Q. Critically examine the organic theory of state.

[20]
Ans. Organic theory of state:
The organic theory of state holds that the state resembles a biological organism in many respects
such as origin, structure and functions, and argues that the relation between the state and the
individual is the same as the relation between an organism and its cell. According to this theory,
the state is not a mere aggregation of individuals but an organism having different organs that are
related to one another in the same way as the different organs of an animal or a plant are related
to one another. The most important exponent of organic theory is Herbert Spencer. He drew the
following similarities between the state and an organism.
Similarities between the state and an organism:
1) Both exhibit a similar process of development from simplicity to complexity:
In the beginning, the state was a primitive and crude institution but in the course of time, it
developed into a complex organization with a multiplicity of functions. An organism also
exhibits a similar process of development. A fetus in the womb of a mother is just a lump of
flesh but as time goes by it grows into a baby with all organs of a human being. During the
process of development, each undergoes specialization of both organs and functions.
2) Both have three main systems:
Like an organism, a state also has three main systems; namely, a sustaining system, a distributary
system and a regulating system. The sustaining system of an organism consists of the mouth,
stomach and intestines whereas the sustaining system of a state consists of agriculture and
industries. The distributary system of an organism consists of the heart and blood vessels while
the distributary system of a state consists of transport and communication. The regulating system
of an organism consists of brain and nerves whereas the regulating system of a state is its
governmental system.
3) Individual is the cell of the state:
Just as an organism is composed of cells, so the state is composed of individuals. In both cases,
the component units contribute to the life of the whole.
4) The health of both depends upon the proper functioning of their component units:
The health of an organism depends upon the proper functioning of its cells. If the cells of an
organism become diseased, the whole organism suffers. Similarly, the health of a state depends
upon the proper functioning of its individual members. If the citizens are not well disciplined,
intelligent and law-abiding, the state cannot progress and its economy suffers.
5) The component units of both are subject to wear and tear and then replacement:
The cells of an organism and the individuals of a state are both subject to the process of decay
and death. Old and worn out cells die and are replaced by new cells. In the case of state, old and
sick individuals die and are replaced by newborns.
Criticism of organic theory:
1) Organism is concrete while state is discrete:
An organism has a concrete structure. All the organs and cells of an organism form a single
concrete body. On the other hand, the state has a discrete structure. All its organs and individuals
are separate and don’t form a single body.
2) Unlike a cell, an individual has a life of his own:
Cells have no independent life of their own. They have no consciousness of their own and exist
solely to support the life of the organism. In comparison, each individual has his own
consciousness and can act independently of others. Moreover, a cell or any part of an organism
cannot live on its own if it is cut off from the main body but an individual can live without his
state if he leaves his state and starts living in some other state.
3) The state is not subject to the same process of birth, growth and death as an
organism is:
An organism comes into existence by the union of two organisms, male and female, but a state is
not born in this manner. Similarly, an organism grows from within and it cannot stop its growth
even if it wants to but a state grows as a result of the conscious efforts of its members. Likewise,
the state is not liable to death the way an organism is.
Critical analysis of the organic theory of state:
1) Individuals depend on the state for their survival:
The organic theory gives rise to the assumption that individuals are dependent on the state for
their survival in the same way as the cells of an organism depend for their life on the organism.
As the cell owes its existence to the organism, so the individual owes his existence to the state.
This leads to the conclusion that an individual has no significance and life outside the state.
2) It advocates the establishment of a totalitarian state:
By failing to recognize individuals as independent self-conscious units, this theory suppresses
individual liberty and justifies excessive interference by the state in the life of the individual. The
organic theory thus advocates the establishment of a totalitarian state capable of exercising
absolute control over its citizens.
3) It attacks the social contract theory:
The organic theory illustrates the interdependence and mutual relationship between the state and
individuals. This is in opposition to the social contract theory which asserts that the state has no
relation with individuals. Furthermore, by emphasizing the biological nature of the state, the
organic theory contradicts the social contract theory which considers the state an artificial
creation of man.
4) It contains the seeds of individualism:
Owing to the discrete nature of the state, it must not interfere in the life of individuals and should
leave them free to pursue their own interests as they see fit. Only by non-interference can the
state promote the good of the individuals.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the organic theory of state is neither a satisfactory explanation of the nature of
state nor a trustworthy guide to state activity.

Q. Critically examine the idealist theory of state.

Ans. Idealist theory of state:
The idealist theory of state holds that the state is a social and moral institution having a will and
personality of its own. The will of the state is real and represents the will of all individuals. On
the other hand, the will of the individual is particular and transient. The state is a reality while the
individual is a temporary actuality. The state is infallible; the actions of the state are always right
and never wrong. When an individual obeys the laws of the state, he actually obeys his own self.
Similarly, when the police arrests a man, it is not the police that is arresting him but his good self
arresting his evil self. Therefore, an individual must always obey the laws of the state.
The idealist theory glorifies and idolizes the state. The state is omnipotent and omnicompetent.
Hegel goes so far as to say that the state is the march of God on earth and that individuals should
worship the state. According to Hegel, the state is a temple; the ruler is an idol; and the people
are worshippers. Rebellion and revolution are never justified and are liable to punishment.
The state is an end in itself and the individual is a means to that end. Idealists give no rights to
the individual but only assign duties. An individual has no significance and life outside the
state. Only by obeying the state can individuals achieve moral and intellectual perfection.
Therefore, individuals can have no rights against the state and if the state calls upon its citizens
to sacrifice their lives for the state, they must do so ungrudgingly.
Critical analysis of idealist theory:
1) It is an abstract theory:
The idealist theory is devoid of truth and is purely an abstract theory. It describes a state that
does not exist anywhere in the world.
2) The state does not represent the will of all individuals:
The idealist theory wrongly assumes that the state embodies the will of all individuals within the
state. In reality, the will of the state is the will of the ruling class that constitute the government
and make the laws. Moreover, it is impossible to represent the will of all individuals as people
have diverse and conflicting opinions on every issue.
 3) The state is not an end in itself:
The idealist theory claims that the state is an end in itself. What is the end of the state if not the
welfare and happiness of its citizens? The state is an instrument for achieving the welfare and
happiness of the people; therefore, the state is not an end in itself but a means to an end.
4) It advocates the establishment of a totalitarian state:
The idealist theory belittles the personality of the individual and makes him a mere cog in the
machinery of the state. It suppresses individual liberty and justifies excessive interference by the
state in the life of the individual. The idealist theory thus advocates the establishment of a
totalitarian state capable of exercising absolute control over its citizens.
5) It is dangerous for international peace:
The idealist theory justifies unconditional obedience to the state and pushes loyalty to an
absolute degree of sacrifice. Loyalty and obedience are desirable to some extent but if stretched
to an extreme, it becomes dangerous especially if the state has imperialist ideas.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the idealist theory of state is neither a satisfactory explanation of the nature of
state nor a trustworthy guide to state activity.