The Origin of the State: A Comprehensive Analysis of Political Theories That Define Modern Governance
Understanding how states emerged is fundamental to comprehending political authority, legitimacy, and the very foundations of governance. This comprehensive exploration examines the major theoretical frameworks that have shaped political thought for centuries, from the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau to the historical perspectives of divine origin, force, and family-based evolution.
Overview: Major Theories of State Origin
(Consent & Agreement)
(Gradual Development)
General Will
Patriarchal/Matriarchal
Part I: The Social Contract Theory - From Natural Chaos to Political Order
The social contract theory represents one of the most revolutionary ideas in political philosophy: that legitimate political authority derives not from divine will or brute force, but from the rational consent of free and equal individuals. This theory fundamentally transformed how we think about the relationship between citizens and government.
1. The Conceptual Foundation: The State of Nature
Social contract theorists begin with a thought experiment-imagining human existence before political organization. This hypothetical "state of nature" serves as an analytical baseline for understanding why rational individuals would voluntarily submit to political authority.
What is the State of Nature?
The state of nature is a philosophical construct representing the human condition absent any political institutions, laws, or governmental authority. It is not necessarily a historical claim about how humans actually lived, but rather a conceptual tool for analyzing political legitimacy and the origins of political obligation.
2. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): The Absolute Sovereign as Savior from Chaos
Full Title: Leviathan, or The Matter, Form, and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiastical and Civil
Historical Context: Written during the English Civil War (1642-1651), a period of political chaos and violence that profoundly influenced Hobbes's pessimistic view of human nature.
Hobbes's State of Nature: "Nasty, Brutish, and Short"
For Hobbes, the state of nature was a condition of perpetual warfare where life was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This famous characterization from Chapter XIII of Leviathan paints the darkest picture of pre-political existence among the major social contract theorists.
- Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, Chapter XIII
Why Hobbes's State of Nature Was So Terrible
Hobbes argued that all humans are fundamentally equal in their capacities-even the weakest can kill the strongest through cunning or cooperation. This equality paradoxically breeds insecurity rather than cooperation. When everyone has roughly equal power to harm others, and when there is no superior authority to provide protection, three principal causes drive humans into conflict:
The Three Principal Causes of Conflict in Hobbes's State of Nature
- Competition: People compete for scarce resources necessary for survival-food, shelter, territory. Without property rights or laws to regulate distribution, conflict becomes inevitable.
- Diffidence (Mistrust): Knowing that others might attack at any moment, rational individuals launch preemptive strikes for self-preservation. The logic is simple: "I must strike first, before my neighbor strikes me." This creates a perpetual cycle of violence.
- Glory: Humans seek reputation and respect. Insults must be avenged; disrespect cannot be tolerated without inviting further attacks. The pursuit of glory drives additional conflict beyond mere material needs.
The greatest evil in this state, according to Hobbes, was the constant fear of violent death. No meaningful civilization could develop under such conditions. There could be no arts, no letters, no industry, no navigation, no architecture-nothing that requires security and stability to flourish. Humans would be trapped in a primitive, miserable existence dominated by fear.
The Laws of Nature and the Path to Civil Society
Yet Hobbes did not believe humans were doomed to remain in this terrible condition. Human reason, he argued, could discern certain "laws of nature"-rational principles for survival and peace. The first law of nature is that "every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it," and when peace cannot be obtained, to seek all advantages of war.
The second law holds "that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself." In essence, this is a principle of mutual disarmament-if everyone agrees to give up their unlimited natural freedom simultaneously, all will be better off.
The Hobbesian Social Contract: Creating the Leviathan
From these laws of nature, Hobbes derives the social contract. Rational individuals in the state of nature recognize that their mutual vulnerability and constant warfare serves no one's interest. They therefore agree to surrender their natural rights to a sovereign authority powerful enough to keep them all in awe and enforce peace.
The Hobbesian Covenant
The social contract in Hobbes is not between individuals and the sovereign, but among individuals themselves. They collectively agree to create a sovereign and obey its commands. This is crucial: since the sovereign is not party to the contract, it has no contractual obligations to the people and cannot breach the agreement. The people created the sovereign through their mutual covenant and cannot hold it accountable without dissolving their only protection against returning to the state of nature.
Hobbes described the commonwealth as an "Artificial Man"-the great LEVIATHAN, created by human art to imitate nature's greatest work. The biblical Leviathan was a powerful sea creature described in the Book of Job as having no equal on earth-an apt metaphor for the absolute sovereign power Hobbes envisioned.
The Character of Hobbesian Sovereignty
For Hobbes, the sovereign's power must be absolute and indivisible. Any limitation or division of sovereignty would recreate the conditions of civil war. The sovereign must have:
- Legislative power: The sole authority to make laws
- Executive power: Complete control over law enforcement and administration
- Judicial power: Final authority in all disputes
- Military power: Control over the armed forces
- Religious power: Authority over religious doctrine to prevent religious civil wars
Hobbes argued that civil war and chaos could be avoided only by strong, undivided government. While this might seem to endorse tyranny, Hobbes maintained that even a harsh sovereign is preferable to the horrors of the state of nature. Unless the sovereign utterly fails to provide basic security, subjects have a duty to obey.
