Katharine Crawford Govind Section 8 Paper 2 3/8/2010 Fighting with Fluidity The idea of a world without states is hard

to imagine to one who has always known the life of a state citizen. The creation of states and the existence of the stateless are never questioned because of the perception of those within the state. When one allows them self to think about the state, one can see the elements that form the state and keep the stateless independent. The state uses formulated and written languages, conforming central religion, and a settled lifestyle as tools to form a state, while in contrast the tools of statelessness are oral language, a prophetic and changing religious system, and a nomadic lifestyle. States have traditionally had a set language and written text in that language. The stateless, instead, have numerous languages and a strict oral tradition. It can be argued that the stateless once had written language, but according to their many myths, the language was taken or in some cases eaten. The states use written language as a tool to encage the inhabitants, physically and mentally. Physically, laws are established and property rights are defined. By making the distinction in a solid unchanging written agreement, an actual physical border is made on a piece of land. Writing give negotiations legitimacy and force to a claim, thus making a state, a state, legally. Scott states, writing is a crucial technology of administration and statecraft (Scott,228). The state can only control the people under its reach and written communication allows them to reach farther. Taxes and census are only made possible by the written traditions. The idea of having one language and a written form of it makes it binding because if everyone is literate they cannot dispute the agreement written in their language. Written language allows laws to be formed and maintained.

A written language allows the state to write a history. This history may be false, but by having it written down, it is legitimate. The history may be false in the sense that the people who control written language also control what history says about them. The saying The victors write the history is proven in the idea of states being able to control their own history. By having certain groups write the history, a hierarchical society could be formed within a state. The most powerful people within the state can write a history and a set of ideas that can carry on the traditions and division in classes. They could use the history to keep their descendents in power with a solid backing of evidence within written narrations. The history is written by the powerful to keep them in their place, and those below them in theirs. At the same time, literacy is a mark of the cultured and civilized. The ability to read the written documents and write, puts the upper class farther ahead, and widens the gap between the upper and lower classes. On the other side of the spectrum lies the oral tradition of the stateless. Although the stateless may or may not have had written narratives in their pasts, and they may have even been part of the state at one point, in general they rely on oral traditions. All agreements are done orally and must be made on the trust of another persons word. There is no paper binding one person to another or to a piece of land. The stateless may have laws, but not in the sense of those within the state. Laws for the stateless are self enforced and can be more closely linked to morals rather than political laws. Also, by using oral traditions to pass down history they allow the past to flow and change with the times. One example that Scott used to emphasis this was when he explained the awkwardness of written history in the sense that if your past enemies were allies now, the past history puts a strain on the present relationship (Scott, 228). The fluidity of the history allows the present day to positively affect the history by not allowing it to become outdated. History is always relevant when portrayed in the oral tradition over that of the written.

The lack of written history also denies one group or class of people to dominate consistently. There is no reason or history to back up their claim, unless it is spoken and then different people can speak it differently. There is no true division because no one can state without some uncertainty. Without classes and one group undeniably in power, a state cannot be formed (Scott, 229). Also, the idea of literate people being held in higher esteem than illiterate people does not hold context here. Almost everyone can speak and not everyone can read in states, therefore it puts those who are not literate at a disadvantage; while among the stateless there is no contrast, oral tradition levels the field (Scott, 230). Religion is another tool that creates a state and in other forms allows statelessness to exist. In states religion is based on central texts and usually there is one main religion. The stateless have a common religious idea of prophets, but do not follow a central religion. The stateless religions are much more fluid and changing. States use religion as another method of control. By having all of the people follow one religion, the norms and morals are forced upon the people. This unification of people under one religion creates a flag which all follow. By creating a common cause the state forms itself and control the pious with religious doctrine. They flattened religion to be controlled by the select elite that allowed the state to successfully oppress through religion (Scott, 155-156). In the time period of Zomia, religion and politics were heavily linked. Priests or other religious leaders had important status is society and therefore religion was given a special emphasis. The stateless has a religion as well, but because they practiced fringe religions such as animism and so called paganism, the state used them as an example of the other to strengthen their own religious control. By pointing to the stateless religion as false and uncivilized they were able to almost guilt people into submission under religious pretenses (Scott, 99). With the religious oppression of the state, many people who practiced alternate religions fled from the state to find peaceful religious practice in the stateless. The banned religions of South East Asia found sanctuary in the hills of Zomia (Scott, 157).

With this idea we see how religion creates the state, but also the way the state uses religion to oppress creates the stateless as well. If there were no state and religion in that state, then there would be no reason to flee the state to practice an alternate religion. In this way we see how most of the tools that form states also form the stateless. The stateless also use religion as a form of rebellion. A common theme in the religious practices of the stateless is the existence of a prophet figure. The stateless religions use prophet like people to be the catalyst for change. This change or fluidity is a common factor that permeates all of the stateless culture. The prophet sees a lift from the oppression of the state and the stateless follow in hopes of finding a utopia at the end. Religion creates the determination of the stateless to not become part of the state. The rainbow at the end gives them hope that the struggle to stay independent is not in vain. States also use the act of settling as a tool to form a state. The idea of settling in one place is linked to both the other tools of forming the state, language and religion. By creating laws and private property with written agreements, the state enforces the settling of the people, therefore creating a physical state. At the same time religion also encourages settling as Scott spoke of one instance where nomads who embraced Islam must, as a condition of their conversion, settle permanently or pledge to do so (Scott, 101). So, first of all, settling is a tool of forming the state by the influence it has over the other two tools of language and religion. Settling itself forms a state through bureaucracy, accounting, and taxes. To be able to hold a person accountable to the state, the state must have a way to find them. If they are constantly moving, they are unreachable, but the act of settling gives the state a way to locate them. By having the location of a person, the state can hold them accountable for the property and sales taxes it demands. Without some form of taxes a state is unable to exist, and by having a way to tax the people, the state is forming itself. This deems true for all other modes of accountability such as laws.

By settling the people, they are also committed to stable farming. The agricultural practice of staying in one place demands extra care and usually a mono crop. States that cultivate rice are called Padi states, which are the states that primarily surround Zomia. With agriculture, you must also have a continuous form of labor to produce a crop. As Scott puts it, wet rice fosters concentrated, labor-intensive production, it requires a density of population that is, itself, a key resource for state making (Scott, 41). So settling creates a stable piece of farm land, which creates a physical state, and at the same time the farm land require labor, which mean people, which also creates a state. People are the most important requirement for the formation of a state. A state may be physically there without many people, but the true identity of a state comes with its people. The settling of people one piece of land creates a labor force, but it also creates, simply, a population. A state can build itself around a population if it is able to reach them. The more people within the state, the farther the reach of the state itself. The nomadic lifestyle of the stateless denies the creation of a state. By moving around, the state is unable to keep track of them. The state cannot control the laws they break or the religion they practice if they cannot be found. This nomadic lifestyle keeps the people safe from the state, and many of the stateless were once a part of the state and fled. The fluidity of the life of the nomad creates an untouchable target the state can never find. The agriculture they practice is nomadic as well, so no piece of land is theirs and they are unaccountable. Without having a group of people in the same area for long periods of time, no state can be formed and no state can catch them. The theme of the stateless is fluidity. This is true in their oral history, which changes with the times, their religious practices that shift suddenly, and again true within their nomadic lifestyle. The states static written language, unchanging religion, and stagnate living style creates the state. In these ways the states and stateless are formed.