I. Course Description

 This course will analyze the principal movements and  processes which have led to the rise of the modern nation-state.  The theoretical focus will be oriented around the main factors which account for the rise and legitimation of the state, while the historical focus will be on the political evolution across differing systems of governance from feudalism up to the modern period and beyond.
 

II. Topics

1. The Rise of the State: The Social Contract and Escape From Anarchy

2. Legitimation Crisis of the State

3. Feudalism and the Political Tradition of the West

4. The Emergence of the Democratic State and Differing Routes to Democracy

5. Democratic Culture and Institutions

6. Communism and the Revolution From Below

7.  “Il Fascismo” and Revolution From Above

8. Challenges to the Nation-State: Interdependence and Globalization

9. Beyond the Nation-State
 

III. Requirements

 Assignments will consist of weekly essays of five double-spaced essays. Essays will be written on problems posed in sections entitled “Essay Topic.”   Readings are accompanied by questions and suggestions which will underscore important topics in the readings, hence these topics will serve as a focus both for discussion and your essays.  All of the weekly readings listed are required and have been placed on reserve both in the Olin Reserve Room and in the CSS Library (CSS Library will carry just the xeroxes, while Olin will carry both xeroxes and books recommended for purchase). I have recommended for purchase those books which will be most extensively used, hence if possible it would be convenient to own these books. These books can be purchased at Atticus, they are:

Gianfranco Poggi,  The Development of the Modern State

Sam Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies

Barrington Moore, SocialOrigins of Dictatorship and Democracy

Vladimir Lenin, What Is To Be Done

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

F.L. Ganshof, Feudalism

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
 

IV. Course Sections
 

1. The Rise of the State: The Social Contract and Escape From Anarchy
 

How did the state come about? Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes talk about the emergence of the state from anarchy. Each sees a unique set of conditions that lead individuals to create political communities (“social contracts”). These communities require individuals to give up the right to pursue their desires in an uncontrained manner (i.e., giving up the natural freedom they had under anarchy). Compare and contrast their accounts of anarchy and the process whereby  individuals escape anarchy through the creation of the contract.  In a less idealized context, Herz, Deutsch, and Poggi account for the origins of the state.  What are these explanations, and how do they relate to the views marshaled by Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes?

Readings:

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapters 13, 17

Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I

John Locke, Second Treatise on Civil Government, Chapters 2, 8, 9

Gianfranco Poggi,  The Development of the Modern State, Chapter 1

John Herz,  “The Rise and Demise of the Territorial State”

Karl Deutsch, “The Growth of Nations”
 

Essay Topic:

 Compare and contrast the state of nature (anarchy) in Locke, Rousseau, and Hobbes. Compare and contrast also their accounts of how individuals enter into political communities (i.e., escape anarchy through the creation of the state). How do the arguments made by Poggi, Herz and Deutsch about the rise and integration of the nation-state relate to the the above arguments about the origins of the state?
 

2. Legitimation Crisis of the State

 Once states form and are consolidated, they invariably face (to a greater or lesser extent) a legitimation crisis (i.e., challenges to their political authority).  The sources of this crisis can be numerous and varied. What are these sources, and what can states do to preserve their authority? These are central issues involed with the study of the theory of the state.  De Jasay talks about the endemic legitimation problems caused by the “adversary state.” What is the adversary state and what special problems does it create? Huntington talks about the legitimation problems created by the “political gap”: what is this gap and how does it threaten the state?  What special legitimation problems does Nisbet see in the modern western world? What  prescriptions for confronting the legitimation crisis can be derived from Machiavelli and Gallarotti?

Readings:

Anthony de Jasay, The State, Chapter 2

Robert Nisbet, The Twilight of Authority,  Chapter 1

Giulio Gallarotti, “Legitimacy as a Capital Asset of the State”

Sam Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, Chapter 1

Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince
 

Essay Topic:

 Looking through the readings what common agruments emerge about challenges to the authority of the state (i.e., can you construct a theory about the essence of the legitimation crisis)? Again, from the readings, try to construct an effective strategy for confronting the legitimation crisis.
 

