The modern nation-state can be seen either as one variant in a wider typology of states or as one stage in a long-term process of state formation. But it is not the same thing as "the state." Conflating the two has led to some wildly misguided claims about the premodern world.
-
I find the distinction between state and non-state, if located in questions of the centralization of power and the legitimate use of force to be useful. But 'nation' and thus 'nation-state' are, as terms, unhelpful when thinking about the pre-modern world for sure.
That said, the definition needs to be clear and I think there also needs to be a willingness, once set, to actually employ it. It seems to me there is sometimes reluctance to put western polities outside of the 'state' label, even when they clearly fail the definition.
-
-
Interesting -- I thought you were going in the other direction, i.e., to note a reluctance to attach the "state" label to *non*-western polities even when they *meet* the definition! But I do take the point you're actually making.
-
That's also a problem too, absolutely. Two sides of the same coin really.
Keskustelun loppu
Uusi keskustelu -
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.