Blog #1

Human beings have an innate tendency to simplify and categorize the world around them. According to the Lave and March article on modeling, “Man is capable of producing more complex behavior than he is capable of understanding” (9). So, not only do we as humans have this yearning to break things down to make them more easily digestible, it appears that we don’t have a choice in the matter, because we couldn’t fully understand our behavior anyway. Is this because of limitations in understanding the human psyche? Is this because of the impossibility of dissecting infinite causal chain preceding our actions as well as following them? Regardless of why our behavior is impossible to fully comprehend, according to Professor King, specifics are not favored in political science. Instead, the generality of a theory is more valuable than a more accurate, more specific model. This isn’t to say details aren’t important, just that they need to be sacrificed in certain situations in order to understand patterns in states’ and citizens’ behavior.

This process of simplification is demonstrated in Weber’s article. In introducing the three “pure” types of legitimate leaders, Weber states “the pure types are rarely found in reality” (32). This is to say that the article describes phenomena that hold true generally, but do not completely describe any leaders that exist in actuality. It seems then, in our study of models and real life examples, we will have to learn to balance the two, as well as use each side to shed light on one another.

Response #1

In response to “Weber Blog”, I’d like to point out that Weber expands his definition of a state to mean “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory”. Though violent non-state actors were in shorter supply in 1918 than they are now, they did exist during Weber’s time, and I’m sure the author was fully aware of them. Still, the question of whether Weber—or anyone, for that matter—would consider Blackwater a purveyor of “legitimate” force is interesting, considering the business’s legal status is still unclear.

To take Jackie up on her suggestion, I’d now like to consider how Weber’s definition of the state compares to that of Aristotle. Most obviously, Weber bases his definition on words like “force” (as was already mentioned), “violence”, and “domination”, whereas Aristotle focuses on concepts such as “common interests” and the “highest good”. Aristotle characterizes the state as a completely naturally occurring association, based on two assertions: 1) the individual is not self-sufficient, therefore a state is needed to satisfy individuals’ common needs and interests; and 2) each individual—and by extension each community—aims at the good, therefore the state (which is the highest political community) aims at the highest good.

Rather than characterizing the state as something naturally occurring, Weber (arguably) uses a Marxist interpretation of the evolution of political structures, starting with the autonomous vassals of the “estate” system and ending with the modern state, which consolidates all the “material means of administrative organization” under a single leadership. These means are described in economic terms. (The interpretation is not surprising, considering the Bolshevik Revolution tore through Russia a year prior to his writing “Politics as a Vocation”.) So while Aristotle argues that we essentially opt to form a state on our own grounds and for our own interests, Weber suggests that a state is formed when a single leadership entity creates complete “separateness” in terms of political means between the ruler and the ruled.

Weber Blog

Weber states, “force is a means specific to the state.”(31) I find this statement, and perhaps Weber’s definition to be somewhat troublesome. In today’s world, terrorists and other non-state actor have the ability to and do exercise the use of force.
One example is the firm “Blackwater,” a private military company commonly referred to as a “security contractor or a mercenary organization.” This company is a third party organization that does not operate within any one nation or state’s rules or laws. Typically, Blackwater carries out missions that have been officially sanctioned by the US government. These types of missions focus on external security, and can be argued to be “legitimate.” However, Blackwater soldiers are not US soldiers, they are simply paid by the US Government. Therefore, although Blackwater is on the side of the US Government, does that mean the force exercised is that of the US or that of a man being paid by the US who could be shooting on the opposite side if his paycheck changed? Essentially I want to raise the question, is the bullet that kills an Iraqi an American bullet or a bullet from a third party? If it is the later, then Weber’s definition may be incorrect.
Second, another example of an entity besides the state that uses force is modern day terrorist groups. When “Politics as Vocation” was written worldwide terrorism was obviously not as prominent as it is today, but in today’s globalized world, force, whether it is legitimate or not, is easily argued to be no longer specific to the state. As exemplified by the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the bombing of the USS Cole, or the train bombings in Spain, force, and the means of a group to meet their aims is no longer controlled specifically by the state.

Welcome CPS Section 05

Dear Students,

Welcome to the GOVT-121 Section 05 Blog! This blog is for students in Jackie Kerr's Friday 1:15 discussion section of GOVT-121 Comparative Political Systems with Professor King, Fall 2008.

This is the forum for submission of required blog entries relating to the week's readings. This space can also be used to ask questions about the readings or lectures, prepare for exams, and engage in informal discussion of themes from class.

Before beginning to use the blog, please take a look at the Blog Guidelines that I have posted below.

Cheers,
Jackie

Blog Submission Guidelines

Please observe the following guidelines in use of the section blog:

Over the course of the term all students should write at least 2 blog response entries (250-300 words) based on that week’s readings. These should be submitted on the weeks for which you have signed up at the start of the term.

Blog entries that are meant to fulfill the two response requirement should be posted by midnight on the Wednesday before section. Please also label these entries with “Response #[1 or 2]“ in the subject line so as to differentiate them from other informal comments or questions that you might post.

Please familiarize yourself with the week's entries as part of your preparation for our discussion section.

You are welcome (though not required) to post more than the required two blog entries. If a theme catches your interest, feel free to write additional responses or comments. In addition to the time we spend together in class, this is a forum for participation and sharing ideas.

Authors are expected to be respectful in their postings and are reminded that this activity is governed by the University's honor code.