Delphi Complete Works of Stephen Leacock, page 424
But while commenting on the intimate interdependence of these two branches of learning, their essential difference must not be forgotten. Political science has no concern with history in its purely narrative aspect; it has no interest in the mere cumulation of instances; nor has it any interest in the military, commercial, or economic aspects of history as such; only in so far as these bear upon the evolution of organized social control, only so far as they elucidate the nature of the state, are they of import for the student of political science. The latter must revert to history for much of the material of his study, but always in an eclectic or selective fashion, coördinating his facts with a view to their special significance. Thus, for example, the history of the Puritan colonies of North America is of primary interest to the student of political science as illustrating the growth of democratic self-government, the progressive application of the federal principle of political consolidation, the relations of church and state, and the evolution of written constitutions. The economic life of the colonies is of only secondary and indirect importance. The religious controversies of the period as such, the romantic aspects of the history of the time, — the adventurous intercourse of settlers and savages, the changes of manners, speech, and costume occasioned by the new environment, have still less bearing on the problems of political science. Similarly the domain of the historian has its distinct limitations. Dr. Georg Jellinek accurately circumscribes the province of history as follows: “History presents to us not only facts but the causal connection between the facts. It differs, however, from the theoretical sciences in that it always examines concrete cases of cause and effect, never abstract types and laws. If the historian undertakes this he passes the bounds of his own province and becomes a philosopher of history or a sociologist. It is true that no historian will be willing entirely to forego this higher aspect of history, but there is no science which offers to its students a complete self-sufficiency.”
Political science stands also in close relation to political economy. The purpose of the latter is to investigate “man’s activity in pursuit of wealth.” It deals with the production and distribution of wealth under the influence of forces both material and psychological. Inasmuch as the production and distribution of material wealth is very largely conditioned by the existing form of government and the institutional basis of economic life, the study of political economy is brought into an intimate relation with that of political science. The system of the English school of classical economists, for instance, is presumed to flow from the original postulates of private individual property, of unimpeded contract under a social sanction, and a mobility of the strata of society unhindered by non-economic forces. Conversely it is also true that political institutions are greatly affected by economic circumstances. The particular form of government existing at any period and place, and the direction and extent of its activity, are largely dependent on the economic life of the community in question. Thus one would naturally expect the political institutions of a migratory pastoral tribe to differ from those of a community deriving its support from a fixed form of agriculture, while each of them would differ in the form and character of its government from a manufacturing population centred in great cities. The state, in a word, is conditioned by its economic environment. Nor is it only in their fundamental bases that the sciences of economics and politics stand in close relation, for many specific subjects of inquiry belong in a measure to each of them. Such questions as the social control of monopoly, the governmental management of railroads, and the municipal ownership of public utilities present both an economic and a political aspect. To the economist the problem is one of economic efficiency and equitable distribution; to the student of political science it is a question of administrative organization.
The relation of political science to various other branches may be discussed more briefly. Constitutional law, the analysis of the organization of a particular state at a particular time, would seem to be best classed as a subdivision of political science, or at any rate to cover a large field in common with it. Opinion might also differ as to whether international law, dealing with the relation of states with one another, should more properly be classed as an included or only a kindred subject. It may at any rate be said that in measure as international relations develop into the fixity of a true international law, — a code enforced by a recognized authority, — so does international law become merged in the domain of political science. Last of all may be mentioned the relative position of political science and sociology. Here the former must be considered in the light of an included portion of the more general field. Sociology deals not only with organized communities, but also with communities in which the element of social control is as yet feebly differentiated. It deals not only with the legal and coercive relationship of man with his fellows, but also with the evolution and status of customs, manners, religion, and economic life. Most important is it to observe that sociology treats not only of conscious but also of unconscious social activities. How far such a science can be anything more than a group of subdivisions, or a name for a sort of general wisdom in regard to man’s social environment, gained from specific studies, is perhaps open to question. Certainly in the hands of many of its exponents it seems to lose in intensity what it gains in width. Nevertheless, if one accepts the “science of society” on its own terms, it is proper to consider that it includes political science as one of its subdivisions. On this basis one may proceed to a formal definition of political science, which may best be accepted in the form offered by Paul Janet: “Political Science is that part of social science which treats of the foundations of the State, and of the principles of government.” Beside this may be placed the definition of J. K. Bluntschli, which draws especial attention to the dynamic nature of the study involved: “Political Science is the science which is concerned with the State, which endeavors to understand and comprehend the State in its conditions, in its essential nature, its various forms and manifestations, its development.”
