Early Civilization and the Rise of State

Civilization –comes from the Latin word “civis and civets”

“Civis” refers to a person who lives in the city

“Civets”refers to the urban community in which one dwells

Civilization refers to societies in which large numbers of people live in cities

First Cradle of Civilization

1. Tigris-Euphrates civilization-Mesopotamia (modern day Iraq)

Mesopotamia is a region of southwest Asia in the Tigris and Euphrates river system that benefitted from the
area’s climate and geography to host the beginnings of human civilization. Its history is marked by many
important inventions that changed the world, including the concept of time, math, the wheel, sailboats,
maps and writing. Mesopotamia is also defined by a changing succession of ruling bodies from different
areas and cities that seized control over a period of thousands of years.

Where Is Mesopotamia?

Mesopotamia is located in the region now known as the Middle East, which includes parts of southwest
Asia and lands around the eastern Mediterranean Sea. It is part of the Fertile Crescent, an area also known
as “Cradle of Civilization” for the number of innovations that arose from the early societies in this region,
which are among some of the earliest known human civilizations on earth.

The word “mesopotamia” is formed from the ancient words “meso,” meaning between or in the middle of,
and “potamos,” meaning river. Situated in the fertile valleys between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, the
region is now home to modern-day Iraq, Kuwait, Turkey and Syria.

Map of Mesopotamia

Mesopotamian Civilization

Humans first settled in Mesopotamia in the Paleolithic era. By 14,000 B.C., people in the region lived in
small settlements with circular houses.
Five thousand years later, these houses formed farming communities following the domestication of
animals and the development of agriculture, most notably irrigation techniques that took advantage of the
proximity of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

Agricultural progress was the work of the dominant Ubaid culture, which had absorbed the Halaf culture
before it.

Fertile Crescent

The Fertile Crescent is the boomerang-shaped region of the Middle East that was home to some of the
earliest human civilizations. Also known as the “Cradle of Civilization,” this area was the birthplace of a
number of technological innovations, including writing, the wheel, ...read more

2. Indus Valley Civilization- India

The Indus River Valley Civilization

The Indus River Valley Civilization, located in modern Pakistan, was one of the world’s three earliest
widespread societies.Key Points
The Indus Valley Civilization (also known as the Harappan Civilization) was a Bronze Age society
extending from modern northeast Afghanistan to Pakistan and northwest India.
The civilization developed in three phases: Early Harappan Phase (3300 BCE-2600 BCE), Mature
Harappan Phase (2600 BCE-1900 BCE), and Late Harappan Phase (1900 BCE-1300 BCE).
Inhabitants of the ancient Indus River valley developed new techniques in handicraft, including
Carnelian products and seal carving, and metallurgy with copper, bronze, lead, and tin.
Sir John Hubert Marshall led an excavation campaign in 1921-1922, during which he discovered the
ruins of the city of Harappa. By 1931, the Mohenjo-daro site had been mostly excavated by
Marshall and Sir Mortimer Wheeler. By 1999, over 1,056 cities and settlements of the Indus
Civilization were located.
Key Terms
seal: An emblem used as a means of authentication. Seal can refer to an impression in paper, wax,
clay, or other medium. It can also refer to the device used.
metallurgy: The scientific and mechanical technique of working with bronze. copper, and tin.

The Indus Valley Civilization existed through its early years of 3300-1300 BCE, and its mature period
of 2600-1900 BCE. The area of this civilization extended along the Indus River from what today is
northeast Afghanistan, into Pakistan and northwest India. The Indus Civilization was the most
widespread of the three early civilizations of the ancient world, along with Ancient Egypt and
Mesopotamia. Harappa and Mohenjo-daro were thought to be the two great cities of the Indus
Valley Civilization, emerging around 2600 BCE along the Indus River Valley in the Sindh and Punjab
provinces of Pakistan. Their discovery and excavation in the 19th and 20th centuries provided
important archaeological data about ancient cultures.

https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-worldhistory/chapter/the-indus-river-valley-
civilizations/
3. Huang He-Yangtze River-valley Civilization- China

romanization) Huang Ho, also spelled Hwang Ho, English Yellow River, principal river of northern China,
east-central and eastern Asia. The Yellow River is often called the cradle of Chinese civilization. With a
length of 3,395 miles (5,464 km), it is the country’s second longest river—surpassed only by the Yangtze
River (Chang Jiang)—and its drainage basin is the third largest in China, with an area of some 290,000
square miles (750,000 square km).
The Yellow River is divided into three distinct parts: the mountainous upper course, the middle course
across a plateau, and the lower course across a low plain.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Yellow-River