Critical Assessment of Hobbes
Limitations and Criticisms
- Overly pessimistic anthropology: Critics argue Hobbes exaggerates human selfishness and ignores natural human sociability and cooperation.
- Justification for absolutism: By removing any right of resistance (except when the sovereign fails to protect life), Hobbes's theory can legitimate oppressive rule.
- Ahistorical: No evidence exists of humans actually living in Hobbes's state of nature or entering society through an explicit contract.
- Internal tensions: If people are as selfish as Hobbes claims, why would they honor the social contract? What prevents the sovereign from becoming a greater threat than other individuals?
Enduring Contributions
- Secular foundation: Hobbes grounded political authority in human consent and utility rather than divine right, a revolutionary move for his time.
- Focus on security: His emphasis on the state's primary function as provider of security remains influential.
- Realist perspective: Hobbes's recognition of the potential for violence and disorder in political life offers important insights.
- Methodological innovation: His use of the state of nature as an analytical device influenced all subsequent social contract theory.
3. John Locke (1632-1704): Property, Liberty, and Limited Government
Structure:
• First Treatise: Refutation of Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha and divine right theory
• Second Treatise: Positive account of legitimate government based on natural rights and consent
Historical Context: Written during the Exclusion Crisis and published after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, defending the right to resist tyrannical monarchs.
Locke's State of Nature: A More Benign Condition
Unlike Hobbes, Locke conceived the state of nature as "a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature." This was a condition of "perfect freedom" but not unlimited license.
- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter II, Section 4
The Law of Nature: Reason's Universal Principles
Locke argued that "the state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions."
This law of nature derives from human reason and reflects divine will. God, as creator, is the supreme owner of all humans, who are "his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure." Therefore, humans have both a right and duty to preserve themselves, and when their own preservation is not at stake, a duty to preserve others.
Natural Rights: Life, Liberty, and Property
Central to Locke's theory is the concept of natural rights-rights that exist prior to and independent of civil society. While often summarized as rights to "life, liberty, and property," Locke's theory of these rights, particularly property, is nuanced and sophisticated.
Locke's Theory of Property Acquisition
The Problem: God gave the world "to mankind in common," yet individuals need exclusive property to survive. How can private property arise from common ownership without unanimous consent?
Locke's Solution - The Labor Theory of Property:
- Self-Ownership Foundation: "Every man has a property in his own person: this no body has any right to but himself."
- Labor Mixing: "The labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property."
- Examples: When you pick acorns from under an oak tree, gather apples, till a field, or draw water from a fountain, your labor transforms these common resources into your private property. The acorns or apples "became his private right" through the act of gathering them.
Limitations on Property Acquisition:
- The Sufficiency Proviso: One may appropriate from the commons only when "there is enough, and as good, left in common for others." Property rights do not extend to taking so much that others are left without adequate means of survival.
- The Spoilage Limitation: One may not take more than one can use before it spoils: "if the Fruits rotted, or the Venison putrified, before he could spend it, he offended against the common Law of Nature, and was liable to be punished." Waste violates natural law.
- The Labor Requirement: Property rights arise from productive labor, not mere appropriation. Simply claiming something without working on it creates no legitimate property right.
Locke's labor theory of property has generated enormous commentary and controversy. It attempts to justify private property without requiring explicit consent from all humanity, while still preserving natural law limits on acquisition.
Why Leave the State of Nature? The Inconveniences of Natural Equality
If Locke's state of nature was relatively peaceful, governed by natural law and characterized by natural rights, why would people leave it? Locke identifies several crucial "inconveniences":
The Three Defects of the State of Nature
- Lack of Established Law: While natural law exists, people interpret it differently. There is no written, publicly known code of law that everyone acknowledges.
- Lack of Impartial Judge: Each individual is judge in their own case, creating bias. When disputes arise over property or wrongs, everyone naturally favors their own interpretation. This leads to interminable conflicts.
- Lack of Enforcement Power: Even when right and wrong are clear, individuals often lack the power to enforce natural law against offenders. The unjust may overpower the just, leaving rights unprotected.
These defects create insecurity and inefficiency. The state of nature, while not Hobbes's war of all against all, was "inherently unstable" with individuals under "constant threat of physical harm."
The Lockean Social Contract: Conditional and Limited
Locke argued: "MEN being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent." This consent creates civil society through a two-stage process:
Locke's Two-Stage Contract
Individuals agree to form a community
Create civil society
Community establishes a government
Delegates specific powers
Key Distinction: In the first stage, individuals unanimously consent to form a political community and agree to abide by majority rule within it. In the second stage, this community (acting by majority) establishes a government and grants it specific, limited powers.
Crucially, for Locke, people in forming civil society do not surrender all their natural rights. They retain their fundamental rights to life, liberty, and property. They surrender only:
- The right to interpret and apply natural law in their own case
- The right to punish violations of natural law themselves
- Complete freedom of action (submitting to majority rule in civil matters)
The government receives only those powers necessary to remedy the defects of the state of nature: legislative power to make known laws, executive power to enforce them, and federative power to conduct foreign relations.
