his writings, Rousseau shifts to viewing civil society as an expression of superior reason, highlighting the importance of rationality and logical decision-making in social governance.

Transition from Mechanistic to Organic View of the State

• Rousseau's understanding of the state evolves from seeing it as a mere machine that enforces laws to conceptualizing it as a living entity intricately connected with the social fabric.

Shift from Liberalism to Idealism

• In the early stages, Rousseau aligns with liberal thought, advocating for individual freedoms and rights.
• Over time, he gravitates towards idealist perspectives that prioritize collective well-being and moral ideals.
• Some scholars suggest that Rousseau's work embodies a blend of both liberal and idealist elements, reflecting a complex intellectual trajectory.

Confusing Legacy

• Despite his brilliance as a writer, Rousseau's ideas often come across as perplexing and contradictory.
• He garners admiration from both liberals and idealists for different aspects of his thought.
• However, critics point to the complexity and occasional lack of clarity in his arguments as a drawback.
• This duality in his legacy makes Rousseau a fascinating and contentious figure in the realm of political philosophy.

A Critical Appraisal

The social contract theory, which suggests that the state emerged from an agreement among individuals, has faced significant criticism. Detractors argue that it is historically inaccurate, logically flawed, and philosophically deficient.

David Hume's Critique

• David Hume contended that government did not arise from a conscious agreement among people. Rather, it evolved because individuals recognized the benefits of supporting an authority that maintained justice.
• Hume challenges the perspectives of thinkers like Hobbes and Locke, proposing that the social contract is both historically improbable and philosophically unnecessary to explain loyalty to government.
• Roger Scruton elucidates Hume's argument by highlighting that most individuals are bound by cultural and habitual connections, rendering the concept of tacit consent irrelevant.

Lack of Historical Evidence

• The social contract theory lacks historical validation. Examining the origins of institutions such as the state, it is inappropriate to depend on fictional notions.
• There is no historical evidence that humans existed in a supposed state of nature and then voluntarily established political institutions for order and security.
• The Mayflower Pact of 1620 is frequently referenced as an instance of a social contract, but this is insufficient. The pact was formed by individuals already acquainted with self-governance, not by those emerging from a state of nature.

Sir Henry Maine's Research

• Sir Henry Maine's historical examination of early political institutions discovered no proof that social and political organisation stemmed from a conscious contract among individuals.
• Maine proposed that society transitioned from a system founded on 'status' to one based on 'contract.' In primitive societies, an individual's status was determined by their group affiliation. The concept of a contract surfaced later, enabling individuals to alter their status through voluntary agreements.

Misapplication of Contractual Ideas

• The application of contemporary contractual notions to primitive societies is logically flawed. Contracts are rooted in individualism, centring the individual's will in political authority.
• Primitive individuals were oblivious to this concept; their lives were primarily governed by customs at various group levels, such as family and tribe. Political institutions and laws evolved gradually, not through accords among freely contracting individuals.

The Role of the State in Contracts

• For a contract to be legitimate, it requires the enforcement of a state that exists independently of the contracting parties. The proposed social contract lacks such enforcement because it presupposes the state's emergence post-contract.
• Furthermore, the social contract theory assumes that natural liberty and rights existed in the state of nature, prior to the formation of a state. This assumption is flawed. Rights emerge from developed social awareness and are upheld by law.
• Natural rights could not have existed in ancient times when political awareness and institutional law were lacking. Edmund Burke argued that if the social contract were real, it would signify the surrender of natural rights rather than their preservation.

Philosophical Critique and Historical Context

• Philosophically, it is unfair to consider any contract as eternally binding on all future generations. Tom Paine criticized the social contract theory, viewing it as an obstacle to progress. He believed each generation should act independently, without being constrained by past decisions.
• The notion of the freedom of contract, once regarded as sacred from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, is not upheld by progressive thinkers today.
• The social contract theory implies that the state is a product of the collective will of individuals, aimed at harmonising their interests. However, in reality, particularly in modern capitalist societies, certain dominant groups or individuals act as self-appointed representatives of society's will.
• These groups often justify their authority based on this representation, overlooking the complexities of social inequality and injustice. The social contract theory may oversimplify these issues and fails to adequately explain the dynamics of power and representation in society.

Understanding the Theory of the Social Contract

The theory of the social contract came about at a pivotal moment when feudal relations were giving way to the principles of market society, which eventually set the stage for the capitalist system.

Feudal Society versus Capitalist Society

• In feudal society, relationships were governed by tradition.
• In contrast, capitalist society establishes relationships based on contracts.

Historically, the doctrine of the social contract offered a framework for comprehending state legitimacy, recognizing that different philosophers had varying perspectives on its societal implications.

• It provided justification for the individualistic and contractual relationships that emerged with the rise of capitalist society.