Anarchy, State and Genocide
While I have only recently begun to read Nozick's seminal tome, the play on the title called to me. After reading more and more literature pertaining to philosophical anarchism and natural rights theory, I could not help but wonder whether the concept of the (modern) state (not just particular examples of the state) deserved more specific analysis with respect to the phenomenon of genocide. Jews, Armenians, Rwandans (not to mention those murdered en mass within Stalin's Soviet Union, Mao's China and Pol Pot's Cambodia) were all murdered at the behest or with the guidance and approval of the state. This simple and obvious feature of these genocides is no accident or coincidence. Systematized mass murder on a grand scale requires a degree of organization over a large geographical area seldom seen outside of centralized hierarchical organizations, of which the state is the ultimate example. Furthermore, since one of the defining characteristics of the state is the monopolization of force within its territory, not only must the state be complicit--either tacitly or explicitly--in the genocidal project, the ability of targets of genocidal intent to defend themselves is invariably weakened to the point of nonexistence. While the most obvious necessary points of intersection with the genocidal project are the force and logistical support the state supplies, there are other requisite components. The twin combination of mass education and mass communication are necessary to promulgate and reinforce the mythical intrinsic identities that serve to rationalize the subjects of premeditated mass murder.
What is so interesting about this is how it relates to "State of Nature" arguments for the state. Whether Hobbesian, Lockean or some other famous interlocutor for the state (e.g. Kant), the protection provided by the state to its citizens is always provided as one of the primary arguments for the state. However, with the factual reality of genocide inserted into the conversation, that particular line of reasoning while not rendered void is greatly weakened. If the very institution that is to provide protection of rights can also be the same tool required for the most severe violations of rights--a degree of violation verging on an escalation in kind (beyond that possible without a state) not just degree--the rationale for that institution's existence is highly questionable.
posted by G at 6:15 PM
1 Comments:
Let me push back on you here a little bit, if only for argument's sake. Might not the modern state prevent large-scale rapes/murders that have been perpetuated by armed groups of radicals or bands of thugs? I am thinking of the cases of militants in some African states that are not plausibly described as being ruled by a State except according to a lax definition. I am thinking here of the roving violent armed gangs that I have heard plague Somalia, or other parts of Africa. The current States there do not protect their residents, but perhaps more robust, democratic, liberal states would protect those citizens against such aggression by non-State actors.
At the same time, this doesn't obviate the historical problem: we have never seen a non-State version of Genocide, and it's somewhat difficult to imagine unless you embrace a hyper-Hobbesian view of Human Nature. I don't. For one thing, I don't believe that Stateless individuals are very ideological, because ideology is only advantageous (Evolutionarily, psychologically, etc.) to a person in a State, where ideology can be translated into control over others' behaviors, via State coercion. Without ideology, moreover, I can't imagine rousing enough people to arm up and prey upon one class of people (by race, religion, or some other identifiable characteristic) in the way that is the hallmark of genocides. As I say, this is because I think genocide requires ideology, and therefore propaganda (which is the deliberate spreading of ideological memes, of either a social or political dogma).
Your post is not an argument for anarchism per se, but at minimum seems to suggest that government should be as limited as possible in its power over citizens, while still retaining the ability to do what it is morally able to do (i.e. without violating natural rights). The more power a government has, the more likely it is that it will engage in genocide or similar "self-atrocities." The most powerful States in history in terms of centralization, control, and denial of individuality, have also been quite likely to commit genocide/atrocities (Soviet Union, China, Cambodia, Serbia, Germany, etc.).
11:52 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home