A process of development of a centralized
government structure in a situation where one did not exist prior to its
development its development is referring to as a state formation. The study of
state formation is divided generally into the study of early states which include
those that developed in stateless societies and modern states. Modern states
particularly of the form that developed in Europe in the 1600’s and spread
around the world (wikipedia the free encyclopedia).
Also, a state can be defined as
organized community under one government, or forming part of a republic (Oxford
Dictionary 6th Edition).
Generally
state is a political unit with centralized leadership and institutions. The
state is made up by two organs that are oppressive and ideology machines. The
ideological apparatus includes philosophy of the state, religion, education
system and ethics purposeful for creating obedience and loyality to the ruling
class. Another one is oppressive organ which includes army, court, prisons and
police to safe guard the interests of the ruling class against ruled majority.
Early states formation focuses on
processes that create and institutionalize a state in a situation where a state
did not exist before. Examples of these states that developed in interaction with
other states include state like the Aegean Bronze Age Greek civilization and
the Malagasy civilization in Madagascar. Also, the list typically includes the
first states to develop in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus river valley, North
China, Peru and Mesoamerica. Early states formation causation can thus include
borrowing, imposition and other forms of interaction with already existing
states (Fiero, G.K, 2002).
There are number of different theories
and hypotheses regarding early state formation that seek generalizations to
explain the state formations. Scholars also argue why the state developed in
some places but not others. Other scholars believe that generalizations are
unhelpful and that each case of early state formation should be treated on its
own.
Viewing, J.Lonster in his
historiography survey of state and social process in Africa concluded that,
“There is no doubt that the consolidation of the class and state has been the
joint process in Africa as well”. J.Lonster try to describe the relationship
between classes and state and how their interconnected. The statement imply the
effect of one to another, this means the existence of classes may result to the
state formation and state itself may formalize the classes. The people of the high
class normally want to protect their interests against the lower class. Thus
J.Lonster considers the consolidation of class and state as a joint process.
This can be analyzed in various ways such as follows:
The ambition of the high class to
protect their interests against the lower class. Normally people of the high
class are very ambitious to defend and maximize the production and wealth. In
most cases the powerful class in hierarchical structure is responsible to the
state formation. Thus the formation of state is associated with the existence
of ideological and oppressive machine to make docility and obedience to the
ruling class.
The accumulation of wealth occupied as
the result of controlling the trade and surplus production. The class emerged as
the result of popular and powerful people who played important roles in the
trading and agricultural activity and succeeded to acquire wealth. Due to
surplus production some people become powerful and started to dominate other
people. As time went on, these people become more powerful to the extent of
forming the states. The formations of the states were the means of safeguarding
and consolidating their position.
Also, the consolidation of classes and
state has been the joint process in the sense that, the emerged powerful class wants
to make an official stratification between the ruling class and ruled majority
by formalizing the machine. Since the state is the machine of creating rules
and orders as well as to reinforce them to the society, the powerful class
takes as the step stone of defending and supreme their position. Foristance,
majority peasants required to collect ten percent (10%) of their yearly income
to the king regime. This was popular order known as, ‘Tenth payment’ practiced
in England under the Tudor monarchy. Due to this the state seems to be
important machine for protecting the powerful class and its interest against
the ruled majority.
Furthermore, it’s state that
consolidates the classes between the ruling class and ruled majority. The
presence of the states apparatus like army, courts, police as well as school,
philosophy of the state, ethics and religion wants to ensure obedience and
loyality of people to the ruling class. The people should obey the order and
laws established by the ruling class. Thus the consolidation of the classes and
state has been the joint process because the existence of one can cause
another.
