The Ideology of State

Randhir Gautam (praxis)

“the political, ethical, social, philosophical problem of our days is not to try to liberate the individual
from the state, but to liberate the us both from the state, and from the type of individualization which
is linked to the state” (Michel Foucault, The Subject and Power)

I think there is no state without its ideology. The popular way of politics is based upon the assumption
of things for granted ideology. Ideology has deep impact on political thought. I have an analogy,
without having any conceptual framework we can do research further in the same way without having
ideology a state cannot produce and reproduce its legitimacy. Ideology has both a positive as well as
negative connotation. State is both a guarantee and a threat. There is pragmatically no domain of
individual or collective life which escapes state relation. since with the emergence of social democratic
movement after the advent of enlightenment we can see the approach of state towards a particular
ideology. Kantianism evolved as a doctrine of right and against the traditional religion and rule. Kant
and Herman Cohen were ‘the true and actual originator of German socialism’. With the emergence of
Utilitarianism which deals with the idea of men’s action should be the greatest happiness of the
greatest number went evolution of wings.

Political ideology would attach the utilitarian tenet to itself depended largely on the given phase in
the tenet’s history. Utilitarianism was a multi-potential tenet used by left, right and centre. Since with
the emergence of the dominance of middle class we can see the acceptance of pragmatism.
‘pragmatic’ became the favoured of all American politicians. Positivism also became an ideology for a
dictatorial presumably scientific elite. Hitler himself identified with Nietzegeanism . He was very much
influenced with the ideology of Darwinism. soviet state was a good example for that matter . powerful
mechanisms of control, supervision and censorship are used to prevent other philosophies (except
dialectical materialism) From arising. although the fact that soviet state corrupts the idea pf ‘the
Withering away of the state’. on the other hand, we have state such as united states of America they
themselves identified as Non-ideological state. Britain was less prone to ideology because it lacks the
class of intellectual at the time on world war. we can differentiate the state apparatus from that
German. Unlike the Russia the intellectual class of Britain did not de-authorization of their elders
which is essential to the genesis of ideological passion, the propensity to fashion myths which confer
a messianic role upon the young. we can see the orientation of people are the one hand in Russia
people studied philosophy and they would become revolutionary plotters. I don’t call them
revolutionaries because they have a pseudo understanding of Marxist revolutionary phase of
development. on the other hand those who studied in oxford they would become a churchmen in
England.
In America the popular politics is more about experimental than ideological. once Gettysburg
observed ‘American did not set a myth of historical destiny; it the notion of an experiment to test the
power of a democratic society to survive: ‘now we are engaged in a civil war testing whether this
notion ,or any other so conceived , can long endure’. One of the important reason of to have the Non-
ideological character if state is the language of American politics was far more experimental than
ideological. once sociologist Werner Sombart published ‘why is there no socialism in the united states
?’ there are some reasons given by Sombart for the weakness of socialism in USA ; the lack of a feudal
heritage in the American history ; unlike the European nations that retained numerous remnants of
traditional attitudes and institutions , the US was almost completely dominated by spirit of completely
dominated by the spirit of competition , material acquisitiveness and individualistic culture , and a
favourable attitude toward capitalism held by the workers in America . Sombart also made additional
points regarding the failure of expansion and reception of socialist ideas and the lack of radical political
consciousness. He also argues the worker of America did not have high esteem for the American
system of democratic government in it. stability of the two- party political system. The ability of major
party to control the resources attract corporate. Barry Eildon also answered why there is no labour
party in US.

of course there is capitalist ideology among the middle class. As I said in the beginning for every
state ideology is required to instil in its members those values which are important for maintaining
the dominant social thinking. liberalism constitutes a individuated societies, include reasonable
tolerance and hence reasonable pluralism in a democracy. rise of liberalism strengthen the
individualization. of course there is the absence of tyranny in liberal state but on the name of
democracy we can see the ‘tyranny of the majority’ the dominant form of liberalism reduces human
beings to consumers and gas abandoned the aspiration to self-development which was the hallmark
of liberal ideology. even the modern meaning of liberty meant ‘the liberty to be subjected only to the
laws ‘and hence the exclusion of arbitrary power. Although the problem is there with Liberalism but
it was the modernist philosophy par excellence, it articulated a noble and inspiring vision of politics
and society’. Separation of powers in terms of checking of power and rule of law are the two important
achievement of liberal state. socialist ideologies arose in the criticism of liberalism. DEMOCRACY IS
NOT RACIALIZED POLITICS Democracy means freedom and equality through the rule of law. Without
LAW, there is no freedom. What is happening in America is the racialization and ethnocentrism of
accountability where the rule of law is violated. Therefore, prison is not a matter of rehabilitation or
even human dignity, it is PUNISHMENT, and therefore it is also deterrence. The incarceration of so
many people in the past 20-30 years is not only an indication of the brazen illegal behaviour of so
many people - where a good rule of thumb is that only 10% of the perpetrators are actually caught
and convicted!!! - it means that race and ethnicity attempt to displace the rule of law. Consider
explaining the bankruptcy of entire cities when politicians agree to financial obligations they cannot
afford (Bush did this when he went to war and signed into law policies (NCLB) and did not provide a
way to pay for them), or riots, or extremely high murder and suicide rates, or robbery and burglary
rates. Consider explaining the number of alleged rapes in some locations where hundreds are reported
each month in each PRECINCT!!! There is crime, there is deviance, there is gaming the system
(reminded of Medicaid fraud), there is irresponsible behaviour when large numbers of people do not
graduate from schools where the education is free - these people are unable to work because they
are illiterate and cannot communicate socially or morally! And, people complain about a school-to-
prison pipeline!! Why, because they did not focus on the appropriate way of living during the years of
socialization and were therefore found guilty of committing crimes. It is not simply the form of
government which means RULE OF LAW - you can't call it mob rule, you have to distinguish principled
governance from racialized politics. Racialized politics is wrong, it is illegal, it is discrimination, it is
what happens when rule of law is not enforced!! One more time: the reason for the riots in 1967 was
over police practices, the reason for the riots in 1968 was over the assassination of MLK. And the
reason for other rioting was often race: busing in Boston and other places, Union striking over the
hiring of blacks, etc.

