Lama Imam

Sir Marco

What is Modernity? S7

30th March 2020

Answer to Question 2

The modern state concept is known to emerge from 16 th century Europe and it implies

creation of a neutral legal order with the ability to govern and conduct a given territory.

Modern state concept is, “a distinct form of public power, separate from both ruler and ruled,

and forming the supreme political authority within certain defined boundaries” (Held,73).

Since the fall of Rome in 476, eastern Roman empire became the Byzantine empire

which was later acquired to form the ottoman empire in 1453. The western roman empire

formed Europe. The Europe of that age was nothing like the Europe that exists today, it was

an empire consisting of around thirty million people thriving across its land mass living

seemingly disconnected lives, not bound to each other by a common culture or history. In late

15th century Europe contained many almost independent single political units having

undefined boundaries within its territory. As time progressed they significantly decreased in

number but the world map wasn’t dominated by national states for a long time. These states

that have existed can be grouped into 5 types: empires, feudal states, the polity of states,

absolutist states and the modern nation-states.

Empires have been a dominant form of state in the course of history, 5 th to around 6th

century. An empire requires an accumulation of means to wage wars to sustain itself since all

traditional empires had emerged as a result of expansion from initial smaller states. Owing to

their large sizes empires engaged in long-distance trading whose economic requirements

were acquired by extracting tribute from its people. The empires could only maintain limited
administrative authority as they encompassed numerous communities comprising of

culturally diverse people but could only dominate a limited geographical and social space

nearer to the emperor owing to absence of institutions that could manage different parts of

empire effectively. Issues were resolved only amongst dominant groups of people in urban

centres local to the emperor and the rest were forced within empire territory by the military.

“Empires were ruled but they were not governed” (Held,79).

After empires collapsed, feudal states rose between the 8 th and 14th centuries. Feudal

states comprised of a network of interconnected ties between fragmented systems of rules in

small autonomous parts forming a social plane of overlapping powers and claims. Some of

these conflicted frequently which coupled with absence of a supreme ruler led to frequent

wars within territories. There were feudal kings to rule specific territories but they had to

consult and negotiate with a lot of lords and barons claiming their own lands within the

king’s territory, in order to raise taxes and armies. Some political forces sought to centralize

rule while others sought autonomy leading to a disintegrated system of power. Agriculture

was dominant in medieval European economy and there existed many contesting claims to its

surplus. Whoever was successful sustained political power as well. Across Europe urban

centres developed as well, as cities formed independent charters comprising of their political

structures. All these fragments of western Europe were tried to be united as a Christendom

and to be known as the holy Roman empire in the middle ages under the advocacy of the

catholic church, all united in a christen political identity. Western Christendom was

threatened by rise of national states and Reformation which resulted in emergence of the idea

of a modern state and the grounds of a new political identity, national identity [ok. Perhaps

the link between the rise of national identities and Reformation could be strengthened, but

ok].
 Feudal states began to decay as early as the 1300 owing to the constant fight for power.

New understandings about politics emerged that emphasised the innovative nature of a post-

feudal system of rule which gained mass attention of territories. The polity of estates was to

consist of a ruler of estates, a monarch, who had been of a higher majesty pre-feudal time

appointed via sacred ceremonies. Under the ruler would exist several bodies of people

forming local assemblies, parliaments and councils representing different political entities

which form estates. The estates represent a country and a ruler can only rule if they are able

to uphold the distinctive customs and interest of the various estates under them. “The polity

of estates was characterised by a power dualism: power was split between rulers and estates”

(Held,82). This power dualism did not last as it was challenged by estates seeking greater

power or monarchs aiming to centralize power.

Struggles between different entities for domain of authority, peasant rebellions against

extreme taxation, the spread of trade and commerce, the embellishment of Renassaince

culture and developments in military technology were some factors that led to a

transformation of political ideas in medieval Europe.

From the 15th to 18th absolute monarchies existed in European countries such as France.

From Absolutism emerged states that had assimilated small political units into vast political

structures that could unify a territory by implementing a system of law and order enforced

throughout the region. This was the application of a unitary rule by a sovereign head whose

legitimacy was based on “divine right” (Held,84). Six significant developments were made

forming a new administrative apparatus for a state system: bounding territorial boundaries

within a unitary rule, new mechanisms for law making and enforcement of those laws,

centralized administrative power, changes in fiscal management, formation of formal

relations between states via diplomatic institutions and the introduction of a standing army.