In other hand, there are other
different scholars analyzing the theories and hypotheses in the issue of states
formation by considering the existence of class relating to the state
formation. Scholars try to analyzing the theories and hypotheses in various
ways as shown below:
Friedrich Engel’s theory relies on
conflict theories of state formation. The theory contends that conflict and
dominance of some population over another population is the key to the
formation of state. Engel’s theory based on the anthropological evidence in the
Origin of the Family, Private Property and the state (1884). He argued that
state developed as the result of the need to protect private property. The
theory contended that surplus production as the result of development of
agriculture created a division and specialization of labour: creating classes
who worked the land and those who could devote time to other tasks. Class
antagonism and the need to secure the private property of those living on the
surplus production produced by agriculturalists resulted in the creation of the
state.
Franz Oppenheimer’s conquest theory,
similar to the economic stratification theories, the conquest theory contends
that the state was created by one city to control other tribes or settlements
it had conquered. Oppenheimer argues that the state was created to cement
inequality between peoples that resulted from the conquest. This means the
inequality between people that is resulted from classes trigger the creation of
the states.
Elman Service’s rely on
Neoevolutionary theories, the basis of the argument is that human society
involved from tribes or chiefdoms into states through a gradual process of
transformation that let a small group
hierarchically society and maintain order through appropriation of
symbols of power. Elman Service’s theory of state formation argues that, unlike
in economic stratification theories, the state largely creates stratification
in society rather than being created to defend that stratification. Bureaucracy
evolves to support the leadership structure in tribes and uses religious
hierarchy and economic stratification as the means to further increase their
power. Warfare may play a key role in the situation, because it allows leaders
to distribute benefit in ways that serve their interests. So, it’s hierarchical
structure that triggers the creation of the states.
In addition to this is what Carneiro
calls the automatic hypotheses, which contends that the development of the
agriculture easily produces conditions necessary for the development of state.
With surplus food stocks created by agricultural development, creation of distinct
workers classes and a division of labour would automatically trigger creation
of the state form. In this hypothesis of Carneiro, the argument is the same
like to J. Lonster because the emergence of the classes is automatically
trigger the creation of states.
Also, there are scholars explained the
state formation in different ways apart from the hypotheses of J.Lonster who
consider the state and class as the joint process.
Karl August Wittfogel’s argument based
on voluntary theory of state formation. He argues that, in arid environments
farmers would be confronted by the production limits of small scale irrigation.
Eventually, different farmers join together in response to population pressure
and arid environment, to create a state apparatus that could build and maintain
large irrigation projects.
Claude Meillassoux the French
anthropologist analyzed the relationship between productions and reproduction
of self sustaining of peasant agrarian economy in a pre colonial African
setting. He observed that cultivation played a dominant role where land is used
as an instrument of labour and underscored the significance of labour or the
basis of the production and reproduction. The production and reproduction of
self sustaining of peasant agrarian economy provides surplus production. The
surplus production available provides material life to the population thus the
state is created to control production and surplus production available. The
argument is the same likely to Marx argumentation that, ‘In order man to live
he should produce’. Claude in his view argues that the trade does not
contribute to the development of state rather is the internal dynamics of the
society that attributes the formation of the states.
Generally the Lonster argument that
considers the consolidation of the classes and state formation is sometimes
obviously. A person can ask himself or herself why there was a period when
states did not exist. But as the result of the society historical development
especially after the existence of classes the state started to emerge. So, the
classes and state is the joint process because one can cause another. There are
other aspects are highlighted in different theories as of contributing
importance. It is sometime claimed that technological development, religious
development or the socialization of members are crucial to state development.
However, most of these factors are found to be secondary in anthropological
analysis. Obviously, different theories
and hypotheses regarding early state formation that seeks generalizations to
explain why the state developed in some places but not others. Other scholars
believe that generalizations are unhelpful and that each case of early state
formation should be treated on its own.
REFERENCES
Davidson,
B, (1991). Africa in History, Themes and Outlines. New York Simon and
Schuster.
Engels,
F, (1884). The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.
Foreign Language
Publishing house.
Fiero,
G.K, (2002). The Humanistic Tradition. New York: Mc Graw-Hill New York.
Shillington,
K, (1989). History of Africa, (Revised). Oxford: Mc Millan Publishers.
www.
wikipedia.org. com.
www.storicamente. org. com
No comments:
Post a Comment