AS 6001 (TERM PAPER) BOOK REVIEW:
STATE POWER AND SOCIAL FORCES: DOMINATION AND TRANSFORMATION IN THE THIRD WORLD
Introduction
The book ook, titl title ed “Sta “State te Power ower and Socia cial Forc Forces es:: Domi Domina nati tio on and Transformation in the Third World”, edited by oe S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli and &i'ienne Shue, was (ublished in )**+ by ambrid#e -ni'ersity Press!
The book, a (roduct of a near three.year collaborations and deliberations by the contributors, is a collection of scholarly narrati'es by "i#dal et al! on state, society and (olitics in Third World countries /or de'elo(in# countries0! The o(enin# cha(te cha(ters rs by "i#dal "i#dal outlin outlined ed the theore theoretic tical al a((ro a((roac ach h of the “state “state.in .in.so .socie ciety ty”” (ers(ecti'e, which the contributors had (ro(ounded, for the study of com(arati'e (olitics (olitics in de'elo(in de'elo(in# # countries! countries! "i#dal (ro'ided (ro'ided a com(rehen com(rehensi'e si'e o'er'iew o'er'iew of the differences between the 'arious theoretical a((roaches and also e1(lains many of the terms and 'ocabulary used, which is es(ecially useful for someone /like me0 who is totally new to the disci(line of com(arati'e theory! In the later (art of the book, case studies and country.s(ecific essays drawn from the de'elo(in# world /$frica, the "iddle 2ast, $sia, and 3atin $merica0 were offered and discussed4 with $tul %ohli and &i'ienne Shue wra((in# u( with their obser'ations in the concludin# cha(ter!
In the seminal book, "i#dal et al!, who worked in the Weberian tradition of (olitical sociolo#y, ar#ued ar#ued the need for a more balanced and (ertinent (ers(ecti'e to com(arati'e theory! Their (ro(osed “state.in.society” a((roach was in o((osition to the con'entional framework of state.'ersus.society, aimed to shift away from the “5er “5ero. o.su sum m conf confli lict ct”” that that (its (its stat state e a#ai a#ains nstt soci society ety!! It was was a((a a((are rent nt that that the the contributors had sou#ht “to ri#ht biases” in methodolo#ical frameworks of the (ast, which were seen to ha'e “erred” in analysin# the state as an outcome de(endent on
6)78897*2
2
socio.economic forces and for “o'er(layin#” the states autonomy to take action and chan#e)!
The once(t of “State.in.Society” Theory
In (ro(oundin# the “state.in.society” a((roach, "i#dal, in his orientin# o(enin# essay, ar#ued that a(art from “brin#in# the state back in”, there was a need to ado(t the (osition of analysin# states in their social settin# in order to achie'e a more balanced (ers(ecti'e! In doin# so, scholars would be able to a((reciate better the state.societal relations and their influences between them, which tended to be reci(rocal /(!)0! This a((roach entailed the (rocesses of identifyin# contentious fra#ments of the state and the disa##re#ation or breakin# down of these states fra#ments for meanin#ful com(arison and analysis with social elements /(!;0! The ar#uments and the su##ested a((roach is sound and has merit, #i'en its em(hasis on more interacti'e and em(irically #rounded study of dynamics between state com(onents and social forces < at different =unctures4 de'iatin# from the (ast norms of 'iewin# states from the “(innacle of (ower” /(!;0!
The contributors of the book were committed to a “new anthro(olo#y of the state” a((roach, in which the state and societys stru##les for domination and the social chan#es arisin# from such interacti'e stru##les were the focus of analysis4 allowin# the dismantlin# and analysis of different com(onents and interactions amon# them /((!)>.)70 ? as noted by @obert A! ackson in his book re'iew, this was an attem(t by the contributors “to reco'er the (olitical sociolo#y of the state” and “to build anew on those theoretical foundations” ;! To understand the en#a#ement of states and societies is to a((reciate how different elements of states and societies interact and affect each other that brou#ht about “unantici(ated (atterns of 1 Solin#er, Dorothy , re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in
the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The Journal of Politics >9, no! 8) /Feb!,)**70, (! <*+!
2 Bri#ht, harles, re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The Hispanic American Historical Review , &ol! C7, o! ; /$u#!, )**70, (! 7);!
6)78897*2
3
domination and transformation” /(!90, which occurred throu#h what "i#dal termed as the “societys multi(le arenas of domination and o((osition” /(!*0! $risin# from these interactions, a society would either become “inte#rated domination” /broad (ower established by statesEsocial forces0 or “dis(ersed domination” /statesEsocieties unable to achie'e absolute domination0, as a result of “conflicts and com(licities” in the 'arious arenas of societies /(!*0!
