How have anthropologists discussed the relationship between the state and society?

I argue that in order for one to understand the relationship between society and the state, one must fully grasp the definition of the state. Amongst scholars in anthropology, the discourse on whether the state should be a concept in existence has left many confused due to the states ‘boundary with society appearing elusive, porous, and mobile’ (Timothy, M 1991: 77). Grasping the definition of the state can be made clearer through series of ethnographies that discuss the issues that exist around borders and identity, as borders and identity are good to think within relation to understanding the State.
Through the auto-ethnography of Shahram Khosravi (2011) ‘illegal traveller: an auto-ethnography of borders’, guides us through series of events that demonstrate political and socioeconomic impacts seen at borders and how borders are an area of contestation. Followed by the work of Jonathan Spencer (2007) ‘Anthropology, politics and the state: democracy and violence in South Asia’ where we zoom into the bureaucracy that surrounds border crossings within South Asia and how this bureaucracy plays a defining factor in understanding what the state is through identity and the forming of borders.

This amalgamation of ethnographies will allow us to highlight key features within the complex relationship the state and society has. In order to understand this relationship one must first define what society is as an entity of its own.

A Society

The study of the society within social anthropology has been a central theoretical object. Generally, society can be defined as the ‘universal condition of human life’ (Barnard, A & Spencer, J 2010: 650), within the discipline, the term society has been used for more precise bodies of understanding. But what is meant by this? The concept of society can be understood in three forms. Firstly, how the term society is applied to describe and explain human groups that pertain to aspects such as territory, institutional organization that self-sustain and endure the lifespan of an individual and beyond, in addition to having a cultural distinctiveness. ‘In this sense, society may denote the group’s population, its institutions and relations, or its culture and ideology’ (Barnard, A and Spencer, J 2010: 651). Secondly, the use of the term society being a synonym for ‘(a)people’ as Barnard, A and Spencer, J (2010) put it, or better said ‘a particular type of humanity’ (Barnard, A and Spencer, J 2010 : 651). This morphology allows us to see society as a social organization of human individuals. The third form is how the term society become interchangeable with the term culture. ‘what is emphasised is the affective and cognitive content of group life: the set of dispositions and abilities included in its members by various symbolic means, as well as the concepts and practises that confer order, meaning and value upon reality’ (Barnard, A and Spencer, J 2010: 651). All three forms of society are used to give society its own distinguishable assets. Yet there have been a series of tensions between defining the state from society. Here is where we go onto discussing the state with reference to relevant and appropriate ethnographies.

The State

Defining the state seems dependent on distinguishing itself from society, yet the line in which it separates itself from society is a difficult task to find in practise. Due to its difficulty in distinguishing a difference in practise, scholars such as Timothy Mitchell (1991) suggest that ‘the state retains a “conceptual existence” as a ‘social phenomena’’ (Mitchell, T 1991: 77). Building on from this idea that the state can be understood as a social phenomena, the distinction between society and state can therefore be seen as an internal division ‘within the network of institutional mechanisms through which a social and political order is maintained’ (Mitchell, T 1991: 78). The internal line drawn is made possible through bureaucracy; the state can be understood clearer when thinking in conjunction with bureaucracy.

Through the ideas of Abrams, P (1988) the state is regarded as a ‘mask’. This mask is used to hide or create a translucent barrier that blurs our perception on political practises. The state in the words of Abrams, P is that ‘the state is not the reality which stands behind the mask of political practise. It is itself the mask.’ (Abrams, P 1988: 58). In society, there seems to be a state-system, a system that is a palpable nexus which retains “dominancy” and extensiveness over its institutional structure of its practise. Building on this idea, we could present the state to be an encompassing of a structuration of political practise; this structuration of political practise is bureaucracy.

This structuration of politics (bureaucracy) in the eyes of Weber, M (2006) is explained as being developed ‘in the private economy only in the most advanced institutions of capitalism…’ (Weber, M 2006: 49). There are many examples of ‘advanced institutions of capitalism’, one example with a high consumption of capital is border control and the literal manifestation of the border. Here we can delve into how bureaucracy (the structuration of political systems) plays into enacting the concept of the state into reality through the mundane enactments of governing bodies.

