Notes on Social Contract Theory and the Predatory State (Tilly)

Social contract theory: overview

• The earliest and very popular view on the origins of the state in the 16th–18th centuries is the social contract theory. It explains the state as arising from an implied agreement among individuals in a state of nature, where the state provides security in exchange for obedience.

• Key term: the state of nature. It is not a historical event like Adam and Eve; it is an abstract, hypothetical scenario used by theorists (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau) to describe pre-state conditions where there is no government.

• Historical backdrop: European exploration and encounters with distant peoples, which spurred thinkers to theorize how states and governance might arise when unfamiliar societies are analyzed from outside.

• Hobbes on the state of nature:

  • In a world without a sovereign power, there would be a dilemma: without a common power to enforce order, people would steal from and kill one another.
  • Famous quote: "life is nasty, brutish, and short" in the state of nature.
  • The fear-driven environment of Civil War-era England shaped his pessimistic view of human nature without a strong state.

• The social contract purpose: the state is an enforcer of peace and order for self-preservation, created by individuals who consent to a sovereign in exchange for protection.

• The sovereign’s bargain: obedience from citizens in return for security, funded by taxes. Taxation funds police and enforcement; yet taxes must not be so punitive as to provoke revolt.

• The political payoff: these authors are not only explaining origins but also why revolts occur; revolutions were unfolding in Europe during their era.

• Major figures and their emphasis:

  • Thomas Hobbes: emphasizes the need for a powerful sovereign to prevent a life of constant conflict; Leviathan as the symbolic state.
  • John Locke: emphasizes property and the state’s role in protecting property.
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau: offers a distinctive take on the social contract and revolts, highlighting conditions under which people break the contract; Rousseau’s ideas influenced revolutions (e.g., French Revolution).

• The three books referenced:

  • Hobbes, Leviathan: the state as an overarching power that keeps individuals in line, constructed from the aggregation of individuals into a collective power.
  • Locke: property rights as central to the social contract; the state’s legitimacy rests on protecting these rights.
  • Rousseau: the contract and the legitimacy of revolt; his writings inspire debates about when breaking the social contract is justified.

• Civil society and the social contract:

  • If the state of nature is brutally violent, the result may be a strong, coercive state (authoritarian).
  • If the state of nature is risky but manageable, there can be more restraints on the state and a more liberal or libertarian framework.
  • The tradition links to liberalism, conservatism, and libertarianism, with later figures like Thomas Jefferson drawing on these ideas (e.g., life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness).

• Summary of the contractarian view:

  • The state exists to police individuals and prevent harm.
  • The social contract explains both the origin of the state and why people comply with it.
  • The legitimacy of taxation and punishment hinges on deterrence and consent.

• Visual reference discussed: Leviathan image vs. the book cover

  • Leviathan is a monster in the Old Testament; the state is imagined as an overarching power.
  • The original book cover contrasts with the internal image: Leviathan’s body is composed of individuals who consented to join the collective power.

• Civil society outcomes and different perspectives on state power:

  • If you view human nature as fundamentally violent, you may advocate a strong, restrictive state (authoritarian).
  • If you view human nature as capable of self-governance and cooperation, you may advocate restraints on the state and more self-policing by citizens (liberal/libertarian tendencies).
  • Proponents and connections include liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, and historical figures such as Jefferson (who argued for strong natural rights and cautious state power).

• Key terms to remember:

  • State of nature: hypothetical pre-state condition without government.
  • Social contract: agreement to form a state in exchange for security and order.
  • Sovereign: the enforcing authority that maintains order in return for taxation.
  • Deterrence: punishment must be sufficiently severe to prevent misbehavior.
  • Taxation: the price of security provided by the state; excessive taxation risks revolt.
  • Property rights: central theme in Lockean theory.
  • Revolt/recall: Rousseau’s influence on when to break or reconfigure the contract.

Predatory view of the state

• The predatory view contrasts with the contractarian view by treating the state as not merely benign but as an actor that controls violence and can exploit citizens.
• Core idea: states exercise coercive power and security threats; unlike the contractarian view, the state may predate on its own citizens or competitors to accumulate revenue and power.
• The state’s security dilemma: states are surrounded by rivals; to ensure their own security, they build power, which can provoke others to respond in kind.
• Predation and extraction: in this view, the state extracts resources and revenue through coercive means, sometimes through protection-like arrangements that resemble extortion.
• Practical illustration: the world is made of multiple states that continuously compete for security; this competition shapes how states manage violence and resources.
• Conceptual tie-in: the state’s actions can resemble a protection racket—threats of violence paired with protection for a price.
• The Colombia map example (context discussed in class):
  • Venezuela to the north, Brazil to the east, Peru to the south, Ecuador to the west; rivalries and security considerations are constant.
  • The map serves to illustrate how states sometimes tolerate or interact with non-state actors (gangs, insurgents) as part of a broader security and revenue dynamic.
• Distinction from the contractarian view:
  • In predatory theory, the seller of security may become the principal threat to buyer’s security; protection is intertwined with coercion.
  • The state may tolerate autonomous security providers (e.g., local groups) when it benefits the state (revenue, stability, or control), but it will also suppress them when necessary.
• Key takeaway: predatory views emphasize the coercive, revenue-raising, and securitizing roles of states, rather than a purely benevolent protection function.

