Studying the State – Concept, Definition and Debate
The state is one of the most central yet most contested concepts in political science. Despite its apparent ubiquity in modern political life, the state remains difficult to define with precision. It is not merely a set of institutions, nor simply a legal authority, nor only an instrument of domination. Rather, the state is best understood as a historically produced, socially embedded, and conceptually complex phenomenon. This unit examines how the state has been studied, defined, and debated in political theory and comparative politics, with particular attention to the tensions between the state as an idea and the state as a set of practices.
The Problem of Defining the State
At first glance, the state appears to be an obvious entity: it governs territory, makes laws, collects taxes, and claims authority over people. Yet political theorists have long argued that the state cannot be reduced to these functions alone. The difficulty lies in the fact that the state is simultaneously visible and invisible—it operates through concrete institutions such as the bureaucracy, police, courts, and military, but it also exists as an abstract authority imagined as legitimate, sovereign, and impersonal.
This dual character makes the state analytically elusive. When we attempt to define it purely in legal or institutional terms, we miss its ideological and social dimensions. Conversely, when we see it only as an idea, we risk ignoring its material and coercive capacities. The study of the state therefore requires moving beyond simple definitions toward a more critical and relational understanding.
The Classical Definition: Max Weber and the Monopoly of Violence
One of the most influential definitions of the modern state is provided by Max Weber, who defined the state as a “human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” This definition highlights three key elements: territory, legitimacy, and coercion.
Weber’s formulation emphasizes that what distinguishes the state from other forms of power is not violence as such, but the legitimacy of violence. The state’s authority rests on the widespread belief that its use of force is rightful. This insight allows us to understand the state not merely as an instrument of repression, but as an organization sustained by social acceptance and bureaucratic rationality.
However, critics argue that Weber’s definition privileges formal authority and overlooks informal practices, social inequalities, and colonial or post-colonial contexts where legitimacy is uneven or contested.
The State as an Instrument: Marxist Perspectives
Marxist theories of the state challenge the idea of the state as a neutral arbiter. From this perspective, the state is closely tied to class relations and the organization of capitalist society. Classical Marxism viewed the state primarily as an instrument of the ruling class, functioning to protect private property and maintain conditions for capital accumulation.
Later Marxist debates complicated this instrumental view. Thinkers such as Nicos Poulantzas argued that the state possesses relative autonomy from the ruling class. While it ultimately serves capitalist interests, it does so by mediating between classes and stabilizing the system as a whole. In contrast, Ralph Miliband emphasized the social background of state elites, arguing that class power operates through personnel and networks within state institutions.
These debates reveal that the state cannot be understood simply as a tool or as an independent actor; it is a site of struggle, shaped by structural constraints and social forces.
The State as an Idea: Abrams and the Critique of Reification
A major conceptual shift in state theory comes from Philip Abrams, who famously argued that the state should not be treated as a real, unified entity. According to Abrams, the “state” is an ideological construct that masks the fragmented and often contradictory practices of governance.
He distinguished between the state-system (the actual institutions and practices of administration and coercion) and the state-idea (the symbolic representation of unity, authority, and legitimacy). The power of the state, Abrams argued, lies precisely in this illusion of coherence, which conceals social conflicts and power relations.
This approach encourages scholars to study how the state is produced through discourse, symbols, and everyday practices, rather than assuming it as a pre-given object.
State-in-Society Approaches: Migdal and Everyday Power
Building on this critique, Joel Migdal developed the “state-in-society” approach, which rejects the idea of the state as a coherent actor standing above society. Instead, Migdal emphasizes that the state is constantly shaped by interactions with social groups, local power structures, and informal norms.
From this perspective, the boundaries between state and society are blurred. Officials negotiate, adapt, and sometimes lose control in their attempts to implement policies. The state’s capacity varies across regions and sectors, making it a contested and uneven phenomenon.
This approach is particularly useful for understanding post-colonial states, where formal authority often coexists with informal power networks.
Seeing Like a State: James C. Scott and High Modernism
Another influential contribution comes from James C. Scott, who examines how states attempt to make society “legible.” Through practices such as censuses, maps, land surveys, and standardization, states simplify complex social realities in order to govern them.
Scott argues that these efforts, especially when combined with authoritarian power and high-modernist ideology, often lead to policy failures and social resistance. His work highlights the limits of state knowledge and the importance of local practices that escape bureaucratic control.
This perspective shifts attention from what the state claims to be to what it actually does, and with what consequences.
Post-Colonial Critiques and the Question of Legitimacy
Post-colonial scholars have further complicated the study of the state by showing how modern state forms were shaped by colonial rule. Thinkers such as Partha Chatterjee and Hamza Alavi argue that the post-colonial state often combines democratic claims with coercive practices inherited from colonial administration.
In these contexts, the state’s legitimacy is frequently fractured, and governance operates through exceptional measures, informal negotiations, and differentiated citizenship. Studying the state therefore requires attention to history, empire, and uneven modernity.
Why Is the State Difficult to Study?
The debates outlined above reveal why the state is such a challenging object of study. It is at once an institution, a process, an idea, and a set of practices. It appears unified, yet operates through fragmented agencies. It claims neutrality, yet is embedded in power relations.
As Ashis Nandy suggests, the modern state also reshapes subjectivities, producing particular forms of obedience, resistance, and political imagination. Understanding the state therefore requires moving beyond formal definitions to examine how it is lived, experienced, and contested.
Conclusion: Studying the State as a Dynamic and Contested Entity
This unit demonstrates that the state cannot be captured by a single definition. Weber’s emphasis on legitimacy and violence, Marxist analyses of class power, Abrams’s critique of the state as an idea, and state-in-society approaches all reveal different dimensions of the same phenomenon.
To study the modern state in comparative perspective is to recognize it as historically specific, socially embedded, and constantly negotiated. Rather than asking only what the state is, critical political theory urges us to ask how the state is produced, whose interests it serves, and how it is resisted.
This foundational understanding sets the stage for analyzing capitalism, governance, security, and regime types in the units that follow.
References
- Weber, Max. Politics as a Vocation.
- Abrams, Philip. “Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State.”
- Miliband, Ralph. The State in Capitalist Society.
- Poulantzas, Nicos. State, Power, Socialism.
- Migdal, Joel. State in Society.
- Scott, James C. Seeing Like a State.
- Chatterjee, Partha. The Politics of the Governed.
