state

Greek and Roman precedents

The history of the Western state begins in ancient Greece. Plato and Aristotle wrote of the polis, or city-state, as an ideal form of association, in which the whole community’s religious, cultural, political, and economic needs could be satisfied. This city-state, characterized primarily by its self-sufficiency, was seen by Aristotle as the means of developing morality in the human character. The Greek idea corresponds more accurately to the modern concept of the nation—i.e., a population of a fixed area that shares a common language, culture, and history—whereas the Roman res publica, or commonwealth, is more similar to the modern concept of the state. The res publica was a legal system whose jurisdiction extended to all Roman citizens, securing their rights and determining their responsibilities. With the fragmentation of the Roman system, the question of authority and the need for order and security led to a long period of struggle between the warring feudal lords of Europe.

Machiavelli and Bodin

It was not until the 16th century that the modern concept of the state emerged, in the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli (Italy) and Jean Bodin (France), as the centralizing force whereby stability might be regained. In The Prince, Machiavelli gave prime importance to the durability of government, sweeping aside all moral considerations and focusing instead on the strength—the vitality, courage, and independence—of the ruler. For Bodin, his contemporary, power was not sufficient in itself to create a sovereign; rule must comply with morality to be durable, and it must have continuity—i.e., a means of establishing succession. Bodin’s theory was the forerunner of the 17th-century doctrine known as the divine right of kings, whereby monarchy became the predominate form of government in Europe. It created a climate for the ideas of the 17th-century reformers like John Locke in England and Jean-Jacques Rousseau in France, who began to reexamine the origins and purposes of the state.

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau

For Locke and Rousseau, as well as for Locke’s English predecessor Thomas Hobbes, the state reflected the nature of the human beings who created it. The “natural condition” of man, said Hobbes, is self-seeking and competitive. Man subjects himself to the rule of the state as the only means of self-preservation whereby he can escape the brutish cycle of mutual destruction that is otherwise the result of his contact with others.

For Locke, the human condition is not so gloomy, but the state again springs from the need for protection—in this case, of inherent rights. Locke said that the state is the social contract by which individuals agree not to infringe on each other’s “natural rights” to life, liberty, and property, in exchange for which each man secures his own “sphere of liberty.”

Rousseau’s ideas reflect an attitude far more positive in respect of human nature than either Hobbes or Locke. Rather than the right of a monarch to rule, Rousseau proposed that the state owed its authority to the general will of the governed. For him, the nation itself is sovereign, and the law is none other than the will of the people as a whole. Influenced by Plato, Rousseau recognized the state as the environment for the moral development of humanity. Man, though corrupted by his civilization, remained basically good and therefore capable of assuming the moral position of aiming at the general welfare. Because the result of aiming at individual purposes is disagreement, a healthy (noncorrupting) state can exist only when the common good is recognized as the goal.