Are there any good anthropoligical studies of the origins of the State?
Blech, anthropology. I’m not sure there is much of it, from the perspective of a libertarian, since anthropology is a highly liberal field of study. So, think of the word “capitalism” being used as “the state” and the literature will instantly become more useful. The CIA may study the origins of certain cultures. (They do it secretly and with the intent of destroying that culture most of the time)
Here are the only books in that category I have read. They may or may not have insights into the origins of the state itself (one is explicitly what you are looking for, but the others do discuss the origins of borderlands and certain laws, drug trades, bribery, etc.)
Talks about all of the familiar (yet recent) corporate deception around GE, De Beers, etc.
You would be looking for
Essay #1 “Brigandage, Piracy, Capitalism, and State-Formation: Transnational Crime from a Historical World-Systems Perspective”
- “Through an examination of brigandage and piracy from around the globe over the last three hundred years I demonstrate that illegal networks of armed predators played a crucial role in the spread and global truimph of capitalism. Furthermore, I show that bandits and pirates were deeply insinuated in the process of state formation and state consolidation of power; in addition, these groups have continued to play extremely important roles in the ongoing process of state centralization. Put simply, bandits help make states, and states help make bandits.”
essay #2 “State and Shadow State in Northern Peru circa 1900: Illegal Political Networks and the Problem of State Boundaries”
- “Despite the form of state and society imagined in state discoure, and celebrated in political ritual, it would be impossible to distinguish between legal and illegal networks, or between states and society, on the basis of any criteria: formal political organization; the social identities or class positions of its leaders and followers; the values and aspirations of either; the forms of behavior expected of each vis-avis the other, and in relation to the opposition; or even the control of armed force.”
essay #3 “Predatory Rule and Illegal Economic Practices”
- “Illegality and the state have been constant companions. It is perhaps inherent in the nature of states that they prohibit certain types of behavior, if only the avoidance of taxes. It is less clear why they should never be able to succeed in fully supressing all that they make illegal.”
[Like I said, highly liberal.]
essay #8 “Adolescent Violence, State Processes, and the Local Context of Moral Panic”
- “Violence, its representation, and its social control are central to the image, hegemony, and legitimacy of the state. Weberian social theory…When this monopoly is challenged, the threat strikes directly at the legitimacy of the state. For this reason, issues of violence and its representation and cotrol provide a window into the character and contradictions of a state at any given point in history.”
“…high levels of violence in a fully formed state are not necessarily anomalous. State formation is an ongoing process in which the rols of violence and response to violence remain crucial at the levels of bothe ideology and practice.”
[Field work is done in at a high school for reference to adolescent violence]
“The legitimacy of the state, at both national and local levels, is buttressed and redefined by this shift of resources to intensified internal social control, in a number of ways…The reduction of overall social investment in public education, social welfare, and urban development is counterbalanced by the image of the state as guarantor of safety against the enemy within.”
essay #9 “State Escalation of Force; A Vietnam/US-Mexico Border Analogy”
This one discuess the use of force as an escalation (metaphorical) to all out war (literal).
It’s storming here and I don’t wanna lose power before I post this =/
maybe some people wanted to exploit others for their own benefit, which is actually quite efficient, so they got a group of other people that wanted to exloit others and started killing and taking over a geographical area?
My hypothesis is that the state is an outgrowth of early efforts to provide security to tribes/communities. A small division of labor might imply a monopoly, and a monopoly on force leads to irregular growth (i.e. bureaucracy).
But, I am not an anthropologist and I have no evidence, hence me asking if there is literature on the subject. I don’t care if it’s not libertarian; I almost prefer it not to be. Even if there is bias, there is a little bit of truth in everything – the task of the critical mind is to separate truth from fiction.
Should I assume you’ve read: http://mises.org/daily/2214 ? It is similar to what you are arguing. In terms of security, are you talking about from threats within the community or without?
Oppenheimer’s ‘The State’ is what you are looking for.
Cliffs : THe origin of the state is one tribe conquering another and demanding tribute.
Oh, c’mon, no one else has any legitimate anthropological suggestions? No academic journals? Just stuff from this particular site?
Hans Hoppe mentions in a seminar that there are two popular hypotheses:
-
Robbers settling with their victims rather than looting and running.
