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.
-
-
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @carlosfnorena
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.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 6 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjille @BretDevereaux ja @carlosfnorena
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.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 0 tykkäystä -
Vastauksena käyttäjälle @BretDevereaux
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.
1 vastaus 0 uudelleentwiittausta 1 tykkäys
That's also a problem too, absolutely. Two sides of the same coin really.
Lataaminen näyttää kestävän hetken.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.