3. Feudalism and the Political Tradition of the West

 Feudalism represented a system of political organization that emerged from the ashes of the disintegrating Holy Roman Empire.  It is difficult to understand the origins of modern democratic state without understanding the specific institutions of  governance introduced by feudalism. At the most general level, feudalism was founded on pluralism and constitutionalism.  The contract between government and governed, which is at the heart of liberal democracy, is a manifestation of the reciprocal rights and duties between free persons under feudalism.  What are the main factors accounting for the rise of feudalism? In terms of political organization, was it an optimal response to the turbulent conditions created by the disintegration of the Holy Roman Empire? What were the major problems which feudalism came to face? How did feudalism create the seeds of its own destruction? How did feudalism contribute to the character of the modern democratic state?

Readings:
 

F.L. Ganshof, Feudalism

Gianfranco Poggi,  The Development of the Modern State, Chapter 2

A.D. Lindsay,  The Modern Democratic State, Chapter 2

Otto Hintze,  The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, Chapter 8
 

Essay Topic:

 Link the rise of feudalism to the political turbulence caused by the downfall of the Roman Empire. In terms of  being a system of political organization, what would you say were the major strengths and weaknesses of feudalism? How did feudalism contribute to the character of the modern democratic state?
 
 

4. The Emergence of the Democratic State and Differing Routes to Democracy

 Out of the ashes of feudalism emerged  the nation-state.  With the territorial consolidation of the nation-state came wide-ranging attempts at  absolutist governance: monarchs claiming  authority over large sovereign territories.  Absolutism in turn came to face a democratic challenge as  elements emerged from  society to demand greater political voice.  The success of the political challenge to the absolutist state formed the modern democratic state. While this  transition occured across various nations, it differed in terms of style and timing (i.e., differeing routes to democracy).  How do you account for the transition from feudalism to absolutism?  How, in turn, did  absolutism give way to democracy? What were the differing routes to democracy taken by France, the U.S., Germany, and England.?
 

Readings:

Gianfranco Poggi,  The Development of the Modern State, Chapter 4

Sam Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, Chapter 2

Barrington Moore, SocialOrigins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Chapters 1, 2

Otto Hintze,  The Historical Essays of Otto Hintze, Chapters 1, 4
 

Essay Topic:

 Account for the transition from feudalism to absolutism, and then from absolutism to democracy.
 
 

5. Democratic Culture and Institutions

 Scholars who have studied political transition in the early-modern period argue that with the advent of democracy came a democratic mind-set:  unique ways of thinking that characterize democratic societies.  Individualism and a belief in equality, for example, are two of the principal elements in this mind-set.   This mind-set was a necessary precursor to the institutional changes that led from feudalism to democracy.  Barbu locates the roots of the mind-set in the dissolution of feudalism and the transition to a less rigid social, political, and economic structure. Lindsay sees its roots in the emerging intellectual traditions of the early modern period, as well  in the economic and scientific transformation of that period. De Tocqueville identifies a unique American mind-set and traces it to the particular forces shaping institutional and demographic patterns in colonial America. What are the components of this democratic mind-set?  Are these components as unique to democratic nations as many believe? What are the origins of this mind-set?
 

Readings:

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America,
 Volume I, Chapters 2-4, 8-10, 13, 17
 Volume II,  Book I, Chapters 1-10
                     Book II, Chapters 1-14
       Book III, Chapters 1-4, 13, 22
       Book IV, Chapters 1, 2, 6

A.D. Lindsay,  The Modern Democratic State, Chapters 3-5

Zevedei Barbu,  Problems of Historical Psychology, pps. 140-144, Chapters 5, 6
 

Essay topic: What are the principal components of the democratic mind-set?  What are their origins?
 
 

6. Communism and the Revolution From Below

 Huntington defines a revolution as not only a transformation of political institutions, but of political ideologies as well. Such pervasive political changes within nations are rare. While political change through insurrections, revolts and coups  has been common in history, many fewer instances of political revolution have occured.  Communist revolutions have effected pervasive changes within various nations in the 20th century.  For Huntington, these leftist transformations would not have been possible without Lenin’s theory of revolution. Lenin took the a-political ideology of Marxism and infused it with a practical political orientation (i.e., revolutionary organization through the Party). How would you describe Lenin’s theory of revolution, and what special role does the party play? What are the major strengths and weaknesses of this theory?  In terms of weaknesses,  what elements of  the theory encouraged totalitarian regimes?  Why, according to Huntington, do revolutions occur? Huntington talks about two styles of revolution: East and West. What are they, and how do they differ? According to Huntington, what are the pre-conditions for a successful revolution?
 