The Right of Revolution: Government as Trustee
Perhaps Locke's most radical and influential doctrine is his theory of the right to resist and overthrow tyrannical government. Unlike Hobbes's perpetual obligation of obedience, Locke viewed the relationship between people and government as a trust that could be revoked.
- John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Chapter XIX, Section 222
Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution, arguing that when government acts against the interests of citizens or attempts to destroy their property or liberty, citizens are "absolved from any farther Obedience" and may resist. This doctrine profoundly influenced the American and French Revolutions.
Locke specified several conditions that justify resistance:
- When the legislative power is altered without consent
- When government attempts to seize absolute arbitrary power over lives, liberties, and estates
- When rulers act contrary to their trust by failing to protect property and rights
- When government operates above the law
Critical Evaluation of Locke
Problems and Criticisms
- Property theory difficulties: How much labor is required to create property? Does mixing labor with something really create ownership? These questions remain contested.
- Consent issues: David Hume famously noted that most people are born into states and never explicitly consent. What constitutes genuine consent?
- Individualist assumptions: Locke assumes atomic individuals in the state of nature, ignoring that humans are always born into families and social relationships.
- Limited application: His theory of property arguably justified European colonization of indigenous lands on the grounds that natives didn't "properly" use the land.
- Gender exclusion: Despite using universal language, Locke's theory effectively excluded women from full political participation.
Lasting Influence
- Liberal democracy: Locke's ideas formed the philosophical foundation for modern liberal democratic states.
- Constitutionalism: His theory of limited government based on consent became central to constitutional design.
- Rights discourse: The concept of natural rights inalienable by government remains fundamental to human rights theory.
- Right of revolution: His justification for resisting tyranny influenced revolutionary movements worldwide.
- Separation of powers: His distinction between legislative and executive powers contributed to theories of divided government.
4. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and the General Will: Popular Sovereignty Perfected
Famous Opening: "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they."
Related Works:
• Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1755)
• Émile, or On Education (1762)
Historical Context: Written on the eve of the French Revolution, profoundly influencing revolutionary thought about popular sovereignty and democracy.
Rousseau's Unique State of Nature
Rousseau's state of nature differs dramatically from both Hobbes and Locke. In his Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau argued that primitive humans were not inherently violent (contra Hobbes) but naturally solitary, peaceful beings living in harmony with nature. They possessed two fundamental sentiments: amour de soi (self-love or self-preservation) and pitié (natural compassion for others' suffering).
According to Rousseau, inequality, conflict, and misery entered human life only with the development of civilization, particularly private property. The famous passage from the Discourse on Inequality declares:
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality
For Rousseau, the challenge was not to justify how humans left an awful state of nature (as with Hobbes), but rather to create a form of political association that could recapture some of natural freedom while providing the benefits of social cooperation.
The Problem of The Social Contract: Freedom in Chains
Rousseau's central question was: How can humans live in society while remaining as free as they were in nature? Or, as he formulated it: "To find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before."
This seems paradoxical-how can one submit to social authority and yet "obey himself alone"? Rousseau's answer lay in his concept of the general will.
The General Will: The Heart of Rousseau's Political Philosophy
The general will (volonté générale) is Rousseau's most original and controversial contribution to political theory. It represents the moral and collective body of citizens oriented toward the common good.
Rousseau's Distinction: Actual Will vs. Real Will
| Aspect | Actual Will (Particular Will) | Real Will (General Will) |
|---|---|---|
| Motivation | Immediate self-interest | Common good and long-term interest |
| Character | Selfish, transient, individual | Moral, stable, universal |
| Represents | Lower self | Higher self |
| Example | Wanting to run a red light to save time | Supporting traffic laws for everyone's safety |
| Relationship | Differs among individuals | Common to all enlightened members |
| Freedom | False freedom (slavery to passions) | True freedom (rational autonomy) |
According to Rousseau, when individuals are guided by their actual will, they pursue momentary desires that conflict with others and even with their own long-term good. But each person also possesses a "real will"-what they would will if they understood their genuine interests and thought clearly about the common welfare.
The general will is the harmonious convergence of everyone's real will. It is, as the textbook notes, "the common denominator of the real will of the people which embodies not only their common interest but also everybody's real and long-term interest."
The General Will is NOT:
- The will of all: A mere aggregation or sum of individual particular wills
- Majority rule: Though majorities may approximate it, they can be wrong
- The will of the majority: Numbers alone don't determine the general will
- Unanimous consent: Though ideal, unanimity isn't necessary
The General Will IS:
- Oriented toward common good: Always aims at the collective interest
- Infallible regarding its object: Cannot want anything contrary to the common good (though citizens can be mistaken about what it is)
- Inalienable: Cannot be represented or transferred
- Indivisible: Either the whole community wills or it doesn't
- General in object: Applies equally to all; cannot favor particular individuals or groups
The Rousseauian Social Contract: Total Alienation for Perfect Freedom
Rousseau's social contract involves a complete and unconditional transfer:
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book I, Chapter 6
This total alienation seems to contradict the goal of preserving freedom. How can surrendering everything to the community leave one free? Rousseau's answer is subtle:
- Reciprocal and equal alienation: Since everyone gives themselves entirely, the condition is equal for all. No one has an interest in making it burdensome to others.
