This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monopoly on violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The idea is that a state is a "monopoly on violence". The states claim is that it has a "legitimate monopoly on violence". These are two seperable things wherein the former represents Weber's basic thesis and the latter represents only a small portion of said thesis (i.e. the states claim). talonx 138.246.7.148 ( talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a "See also" link to Failed states. With the count of failed states at 35 this year, (See Failed_state#2008), it might be appropriate to review the article's implicit assumption that a state monopoly on violence is the normal case. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave "failed states" out of it. (1) Even if the figure of 35 "failed states" is accepted, that still means that, at most, 16 per cent of states fit into that category, while 84 per cent of states don't. Nearly nine out of ten states managing to meet Weber's criterion (his caveats included) seems like a good-enough case of "normal" to me. Unlike all too many people interested in politics these days, Weber was not an absolutist and didn't insist either on binary definitions or on 100 per cent application of concepts. (2) This entry is about Weber's concept, its details and (though less than there should be) critiques of it. Introducing the much more recent, much more contested concept of "failed states" into the discussion would confuse the issues and remove the focus from violence, which is only one dimension of the success/failure of states, to the broader issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 ( talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
edition and city is missing in the reference: Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1964). p. 154 65.94.160.215 ( talk) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a school of thought that the "monopoly on violence" as a defining feature of the state is obsolete. See, for example, [1], which explicitly discusses Weber in a modern context. Also see Violent non-state actor and asymmetrical warfare. The state with a monopoly on violence is a European concept. Europe (and Weber) went through World War I, which produced states with incredibly strong, centrally controlled militaries. Much of the world never went through a cementing experience like that.
"Parameters", the journal of the U.S. Army War College, has many papers which address this area. See, for example, [2] and [3]. US military thinking now seems to be that most of the twentieth century, where strong nation-states dominated, was a historical anomaly. The normal condition of society, according to some current military writers, involves a whole range of violent actors, from religions to criminal gangs. -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn`t it possible to think about governments that have a monopoly on violence, but that are not seen as legitimate by a majority of the population? Take South Africa under apartheid as an example. Compared to a clearly failed state like Somalia, it actually had military control over its territory. It was legal in the sense that it was based on laws, but these laws were not seen as legitimate by the majority of the population. Would not this be an example of a state that had a monopoly on violence, but where it was not considered legitimate?? Because it clearly was state, wasn`t it?? -- Oddeivind ( talk) 13:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, the name of this article should be "Monopoly on Violence". This is not only a more direct translation it IS the translation most commonly used. This is not a contentious issue and I'm having real trouble assuming goodwill when people are trying to push some sort of agenda regarding the very easy direct interpretation of Weber. Talonxpool ( talk) 22:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any indication of a serious dispute about the title of the article, but I consider the title to be defective because it uses the word "violence" rather than "physical force" or "physical coercion". Politics as a Vocation appears in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills and published by the Oxford University Press in 1946. Weber's formulation appears there as: "A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." If I plug the phrase from this article ("das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges") into Google translate, what I get is "the monopoly of legitimate physical coercion". The claim seems to be that "violence" is the direct and most common translation, but no evidence or citation is given to back that up. "Violence" is a loaded, pejorative term that connotes a negative value judgement. It does not qualify as objective, neutral "scientific" terminology. Given the examples I have provided, my own opinion is that "violence" is being used in order to project a point of view other than that of Weber's, most likely the view point of libertarians and individualist anarchists who see physical force or coercion as intrinsically illegitimate and immoral.