"i#dal uestioned the notion of a standard framework /unification of dynamics of state.societal tensions, amon#st others0 that was (re'alent in (re'ious theories! Ae ar#ued that societies are “(roducts of state formation” /(!)90 and are created and acti'ated by the state! Ae described social forces in society as “(owerful mechanisms for associati'e beha'iours” that com(rised formal and informal or#anisations, as well as social mo'ements /(!<80! "ore im(ortantly, social forces are not isolated in a “social 'acuum” and therefore, it is bound to encounter other social forces that would either com(ete to dominate or a'oid confrontation! 3ikewise, in a co.e1istent arena, like.minded social forces could also for#e allies or coalition to achie'e common #oals /((!<8.<)0!
Gn how social forces could dominate in an arena /(!<<0, "i#dal cited control and dictate “issue areas” to assert influence4 transfer and de(loyment of resources from one arena to another4 mani(ulation of a “mi1 of key elements” /such as #eo#ra(hy4 human and material resources4 forms of social or#anisations, amon#st others0 to its ad'anta#e4 in=ection of “new factors” /such as “additional ca(ital”4 “com(ellin# ideas” and others0 to #ain a certain ed#e4 and e'en settin# off “new and renewed stru##les” in an arena ? this is a broad.based conce(t that encom(assed almost all elements and factors related to social actions and relations, which comes across as o'erly ambitious! This would ine'itably #i'e rise to “conce(tual ambi#uity”+, as noted by ackson in his re'iew, citin# that “e'en the state is referred to as a social
3 ackson, @obert A, re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in
the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The American Political Science Review , &ol! 9*, o! < /un!, )**>0, (! ><8! 4 ackson, re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third
World”, (! ><8!
6)78897*2
4
force” at one (oint /(!;80 and it ine'itably #a'e rise to doubts in readers about “the theoretical coherence” of the (ro(osed theory!
$(art from the aforementioned, the themes outlined in the book are #enerally clear, lo#ical and con'incin#! The cru1 of the conce(tual ar#ument was stressed ri#ht at the outset where “states may hel( mold, but they are also continually molded by, the societies within which they are embedded” /(!<0! The contributors of the book saw interactions between state and society as “mutually em(owerin#” /(!<+0 and when they clashed4 mediation takes the form of accommodation and stru##les!
$ certain (art of "i#dals cha(ter was attributed to discussin# the ideal ty(es of results after the (rocess of mediation occurred between the state and society, that is: /a0 “total transformation” after states ha'e successfully (enetrate social forces and e'entually dominate4 /b0 e1istin# social forces bein# incor(orated by the state /states abilities are weakened due to ada(tation to chan#e04 /c0 state is bein# incor(orated into e1istin# social forces /states chances to achie'e inte#rated domination are substantially weakened04 and /d0 state failed in its attem(t to (enetrate society /(!<+.<70! This conce(t is a useful tool as it (ro'ides for classifications of dynamics between states and social forces, after the interacti'e stru##les and accommodations had taken (lace, for analysis!
$s su##ested by "i#dal, there is only a remote (ossibility in reality, for cases in arenas to fall into the (air of e1treme ideal.ty(es /“total transformation” and disen#a#ement0! For most cases that fall into the middle two ideal.ty(es, state and society would continue to en#a#e in a reci(rocal relationshi( of “mutually transformin# stru##les” /(!<70!
The ase Studies
The collection of case studies that e1amine the intersection between state (ower and social forces are found at Part II /“States: 2mbedded in Society”0 and Part III /“Social Forces: 2n#a#ed with State Power”0 of the book, featurin# nine country. s(ecific case essays: two on hina, three in $frica, one each in 2#y(t, Bra5il, India, and the late Gttoman 2m(ire! The case studies #o back to the late Gttoman (eriod 6)78897*2
5
and stretched u( to the modern day! It #a'e an interestin# #lim(se into how the interde(endency between state and society (layed out in different time (eriod, countries, as well as social and (olitical conte1t! The book has made a distinction between “state (ower” and “state”, as well as between “social forces” and “society”! This su((orts the case studies, showin# that there are se(arate, yet inter.related (arts, within the “state” and “society”! The key conce(t of disa##re#ation was also stressed in the em(irical studies of the de'elo(in# countries and it demonstrated the effecti'eness of this a((roach that enable a better understandin# of state (ower and (olitical chan#e in the Third World!