- Giving to all is giving to none: When sovereignty belongs to the whole people collectively, each citizen gives themselves to everyone and thus to no particular master.
- Obeying oneself: When citizens obey laws they themselves have made through the general will, they obey only themselves. The general will represents each citizen's real will, so following it is authentic self-direction.
- Moral freedom: Natural freedom meant doing whatever one could. Civil freedom means obeying laws one has prescribed to oneself-a higher, moral freedom based on rational autonomy rather than physical capacity.
Forcing to Be Free: Rousseau's Controversial Doctrine
One of Rousseau's most controversial statements appears in Book I, Chapter 7:
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract
Critics have seen in this phrase the seeds of totalitarianism-a justification for state coercion in the name of "true" freedom. Defenders argue Rousseau meant only that sometimes individuals, acting on their actual will (immediate self-interest), oppose their own real will (genuine long-term interest). Compelling them to follow the general will isn't imposing alien constraints but helping them achieve their own rational autonomy.
The example from the textbook illustrates this: A driver who wants to run a red light acts on actual will, seeking immediate convenience. But this same person's real will supports traffic laws for everyone's safety (including their own). Compelling obedience to traffic laws "forces" them to act according to their real will-what they would choose if thinking rationally about long-term consequences and the common good.
Characteristics of Rousseau's Sovereign
For Rousseau, sovereignty resides perpetually and inalienably in the people themselves, embodied in the general will:
Properties of Rousseauian Sovereignty
- Popular: Belongs to the whole people in their corporate capacity
- Inalienable: Cannot be transferred to representatives or representatives
- Indivisible: Cannot be split among different institutions or organs
- Infallible: The general will, properly understood, cannot err regarding the common good
- Absolute: No law binds the sovereign except the law of nature
This led Rousseau to reject representative democracy in favor of direct participation. The general will can only be expressed by citizens themselves in assembly, not through elected representatives:
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, Book III, Chapter 15
Government vs. Sovereignty in Rousseau
Rousseau distinguished sharply between the sovereign (the people exercising legislative power through the general will) and the government (executive officers who implement the sovereign's will).
Rousseau's Governmental Structure
The People in Assembly
Legislative Power
Expresses General Will
Executive Magistrates
Implements Laws
Serves as Sovereign's Agent
Individual Citizens
Obey Laws
Bound by General Will
Key Point: The same individuals are simultaneously sovereign (when making laws in assembly) and subjects (when obeying those laws as individuals). This dual capacity is central to Rousseau's solution to the problem of freedom.
The government holds no independent authority. It is merely the sovereign's agent, implementing the general will. If government usurps sovereignty or acts contrary to the general will, the people may alter or dissolve it. Government officials are stewards or trustees, not masters.
Conditions for Rousseau's Republic
Rousseau acknowledged his theory worked best under specific conditions:
- Small scale: Direct democracy requires citizens to assemble and deliberate together. Rousseau thought republics should be small city-states, like Geneva or ancient Athens.
- Rough equality: Extreme inequalities of wealth corrupt politics, making the general will impossible to discern.
- Simplicity: Complex, heterogeneous societies with multiple factions make unity difficult.
- Civic virtue: Citizens must possess sufficient virtue to subordinate particular interests to the common good.
- Civil religion: Shared fundamental beliefs that promote social unity and civic devotion.
Rousseau admitted few modern states could meet these conditions, which is why he considered Poland and Corsica (small, relatively homogeneous) as possible venues for his principles.
Critical Assessment of Rousseau
Major Criticisms
- Totalitarian potential: The concept of "forcing to be free" and the absolute sovereignty of the general will have been read as justifications for oppressive state action. Both the French Revolution's Terror and 20th-century totalitarianisms claimed Rousseau as inspiration.
- Mystical and unclear: What exactly is the general will? How do we know when we've found it? Rousseau provides no reliable method for identifying it.
- Impractical: Direct democracy works only in very small communities. Modern large-scale states cannot function on Rousseau's model.
- Suppression of diversity: The emphasis on unity and the common good can suppress legitimate individual differences and minority rights.
- Confusion of will and reason: Critics argue Rousseau conflates questions of what people want (will) with questions of what is right (reason). The general will seems to be both what the people collectively will and what they ought to will.
Enduring Contributions
- Popular sovereignty: Rousseau provided the most thoroughgoing theory of popular sovereignty, influencing democratic movements worldwide.
- Participatory democracy: His emphasis on active citizen participation shaped theories of deliberative and participatory democracy.
- Civic republicanism: The focus on civic virtue and the common good influenced republican political thought.
- Concept of freedom: His distinction between liberty as license and liberty as autonomy (self-legislation) enriched political philosophy.
- Critique of inequality: His analysis of how inequality corrupts political life remains relevant.