I recommend that the article be titled "Monopoly on Physical Force or Coercion"
-- Alan.A.Mick ( talk) 18:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
--Fortunately I actually speak German and if you were to speak with a German political philosopher they would tell you as I will again that 'Monopoly on violence' is used more often than the technical definition which is 'monopoly on the use of physical force'. Anything else betrays an ignorance of the literature. Talonxpool ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is now Move protected to prevent move warring. If a consensus is reached to move it again please contact me or file a request at WP:RFPP if I am not around. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add a couple things to the POV issues: Alan, your terminology is technically not scientific (although I see you already acknowledged that). "Physical force" would be (I believe) objective, neutral political term while "violence" would be objective (depending on the individual case, such as an oppressive dictatorship), non-neutral political term. But that would be nit-picking. The more important thing is the interpretation of "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" as meaning "the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten to use, or authorize others to use direct physical violence against members of its territorial domain.". Perhaps I have not read enough Weber, but he does not seem to define state as an organization (such as a government). He said "human community". I believe there may be a conflict here between the belief that the government and the people are the same thing and the belief that they are two separate things.
"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
I've gone through the article and removed most of the references to violence which appear to be a POV mistranslation of the Weber's "gewalt" which has various meanings including: force, power, control, violence, command, etc. [4]. The cited translations in the article do not use the language "monopoly of violence" tending to prefer physical force or coercion. Comparing this article to the German version, there is a significant quality gap. Having good secondary sources which summarize the topic neutrally would go a long way towards improving the article. aprock ( talk) 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
--as a German speaker I can assure you that 'gewalt' translates to violence. This unilaterall action of yours, taken without discussion is unacceptable and I recommend calling in a moderator before further actions are taken following my revert to the January 2012 version. Talonxpool ( talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
A compulsory political association with continuous organization will be called a 'state' if and in so far as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of order. [1]
Without explanation, original research cleaned up two years ago was added back. I reviewed the content, and more robust sourcing would be required to include that content. aprock ( talk) 19:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Weber agrees with trotsky that every state is founded on force so perhaps there should be a mention of this in the article seeing that troysky said almost the exact same thing in different words and weber of course cites trotsky whereas our wiki editors have not.
Added some academic refs, US Army War College, etc. A key point one source makes is that in the last decade or so, most of the wars around the world have involved non-state actors. There are some related articles. Westphalian sovereignty is especially relevant, because it's the same concept as this article, but pre-dates Weber. It's also a better article. (Merge, perhaps?) There's also non-state actor. -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of these sources do not look adequately reliable for broad mainstream understanding. I would suggest turning to textbooks, or published academic books treating the topic on at least a chapter level. The should help establish due weight, and possibly branching into the sources listed by the textbooks to flesh out any missing details. It is not our job to research the topic and present our findings in the article. Government manuals or op-eds are not the high quality sources need to provide context and due weight. aprock ( talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This section appears to have contained extensive original research, and was based on very poor sourcing. If there actually is some sort of definitional controversy, it needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources which treat the topic in full. One of the sources lists wasn't a published source, and the second only mentions the concept in passing. If this really is a section supported by due weight please start with solid sources, which address the issue in context. aprock ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles on:
There's a lot of overlap. Some mergers may be desirable.
It's a big subject. Most wars today involve non-state actors. Even Russia's current invasion of Ukraine involves soldiers with weapons but not in uniform. Terminology varies. The USMC uses the term "Small Wars" [9] (Their classic Small Wars Manual from 1940 is being revised this year [10]). The U.S. Army used the term "Operations Other than War" in the 1990s, but that term has fallen out of favor. "Counterinsurgency" is now more used. There are lots of articles on this. Basic places to look are Parameters, the Marine Corps Journal, and U.S. Army Military Review [11]. -- John Nagle ( talk) 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"monopoly on violence" insurgency
. A lot of people around the world are trying to figure out what to do about all those guys running around with AK-47s.
John Nagle (
talk)
04:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reviewing the Broekhuizen source, it only mentions the monopoly of violence in passing, and only uses it as an example of the weakening of state authority. I would classify this as a dubious source for this article because it does not treat the article topic at length. This article does not give enough context on the subject to determine due weight, though if such a secondary source was found, this article could be used to support some of the content, once appropriate weight is established. This looks like a great source for Insurgency. aprock ( talk) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the information on the two authors other than Weber (Aron and Phelps) to a new section, for the sake of structural clarity and to allow this page to be opened up to a discussion of the concept in broader literature, rather than just in Weber. Looking at the talk page, there's a lot of contention on whether the term "monopoly of violence" or "monopoly of physical force" should be used; I have no dog in that fight, but I titled the section "Other writers on the monopoly of violence" for the sake of consistency with the article's title. Feel free to change it if need be.
