Articulating Theories of States and State Formation

Abstract

Some historical sociologists have, with some justification, described the development of the sub-discipline in the language of three successive "waves." This framing implies that each wave supercedes the other across time. Given that second and third waves map onto generational distinctions, the whole idea of waves has been met with consternation from second wavers who are not ready to be superseded. In addition, there is some debate, if not confusion, over the criteria that define the waves. In this paper I suggest that the language of successive waves frustrates the potential to articulate different approaches with the aim of a more comprehensive understanding of historical societies. This is particularly the case with our understanding of states and state formation, which is the focus here. Instead of the waves framing, I suggest a strategy for articulating research agendas on state formation by conceiving of such in terms of their "centers of gravity" (or COGs) 1 rather than their boundaries. I pay particular attention to the body of work that can be said to have a concern with culture as its center of gravity, a body of work that while overlapping considerably is not co-extensive with that identified as third wave. In this context I elaborate a broad conceptual architecture of culture, at the foundation of which is the distinction between meaning, practice, and materiality. This triangulated conceptualization of culture can, I argue, clarify some ambiguities in the literature and aid articulation of three COGs in state theory. In addition, I suggest that many questions taken to be theoretical are actually empirical. I conclude by briefly illustrating the approach in the case of science and modern state formation in Ireland.

“Radiation is Not New to Our Lives”: TheU.S.AtomicEnergyCommission, Continental Atmospheric Weapons Testing, and Discursive Hegemony in the Downwind Communities

“…The bomb symbolized the “winning weapon” in the immediate post‐war context in the West (Ungar :84). And as Carroll (, ) observes, science and the formation and expansion of the modern state are intimately intertwined. This is particularly the case in the post‐World War II era as each converged upon war‐making (McLauchlan and Hooks ).…”

“…This is particularly the case in the post‐World War II era as each converged upon war‐making (McLauchlan and Hooks ). Science, militarization, and governance shape and reshape each other (Carroll , ). Democracy, perhaps the preeminent floating signifier, changes as well, but as the socio‐natural history of continental atomic testing illustrates the discursive contours and character of democracy contracted rather than expanded relative to the scope of governance.…”

The rising importance of local government in the United States: Recent research and challenges for sociology

“…Rich conceptual traditions have drawn sociologists' attention to nation‐states, seen for example in sociology's general development literature (Wallerstein, ), the comparative welfare‐states literature (Esping‐Anderson, ; Korpi & Palme, , and historical institutionalist studies of state policy development (Skocpol & Amenta, ; Pierson, ; Prasad, ). Leicht and Jenkins (:68) pointedly critique political sociology for an “exclusive focus on the nation‐state” —asking “doesn't any other territorial actor do anything?” While theory about the U.S. state is largely federal state driven (Carroll, ; Sheingate, ), on the other side of the geographic continuum, urban sociological traditions address intra‐city politics (Clark & Harvey, ; Logan & Molotch, ). By contrast, political sociologists' have little developed systematic theory at the middle‐scale of analysis between the nation‐state and the city that might guide scholars in understanding how the actions of local states unfold comparatively across the nation overall (Hooks & Lobao, ).…”

“…When sociologists analyze the state, it is usually in its federal guise or as a national‐level government in a global system (Carroll, ; Leicht & Jenkins, ). Yet over recent decades, fundamental changes in the state have occurred in many nations where local governments have gained increased responsibilities and control.…”

When is the State's Gaze Focused? British Royal Commissions and the Bureaucratization of Conflict

“…New tools of governance have allowed states to “see” their populations in new ways, but populations also “see” the state and shape its contours (Corbridge et al ). Hence, new modes of knowledge have emerged in a negotiated, iterative way (Carroll ), and while standardization drives often take similar forms, the specific mechanisms through which articulations of power have been promulgated are nuanced and variable. In this article I shed light on these dynamics through an analysis of an historically critical form of governmental knowledge production: the commission of inquiry.…”