- Education theory: Though not directly about state origins, his ideas about civic education influenced theories of citizenship formation.
Comparative Analysis: The Three Great Social Contract Theorists
| Aspect | Hobbes | Locke | Rousseau |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Nature | War of all against all; miserable, brutish | Peaceful but inconvenient; lacks judges and enforcement | Initially peaceful; humans naturally good but corrupted by society |
| Human Nature | Selfish, competitive, fearful | Rational, capable of natural law reasoning, social | Naturally compassionate, but socialization breeds inequality and conflict |
| Natural Rights | Right to everything; surrendered completely | Life, liberty, property; retained in civil society | Natural freedom; transformed into moral/civic freedom |
| Purpose of State | Security, order, peace | Protection of natural rights, especially property | General welfare, common good, moral freedom |
| Form of Government | Absolute monarchy (or assembly) with unlimited power | Limited government by consent; separation of powers | Direct democracy; popular sovereignty |
| Sovereignty | Absolute, indivisible; held by designated person/assembly | Ultimately in the people; government holds delegated powers | Inalienable sovereignty of the people; general will |
| Right of Resistance | Only if sovereign fails to provide security | Yes, when government violates trust and natural rights | Yes, when government violates general will |
| Law | Command of sovereign | Must conform to natural law; protects rights | Expression of general will; applies equally to all |
| Individual Freedom | Minimal; security more important than liberty | Extensive; government protects individual rights and liberties | Paradoxical: freedom through obedience to self-imposed law |
| Historical Influence | Realist political theory; security studies | Liberal democracy; American Revolution; constitutionalism | French Revolution; civic republicanism; participatory democracy |
Part II: The Historical or Evolutionary Theory - Gradual Development Rather Than Contract
While social contract theory dominated Enlightenment political philosophy, an alternative tradition emphasized that states emerged through gradual historical processes rather than deliberate agreement. This evolutionary approach encompasses several distinct theories about the actual mechanisms of state formation.
5. The Divine Origin Theory: Theonomy and the Sacred Foundations of Authority
The Divine Origin Theory represents humanity's most ancient explanation for political authority: rulers derive their power directly from God. This theory dominated political thought for millennia across diverse civilizations.
Historical Development and Variations
Divine origin theory manifested differently across cultures and eras, but shared a common core: political authority has a transcendent, sacred source beyond human will or power.
• Biblical Sources: Old Testament accounts of divinely appointed kings (Saul, David, Solomon); New Testament: Romans 13:1-"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God: the powers that be, are ordained by God."
• Sir Robert Filmer: Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings (written c. 1630s, published 1680)-Argued that royal authority descended from Adam, the first divinely appointed monarch
• Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet: Politics Drawn from the Very Words of Holy Scripture (1709)-French theorist of absolute monarchy and divine right
• King James I of England: The True Law of Free Monarchies (1598) and Basilikon Doron (1599)-Royal defenses of divine right
Core Arguments of Divine Origin Theory
The Divine Right Doctrine
- God Creates Political Authority: All legitimate political power originates with God, who institutes rulers as His earthly representatives.
- Hereditary Succession: Political authority passes through bloodlines ordained by God, typically from father to eldest son.
- Absolute Obedience: To resist the king is to resist God's ordinance. Rebellion against divinely appointed rulers is sinful.
- Accountability to God Alone: Monarchs answer only to God for their conduct, not to subjects or any earthly authority.
- Sacred Kingship: Rulers possess a semi-divine character, embodying God's presence and authority on earth.
Robert Filmer's Systematic Defense
Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha provided the most systematic early modern defense of divine right theory. Filmer argued:
- Adamic Authority: God gave Adam absolute authority over all creation, including dominion over his descendants. This paternal authority was the original model of political power.
- Patriarchal Descent: Royal authority descended through the patriarchal line from Adam through Noah and his sons, eventually reaching contemporary monarchs.
- Natural Inequality: Contrary to Hobbes and Locke's claims about natural equality, Filmer insisted humans were born into naturally unequal relationships of authority and subordination.
- Rejection of Consent: Political obligation did not derive from popular consent but from God's original grant of authority to Adam and his heirs.
Filmer's work, though written decades earlier, was published in 1680 precisely to counter emerging social contract theories. Its publication prompted Locke to write his First Treatise, which systematically refuted Filmer's arguments.
Functions Served by Divine Origin Theory
Understanding why divine origin theory persisted for so long requires recognizing the important functions it served:
Sociopolitical Functions of Divine Origin Theory
- Legitimation: Provided transcendent justification for political authority in religious societies where divine will was the ultimate source of legitimacy.
- Social Order: Encouraged obedience and discouraged rebellion by making resistance to rulers a religious sin punishable by eternal damnation.
- Moral Constraint: Reminded rulers of their responsibilities before God, theoretically deterring tyranny through fear of divine judgment.
- Stability: Hereditary succession based on divine appointment reduced conflicts over succession.
- Unity: Linked political and religious authority, reinforcing social cohesion in religious societies.
- Mystery and Awe: Elevated rulers above ordinary humans, commanding respect and obedience through religious reverence.