Hopefully this section can be fleshed out a bit more, to provide a more comprehensive picture of this concept post-Weber. Ianmckeachie ( talk) 19:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
When I first saw this article a few minutes ago, it contained the statement, "According to Weber, the state is the source of legitimate physical force."
That's not quite right. Weber's statement is an observation, not an endorsement. Rather, he is saying that the state is that "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given 'territory'" (emphasis mine). ("Heute dagegen werden wir sagen müssen: Staat ist diejenige menschliche Gemeinschaft, welche innerhalb eines bestimmten Gebietes – dies: das »Gebiet« gehört zum Merkmal – das Monopol legitimer physischer Gewaltsamkeit für sich (mit Erfolg) beansprucht.") It is this successful claim on or maintaining of (beansprucht) such a monopoly that Weber is calling a fundamental characteristic of a modern state. Again, Weber's statement is meant as an observation rather than as an endorsement. This is underscored by his use of scarequotes around the word "territory" or "zone" (»Gebiet«)--calling attention to the state's attempt to naturalize a concept it has created--as well as around the word "right" in his expression "'right' to violence" (»Rechts« auf Gewaltsamkeit).
Relatedly, it should be clear to any reader that "Gewalt" can be translated as "violence" in addition to (the perhaps more innocuous) "force". "Force" is of course a term which states themselves employ to legitimate their violence.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Monopoly on violence article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The idea is that a state is a "monopoly on violence". The states claim is that it has a "legitimate monopoly on violence". These are two seperable things wherein the former represents Weber's basic thesis and the latter represents only a small portion of said thesis (i.e. the states claim). talonx 138.246.7.148 ( talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I added a "See also" link to Failed states. With the count of failed states at 35 this year, (See Failed_state#2008), it might be appropriate to review the article's implicit assumption that a state monopoly on violence is the normal case. -- John Nagle ( talk) 16:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave "failed states" out of it. (1) Even if the figure of 35 "failed states" is accepted, that still means that, at most, 16 per cent of states fit into that category, while 84 per cent of states don't. Nearly nine out of ten states managing to meet Weber's criterion (his caveats included) seems like a good-enough case of "normal" to me. Unlike all too many people interested in politics these days, Weber was not an absolutist and didn't insist either on binary definitions or on 100 per cent application of concepts. (2) This entry is about Weber's concept, its details and (though less than there should be) critiques of it. Introducing the much more recent, much more contested concept of "failed states" into the discussion would confuse the issues and remove the focus from violence, which is only one dimension of the success/failure of states, to the broader issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.225.21.78 ( talk) 20:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
edition and city is missing in the reference: Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (1964). p. 154 65.94.160.215 ( talk) 00:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
There's a school of thought that the "monopoly on violence" as a defining feature of the state is obsolete. See, for example, [1], which explicitly discusses Weber in a modern context. Also see Violent non-state actor and asymmetrical warfare. The state with a monopoly on violence is a European concept. Europe (and Weber) went through World War I, which produced states with incredibly strong, centrally controlled militaries. Much of the world never went through a cementing experience like that.