-
Economically important and/or respected individuals beginning as arbiters and getting away with graduating that to an exclusive position.
He can probably give references if you email him.
Well, its human nature to want the best for ourselves and obtaining that way of life most efficiently.
So why not get a group of friends, and force other people to give money to you and your friends or else you kill them?
Thats efficient right? It benefits you/friends the best at the expense of others. You can manage that money however you want and you get to tell people what to do.
maybe some people wanted to exploit others for their own benefit, which is actually quite efficient, so they got a group of other people that wanted to exloit others and started killing and taking over a geographical area?
The only conditions necessary for State formation that I see are (1) the existence of surpluses worth stealing, and (2) the existence of a sufficient imbalance of forces to allow one group to conquer another.
Oppenheimer’s ‘The State’ is what you are looking for.
Yes.
- Robbers settling with their victims rather than looting and running
That’s Oppenheimer’s view, and mine as well. The looter became a (tax-)farmer, rather analogous to how the hunter became a farmer around that same time in world history. Some hunters decided to farm sheep, others people.
Aristophanes wrote,
Oh, c’mon, no one else has any legitimate anthropological suggestions? No academic journals? Just stuff from this particular site?
Yea, I thought there would be more too.
For what it’s worth, I’m looking for a historical study, not a theoretical one. I will look into Oppenheimer.
Sorry, I forgot about this thread.
Carneiro 1970, ‘A Theory of the Origin of the State’, Science.
Claessen and Skalnik 1978, The Early State.
Claessen and Skalnik 1981, The Study of the State.
Cohen and Service 1978, Origins of the State.
Fried 1967, The Evolution of Political Society.
Gledhill, Bender, and Larsen 1988, State and Society: The Emergence and Development of Social Hierarchy and Political Centralization
Haas 1982, The Evolution of the Prehistoric State.
Trigger 2003, Understanding Early Civilizations.
You should be able to find an even larger bibliography within these works.
I don’t think the state has its basis on systematic theft. Rather, I think it has its basis on systematic violation of self-ownership (of which theft is just one form). Where did this systematic violation of self-ownership come from? I think it came from the “authoritarian family” - any familial group where some people (typically parents) were presumed to own others (typically offspring).
In Roman law, for example, there’s a concept known as patria potestas, which means “fatherly power”. Quoting from Lacus Curtius:
Essentially, then, I see this notion of “fatherly power” as being the origin of the state.
Didn’t Plato and the Greeks before him share ownership of women and children? Plato’s origin of the state was to instruct virtue or at least that is what the state is for.
I haven’t researched Ancient Greek law nearly as much, but from what I understand, it was similar to Roman law in this respect.
Ancient Greek city-states (poleis - singular polis) were tribal in origin and retained their tribal character throughout their history. Citizenship in a polis was typically closed, i.e. one had to be born in a polis to be considered a citizen of it. Roman citizenship was originally the same way. The plebes were originally resident aliens (called metoikoi in Athens).
Anyway, the state could be (and was) seen as simply the administrative organization of the polis. IIRC, Plato thought that the ideal task of this administrative organization was to ensure “virtue” to the fullest extent possible.
Aristippus, great list thank you.
The role of the state in Plato is not so much to “guide” or “instruct” or “instill” virtue, but to rule over men who cannot be virtuous (although, it has been a while since I last read Plato). Only a few can be virtuous, because they are "truth finders; i.e. philosopher kings. Government, then, is made up of rational, virtuous men who then command the non-virtuous in such a way that allows for a stable, functioning society.
I don’t think the state has its basis on systematic theft. Rather, I think it has its basis on systematic violation of self-ownership (of which theft is just one form). Where did this systematic violation of self-ownership come from? I think it came from the “authoritarian family” - any familial group where some people (typically parents) were presumed to own others (typically offspring).
Essentially, then, I see this notion of “fatherly power” as being the origin of the state.
If you mean that the State was justified in part by concepts of authority deriving from the family, then I agree. If you mean that the State literally arose from the family, that is obviously false, as the earliest States did not have literal fathers ruling extended family, but one group ruling another biologically unrelated group.
Curious, are you a fan of Molyneux?