The Decline of Divine Origin Theory
Despite its long dominance, divine origin theory declined precipitously from the 18th century onward. Multiple factors contributed:
Reasons for Decline
- Religious Pluralism: The Protestant Reformation shattered religious unity in Europe. When Christians disagreed fundamentally about theology, appeals to divine will lost their unifying power.
- Secular Alternatives: Social contract theory offered compelling secular justifications for political authority based on human consent and utility.
- Empirical Standards: The Scientific Revolution's emphasis on observation and evidence made supernatural explanations less acceptable to educated elites.
- Democratic Ideals: The rise of equality as a political value contradicted theories of natural hierarchy and hereditary rule.
- Practical Failures: Bad monarchs who claimed divine right exposed the theory's weakness-divine appointment didn't guarantee competent or moral rule.
- Intellectual Critiques: Thinkers like Locke systematically dismantled divine right arguments, showing their logical and empirical flaws.
Fundamental Problems
- Unverifiable: Claims about divine will cannot be empirically tested or proven.
- Arbitrary: Why this dynasty rather than another? What makes one bloodline divinely chosen?
- Dangerous: Absolute monarchy justified by divine right enabled tyranny and discouraged accountability.
- Incompatible with Consent: Divine right theory denied any role for popular will in governance.
- Religious Disagreement: Different religions and sects offered conflicting claims about divine will.
6. The Force Theory: Conquest and the Origins of Political Authority
The Force Theory offers a starkly realistic explanation: states originated when stronger groups conquered and subjugated weaker ones. Political authority ultimately rests on coercion and violence, not consent or divine sanction.
Core Thesis and Historical Evidence
The fundamental claim is straightforward: might makes right (in the descriptive sense of explaining how states actually formed, not necessarily endorsing this as legitimate).
The Force Theory's Explanation of State Formation
- Initial Violence: In primitive societies, physically stronger individuals dominated weaker ones, establishing themselves as chiefs or leaders.
- Conquest and Expansion: These leaders used their power to conquer neighboring groups, expanding territory and subjects.
- Consolidation: Over time, successful conquerors consolidated control, establishing institutions to maintain dominance.
- Legitimation: Eventually, naked force was supplemented with ideological justifications (religion, law, custom) to maintain control more efficiently.
- State Formation: The institutions created to manage conquest and maintain control evolved into the apparatus of the state.
Proponents and Variations
• Ludwig Gumplowicz: Der Rassenkampf (The Racial Struggle, 1883) and The Outlines of Sociology (1899)-Austrian sociologist who argued states emerged from conflict between ethnic groups
• Franz Oppenheimer: Der Staat (The State, 1908)-Distinguished between "economic means" (production) and "political means" (expropriation through conquest)
• David Hume: While not exclusively a force theorist, observed in Of the Original Contract (1748) that most governments arose through "usurpation or conquest"
• Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884)-Argued the state emerged as an instrument of class domination
Historical Examples Supporting Force Theory
Abundant historical evidence supports the force theory's descriptive accuracy about how many states actually formed:
Cases of State Formation Through Conquest
- Norman Conquest (1066): William the Conqueror's military victory at Hastings established Norman rule over England, fundamentally reshaping English political institutions.
- Roman Empire: Rome's expansion from a city-state to a vast empire occurred almost entirely through military conquest.
- Mongol Empire: Genghis Khan and his successors created history's largest contiguous empire through systematic military conquest.
- Spanish Americas: European conquest and colonization created new states in the Americas through military force and subjugation of indigenous peoples.
- German Unification (1871): Bismarck's policy of "blood and iron" unified German states through war against Denmark, Austria, and France.
- Modern Nation-States: Many contemporary African and Asian states have borders drawn by colonial powers through conquest, with independence often achieved through violent struggle.
The Marxist Adaptation: Class Warfare and State Origins
Marx and Engels developed a sophisticated version of force theory, arguing the state emerged not merely from external conquest but from internal class conflict:
- Friedrich Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884)
For Marx and Engels:
- The state arose when society divided into classes based on property ownership
- Those who owned the means of production needed an instrument to suppress and exploit propertyless workers
- The state provided this instrument, using force to maintain class domination
- All existing states are therefore instruments of class oppression, regardless of their constitutional forms
- True human freedom requires abolishing not just particular governments but the state itself
Contemporary Relevance: The Monopoly on Legitimate Violence
Modern political sociology, particularly Max Weber's influential definition, acknowledges force as central to statehood even while rejecting crude force theory:
- Max Weber, Politics as a Vocation (1919)
Contemporary states, regardless of how democratic or consensual, maintain this monopoly through:
- Police forces for internal order
- Military forces for external defense and projection of power
- Prison systems for punishment and detention
- Legal authority to use violence in defined circumstances
- Prohibition of private military forces or vigilante justice
Critical Evaluation of Force Theory
Strengths and Contributions
- Empirical accuracy: Many states demonstrably originated through conquest and violence.
- Realism: Recognizes the role of coercion in political life rather than idealizing consent or divine sanction.
- Explanatory power: Accounts for why many people live under governments they never explicitly consented to.