"Parameters", the journal of the U.S. Army War College, has many papers which address this area. See, for example, [2] and [3]. US military thinking now seems to be that most of the twentieth century, where strong nation-states dominated, was a historical anomaly. The normal condition of society, according to some current military writers, involves a whole range of violent actors, from religions to criminal gangs. -- John Nagle ( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
Isn`t it possible to think about governments that have a monopoly on violence, but that are not seen as legitimate by a majority of the population? Take South Africa under apartheid as an example. Compared to a clearly failed state like Somalia, it actually had military control over its territory. It was legal in the sense that it was based on laws, but these laws were not seen as legitimate by the majority of the population. Would not this be an example of a state that had a monopoly on violence, but where it was not considered legitimate?? Because it clearly was state, wasn`t it?? -- Oddeivind ( talk) 13:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, the name of this article should be "Monopoly on Violence". This is not only a more direct translation it IS the translation most commonly used. This is not a contentious issue and I'm having real trouble assuming goodwill when people are trying to push some sort of agenda regarding the very easy direct interpretation of Weber. Talonxpool ( talk) 22:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't see any indication of a serious dispute about the title of the article, but I consider the title to be defective because it uses the word "violence" rather than "physical force" or "physical coercion". Politics as a Vocation appears in From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills and published by the Oxford University Press in 1946. Weber's formulation appears there as: "A state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory." If I plug the phrase from this article ("das Monopol legitimen physischen Zwanges") into Google translate, what I get is "the monopoly of legitimate physical coercion". The claim seems to be that "violence" is the direct and most common translation, but no evidence or citation is given to back that up. "Violence" is a loaded, pejorative term that connotes a negative value judgement. It does not qualify as objective, neutral "scientific" terminology. Given the examples I have provided, my own opinion is that "violence" is being used in order to project a point of view other than that of Weber's, most likely the view point of libertarians and individualist anarchists who see physical force or coercion as intrinsically illegitimate and immoral.
I recommend that the article be titled "Monopoly on Physical Force or Coercion"
-- Alan.A.Mick ( talk) 18:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
--Fortunately I actually speak German and if you were to speak with a German political philosopher they would tell you as I will again that 'Monopoly on violence' is used more often than the technical definition which is 'monopoly on the use of physical force'. Anything else betrays an ignorance of the literature. Talonxpool ( talk) 03:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Article is now Move protected to prevent move warring. If a consensus is reached to move it again please contact me or file a request at WP:RFPP if I am not around. Beeblebrox ( talk) 22:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
I would like to add a couple things to the POV issues: Alan, your terminology is technically not scientific (although I see you already acknowledged that). "Physical force" would be (I believe) objective, neutral political term while "violence" would be objective (depending on the individual case, such as an oppressive dictatorship), non-neutral political term. But that would be nit-picking. The more important thing is the interpretation of "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" as meaning "the state as any organization that succeeds in holding the exclusive right to use, threaten to use, or authorize others to use direct physical violence against members of its territorial domain.". Perhaps I have not read enough Weber, but he does not seem to define state as an organization (such as a government). He said "human community". I believe there may be a conflict here between the belief that the government and the people are the same thing and the belief that they are two separate things.
"Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation."
I've gone through the article and removed most of the references to violence which appear to be a POV mistranslation of the Weber's "gewalt" which has various meanings including: force, power, control, violence, command, etc. [4]. The cited translations in the article do not use the language "monopoly of violence" tending to prefer physical force or coercion. Comparing this article to the German version, there is a significant quality gap. Having good secondary sources which summarize the topic neutrally would go a long way towards improving the article. aprock ( talk) 00:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
--as a German speaker I can assure you that 'gewalt' translates to violence. This unilaterall action of yours, taken without discussion is unacceptable and I recommend calling in a moderator before further actions are taken following my revert to the January 2012 version. Talonxpool ( talk) 03:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
A compulsory political association with continuous organization will be called a 'state' if and in so far as its administrative staff successfully upholds a claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of order. [1]
Without explanation, original research cleaned up two years ago was added back. I reviewed the content, and more robust sourcing would be required to include that content. aprock ( talk) 19:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
Weber agrees with trotsky that every state is founded on force so perhaps there should be a mention of this in the article seeing that troysky said almost the exact same thing in different words and weber of course cites trotsky whereas our wiki editors have not.