The problem is race and ethnicity when a certain group of people decide to break the law for their
own interests. REASON does not accept any old explanation for what is going on - the RULE OF LAW is
the opposite of racialized ethnocentrism. Fascism is not law, it is not based on legal principles, and it
is most DEFINITELY NOT DEMOCRACY!!!!!

State is primarily defined as the organization that has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a
given territory. I basically agree with the Weberian analysis of state. He argues the significance of state
for the foundation of liberal democracy and also the importance of liberal democracy in the age of
modernity. He thinks the concentration of the means of administration in the nation-state to be as
important as the concentration of means of production in capitalist system. like any capitalist social
order, state has also the concentration of means of administration in the hands of an absolute
monarch. weber problematized the idea of democracy is like “steel- hard housing’’ Within which every
individual in modern age has to live and work. the hegemony of bureaucracy and bureaucratic
domination led the administration of this age. He is very much pessimistic about the socialist dream
and collectivization of means of production by abolishing private property. weber viewed, democracy
is less the rule of people than the rule of an elite which combines exceptional leaders and bureaucratic
experts, GIDDENS argues leaders offer only chance of overriding the bureaucratic machinery. Here
Gramsci an conception is very important to understand the reproduction of stable social formation of
democracy .people don’t like to be the critical engagement with the limitation of democracy .
contemporary political scenario is the example of this fact. Gramsci theorize the state is formed by
the balance of forces achieved in the struggle for hegemony. Laclau and Mouffe’s reading of Gramsci
tells ‘ a class does not take as the state power ; it becomes the state’. I think both Althusser and
Gramsci innovative in Marxism both in terms of ideology and state. Gramsci thinks state as the
institution in which politics takes place. ideology comes first in the realm of civil society then goes in
the realm of state. Athusser further says ‘the function of ideology is to make individuals into subjects
who will fit the positions provided by the state.

The idea of stateless society Gandhian conception of state has no political power. he has deep feeling
of “purist anarchy’’. An ideal is not fully realized in life’. He knew that the ideal of statelessness can be
realized only when people become – self-controlled. Christian anarchist Robert LUDLOW argues ‘we
have to reject the state as a form of government’. Gandhi also argues ‘the state represents violence
in a concentrated and organized form. the individual has a soul, but the state is a soulless machine, it
can never be weaned from violence to which it owes its existence. He thinks state is destructive of
moral freedom and voluntariness. The state is merely a part of political society; it is society politically
organized with limited object. state exists for one great but single purpose but exists for number of
purposes. state is a realm of external control and anarchy is all about maximum freedom from external
control. Gandhi had deep problem with the omnipotence of the state and its hegemony over all
associations. Godwin also said ‘state as an institution based on injustice, perpetuates inequalities and
binds men with the chain of authority. Proudhon regarded the state as a conspiracy of the rich against
the poor. even Lenin also agree with the anarchist on the question of abolition of the state as a final
aim. but he thinks state is important in this phase of social transformation that is from capitalism to
socialism. I think Gandhi’s critics of Traditional of democracy and Utilitarianism is nothing but the
question of state fundamentally.

In conclusion I want to talk about the idea of ‘statism’. I don’t think people realize that we cannot
change the culture just because we have a good reason. I think state is a part of the ‘pernalastic’
collective consciousness, if one is against the state, they necessarily must be against all the
paternalistic ideas that normalize the state. I think leftist and rightist have same misconception. You
can not diminish the role of the state just by shouting arguments at people. The paternalistic aspect
of our cultural is maintained by cultural ideology. diminishing the state necessarily takes new anti-
paternalistic ideology. A patriotism is a kind of aggression for me which is made of High emotion and
low information. the way ethnicity, caste, patriarchy, are being constituted by racism, religion and
family (institutions), I argue state is being constructed by ‘patriotism; in feudalism religion is
predominant everywhere in world, in capitalism religion is replaced by state.

References

1. Hothouse, L. T (1964) ‘Liberalism, oxford; oxford University press

2. Prasad , K.M (2014) ‘ philosophy of Gandhi, Varanasi , Bharati Prakashan

3. Snyder, Timothy (2014), on tyranny, New York, New York publication