- Ongoing relevance: Military and police power remain essential to state sovereignty.
- Critical perspective: Challenges romantic narratives about state origins, revealing less noble historical realities.
Limitations and Problems
- Reductive: Explains state origins solely through force while ignoring other crucial factors like kinship, religion, economic cooperation, and voluntary association.
- Cannot explain legitimacy: Describes how states formed but not why people accept them as legitimate. Force alone cannot sustain long-term governance.
- Conflates origin with justification: Even if states originated through conquest, this doesn't determine whether they're legitimate now or how they should be organized.
- Ignores peaceful formation: Some states emerged relatively peacefully through gradual consolidation, federation, or voluntary union.
- Deterministic: Suggests might makes right, potentially justifying aggression and denying moral constraints on power.
- Incomplete mechanism: Doesn't fully explain how initial domination transforms into stable institutions capable of commanding widespread obedience.
7. Patriarchal and Matriarchal Theories: Family as the Prototype of Political Authority
These theories propose that states evolved from family structures, with political authority deriving from parental (particularly paternal) authority over children. The state represents an expansion and formalization of familial organization.
The Patriarchal Theory: From Father to Sovereign
Major Work: Ancient Law: Its Connection with the Early History of Society and Its Relation to Modern Ideas (1861)
Other Relevant Works:
• Village Communities in the East and West (1871)
• Early History of Institutions (1875)
Academic Position: Regius Professor of Civil Law at Cambridge; Legal Member of the Governor-General's Council in India
Sir Henry Maine provided the most influential articulation of patriarchal theory in Ancient Law, one of the foundational texts of legal anthropology and comparative jurisprudence.
Maine's Evolutionary Sequence
Maine traced a developmental path from family to state:
Maine's Stages of Social Evolution
Father exercises absolute authority
Members related by blood
Extended family under patriarch
Multiple generations united
Multiple households claiming common ancestor
Patriarchal authority extended
Confederation of tribes
Political authority replaces purely familial bonds
Patria Potestas: The Roman Model
Maine drew heavily on Roman law's concept of patria potestas (paternal power)-the nearly absolute authority of the male household head (paterfamilias) over all family members. This included:
- Power of Life and Death (Vitae Necisque Potestas): The father could legally execute his children, even adult sons
- Property Control: All family property belonged to the father; children owned nothing independently
- Marriage Authority: Father arranged children's marriages and could dissolve them
- Perpetual Authority: Remained until the father's death, regardless of children's age
- Succession: Power passed to eldest male heir
Maine's Key Thesis: "From Status to Contract"
Maine argued that legal and social evolution moved from societies organized by status (fixed relationships determined by birth into family hierarchies) to societies organized by contract (voluntary agreements between free individuals).
In patriarchal societies, one's position was determined by birth-you were born into a particular family, gens, or tribe, with predetermined rights and duties. Modern societies, by contrast, increasingly organize relationships through voluntary contracts between juridically equal individuals.
This movement, Maine wrote, represents "a movement from Status to Contract"-one of the most famous formulations in legal theory.
Evidence for Patriarchal Theory
Maine and other patriarchal theorists cited multiple sources:
- Roman Law: The extensive documentation of patria potestas showed familial authority as the basis of political organization
- Greek Households: The oikos (household) as the basic political unit in ancient Greece
- Biblical Patriarchs: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob functioned as both family heads and political leaders
- Hindu Joint Family: Traditional Indian extended families under patriarchal authority
- Germanic Tribes: Early Germanic peoples organized around kinship groups under patriarchal chiefs
- Chinese Clan System: Traditional Chinese family organization with hierarchical patriarchal authority
The Matriarchal Theory: Alternative Origins?
• Johann Jakob Bachofen: Das Mutterrecht (Mother Right, 1861)
• Lewis Henry Morgan: Ancient Society (1877)-American anthropologist who influenced Marx and Engels
• John Ferguson McLennan: Primitive Marriage (1865)-Scottish ethnologist
Matriarchal theorists challenged patriarchal theory, arguing that earlier human societies traced descent through mothers and vested authority in women.
Bachofen's Matriarchal Stage
Johann Jakob Bachofen, a Swiss anthropologist and jurist, argued in Das Mutterrecht that human societies passed through successive stages:
Bachofen's Social Evolution Theory
- Hetaerism (Primitive Promiscuity): Early humans lived without marriage, with uncertain paternity making maternal relationships the only traceable bonds
- Matriarchy (Mother Right): Societies organized around maternal lineage, with women holding authority based on their certain relationship to children
- Patriarchy (Father Right): With the establishment of marriage and property, patriarchal systems replaced matriarchy, tracing descent through fathers
Bachofen interpreted mythology, religious symbolism, and ancient law as evidence for these stages, seeing fertility goddesses and mother cults as remnants of earlier matriarchal societies.
Morgan's Ethnographic Evidence
Lewis Henry Morgan, studying Native American societies (particularly the Iroquois), found matrilineal descent patterns where:
- Inheritance passed through female lines
- Children belonged to mother's clan
- Maternal uncles often exercised authority over nephews
- Women held significant political influence in tribal councils
- Property sometimes descended from mothers to daughters
Morgan's work influenced Marx and Engels, who incorporated his findings into their materialist theory of history.