3. Meaning of the State; its Essential Attributes. Political science, then, deals with the state; it is, in short, as it is often termed, the “theory of the state.” The word “state” is sufficiently familiar to have been used in the preceding discussion without explanation. It is now necessary to make a nearer analysis of the exact meaning to be attached to the term. An examination of the ordinary senses in which the word is used shows at once a considerable latitude in its employment. Thus when we speak of the different “states” of Christendom, or refer to France, Germany, etc., as the leading states of Europe, the word seems roughly to correspond with such terms as country, international power, etc. When on the other hand we talk of the relations existing between the “church and the state,” we have no reference to international affairs; the idea implied is rather that of association or organization. Again, in such uses as “The State and the Individual” (the title of the recent work on political science already mentioned), or in the title of one of Herbert Spencer’s books, “The Man versus the State,” the word is plainly used to imply a contrast between the individual citizen and the collective aspect of the community. Finally, in such phrases as “state aid to the poor,” “state control of railroads,” etc., what is thought of is not so much the community collectively as the special machinery or organized agency through which the community acts.
Out of the different elements here embodied we may construct an exact conception of what is meant by the state in the technical language of political science. It embodies as the factors of which it is composed: —
I. A territory.
II. A population.
III. Unity.
IV. Organization.
Let us briefly examine these in turn. Without a definite territory there can be no state. The Jews, being scattered abroad and dissociated from the occupation and control of any particular territory, do not constitute a state. Professor Holland in the definition given in his “Elements of Jurisprudence,” speaks of a “numerous assemblage of human beings generally occupying a certain territory.” But it seems advisable to insist on the idea of land being necessary. Equally necessary is a population. It goes without saying that an uninhabited portion of the earth, taken in itself, cannot form a state. The third requisite is said to be unity. By this is meant that the territory and population in question must form no part of a wider political unit; nor must the territory contain any portion or portions which while forming geographically a part of it, are not a part of it politically. The island of Haiti is a geographical unit, but being divided into the separate republics of Haiti and Santo Domingo, does not present the unity required to constitute a state. In the same way the separate “states” of the American Union are not states in the technical sense of the term, since each forms part of the single political entirety known as the United States. The United States as a totality constitutes a state; the “state” of Massachusetts does not. The final requisite, that of organization, is one that must be carefully noted. Even granting that we have a territory and population disconnected from the rest of the world, and thus in a sense a unit, we have not yet a state. Imagine, for example, that a “numerous assemblage of human beings,” to use Professor Holland’s phrase, were deposited upon some uninhabited island not owned or controlled by any existing government. Here we should have land and population and unity, but the inhabitants, having as yet no cohesion or connection, would not form a state. Imagine however that these inhabitants, being persons, we may suppose, accustomed to live under a settled government, should agree to form themselves into an organized body and to vest the control of all of them in the hands of certain among their number. We should then have a state. Or let us imagine a very different state of affairs. Suppose that a certain number of the inhabitants were enabled by their superior physical force or cunning to reduce the others to a condition of submission, so that settled relations of control and obedience were established. In this case too there would be a state. For the organization needed to constitute a state need not be one established by mutual consent or one of an equitable nature. The mere existence of settled obedience to a superior, coercive force is all that is required. Any form of despotism or tyranny which fulfills these conditions establishes a political state just as much as does a government whose authority rests on a general acquiescence.
Such, then, is the nature of the state. As formal definitions we may cite the following. (1) “A State is a people organized for law within a definite territory” (Woodrow Wilson). (2) “The body or community which thus by permanent law, through its organs administers justice within certain limits of territory is called a State” (Theodore Woolsey). A more elaborate definition, the full bearing of which will appear in our discussion of sovereignty, is given by Professor Holland: “A State is a numerous assemblage of human beings, generally occupying a certain territory, amongst whom the will of the majority or of an ascertainable class of persons is, by the strength of such a majority or class, made to prevail against any of their number who oppose it.”
4. The Distinction between State, Society, Government, and Nation. The meaning to be attached to the word state will be rendered more precise by distinguishing it from society, government, and nation. The term society has no reference to territorial occupation; it refers to man alone and not to his environment. But in dealing with man its significance is much wider than that of state. It applies to all human communities, whether organized or unorganized. It suggests not only the political relations by which men are bound together, but the whole range of human relations and collective activities. The study of society involves the study of man’s religion, of domestic institutions, industrial activities, education, crime, etc. The term government, on the other hand, is narrower than state. It refers to the person or group of persons (which in a modern community will be very numerous) in whose hands the organization of the state places for the time being the function of political control. The word is sometimes used to indicate the persons themselves, sometimes abstractly to indicate the kind and composition of the controlling group. The ordinary citizens of a community are a part of the state, but are not part of the government. The term has moreover no reference to territory. The distinction will appear more evident in our subsequent discussion of sovereignty.