4. Nile Valley- Egypt

https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/A-Christian-Science-Perspective/2011/0208/Egypt-and-
the-cradle-of-civilization

The Rise of Egyptian Civilization

The prehistory of Egypt spans from early human settlements to the beginning of the Early Dynastic Period of
Egypt (c. 3100 BCE), and is equivalent to the Neolithic period.
The Late Paleolithic in Egypt began around 30,000 BCE, and featured mobile buildings and tool-making
industry.
The Mesolithic saw the rise of various cultures, including Halfan, Qadan, Sebilian, and Harifian.
The Neolithic saw the rise of cultures, including Merimde, El Omari, Maadi, Tasian, and Badarian.
Three phases of Naqada culture included: the rise of new types of pottery (including blacktop-ware and
white cross-line-ware), the use of mud-bricks, and increasingly sedentary lifestyles.
During the Protodynastic period (3200-3000 BCE) powerful kings were in place, and unification of the state
occurred, which led to the Early Dynastic Period.

Characteristic of Civilization

1. System for administering territories

2. Notable architecture and unique art styles
3. Written language
4. Division of people into social classes
5. Large population centers
6. Complex division of labor
Characteristics of Civilization

All civilizations have certain characteristics. These include: (1) large population centers; (2)
monumental architecture and unique art styles; (3) shared communication strategies; (4) systems
for administering territories; (5) a complex division of labor; and (6) the division of people into
social and economic classes.

Urban Areas
Large population centers, or urban areas (1), allow civilizations to develop, although people who
live outside these urban centers are still part of that region’s civilization. Rural residents of
civilizations may include farmers, fishers, and traders, who regularly sell their goods and services to
urban residents.

The huge urban center of Teotihuacan, in modern-day Mexico, for example, had as many as
200,000 residents between 300 and 600 CE. The development of the Teotihuacano civilization was
made possible in part by the rich agricultural land surrounding the city. As land was cultivated,
fewer farmers could supply more food staples, such as corn and beans, to more people.

Trade also played a part in Teotihuacan’s urban development. Much of the wealth and power of
Teotihuacan was due to excavating and trading the rich deposits of obsidian around the city.
Obsidian is a hard volcanic rock that was highly valued as a cutting tool. Teotihuacano merchants
traded (exported) obsidian to surrounding cultures in exchange for goods and services imported to
Teotihuacano settlements.

Monuments
All civilizations work to preserve their legacy by building large monuments and structures (2). This is
as true today as it was thousands of years ago.

For example, the ancient monuments at Great Zimbabwe are still consistently used as a symbol of
political power in the modern nation of Zimbabwe. Great Zimbabwe, constructed between 1100
and 1450, describes the ruins of the capital of the Kingdom of Zimbabwe. At its peak, Great
Zimbabwe was inhabited by more than 10,000 people and was part of a trading network that
extended from the Maghreb, through the eastern coast of Africa, and as far east as India and China.

Great Zimbabwe is a testament to the sophistication and ingenuity of ancestors of the local Shona
people. Politicians like Robert Mugabe, the president who led Zimbabwe for nearly 40 years in the
20th and 21st centuries, built their entire political identities by associating themselves with the
ancient civilization’s monumental architecture.

Buildings are not the only monuments that define civilizations. The distinct artistic style of Great
Zimbabwe included representations of native animals carved in soapstone. The stylized stone
sculptures known as “Zimbabwe Birds”, for example, remain an emblem of Zimbabwe, appearing
on the nation’s flag, currency, and coats of arms.

Shared Communication
Shared communication (3) is another element that all civilizations share. Shared communication
may include spoken language; alphabets; numeric systems; signs, ideas, and symbols; and
illustration and representation.

Shared communication allows the infrastructure necessary for technology, trade, cultural exchange,
and government to be developed and shared throughout the civilization. The Inca civilization, for
example, had no written script that we know of, but its complex khipu system of accounting
allowed the government to conduct censuses of its population and production across the vast
stretch of the Andes mountains. A khipu is a recording device made of a series of strings knotted in
particular patterns and colors.

Written language in particular allows civilizations to record their own history and everyday events—
crucial for understanding ancient cultures. The world's oldest known written language is Sumerian,
which developed in Mesopotamia around 3100 BCE. The most familiar form of early Sumerian
writing was called cuneiform, and was made up of different collections of wedge (triangle) shapes.
The earliest Sumerian writing was record-keeping. Just like written records of modern civilizations,
Sumerian cuneiform kept track of taxes, grocery bills, and laws for things like theft.