These developments allowed expansion of administrative power of state by extension of a

states capacity to document [“document”? do you mean perhaps “exert surveillance on”?] its

people. Surveillance of all of its people increased the states dependence on social relations

which couldn’t be enforced alone but required cooperation. “Absolutism created within itself

a momentum toward the development of new forms and limits on state power-

constitutionalism and eventual participation by powerful groups in the process of government

itself” (Held,85). A sociologist Michael Mann concluded that absolutist regimes were weak

in comparison to powerful groups such as nobles and merchants in societies.

By the end of 17 th century Europe wasn’t fragmented anymore it was consolidated in

independent state sovereignty. This imparted a process of mutual acknowledgement of the

independent rights of jurisdiction a state had over its own territory and communities that

states granted each other. Internationally, “In the world of relations among states, the

principle of the sovereign equality of all states was to become paramount in the formal

conduct of states towards one another” (Held,86). A model of new international law emerged

among the international society of states called the Westphalian model The model which

dictated international law from 1648 to 1945 states that: The world is divided into sovereign

states that recognize no supreme authority, the law-making processes and settling disputes is

mostly up to individual states, No legal clauses exist to restrict resort to force within states to

settle disputes, no collective interest is recognized according to international law affected

states can resolve differences amongst themselves, all states are equal before the law,

enduring relationships between states are sustained until military objectives are met and

impediment of state freedom is minimized collectively. This new international order

implemented in era of absolutist states endorsed the right of each independent state to

autonomy resulting in an integrated state system.

From the interstate system that absolutism introduced, emerged a modern state. In

concentrating political power for a centralized rule Absolutism led the way towards a secular
power system that was national. When sovereign authority was claimed all the non sovereign

groups of people that claimed power in feudal system were shut down. Further more the

battles fought amongst states changed the boundaries of absolutist states leading them to

eventually become fixed borders. Formation of modern state can be marked by the French

and English revolutions of the 15th and 16th centuries but a more important factor can be

considered to be the intrinsic transformation of geo political relations amongst European

states during the absolutist era.

All modern states are nation states consisting of a political apparatus distinct from the

governor and governed with supreme rule over precisely defined boundaries coupled with a

claim to monopoly of coercive powers and those that enjoy a minimum level of loyalty from

their citizens. The nation in nation state represents a unitary administrative apparatus over

defined borders. Four kinds of modern states exist, constitutional state with limits on political

decision making by state, the liberal state whereby mature adults could form judgements

about people governing them [as a definition of the liberal state, it doesn’t seem very

precise…], the representative democracy where state officers are elected by its citizens and

one polity state whereby a single party can represent overall interest of all citizens where

candidates are voted on by the people. It can be said that absolutist and modern states aren’t

as conventionally [why “conventionally”?] different from one another for two reasons.

Firstly, an absolutist state has less power over its citizens contrastive to their claim of

supreme power, as does a modern state (liberal state). Modern states rarely remained bounded

by their constitutions and borders often behaving like “arrogant “absolutist” states, especially

in their dealings with peoples and cultures overseas.” (Held, 88). This is further explained

below.

The rise in modern state formation can be linked to socio economic factors and class

division within states and the overall international system of states. Strongest of modern
states came to be known as nation states supremely because they won at war owing to their

ability to best organize and fund their army as warfare became large scaled and costly. As

these states expanded overseas via war and their military ability increased, they also became

economically successful because there was a rapid growth in their economies from late 16 th

century and especially after the industrial revolution of mid 18 th century. This allowed the

centralized nation states to accumulate capital. As their economic foundations expanded so

did their war making ability, resulting in reduction of that ability for smaller states and

empires. They gained legitimacy as they they coordinated and expanded their military

whereby they came to depend greatly on collaboration and cooperation of their people. As

authority of Church was eroded, claim to power was legitimized over popularity in a

democratic system. Implementation of democratic government became tempting as “new

political identities such as nationalism, citizenship and public life” (Held,104), augmented.

[this is perhaps the weaker part of the paper, because it is in great need of being unpacked

further. That is to say: while you do try to link together the expansion of the economy and the

expansion of the military, you forget to include TRADE in the picture, i.e. the class mostly

profiting from global commerce enabled by the trading routes which military conquests made

possible. Only by including this, the “collaboration and cooperation of their people” gains

some intelligibility: it basically means that those classes that benefited the most from global

commerce at some point wanted to have a say in the management of the state due to their

greater and greater financial influence – hence the origin of “democratic institutions”

whereby these groups could attain political representation within the emerging nation state.

Without making these interconnections clear, your paragraph is not as intelligible as it should

have been]

Grade: 19/20
 Work cited:

Held, David. Political Theory and the Modern State: Essays on State, Power, and Democracy.
Chapter 2, pp 72-122, Polity Press, 2000.