Added some academic refs, US Army War College, etc. A key point one source makes is that in the last decade or so, most of the wars around the world have involved non-state actors. There are some related articles. Westphalian sovereignty is especially relevant, because it's the same concept as this article, but pre-dates Weber. It's also a better article. (Merge, perhaps?) There's also non-state actor. -- John Nagle ( talk) 06:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Most of these sources do not look adequately reliable for broad mainstream understanding. I would suggest turning to textbooks, or published academic books treating the topic on at least a chapter level. The should help establish due weight, and possibly branching into the sources listed by the textbooks to flesh out any missing details. It is not our job to research the topic and present our findings in the article. Government manuals or op-eds are not the high quality sources need to provide context and due weight. aprock ( talk) 18:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
This section appears to have contained extensive original research, and was based on very poor sourcing. If there actually is some sort of definitional controversy, it needs to be sourced to reliable secondary sources which treat the topic in full. One of the sources lists wasn't a published source, and the second only mentions the concept in passing. If this really is a section supported by due weight please start with solid sources, which address the issue in context. aprock ( talk) 18:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia has articles on:
There's a lot of overlap. Some mergers may be desirable.
It's a big subject. Most wars today involve non-state actors. Even Russia's current invasion of Ukraine involves soldiers with weapons but not in uniform. Terminology varies. The USMC uses the term "Small Wars" [9] (Their classic Small Wars Manual from 1940 is being revised this year [10]). The U.S. Army used the term "Operations Other than War" in the 1990s, but that term has fallen out of favor. "Counterinsurgency" is now more used. There are lots of articles on this. Basic places to look are Parameters, the Marine Corps Journal, and U.S. Army Military Review [11]. -- John Nagle ( talk) 18:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
"monopoly on violence" insurgency
. A lot of people around the world are trying to figure out what to do about all those guys running around with AK-47s.
John Nagle (
talk)
04:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Reviewing the Broekhuizen source, it only mentions the monopoly of violence in passing, and only uses it as an example of the weakening of state authority. I would classify this as a dubious source for this article because it does not treat the article topic at length. This article does not give enough context on the subject to determine due weight, though if such a secondary source was found, this article could be used to support some of the content, once appropriate weight is established. This looks like a great source for Insurgency. aprock ( talk) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I've moved the information on the two authors other than Weber (Aron and Phelps) to a new section, for the sake of structural clarity and to allow this page to be opened up to a discussion of the concept in broader literature, rather than just in Weber. Looking at the talk page, there's a lot of contention on whether the term "monopoly of violence" or "monopoly of physical force" should be used; I have no dog in that fight, but I titled the section "Other writers on the monopoly of violence" for the sake of consistency with the article's title. Feel free to change it if need be.
Hopefully this section can be fleshed out a bit more, to provide a more comprehensive picture of this concept post-Weber. Ianmckeachie ( talk) 19:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
When I first saw this article a few minutes ago, it contained the statement, "According to Weber, the state is the source of legitimate physical force."
That's not quite right. Weber's statement is an observation, not an endorsement. Rather, he is saying that the state is that "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given 'territory'" (emphasis mine). ("Heute dagegen werden wir sagen müssen: Staat ist diejenige menschliche Gemeinschaft, welche innerhalb eines bestimmten Gebietes – dies: das »Gebiet« gehört zum Merkmal – das Monopol legitimer physischer Gewaltsamkeit für sich (mit Erfolg) beansprucht.") It is this successful claim on or maintaining of (beansprucht) such a monopoly that Weber is calling a fundamental characteristic of a modern state. Again, Weber's statement is meant as an observation rather than as an endorsement. This is underscored by his use of scarequotes around the word "territory" or "zone" (»Gebiet«)--calling attention to the state's attempt to naturalize a concept it has created--as well as around the word "right" in his expression "'right' to violence" (»Rechts« auf Gewaltsamkeit).
Relatedly, it should be clear to any reader that "Gewalt" can be translated as "violence" in addition to (the perhaps more innocuous) "force". "Force" is of course a term which states themselves employ to legitimate their violence.