Readings:

Vladimir Lenin, What Is To Be Done

Sam Huntington, Political Order in Changing Societies, Chapter 5

Barrington Moore, SocialOrigins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Chapters 4, 9, and Epilogue
 

Essay Topic:

 Discuss Lenin’s theory of revolution. What special role does the Party play in this theory? What are the major strengths and weaknesses of  his theory?
 
 
 

7.  “Il Fascismo” and Revolution From Above

 Fascism (il fascismo) was originally  an Italian political movement. The term comes from the very “Fasciare” which means “to bind together.” In its general manifestations this movement (which has been referred to as an elite revolution--revolution from above) represented the old power elite (i.e., aristocracy)  aligning with peasants to maintain traditional social  structures through a powerful state bureaucracy. This was a reaction to capitalistic modernization which was shaking the old political order by bringing new groups into the political nexus and affecting old groups. What specific factors led to the rise of Fascism in Italy, Germany, and Japan? How would you describe the Fascist system of governance? What is the Fascist ideology? What is the role of the state in the Fascist doctrine? As a system of governance, what do you think are the major strengths and weaknesses of Fascism?
 

Readings:

Benito Mussolini, “The Doctrine of Fascism”

Alfredo Rocco, “The Political Doctrine of Fascism”

Barrington Moore, SocialOrigins of Dictatorship and Democracy, Chapter 8
 

Essay Topic:

 Describe the Fascist system of governance.  What are its major strengths and weaknesses?
 
 

8. Challenges to the Nation-State: Interdependence and Globalization

 One overwhelming trend in history  is the extension of political juristiction over ever increasing areas: scattered settlements to farming communities to city-states to nation-states.  Each transition was fueled by conditions which challenged the territorial boundaries of the former jurisdictions. Is the nation-state undergoing such a challenge today?  For Reich, Huntington, Keohane, Nye, Cooper, and Vernon globalization and interpenetration in the world economy are rendering national boundaries less meaningful. Indeed, they assert that national power as well as national identity are becoming suspect. One major implication of this globalization argument is that as contacts and mutual dependence increase, people are better served by political jurisdictions that go beyond the nation-state (i.e., regional unions, global federation).  Kapstein, in the finest tradition of early mercantilists like Mun, argues that rumors about the demise of the nation-state are greatly exaggerated. More than ever, Kapstein asserts, the nation-state is a powerful fixture in the world economy. Is the nation state whithering away?
 

Readings:

Sam Huntington,  “Transnational Organizations in World  Politics”

Raymond Vernon, Sovereignty at Bay, Chapters 1, 7, 8 (skim)

Richard Cooper, The Economics of Interdependence, Chapters 1, 3-6 (skim)

Robert Reich, “Who Is Us?”

Ethan Kapstein, “We Are Us”

Robert Keohane and Joseph Nye, Power and Interdependence, Chapters 1, 2

T. Mun, “England’s Treasure by Foreign Trade”

John Herz, “The Rise and Demise of the Territorial State”
 

Essay Topic:

 Is the nation-state whithering away?

9. Beyond the Nation-State

 What lies beyond the nation-state? Futuristic speculation about the evolution of global politics beyond the traditional phenomenon of  the sovereign state has presented a varied of models. Keohane has suggested the importance of rules and norms in regulating international relations in a changing world. Mitrany sees technical self-determination creating the need for a global technocracy. Russett discusses the importance of regional associations as a first step beyond the nation-state. Cox suggests that whatever lies beyond our present political organization, it will neither be equitable nor democratic. What are the major theories of life beyond the nation-state? Which appear especially pursuasive, and which appear especially flawed?
 

Readings:

Robert Keohane, After Hegemony, Chapter 4

Robert Cox, “The Crisis of World Order”

David Mitrany, “The Functional Alternative”

Inis Claude, Swords Into Plowshares, Chapter 18

Bruce Russett, “Regions and the Future of the Global System”

Harold Jacobson, Networks of Interdependence, Chapters 1, 4
 

Essay Topic:

 What lies beyond the nation-state?