The Part II of the book brin#s to#ether the essays from four contributors, namely Frances Aa#o(ian, &ienne Shue, $tul %ohli and atherine Boone, co'erin# Bra5il, hina, India and $frica, with a common theme that the authority was centralised at the hi#hest le'el of the state, and they make decisions inde(endently from the rest of the state! Aowe'er, this also led to the situation where these (olicy. makers are isolated from societal forces! Instead of bein# more effecti'e in (romul#atin# (olicies, the case studies su##ested that the concentration of (ower with the elites resulted in a #a( between the to( and the middle.le'el, as well as laterally between #rou(s at the to(! This resulted in the state not bein# able to effecti'ely meet the needs of the society, thus stren#thenin# the resol'e of the social forces to disen#a#e from the state or to limit the (owers of the state >!
There were fi'e essays brou#ht to#ether in Part III of the book, contributed by 2li5abeth ! Perry, @obert &italis, @esat %asaba, "ichael Bratton and aomi ha5an! Their works e1amine how social forces in hina, 2#y(t, the late Gttoman 2m(ire, and (ost.colonial $frica, en#a#ed the state to 'aryin# de#ree4 startin# with Perry and &italis essays which e1amined the di'isions within #rou(in#s of common interests in Shan#hai and 2#y(t! %asabas co'era#e of the social chan#e in the late Gttoman 2m(ire showed how social forces became (owerful7! Brattons article 5 Pomeran5,
%enneth, re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The Journal of Asian Studies , &ol! >+, o! ; /$u#!, )**>0, (! 9<)!
6 Pomeran5,
re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces”, ((! 9<).9<
6)78897*2
6
(ostulates that stru##les between state and (easant in $frican countries e1ist because both (arties were assertin# their (olitical autonomy, instead of buildin# their (olitical ca(acity, in a com(le1 inter(lay of economic and (olitical a#enda! ha5an then rounded u( with her essay on the formation and fluctuation of ci'il society in $frica, and its im(lications!
In the final (art of the book, $tul %ohli and &i'ienne Shue concluded by tyin# the 'arious case studies in the earlier (arts of the book back to the “state.in.society” theory that were interrelated4 namely the states ca(acities to =ustify dominance in the (ursuit of socio.economic #oals and also the roles social forces (layed in low income societies4 as well as the circumstances that mi#ht affect mutual em(owerment of state and society /(!;8;0! The essays, howe'er, did not in'ol'e (roblematic cases where 'iolence in the Third World countries was (re'alent in the last century due to weak #o'ernance and contentious forces of the societiesC!
$s a book (ublished in )**+, and del'in# into e'ents #oin# as far back into the Gttoman 2m(ire, it is by no means an easy feat drawin# on the di'erse social and (olitical conte1t to de'elo( a case to demonstrate the inter(lay between state (owers and social forces in countries of the Third World under study! $ common obser'ation in the case studies is that the lines between state and social forces are often not clear, and the boundaries shift with each alliance, coalition, conflict between multi(le stakeholders! The case studies in the essays also hi#hli#hted two key dri'in# forces of state.society interactions: economic and (olitical a#enda9! These factors (ro'ide the moti'ation and im(etus for both the state (ower and the social forces to initiate (ro=ects, andEor react!
$s the book was (ublished more than two decades a#o, before the onset of wide accessibility to Internet and risin# influence of social media in #al'anisin# or
7
Bri#ht, re'iew of “State Power”, (! 7)+!
8
Solin#er, re'iew of “State”, (! <*>! 6)78897*2
7
underminin# state (owers and social forces, it would be interestin# to e1amine if the inter.relationshi( between state and society ha'e become e'en more com(le1 than before! $t a macro le'el, ha'e social forces and the ci'il society become stron#er (layers that disru(t the (ower of the elites4 or has social media #i'en the to( le'el of the state, a channel to better understand social forces so that they can better formulate (olicies that are im(lementableH $t a micro le'el, there are also more di'er#ent 'iews within each society, (otentially leadin# to fra#mentation and weakenin# of social forces that limit their ability to lobby for a common ob=ecti'e! It would also be interestin# to e1amine the im(act of the Internet in areas where there is some form of state.controlled Internet access!
In conclusion, the essays in this book ha'e (ro'ided a #ood introduction to, and with case studies to illustrate, the “state.in.society” theory! Aowe'er, an u(date of this “state.in.society” theory may be due, to ad=ust for the new dynamic interactions between the state, the society and the ci'il society!
6)78897*2
8
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bri#ht, harles, re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The Hispanic American Historical Review , &ol! C7, o! ; /$u#!, )**70! ackson, @obert A, re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The American Political Science Review , &ol! 9*, o! < /un!, )**>0! Pomeran5, %enneth, re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The Journal of Asian Studies, &ol! >+, o! ; /$u#!, )**>0! Solin#er, Dorothy , re'iew of “State Power and Social Forces: Domination and Transformation in the Third World”, ed! by oel S! "i#dal, $tul %ohli, and &i'ienne Shue, The Journal of Politics >9, no! 8) /Feb!,)**70!
6)78897*2
