مفهوم‌بندی وبری دولت

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

استادیار گروه علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی

چکیده

چکیده
در ­حالی که دولت از مهم­ترین نهادهای زندگی اجتماعی و شاید مهم­ترینِ آنها به­ شمار می­آید موضع چندان روشنی دربارۀ ماهیت یا چیستی آن وجود ندارد و مواضع موجود نسبتا کلی و مبهم هستند. از آنجا که چنین ابهامی پیامدهای ناپسندی در زمینۀ سیاست­گذاری­های کلان و ارزیابی آنها دارد در این نوشتار می­کوشیم موضعی نسبتا مشخص دربارۀ چیستی دولت اتخاذ کنیم. بنابراین پس از نیم­نگاهی انتقادی به ادبیات موجود و بیان استدلال­هایی دربارۀ لزوم و امکان تعریف دولت، با توسل به تعریف وبر از دولت، به­عنوان نهاد مدعی اعمال انحصاری زور مشروع در قلمرو معین، دولت را «نهاد سیاسی خاص» تعریف می­کنیم. آنگاه بر اساس این شئون سه­گانۀ دولت، عناصر لازم و کافی آن را بازشناسی می­کنیم و نشان می­دهیم که این عناصر با چه نسبتی دولت را شکل می­دهند. البته به ماهیت متناقض دولت و عناصر تکمیلی آن هم اشاره خواهیم کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Weberian Definition of the State

نویسنده [English]

  • Ahmad Golmohammadi
Assistance Professor, Department of political science, Allame Tabataba’i University
چکیده [English]

Abstract
In past decades of Iran, we have been witnessed a controversial disputes over nature of the state and its functions. After Islamic revolution, a new kind of statism was established upon a vague idea of the state. This vague and even contradictory idea of the state influenced reconstruction process of political system through defining institutions and organizations, and also policymaking processes. This ambiguity not only has resulted in some undesirable social, economic and cultural consequences but also has made difficult any critical evaluation of such institutionalization and policy making. Because of some ambiguity in defining of what is the state and what it must do, criticizing and evaluating of the state in Iran is difficult. 
Considering very important role of the state in social life and such enduring disputes, purpose of this article is conceptualizing the state according Weber’s outstanding definition: the organization which monopolizes legitimate violence over a given territory. In other words, it aims to argument for Weberian definition of the state through analyzing this definition.
Methodologically, we use thematic analysis method for identifying essential features (or necessary conditions) of the state as a kind of institution. Based on such analysis, this article’s finding is that the state is a “special political institution”. Accordingly, first of all, the state is a kind of institution like other institutions that societies construct and reconstruct for guarding and improving social life through defining and enforcing rules. Secondly, this institution is not just an institution but a political institution that principally and mainly deals with political power. Being a political institution distinguishes the state from other social institutions that are not political. Moreover, this political institution is a special kind that deals with political power in a special manner. This feature distinguishes the state from other political institutions like gangs. Alternatively, the state uses political power or violence territorially (or in a given territory), exclusively (by trying to prevent others from any kind of using violence) and legitimately (by claiming such legitimacy). So, firstly and principally, the state is a political institution not an economic or cultural. 
Such findings may be very important for settling down controversial disputes over functions of the state in societies like Iran and especially for arguments against defenders of such vague statism. By resorting to such conceptualization, we can reveal ambiguities and even contradictions in official positions concerning nature of the state and its functions in Iran. In more concrete level, such a perspective will be helpful for evaluating and criticizing general and special policies originated from such a vague statism. For example, from this perspective, we can criticize economic and cultural policies that takes its legitimacy from a vague and even contradictory definition of the state. In addition, introducing this idea of the state will have cultural effects and will provide a very useful different perspective for ordinary people. If we accept that the state is first of all and principally a political institution for securing security by ordering force and political power using, legitimating of statism will be more difficult.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Keywords: the state
  • Weberian conceptualization
  • conditions of the state
  • the state as an institution

منابع

اشتراوس، لئو و جوزف کراپسی (1373)، نقد نظریه دولت جدید، ترجمه احمد تدین، تهران:کویر.

اورس، تیلمان (1362)، ماهیت دولت در جهان سوم، ترجمه بهروز توانمند، تهران:آگاه.

بدیع، برتران و پیر بیرن بوم (1379)، جامعه شناسی دولت، ترجمه احمد نقیب زاده، تهران:باز.

بدیع، برتران (1379)، دو دولت، ترجمه احمد نقیب زاده، تهران:باز.

پوجی، جیان فرانکو (1377)، تکوین دولت مدرن، ترجمه بهزاد باشی، تهران:آگاه.

کاسیرر، ارنست (1377)، اسطوره دولت، ترجمه یداله موقن، تهران:هرمس.

وینسنت، اندرو (1371)، نظریه های دولت، ترجمه حسین بشیریه، تهران:نی.

Abrams, P. (1988), “Notes on the Difficulty of studing the state”, Journal of Historical Sociology 1, 1.

Brenner, Neil; Jessop, Bob; Jones, Martin and MacLeod, Gordon (eds.) (2003). State/Space: A Reader, Cambridge, Mass.: Blackwell

Cohen, Ronald (1978), “Introduction”, in Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution, ed.  R. Cohen and E.  Service, Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues.

Creveld, Martin (1999), The Rise and Decline of the State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Easton, David (1971), The Political System, 2nd edn, New york: Alfred knopf.

Gruhn, I. V. (2001), “State Formation”, in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Science, ed.  By Neil Smelser and Paul Baltes, Elsevier, vol. 22.

Hall, John and G. Ikenberry (1989), The State, Milton Keyens: Open University Press.

Held, David (1997), Democracy and the Global Order: from the modern state to cosmopolitan governance, Cambridge: Polity Press.

Hoffman, John (1995), Beyond the State, Cambridge: polity press.

Mann, Michael (1999[1985]), “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results” in John A.  Hall (ed. ), The State, London: Routledge, vol. 1.

Morris, Christopher (1998), an Essay on the Modern State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nettl, J.  P.(1999), “The State as a Conceptual Variable”, in Hall John A.  (ed.), The State, vol. 1, London: Routledge.

Poggi, Gianfranco (1990), The State: it’s nature, development and prospects, California: Stanford University Press.

Steinberger, Peter J. (2004), The idea of the state, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, Michael (1982), Community, Anarchy and Liberty,  Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Tilly, Charles (1975), “Reflections on the history of European state-making”, in The formation of national states in Western Europe, ed.  C., Tilly, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Vincent, Andrew (1998), “Conceptions of the State”, in Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, General edition, Edward Craig, v. 9, London and New York: Routledge.

Weber, Max (1968), Economy and Society, Bedminster, Totowa, NJ.

Weber, Max (1958[1919]), “Politics as a Vocation”, in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, tran. And ed.  H.  Gerth and C.  Wright Mills, New York: Oxford University Press.

Wilson, Richard (1992), Compliance Ideologies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.