Borders and identity; an area of contestation

Khosravi, S (2011) auto-ethnography on borders, illustrates the harsh realities experienced at borders. The main body of work is written to highlight socioeconomic and political impacts surrounding borders and the manifestation of a border. It is here at borders where we are capable of understanding the division placed between the state and society, as here at the border, there seems to be an awareness of the nation-state and the state. To elaborate, Khosravi quotes Agamben (2000: 42) making a good defining point in the differing between nation-state and the state by stating, ‘the nation-state system is based on the functional nexus between a determinate localization (territory) and a determinate order (the state), a nexus mediated by automatic regulations for inscription of life… (Khosravi, S 2011: 2). The state can be confused and misunderstood as the physical territory rather than the ‘idea’ created by political systems to keep power within and resistance low.
Khosravi highlights the ‘determinate order’ as representing the state, the determinate order is manifested through the enactments of bureaucracy and bureaucracy is enacting the mundane acts of governing bodies. At the border, these mundane acts would be considered as document checks through passports and profiling followed with customs. The checks that are enacted intersect with issues surrounding identity and how it relates to the existence of the state.

Spencer, J (2007) uses the work of Samaddar (1999) to highlight the identity politics in South Asian, focusing on India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. In short, Samaddar highlights how Muslim and Hindu residents in Welcome were told to be Bangladeshi, if individuals had documentation, they could be officially Indians. Consequently, individuals that did not have the right documents were removed from electoral rolls. The case in Sri lanka highlighted the political disenfranchisement of Indian-Tamils after the countries Independence, as Indian-Tamils were not ‘deemed to be ‘really’ Indian rather than Ceylonese…’ (Spencer, J 2007: 114-115). This intersection of identity politics and territory lead to the development of borders. Here is when the example of “illegal immigrants”, migrants and refugees raise issues of the state. Spencer, J elaborates by quoting Samadder (1999) ...

‘Migrants and refugees always remain on the margins of the system - they are there to be ignored, to be eternally peripheralized. But they are required to define the system, to define the core and the periphery of the nations in South Asia. The ‘illegal’ migration makes possible a mode of political and economic management which exploits the difference between legal and illegal; migrant labour, therefore, becomes one of the principal forms of the investment of national boundaries with power.’ (Samaddar 1999: 44)

(Spencer, J 2007: 115)

The site of the border is the space where ‘statecraft’ (Spencer, J 2007: 115) goes through the process of naturalization. Spencer does state that the work of Samadder (1999) focuses on South Asia’s ‘political and imaginative economy’ of the “illegal migrant”. However, it is evermore relevant to link it with the works as of Khosravi, as the focus on the illegal immigrant is a good place to see the visible enactments of the State and how it better helps understanding the relationship between state and society, by grasping a “solid” definition of the State.

Conclusion

The issues discussed have highlight that the relationship between the state and society is complex. The state and society must first be understood to grasp the relationship between them. The complex nexus between the state and society can be made clearer through ethnographic works. These selected ethnographies of Khosravi, S (2011) and Spencer (2007) (using the works of Samadder 1999) highlights how borders and identity are sites of contestation followed along with the workings of bureaucracy and its enactments in “enforcing” the idea of the state. All this is crucial in seeing how it feeds directly into the defining factor of understanding the state. Through this we then are able to relate it back to the society and see the dynamic between the two.

Bibliography

Abrams, P (1988) 'Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State.', Journal of Historical Sociology, 1(1), pp. 58-89.
Alan Barnard & Jonathan Spencer (2010) The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology, 2nd edn., London & New York: Routledge.
Sharma, Aradhana; Gupta, Akhil (2006) the anthropology of the state: a reader, Malden: Blackwell.
Shahram Khosravi (2011) ‘illegal’ traveller: an auto-ethnography of borders, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Spencer, J (2007) Anthropology, politics and the state: democracy and violence in South Asia, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Timothy Mitchell (Mar., 1991) 'The Limits of the State: Beyond Statist Approaches and Their Critics', The American Political Science Review, Vol. 85(No. 1), pp. 77-96.
Weber, M (2006) 'Bureaucracy', in Sharma, Aradhana; Gupta, Akhil (ed.) the anthropology of the state: a reader. Malden: Blackwell, pp. 49-70.