Contemporary Anthropological Verdict
Modern anthropology has largely rejected both unilinear patriarchal and matriarchal theories as universal explanations:
Why Both Theories Failed
- False Universalism: Different societies developed diverse kinship systems; no single evolutionary sequence fits all
- Matrilineal ≠ Matriarchal: Societies with matrilineal descent (tracing through mothers) rarely gave women political authority; maternal uncles typically held power
- Confusion of Origins: Family organization differs fundamentally from political organization; one doesn't simply scale up to the other
- Ethnocentric Assumptions: Theories projected European family structures onto other societies
- Insufficient Evidence: Archaeological and historical evidence doesn't support a universal matriarchal stage
Enduring Insights
- Kinship Matters: Family structures did play important roles in early political organization, even if not the sole or determinative factor
- Diverse Patterns: Human societies developed remarkably varied kinship and authority systems
- Social Evolution: Societies do change over time, though not necessarily through universal stages
- Gender and Power: The theories, despite flaws, raised important questions about gender, authority, and social organization
Part III: Synthesis and Contemporary Relevance
8. Integrating Perspectives: A Multifactorial Understanding
Contemporary political science recognizes that state formation involved multiple, interacting factors rather than a single cause:
Factors in Historical State Formation
| Factor | Mechanism | Examples |
|---|---|---|
| Military/Conquest | Stronger groups subjugate weaker ones; warfare drives centralization | Norman England, Roman Empire, Mongol Empire |
| Economic | Need to organize production, trade, irrigation; protect property | Mesopotamian city-states, merchant republics |
| Kinship | Family/clan structures provide initial organizational framework | Tribal confederations, early kingdoms |
| Religious | Priestly classes, religious authority legitimates political power | Theocratic states, Hindu kingdoms, Islamic caliphates |
| Geographic | Environmental pressures, defensive needs, resource control | Nile Valley civilization, Greek city-states |
| Demographic | Population growth requires coordination; urbanization demands governance | Early cities, agricultural civilizations |
| Technological | Agricultural surplus, writing, metallurgy enable complex organization | Bronze Age kingdoms, literate bureaucracies |
| Cultural/Ideological | Shared identity, values, myths create cohesion | Nations, ethnic states, ideological regimes |
9. Relevance to Contemporary Political Questions
Legitimacy and Political Obligation in Modern Democracies
The question "Why should I obey the state?" remains as relevant as when Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau addressed it. Social contract theory's emphasis on consent shapes contemporary political legitimacy:
- Democratic Elections: Regular voting approximates ongoing consent to government
- Constitutional Rights: Lockean natural rights evolved into constitutional guarantees
- Popular Sovereignty: Rousseau's general will influences theories of democratic deliberation
- Civil Disobedience: Locke's right of resistance informs theories of justified disobedience
State Violence and Authority
Force theory's recognition that states maintain monopolies on violence remains central:
- Police Reform: Debates about state violence and accountability
- Military Intervention: Questions about legitimate use of force
- International Relations: Realist perspectives on power and security
- Revolution and Resistance: When, if ever, is violent resistance to the state justified?
Nationalism and Identity
Understanding state origins illuminates contemporary nationalism:
- Nation-Building: How states create shared identity among diverse populations
- Ethnic Conflict: Tensions arising from states imposed on multiple ethnic groups (often through historical conquest)
- Self-Determination: Claims for independence based on shared identity vs. existing state boundaries
Conclusion: The Enduring Importance of Understanding State Origins
The theories examined in this comprehensive analysis-from Hobbes's Leviathan to Rousseau's general will, from divine right to force and family-represent humanity's sustained attempt to understand and justify political authority. While each theory has significant limitations, together they provide essential insights into the nature of the state and political obligation.
Social contract theory reminds us that legitimate political authority requires justification beyond mere power. Government should serve the governed, and political arrangements should be judged by whether they advance human welfare, protect fundamental rights, and command rational consent.
The concept of the general will, despite its difficulties, points toward an important insight: legitimate political communities require some genuine orientation toward the common good beyond the mere aggregation of selfish interests. Democratic politics should involve citizens deliberating together about shared purposes, not just bargaining among factions.
Historical theories, even when rejected as complete explanations, illuminate actual mechanisms of state formation. Recognition that force, kinship, religion, and economic necessity all played roles provides a more realistic understanding than any single-factor theory could offer.
Perhaps most importantly, studying these theories cultivates critical thinking about political authority. It encourages us to question the origins and legitimacy of power, to recognize that political arrangements are human creations subject to evaluation and potential change, and to think carefully about what makes political authority legitimate.
As we face contemporary challenges-from authoritarian populism to questions about global governance, from debates over state surveillance to discussions of civil disobedience and resistance-these foundational questions about the origin and nature of the state remain as relevant as ever. Understanding the theories examined here provides essential tools for navigating these challenges and thinking clearly about the political world we inhabit and seek to improve.