Written language was a key part of shared communication during the Islamic Golden Age, which
flourished in southern Europe, northern Africa, and western Asia from the seventh to the 13th
centuries. So-called “Arabic numerals” and the Arabic language were shared communications that
allowed diverse cultures across the Arabic world to contribute the dazzling advances in
mathematics, science, technology, and the arts.

Infrastructure and Administration

All civilizations rely on government administration—bureaucracy. (4) Perhaps no civilization better
exemplifies this than ancient Rome.

The word “civilization” itself comes from the Latin word civis, meaning "citizen." Latin was the
language of ancient Rome, whose territory stretched from the Mediterranean basin all the way to
parts of Great Britain in the north and the Black Sea to the east. To rule an area that large, the
Romans, based in what is now central Italy, needed an effective system of government
administration and infrastructure.

Romans used a variety of methods to administer their republic and, later, empire. Engineering, for
instance, was a key part of Roman administration. Romans built a network of roads so that
communication between far-away territories was as efficient as possible. Roads also made travel by
the Roman military much easier. Romans built structures of their civilization everywhere they went:
aqueducts supplied freshwater to towns for improved sanitation and hygiene, for example.

Language also played a part in Roman infrastructure. Romans spread the Latin language throughout
southern Europe. The so-called "Romance languages" (Spanish, French, Portuguese, Romanian,
Catalan, and Italian) are called that because they all developed from the Roman language: Latin.
Having a similar language made communication and leadership easier for Rome in its far-flung
territories.

Roman leaders relied on a series of legal codes for administration. These codes helped structure
laws between different parts of Roman territory, as well as between rich and poor, men and
women, slave and free. Roman laws included restrictions on marriage, ownership of land, and
access to professions such as priesthoods.

One of Rome’s most lasting contributions to Western Civilization was the establishment of legal
culture itself. Roman law was largely public, and jurists created such formalities as legal language
and procedure that would define European law for centuries. In fact, “Roman law” describes the
legal system used throughout Western Europe through the 18th century.

Finally, Romans used local leaders, as well as Romans, to administer the law in their territories.
Residents were more familiar with their own leaders, and more likely to follow their
announcements. Israeli leaders worked with Roman authorities in the Roman territory of Palestine,
for example, while British leaders often worked with Romans on the island of Great Britain. Some
people born in Roman territories eventually became Roman emperors: The emperor Constantine,
for instance, was born in what is now Serbia; the emperor Hadrian may have been born in what is
now Spain. This interaction reduced conflict between Rome and its territories.

Division of Labor
Civilizations are marked by complex divisions of labor (5). This means that different people perform
specialized tasks. In a purely agricultural society, members of the community are largely self-
sufficient, and can provide food, shelter, and clothing for themselves. In a complex civilization,
farmers may cultivate one type of crop and depend on other people for other foods, clothing,
shelter, and information.

Civilizations that depend on trade are specially marked by divisions of labor. The city of Timbuktu, in
what is now Mali, was an important trading center for several African civilizations. Residents of
Timbuktu specialized in trading such goods as gold, ivory, or slaves. Other residents provided food
or shelter for trade caravans traveling on camels from the Sahara Desert. The urban center of
Timbuktu was also a center of learning. Its division of labor included not only merchants, but
doctors, religious leaders, and artists.

Class Structure
The last element that is key to the development of civilizations is the division of people into classes
(6). This is a complex idea that can be broken down into two parts: income and type of work
performed. Changing classes has traditionally been difficult and happens over generations.

Classes can mean groups of people divided by their income. This division is sometimes
characterized as “economic class.” Modern Western Civilization often divides economic classes into
wealthy, middle-class, and poor. In medieval civilizations of Europe, there were fewer economic
classes. Kings and queens had enormous amounts of money and land. Serfs, or people who worked
the land, had almost nothing. Eventually, a merchant economic class developed.

Class can also refer to the type of work people perform. There are many divisions of social class.
Social class is often associated with economic class, but not strictly defined by it.

In the ancient civilization of China, there were four major types of social classes. Scholars and
political leaders (known as shi) were the most powerful social class. Farmers and agricultural
workers (nong) were the next most-powerful group. Artists (gong), who made everything from
horseshoes to silk robes, were the next order of social class. At the bottom of the social classes
were the merchants and traders, who bought and sold goods and services. Known as shang, these
merchants were often much wealthier than the other classes but had a lower social status.

