I would like to first tie up lose ends:
The State is everyone.
The issue is the definition of everyone. One State can have different states within it’s borders or have sub-states. A sub-state differs from a state within a state in that a sub-state can share a common interest alongside the state that contains it. A state within a state however is like an enemy in the mist and aims to supplant the State in which it exist. The State can co-exist with a sub-state, but cannot tolerate willingly a state-within-itself.
Now, we say that the issue is the definition of everyone. “Every”, can be defined as: All of a countable group, without exception. “One” can be defined as: Being a single member or element of a group, category, or kind. When I say then that the State is everyone, “everyone” stands as the entirety of members of a group, category or kind without exception. The State is the entirety of it’s members. Does that mean that every creature within the borders of the State is a member of the State. Absolutely not, but that does not make it inconsistent as a definition because the State is the determinant of membership, not the creature. We are all human beings of course, but a State is not humanity. The human race is divided into several groups, societies. “Humanity” is not the sole defining quality by which to catalogue human groups. It is not in fact or else there would be no States to speak of.
States are defined from without and from within. States are convenient, but not conventional or mere tools. There is a vital quality to the State. We are born into States. Cyrene has given this some thought and in fact his post on the thread “What is the State?” was the inspiring muse I used in this new thread. The most basic human social group or animal social group, is the family unit, whether this includes a father or not. A child, on it’s own cannot survive. A woman on her own may die at childbirth, that is the price of a larger brain that is off-set by the sociality of the species.
There is an individuality in everyone of us, but this comes after an initial social identity. If we believe some psychological models, the child evolves a sense of self, a process of detachment from his mother. I think that however one cuts it, one will always find that for one reason or another, this social aspect is definitive in all stages of life.
Now is a family a State? Depends on what you define the state as, but I believe that it is a mini-state (not to be confused with Nozick’s minimal state). A family is the entirety of it’s members. That does not mean, of course that each member is equal. Some standard always exists that differentiates the members, including age and sex. Now, I mentioned that the State is a vital thing, by that I mean that the State is not mathematically defined or apt to logical pronunciations of “If A then B”. I have already alluded to the subjective aspect of the State. At it’s very minimun it can be a family, but a family can grow to be widened into a clan and a clan into a tribe and so on and so forth, all the while retaining this idea or a subjective common identity. Each member has levels of alligeance. First to the most immediate family, such as mother and siblings, then uncles, cousings and so forth, until you have a wider sense of identity with the clan or tribe. Often the larger group’s interests co-incide with the most inmediate group, but not always. In this developing conflict of interests some groups become split, like a cell in the human body, but this is not a necessary outcome of conflict. Like I said, the State is internally and externally defined. The interactions of the larger group define the internal interactions as well. Case in point. America has a multiple party political system, a system of checks and balances. This helps negotiate the different interest of diverse groups within the larger whole. But when that larger whole is attacked, as it was in 2001, the priorities are exchanged: The internal interests of the parts give way to the external interests of the whole. At that point we can understand the saying:“My country, right or wrong”.
The external circumstances affect the evolution of social groups in increments until we arrive at a modern state. This is to say that inter-group dynamics, clan agains clan, tribe against tribe, each internally defined as Us versus Them creates a sticky situation, serves as a social glue. In this struggle for survival, groups avoid their differences and aaly themselves to others, once seen as different, now of necessity seen as Us in order to confront an Other. This mixes diverse social groups into a whole and for a time, it chugs along. Once the Other has been defeated or is a less imminent threat, as we are now seeing in the US, prior conflicts are renewed and old divisions are revisited as the struggle for existence continues but at an internal level.
States have dealt with conflict in the same manner, I think, that families deal with their problems. Within the group, where each is a member, the parent serves as a regulatory agent where the children bring forth their sibling conflict to be resolved. The parent is the final authority and her judgement is accepted, if only provisionally, by both children. As long, and only so long, as the child can see a pattern he can manage in the parent he will follow the rules set by the parent. What I mean is that the child that is chastised then looks to revise his behaviour. If the revised behaviour is still chastised then frustration enters his mind and the stage is set for rebellion. A member of the State, to follow the metaphor, supports a state that is beneficial in some way in the long run, if only as a promise. Once faith is lost in the effectiveness of the State to deliver a sound solution to internal conflict, the member no longer can afford to rely on the State. EDoes this happens? Of course. When this happens a state within a state has been created. When the State loses it’s impartiality it has in view two different things, one it recognizes as itself and another it sees as other than itself. This other is like an enemy, but within. Now, often the State can afford to maintain the tension, the subjugation without conssession, but in the event it loses this capacity, the internal pressures created by a multi-state condition (not sub-states that can be federated) follow predictable outcomes.
The State then is everyone, though this “everyone” is a fuzzy concept that changes in size more than the borders of a Sovereign State. When you look at the television, the news from around the world, think of what I have written here and see if it fits when applied to the emergence of states, like Kosovo, or elections of dubious value, like in Zimbawe, to the tragedies in Iraq and the creation of a EU and the considerations made for an addition. Think of China, touted as becoming more open, a member of the world community, the host of the Olympics 2008…how was that done? I hope to have found a possible answer with which I leave you.