In the next place it is to be observed that nation and state are two distinct conceptions. The term nation, though often loosely used, is properly to be thought of as having a racial or ethnographical significance. It indicates a body of people — the Germans, the French, the Hungarians, etc. — united by common descent and a common language. But such divisions by no means coincide with the political divisions of the civilized world into states. Austria-Hungary constitutes a single state, but its population is made up of members of a great many different races. The political division of the civilized world into states freely intersects with the division into races, although sometimes the political units — as in the case of modern France — are almost coincident with the ethnographic. The relation between political organization and nationality has been a changing one. In the classical world, in the city states of ancient Greece and Italy, kinship among the citizens was considered an elemental factor in the composition of the state. In ancient Athens and Sparta persons of alien race were not considered as members of the political community. Hence in the political thought of classical Greece the conception of the state is limited to a small area occupied by persons of the same race. In the Roman world, the original conception of a city state with a common nationality was transformed by the process of absorption and conquest into the larger conception of a world-wide state and universal sovereignty. Nationality is here lost from sight. The foreign nations occupying the subjugated provinces were recognized by virtue of the Emperor Caracalla’s act of general enfranchisement (A. D. 212) as citizens of the universal empire. Such a conception, as will be seen in a later chapter, long survived as the basis of European polity, though existing only in the shadowy form of the titular Holy Roman Empire. In actual fact, however, it was displaced by other political conceptions. Feudalism brought with it the notion of territorial sovereignty and dynastic supremacy. A state became coincident with the domain owned, if one may use the term, by a particular house and its descendants, and quite irrespective of the nationalities of the subject peoples. States were formed out of communities of varying nationalities by inheritance, by cession, by marriage of their sovereigns. Witness for example the sovereignty of Henry II over Anjou, Aquitaine, etc.; the claim of Edward III to the crown of France; and at a later date, the empire of Charles V, who inherited Burgundy, Spain, part of Italy, and various Austrian territories. To a large extent this political fusion has fortunately been accompanied by a fusion of languages, as in the amalgamation of modern France.
It was in the nineteenth century that the claim of nationality as the paramount basis of state organization strongly asserted itself. The great political upheaval consequent upon the American and French revolutions led to an intense national movement in most parts of Europe. Under its influence modern Italy has been converted (1815-1870) into a national state. Germany has assumed a definite national form in the modern German Empire (1871), whose boundaries, however, are not identical with those occupied by the German people. In other countries — Hungary, Ireland — the same movement has been seen in abortive form, while the modern aspirations of Pan-Slavism, Pan-Germanism, and “unredeemed” Italy foreshadow the part that nationality is to play in the organization of the states of the future. Common nationality is therefore, though not an actual requisite in the composition of the state as it now exists, a potent factor in its formation.
5. The State and a Common Faith. At various periods in the world’s history we find the idea that the existence of a common religious faith among the members of the state is essential to its existence. Such was the dominant element in the composition of the ancient Jewish theocracy. In the period following the reformation in Europe heretical belief was considered by both Protestant and Catholic monarchies an offense against the state and was punished as such. In the theocratic Puritan colonies in America (Massachusetts and New Haven) only the members of the church were at first admitted to the exercise of political rights. With the growth of the doctrine of religious toleration such a view of the state has passed away. The civil authority and the civil bond among the citizens is dissociated from their religion. In many countries, however, established churches supported by the state remain as historic survivals of the earlier point of view.
6. The Ideal State. In all of the foregoing analysis we have treated of the state as it actually exists, not the state as it might be if viewed in its perfect form. This is the distinction made by the German writers between the conception and the idea of the state. The conception of the state at any particular historical period is found in the common attributes of the states actually existent. The idea, on the other hand, is the ideal of perfect form of which any actual state is only an approximate realization. This ideal has varied from age to age. To the Greeks the ideal was to be sought in the perfected form of the city state. In our own day the national state has served as the embodiment of perfect political organization. But a wider ideal is conceivable in the form of the world state or state universal. The realization of such a political organization, as has been said, was long the haunting ideal of European policy. We see it reflected in the claims of the Roman emperor, in the less substantial claims of the Eastern emperor at Constantinople after the fall of Rome, in the resuscitation of the empire by Charles the Great (A. D. 800), and in the vague sovereignty of the Holy Roman Emperor from that date until the abolition of the titular dignity (1806) through the power of Napoleon. The same ideal hovers before us as offering the goal of the political organization of the future. The development of international relations that could lead to such an end will be discussed in a later chapter.