Tilly: state making as organized crime; Q&A discussion

• The core question: Why does Charles Tilly describe state making as organized crime?
  • Tilly uses a racketeering analogy: the state both produces violence and shields people from it, charging for protection, similar to an organized crime network.
  • A paraphrase cited in class: a state resembles an "ominous protection racket"—a network that both creates danger and offers protection for a price.
  • Example used in class (illustrative, not a direct quote): in Yaounde, Cameroon, a market is controlled by protection rackets; police avoid the market, and those who control protection demand weekly payments for space and safety.
  • The parallel to the state is in how rival power groups consolidate, coerce, and then formalize authority through taxation and enforcement, creating a monopoly on violence.
• Student responses and clarifications:
  • Racketeering involves threat of violence and protection for a price; taxes function as a form of protection payment to the state.
  • The origin of states can be traced to competing local lords or gangs; the strongest group eventually centralizes power and becomes the state.
  • The analogy helps explain why states emerge and how they sustain themselves, particularly through coercive means and extraction.
• Additional discussion on the Tudors and power consolidation (relevant to Tilly’s broader argument):
  • The Tudor consolidation of royal power reduced local lords’ autonomy and extended centralized authority across England.
  • The modern example of centralized police (e.g., Bobbies) illustrates how a state can monopolize the legitimate use of force and provide security in exchange for taxes.
• Broader implications of Tilly’s view:
  • The state is built through coercion, extraction, and the gradual destruction of rivals’ territorial claims.
  • Military power and war-making capacity can drive state-building; war often catalyzes centralized authority.

“War makes the state, and the state makes war”: key argument and examples

• The central idea: states grow stronger through war; war creates the institutions and power needed to sustain the state, while the state enables continued war-making capabilities.
• Prussia and the German state example (historical illustration):
  • The creation of a pervasive military infrastructure and a centralized bureaucracy undermined traditional local lords and Junkers, enabling a strong centralized state.
  • This process shows how war-driven state-building can reshape governance and social structures.
• World War II as a turning point in global power, economy, and institutions:
  • The United States mobilized for war and, by the war’s end, produced about half of the world’s GDP, cementing its economic preeminence.
  • The U.S. established international institutions to manage and stabilize the postwar order: the IMF, World Bank, and the United Nations.
  • The period of the 1960s and 1970s saw increasing international influence of U.S.-led institutions, sometimes behind the scenes, sparking controversy and debates about sovereignty and intervention.
• Related concept: the security dilemma in international relations
  • States fear others’ advancements; even the prospect of new weapons (hypersonic missiles, drones, space-based systems) can trigger a chain reaction of armament and deterrence.
  • The distinction between the threat of war and actual warfare can be subtle but equally influential in shaping state behavior.
• Real-world relevance:
  • The predatory view and Tilly’s framework help explain why some states engage in aggressive foreign policies, and why others invest in international institutions to stabilize power and influence.
  • The postwar order (IMF, World Bank, UN) demonstrates how a state can use international governance to sustain its leadership and influence global economic rules.

Europe in 1555: a snapshot of political fragmentation vs. modern centralization

• A map from 1555 illustrates a Europe of many small, competing states and principalities rather than a single, unified nation-state.
• Key observations:
  • Much of what is today a single country (e.g., Spain, France, Germany/central Europe) was a mosaic of smaller kingdoms, duchies, and lordships.
  • France itself consisted of various internal divisions and lordly powers; England and Scotland were distinct entities with their own tensions, including Protestant–Catholic conflicts in Ireland.
  • This patchwork contrasts sharply with modern centralized states and demonstrates the historical reality of state formation as a process of consolidation and centralization over time.
• Implication for Tilly’s argument:
  • The shift from a fragmented map to centralized bureaucratic states supports the idea that war and conquest can drive state-building and centralization, but it also highlights the gradual and uneven nature of this process across regions.

Friday’s plan and limitations of the predatory view

• The instructor previews a critique of Tilly’s predatory view: there are contexts where the theory does not fully apply or requires refinements.
• The aim is to explore limitations while continuing to engage with the core insights about state formation, violence, and governance.

Connections to foundational principles and real-world relevance

• Foundational ideas:
  • The state as a security provider vs. the state as a coercive, revenue-extractor.
  • The balance between individual liberty and collective security (liberal, conservative, libertarian tensions).
  • The enduring debate about when citizens may or should revolt against government power.
• Real-world relevance:
  • The Tilly framework helps analyze contemporary states that rely on coercion and extractive institutions, as well as those that integrate non-state actors into governance structures for strategic or economic reasons.
  • The social contract remains a reference point for debates about taxation legitimacy, police power, and civil liberties in modern democracies.

Key figures and terms to remember (recap)

• Hobbes: state of nature, Leviathan, fear, life is nasty, brutish, and short; strong sovereign to prevent chaos.
• Locke: property rights, government as protector of property.
• Rousseau: social contract and revolt; open-ended questions about legitimacy.
• Tilly: state-making as organized crime; protection/extortion analogy; war-making drives state power.
• Predatory view: states as security threats that prey on their citizens and rivals; the security dilemma in international politics.
• Social contract vs. predatory state: two competing explanations for how states arise, operate, and justify taxation and coercion.
• Important dates and terms:
  • 16th–18th centuries: rise of social contract debates
  • 1555: Europe shown as political fragmentation on a map
  • 1940s: World War II period and its impact on state power and global institutions
  • 1960s–1970s: emergence and controversy around international institutions (IMF, World Bank, UN)
  • rac{1}{2} of the world’s GDP: postwar economic leadership milestone

// End of notes