THE STATE Postcolonial histories of the concept (Chapter 17) by Gurminder K. Bhambra
Introduction
The contemporary political landscape is organised around the idea of the nation-state.
Origins of the nation-state are traced back to the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, as argued by Habermas (1998) and others.
The history of the modern nation-state is shaped by:
American and French Revolutions in the late 18th century.
Two routes to modern statehood in Europe:
Evolution of nation-states within existing territorial states (e.g., North and Western Europe).
Establishment of nations and then states (e.g., Germany and Italy in the late 19th century; formation of states in Central and Eastern Europe in the 20th century).
The period of mass decolonisation in the mid to late 20th century led to the establishment of postcolonial states.
A final moment in nation-state history: Secession of states from the Soviet Union after its collapse in the late 20th century.
Critique of Historical Narration
The chapter critiques the conventional historical outline of modern states.
Criticism focuses on the omission of colonisation in discussions of state formation:
The relationship between colonial expansion and the emergence of modern states is underexamined.
European states consolidated their dominance over territories worldwide during colonialism, a period rarely acknowledged as vital to understanding the modern state.
Dominance of European states from 1648 onwards included:
Presence of Spain and Portugal in the Americas.
British, French, Belgian, and the Netherlands territories in the Americas, Africa, and Asia.
Varied forms of domination:
Conquest followed by settlement (e.g., Americas, Southern Africa, New Zealand, Australia).
Colonial and dependency status (e.g., India, Caribbean, Africa).
The chapter emphasises the erasure of external domination from modern state theory.
Conceptual Understanding
Argues for a more accurate understanding that incorporates imperial histories essential to modern state formation.
The failure to address these aspects results in intellectual errors and significant political implications in the present.
Proposes a connected sociologies approach that integrates historical sociology and postcolonial theory.
Goals of the connected sociologies approach:
Provide new interpretations, explanations, and solutions.
Better historicize the emergence of the state.
The Westphalian System of Sovereign States
The Treaty of Westphalia marked the end of the Thirty Years' War, which is viewed as the inception of the modern state system.
Major transformations purportedly initiated by the Treaty:
Transition from a religiously unified Europe to a secular, independent state system.
Establishment of exclusive territorial jurisdictions and sovereignty of states.
Claims by scholars:
Blaney and Inyatullah: Movement from a unified religious authority to independent sovereign states.
Krasner: Emergence of a sovereign state model characterised by principles of autonomy, territory, mutual recognition, and control.
Critiques of the Westphalian model:
Despite critiques, few engage deeply with the colonial implications of state sovereignty.
There's an inadequate acknowledgement of European dominion over non-European territories as a significant aspect of sovereignty.
Critique of Sovereignty and Colonialism
A primary concern with the Westphalian thesis is its failure to address colonial power dynamics:
Sovereignty appears to apply only to European states while ignoring their power over non-European states.
According to Anghie (2006), sovereignty is defined in relation to European states, thereby disregarding other societies.
Decolonisation is conventionally understood as the emergence of non-European sovereign states.
The problem lies in presenting these states as sovereign without considering their previous subjugation and imperial context.
Suggestion that the modern state should be regarded as an extension of imperial power rather than purely national.
Historical Context of the Nation-State
Historical perspectives on the state often overlook the importance of imperialism.
Weber's definition of the modern state focuses on legitimate coercive power within a territory.
Critique of Weber’s perspective:
The definition fails to account for the state's impact on external populations and reinforces nationalistic narratives.
Weber’s model stems from concepts derived from contemporary German state practices, which were simultaneously colonial in nature.
Examples: The establishment of the German state in 1871 coincided with colonial expansions, leading to violent territorial acquisitions.
Contemporary Conceptualisations of the State
Standard definitions revolve around institutional differentiation, highlighting the evolution of states through structural arrangements (Poggi 1978).
The emergence of the modern state is tied to European expansion and domination worldwide.
Critique of this narrative:
External domination of states is omitted from foundational theories, perpetuating a narrow interpretation of statehood.
Authors like Jessop (2016) recognise the need to expand analysis beyond European paradigms, yet the primary focus remains on the nation-state model even when imperial dynamics are at play.
Territorial organisation and the legitimacy of state power are viewed as primary attributes, yet they are not fully contextualised within imperial histories.
Summary of Key Arguments
The chapter’s proposed approach promotes the inclusion of historically marginalised perspectives in discussions regarding state formation and conceptualisation.
A thorough examination of the implications of colonial histories for modern state theory is critical for understanding contemporary political contexts and state behaviours.
B.) I chose picture B because it shows the German Empire and its colonies in Africa. Bhambra emphasises that recognising the colonial encounters and their legacies is essential to deconstructing conventional narratives surrounding nation-states and their evolution. The statement is supported by the text’s argument that "Jessop’s discussion of the variety of understandings of the state acknowledges that the majority of the theories used within the social sciences rely on an examination of European and Western states. He points to the significance of also looking at other state forms beyond Europe, but these are not given much
consideration in the overall analysis” P 224
A.) I chose that picture A is least reflective of bhambras because it shows the Western world and its sovereignty with emphasis on the EU. This selection reinforces the notion that Western-centric frameworks often overshadow the complex histories and experiences of non-Western states, which are critical to a holistic understanding of the state as a concept.
“
Anghie asks, it is unclear how it was ‘decided that non-European states were
not sovereign in the first place?. Indeed, he continues, it is the doctrine of sover-
eignty itself that sets up the non-European world as excluded from its understanding and ‘then
proceeds to legitimise the imperialism that resulted in the incorporation of the non-European
world into the system of international law’”