Power, Violence and the State

Power, Violence and the State

The expression "nation-state" means that the two geographically correspond, and this makes a distinction from the nation-state from the other types of state, which historically came first. If effectively put into practice, this would mean that all citizens share a common language, culture, and value, which some suggest was not the case in many historical states.

(Anthony Orum, Introduction to Political Sociology, 4th edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey '2001')

Some would suggest that the nation-state is a certain form of state that acquires its legality from serving as an independent, self-governing entity for a nation as a sovereign defensive unit. The state is a political and geopolitical body; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic body.

Paul James states that:

'a nation-state is a materially abstract community of a particular kind, constituted in the changing, uneven and contradictory intersection of modes of intergration and modes of practice'

(Paul James, Nation Formation: Towards a Theory of Abstract Community '1996' p.164)

Robert John Ackermann is of the opinion that we can now start with the understanding that all surface portions of the planet which are suitably sized is at present a nation-state, part of a nation-state, or part of some region recognised with a nation-state.

(Robert John Ackermann, Heterogeneities: Race, Gender, Class, Nation, and State '1996' p.104)

Paul Kahn would disgree with Robert Ackermann's view, and is of the opinion that modern nation-states do not attatch themselves to a natural geography, even though all have a geography. Kahn is also of the opinion that modern nation-states do not attatch to political organisations of family or any other corporate forms. Kahn expresses his views on how the unit of membership in a nation-state is based on the individual.

'The modern nation-state attatches directly to the individual who understands herself as a citizen'

(Paul W. Kahn, Putting liberalism in its place '2005' pp.272-275)

In addition, a world of nation-states also suggests the claim to self-determination and independence for each and every nation, which is a key thesis of the ideology of nationalism.

(Anthony Orum, Introduction to Political Sociology, 4th edition, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey '2001')

The four most basic features of a modern nation-state are; the consolidation of policy making, or centralisation of political authority; the expansion of nation-state's tasks and purposes from defence to social security; the creation and expansion of state official procedures; i.e., a large system of government; and the expansion of citizen's role in public affairs - citizen's participation.

When looking at the construction of the modern nation-state, it is noticeable to see that there are different aspects to the construction of the state: nation-building i.e., the political aspects to modernity and modernisation, economic development i.e., the economic aspects of modernisation, and urbanisation which includes the social aspects of modernity. England was the first modern nation-state, its significant characteristics were, the individual as the seat of authority; equality of all individuals under God; and the significance of science, particularly experimental science.

Additionally, establishing a nation-state requires four key factors, nationalism, political legitimacy, citizenship and economic development.

(Nations and Nationalism, Ernest Gellner - Nationalism '1983')

Before I elaborate on the term nationalism, I would first like to explain that there are two separate forms of nationalism; cultural nationalism' and 'political' nationalism. This is a significant dissimilarity for us for the reason that 'political nationalism' can lead to political violence, including terrorism, which will involve policing in the broadest sense. I will use the ideas and analysis of Elie Kedourie and John Plamenatz to assist me in my clarification and reasoning.

When Kedourie elucidates 'Cultural' Nationalism, he attempts to answer an extremely central query: 'What makes a nation a nation?'

After careful examination, Kedourie concluded a reply to the query which is that there is not anything 'natural' about such identification, even if the persons concerned almost certainly believe it's 'natural'. Also, to a certain degree a nation exists merely in to the extent that individuals "will" themselves to be members of that nation. Therefore, nationalism and nations are the result of something that is much deeper than logical preference; they are "the power of the soul".

Plamenatz argues that there are two styles of 'political' nationalism that derive from Europe: Western and Eastern.

Both forms come from existing 'cultural identities'; the dissimilarity is that Western European nationalism is an attempt to maintain a ready-made 'cultural identity' which is previously sufficient to modernisation; and the other which is Eastern European nationalism, is an attempt to produce a 'cultural identity' which will be sufficient to modernisation.

(Kedourie, Elie, Nationalism. Oxford: Blackwell '2000' pp.56-87) and (Plamenatz, John (1976) "Two types of Nationalism", in Eugene Kamenka ed. Nationalism: the nature and evolution of an idea. London: Edward Arnold p.23)

Now that concludes the explanation on the two separate types of nationalisms.

As for the term nationalism itself, it is when common sets of symbols are sustained e.g. flag, currency, anthem and myths, which many consider to be the very heart of nation building.

Spencer P describes nationalism to be the political articulation of such a national identity. The term national identity is used when claiming that someone is a member of a nation-state, or holds the passport of that state. The way someone may perceive himself or herself may be totally different to how society perceives them. This leads some to argue that having a passport may signify someone is a member of a particular nation-state, but it does not mean society will automatically see that individual as a member of that state; or that the individual recognises themselves as a member.

(Spencer,