Dec 18, 2008 14:50
I think this paper is going to be more a direct response to one of the books we read than a research paper in its own right. But here's what I have now for an (basic, serviceable) introduction:
It would not be difficult to make the case that the state is an essential feature of modernity. Are there any people who live wholly untouched by state power or state interventions? Even international organizations such as the UN or IMF, which are nominally outside state power, have policies and practice that are deeply influenced by the states who form their membership and provide financial and human resources to support them. But what is the modern state? What essential features does it possess, and how can we think fruitfully about them in order to better understand the role states play in human life? In Seeing Like a State, James Scott makes several thought-provoking arguments about how the nature of certain kinds of states inevitably leads to the failure of their grandest plans for re-organizing society. But while his descriptions of how states ‘see’ direct us toward some intriguing questions, his basic assumptions regarding what “the state” actually is remain problematic. In this paper, I will begin with a critical discussion of two shortcomings of Scott’s analysis: first, his presentation of the state as a singular, unified entity; and second, his opposition of ‘practical knowledge’ to the formal knowledge of the state. Then I will continue with a discussion of the strengths of his suggestion that movement toward increasing legibility is a hallmark of the modern state, concluding with some suggestions for applying his insights to the contemporary situation.