Weber’s definition of the modern state, “a compulsory association which organizes domination”, indicates that he uses a functional approach in describing this political entity. However, his essay not only addresses the attributes of the state, which he discusses thoroughly in comparing the different structures of bureaucracies that have evolved over time, but also the functionaries of the state, which emerge as “professional politicians”. Like the “free demagogue” and the city state, Weber claims that these politicians, who incidentally sound very capitalistic, originated solely in the Occident. His estimation that it is often such politically conscious members of civil society who ascend to positions of leadership to form a “plutocratic” ruling establishment remains pertinent to our study of political systems today, especially those that resemble the more entrepreneurial type (such as the UK or the US, where politicians often have other occupations prior to entering politics).
Regardless of whether the state in question resembles this bureaucratic web of entrepreneurs or else a specific political class who have managed to monopolize the “legitimate use of violence”, the state no longer seems to have the exclusive political capacities attributed to it by Weber. While we could turn to various communities of the developing world to substantiate the emergence of anarchic political relations, we could also refer to our own political culture. In a country where “a well regulated militia” and the right for citizens to “bear arms” is considered essential to safeguarding freedom, one might amend Weber’s definition slightly. Perhaps it is not a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence that is specific to every state, but a monopoly on sanctioning legitimate political relations between citizens, which could include delegating the right to use violence.
1 comment:
Mr. Pieretti makes an important point in drawing attention to the relevancy of the Weber's theory about the "professional politician" in today's political culture. As Weber makes explicit, the distinction between living off of politics and living for politics makes having an independent income a necessity to being a full-time, effective politician - meaning, in more practical terms, that most politicians are already extremely wealthy. Damien calls these politicians "capitalistic", especially in the US, and it's an important point in showing just how intertwined the market, a belief in capitalism, and politics are in 2008. So much of politics today, presidential in particular, is about bringing the image of a politician away from his seven homes and to the grocery aisle ("How much does a gallon of milk cost today?") and to the gas pump ("Let's show that we're in solidarity with the poorest Americans and have a gas-tax cut this summer.") So much of this is contrived and artificial - so many politicians are, and always have been, a product of the country's wealthy class.
Post a Comment