Nature of State and Society

Nature of State and Society. We must also clearly distinguish between the State and Society because identifying the social with the political is to be guilty of all confusions’ grossest, which completely bars any understanding of either society or State. To equate the State with society is to justify State interference in all aspects of human life, thereby significantly affecting individual liberty. Aristotle’s State was omnicompetent as he saw no difference between the State and society. A dictator, too, will pay scant attention to this distinction. There is no sphere of life which a dictator’s State will not cover. There was nothing above the State for Hitler and Mussolini, nothing beyond it, nothing besides it.

Society is the product of man’s instinctive desire for the association, which finds expression in the aggregation of people having common interests and united together by what may be called consciousness of the kind. The people who live together think alike, associate with one another, and make common efforts for a common purpose or plan. They establish what Sociologists call “functional” institutions to realize the common purposes that associated men together. It may be a club, a debating society, a religious, economic, or political association. All combined make the social structure and aim to serve the various purposes for which the society came into existence. “Social relations are threads of life,” and social institutions form the loom on which the threads are woven into a cloth or garment. Society stands for the whole scheme of life, and it is interwoven by different associations that serve different purposes to complete the whole purpose of life. Political purpose is one of those purposes, and the State performs it. Therefore, the State is one of these “functional” institutions, the creation of man’s will and reason. It is organized in a special way to secure certain results. It emerges and exists within society, but is not”, as MacIver says, “even the form of society.” The State and society’s geographical areas may be the same, and their membership may also be identical, but they are distinct in origins, aims, and functions. The State exists for one single purpose, and its function is relative to that purpose. Society exists for several purposes, “some great and some small, but all in their aggregate deep as well as broad.” The organization of the State “is not all social organization,” as MacIver puts it, “the ends for which the State stands are not all the ends which humanity seeks, and quite obviously how the State pursues its object are only some of how within society, men strive for the “objects of their desire.”

Since society is natural and instinctive, and the State is the creation of will and reason, society is before the State, and it embraces all communities organized and unorganized. The organization is not an essential characteristic of society. But the State must necessarily be organized. The Pathans of the Tribal Area, on the North-West Frontier of Pakistan, do not form a State, though every tribe is a distinct social unit. Similarly, certain groups of Eskimos have no recognizable political organization.

The State is definitely a territorial organization. Society recognizes no territorial limitations. Its branches may be spread in other parts of the universe too. Then, society embraces man’s whole life and all those social ties, like the family, the caste, the ‘church, the club, etc., which bind men together. The State is concerned only with those social relationships that express themselves through the government. It has no jurisdiction over others. MacIver has beautifully expressed this difference. He says that there are social forms, like the family or the church or the club, which owe neither their origin nor their inspiration to the State and social forces, like custom or competition, which the State may protect or modify, but certainly does not create and social motives, like friendship or jealousy, which establish relationships too intimate and personal to be controlled by the great engine of the State.

The State is sovereign, and it lays down a system of imperatives. If one disobeys the State’s imperatives, which take the form of laws, one can be punished, But society does not possess coercive power. That is the monopoly of the State. Society, no doubt, has its own rules which regulate social behavior, but they are not imperatives. They are simply rules of conduct, which the members of society are desired to observe. It has no authority to force obedience. Nor can it physically punish those who disobey its rules. Society ensures the observance of its rules by persuasion and appeals to the goodwill of its members. Barker rightly says, “The area of society is voluntary Cooperation. Its energy is goodwill, and its method is elasticity; while the State’s area is a mechanical action, its energy is force, and its method is rigidity. ”

While the State is hot identical with society, yet it provides the framework of the Social order. According to Laski, the State is a way of regulating human conduct. “Any analysis of its character reveals it as a method of imposing principles of behavior by Which men must regulate their lives. ”

The conditions in which we are born, grow up are educated, work, enjoy our leisure own property, many have children and die, are all laid down by the State, and the government can compel us to comply with them. All births must be registered; otherwise, all kinds of complications can arise. Similarly, parents are obliged to send their children to school for a certain number of years. They are obliged to notify the authorities if they suffer from certain infectious diseases.

Citizens must pay taxes to the State, whether they approve of the meta in which the money is put I or net. They must Clothe themselves decently, behave with propriety in the streets, avoid making themselves a nuisance to their neighbors, and they must respect the persons and property of other people. In fact, there is hardly a single human activity that is not in some Way regulated by the State. All conduct in society must conform to the way of life prescribed by the laws of the State, as the State makes and maintains its laws not for the sake of laws, but for what they do to individual lives.

The State, thus, represents the highest form of social organization, and it exists to regulate and cement social relations. It binds people together and enjoins upon them to observe certain uniform rules of behavior, Without which we cannot think of a well-ordered social life.

However, it may again be emphasized that the State is a structure not co-eval and co-extensive with society, but built within it as a determinate order to attain a specific end. The end of the State is to provide those Conditions of togetherness without which man’s happiness cannot be secured. But the State can serve its purpose best when it performs its Own functions efficiently and refrains from trespassing into others. If it does, then the State stands equated with society embracing the whole life of man. This will make the State omnicompetent, and omnicompetence really means incompetence.

It may mean even something more. The happiness of the individual may be sacrificed in the name of the State’s glory and prosperity. In this way, all social activities, which constitute the social order, will ultimately be at the government’s mercy, for “the State is,” as Laski says, for the government’s practical administration.

The government may prescribe anything which it may like and as it likes. But this is neither the way of the State nor that of the government. The State is the creation and agent of society and, therefore, its subordinate. Both society and the State strive to achieve the free development of man’s personality and happiness. This is possible only when the distinction and collaboration between the two are properly recognized. Following is the summary to clarify the points involved in the discussion:

  1. Society is instinctive to man and is spontaneous in its growth and development. MacIver says, “Wherever living beings enter into, or maintain, willed relations with one another, their society exists.” The State is one of the associations within society, creating man’s will and reason to maintain and cement social life’s various aspects. Two results, then, follow:

(i) society is both before and wider than the State and

(ii) society is a complex of all such associations as economic, educational, religious, political, and cultural.

Society precedes the State just as it precedes the family, the church, the corporation, the political party. It unites all these as a tree unites its branches. The States one of these associations has become the most prominent because it controls and coordinates the various aspects of social life.

2. The purposes of the society are many and diverse. In contrast, the State’s purpose is only one of its political organization, and its end is related to its purpose to which it must confine itself.

3. The States definitely territorial; society is not. Loyalty to the State does not exhaust all the social obligations of man.

4. The structure of society is elastic, and it is based upon its members’ voluntary cooperation; it appeals and persuades. The State is compact, its actions are mechanical, its methods are rigid, and its power is force.

5. The State issues orders, and their disobedience is accompanied by physical punishment  Society acts Upon its members through customs conventions and moral rules. It exercises social pressures but not force.

6. Despite these differences between society and the State, they are connected and inter-dependent. Social conduct must conform to the way of life prescribed by the laws of the State. But the State must not trespass into the sphere not assigned to its jurisdiction.

1 thought on “Nature of State and Society”

Leave a Comment