Modern Nation-States

Authority, Decisions, and Power: Political Anthropology ANTH 2301 Modern Nation-States Before before 1400, the globe was made up of a wide range of empires, kingdoms, and chiefdoms, each with its own tributary society. These societies were only tangentially connected to acephalous societies at the edges through commerce. The modern world is an essentially nation-state-organized economically connected system. How did this come about? A hyphenated notion that unites the state with the country is the nation-state. As was previously said, the state is an organisation that presides over a region with centralised authority. The bureaucracy of the states create, interpret, and uphold the laws. States levy taxes and utilise the proceeds to construct public works projects and infrastructure. States set up and control the economic system. States maintain their exclusive right to employ force through the police and military. States often create multiethnic empires ruled by a single governing group due to their aggressive and expansionist tendencies. Historically, tributary cultures were not assimilated into a single ethnic group or peoplehood by ancient emperors. Ancient governments made little attempt to create cultural homogeneity; instead, they were identified only by their territory and bureaucracy. The idea of the country is far more idealistic and cultural. A nation is a feeling of "peoplehood" or cultural identity. The term "nation," which is related to "native," designates the original residents of a territory—those who were born there. Common languages are frequently used by nations as indicators of group affiliation. Every nation has a common origin narrative that they retell, and they celebrate and honour this tale on a set schedule of feasts and holidays. Nations assert that they have a sacred mission, a unique destiny, or both bestowed upon them by God. Lastly, countries uphold certain social norms and values, assessing people and groups in light of these principles. The idea of a nation is similar to the antiquated idea of culture as a shared, static entity. A state that shares a dominant race or culture is referred to as a nation-state. According to political scientist Benedict Anderson (1983), every contemporary state actively fosters this sense of community among its citizens. To win over their citizens' allegiance and bolster the legitimacy of the state apparatus, they employ a wide range of strategies. State societies foster an environment in which their residents perceive themselves as members of a broader group of like-minded individuals living in harmony and connected by a shared past and future via actions taken both inside and outside the government. Elections, censuses, taxes, schools, and the dramas surrounding the creation, interpretation, and application of laws are just a few of the ways that the government fosters national identity. States of today rely on important public ceremonies and icons, such national anthems, flags, oaths of loyalty, national holidays, historical sites, and national museums. Outside of the government, the mass media emphasises the significance of the state's everyday operations by giving constant coverage that draws people' attention to the state as the dominant force in society. You will never get to know every member of your country's community as a citizen. These kinds of communities are just too big to produce naturally occurring social groups founded on in-person interactions. You may not even think of yourself as a part of the bigger political group at all if you don't follow all of the customs and rituals mentioned above. Benedict Anderson describes nations as imagined communities as a result. By "imagined," Anderson does not want to suggest that these communities are merely made up or unreal; rather, he means to suggest that national identity is a strong bond that is purposefully created by the government and the media. Western European nation-states developed from a conglomeration of kingdoms and territories, some of which were formerly part of the Holy Roman Empire. As the major European countries engaged into peace accords that defined international borders and control over areas, the European nations gradually came into being, one by one, between the fifteenth and nineteenth centuries. For the average farmers and traders who lived in these regions, the wars and treaties of the political elites often held very little significance. For example, the English commoners' feeling of community was largely unaffected by the state of England's constantly shifting territorial boundaries. The invention of the printing press about 1440 was one advancement that did have an impact on common people in Europe. A rising number of literate commoners were the target audience for the printing press. Printers wanted to reach as many people as they could, driven by the capitalist profit motive. As a result, instead of printing their books, pamphlets, and newspapers in Latin—the pan-European tongue of the aristocracy and the Catholic Church— in local tongues. Mass media had a crucial role in standardising a variety of dialects into a single language that each newly formed nation-state could use to carry out common activities including government bureaucracy, education, law enforcement, and political campaigning. Of course, the development of modern nation-states in Europe was not entirely attributed to the printing press. A growing class of capitalist merchants was gaining economic clout at the same time as the press started producing public discourse in an attempt to unseat political leadership linked to the church and feudal monarchy. Class motivation and printing technology came together to form a fortunate coincidence that accelerated the rise of European nation-states. According to Max Weber, the nation-state represents the full formalisation of rational-bureaucratic power, or authority centred on institutions of bureaucracy endowed with legal standing. Nation-state bureaucracies frequently claim that their political and legal structures are determined by protocols and norms rather than by identities or social standing. For example, in the American system, legal citizenship—rather than socioeconomic status, gender, or ethnic identity—determines one's eligibility to vote. Nonetheless, political and legal bureaucracies maintain the authority to define citizenship, as well as the processes for registering voters and casting ballots in elections. Racial or ethnic prejudice may come from these practices, which prevent or discourage members of particular groups from casting ballots. Laws requiring state-sponsored picture identification, such driver's licences, to vote may be discriminatory against persons of colour if they are less likely to possess such documents. Biopower is the term used by French philosopher Michel Foucault (1978, 2007) to characterise this kind of authority over citizen populations. Biopower is a unique type of power used in contemporary states to control individuals' bodies. This encompasses activities related to birth, death, sexuality, wellness, disease, employment, and leisure. One type of biopower is the capacity to count and classify a state's population. One type of biopower is the capacity to imprison individuals with specific diseases, physical ailments, or behaviours. In the airport security station, passing through a body scanner is equivalent to using biopower. Weber focussed on certain establishments where power is centralised, but Foucault saw biopower as a diffuse kind of social control that is extensively employed by people inside and outside of governmental agencies. Everywhere they go in American culture, people regularly carry state-issued identification on their person (in a pocket or handbag). This identity card's data ties to official records pertaining to an individual's criminal record, citizenship status, voter registration, and several other data sets. This blends bureaucratic authority with the bodies of contemporary citizens.