Development of Civilization
Civilizations expand through trade, conflict, and exploration. Usually, all three elements must be
present for a civilization to grow and remain stable for a long period of time.

The physical and human geography of Southeast Asia allowed these attributes to develop in the
Khmer civilization, for example. The Khmer flourished in parts of what are now Cambodia, Thailand,
Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar between 800 and 1400.

Trade
The Khmer maintained vibrant trading relationships throughout East Asia, the Indian subcontinent,
and even Europe and Africa through the Silk Road, a collection of both overland and maritime trade
routes.

The Silk Road linked the spice and silk markets of Asia with the merchants of Europe. Southeast
Asia’s extensive network of waterways facilitated trade, with the Khmer capital of Angkor being
built on the shores of Southeast Asia’s largest freshwater lake, Tonle Sap. The outflowing Tonle Sap
River is a tributary of the mighty Mekong River, which connects Southeast Asia with the Tibetan
Plateau in the north and the South China Sea in the south.

In addition to material goods, the Khmer civilization facilitated a powerful trade in ideas. In
particular, the Khmer were instrumental in spreading the influence of Buddhist and Hindu cultures
from the Indian subcontinent to Southeast and East Asia.

Conflict
The primary conflicts of the Khmer civilization were waged with neighboring communities—the
Cham, the Vietnamese, and the Thai. The Cham were a collection of kingdoms in what is today
central and southern Vietnam, while the ancient Vietnamese influence extended through what is
today northern Vietnam. Thai kingdoms such as Sukothai and Ayutthaya flourished in what are now
Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia.

The Khmer civilization was founded on the consistent resistance of political pressure from the Cham
and Vietnamese, but it ultimately could not withstand pressure from Thai civilizations. Thousands of
Thai peoples migrated from the north (what is now the Yunnan region of China), establishing small
kingdoms in the southwest of the Khmer Empire. Eventually, these kingdoms became strong
enough to annex Khmer territory, leading to Ayutthaya’s conquest of the Khmer capital of Angkor in
1431.

Exploration and Innovation

The Khmer civilization relied heavily on rice farming, and developed a complex irrigation system to
take advantage of the rivers and wetlands that dotted their territory. An efficient series of irrigation
canals and reservoirs, called barays, allowed fewer farmers to produce more rice. This, in turn,
allowed more people to pursue non-agricultural lifestyles and migrate to great urban areas, such as
Angkor.

Angkor, the capital of the ancient Khmer civilization, is home to one of the largest most distinctive
religious monuments in the world, Angkor Wat. Angkor Wat was originally constructed as a series of
shrines to the Hindu god Vishnu in the early 12th century, although it became a Buddhist temple
complex less than a hundred years later.

Angkor Wat and its sister complex, Angkor Thom, are beautiful examples of classic Khmer
architecture. The towering, stepped pyramid towers of Angkor Wat are called “temple mountains.”
The towers are surrounded by open gallery walkways, and the entire structure is enclosed by a wall
and square moat. The thousands of square meters of wall space at Angkor Wat and Angkor Thom
are decorated by thousands of bas-reliefs and sculptures depicting Hindu stories and characters.

The Khmer monument at Angkor Wat helps define the modern nation of Cambodia today. It is the
nation’s primary tourist attraction, a World Heritage Site, and even appears on the Cambodian flag.

Fall of Civilizations
Many civilizations have flourished and then failed or fallen apart. There are many reasons for this,
but many historians point to three patterns in the fall of civilizations: internal change, external
pressure, and environmental collapse. The fall of civilizations is never the result of a single event or
pattern.

Sometimes, civilizations seem to “disappear” entirely.

Internal Change
Population dynamics are the most pervasive forces of internal change to a civilization. A sudden
population shift or a shift in demographics may force a civilization’s infrastructure to break down.

Populations may grow, due to migration or a period of unusual health. Populations may shrink, due
to disease, extreme weather, or other environmental factors.

Finally, populations may redefine themselves. As civilizations grow, cities may grow larger and
become more culturally distinct from rural, agricultural areas. Large empires may extend across
such large regions that languages, cultures, and customs may dilute the identity of the empire’s
residents.

Internal changes contributed to the collapse of the Maya civilization, which had thrived in
Mesoamerica for more than a thousand years. The “Classic Maya” collapse happened relatively
quickly in the 800s. Diseases such as dysentery and lethal hemorrhagic fevers killed and disabled
thousands of Mayans. Millions more were forced to relocate from cities to more rural areas. Such
huge population shifts reduced the ability of the Maya to communicate, administrate, and unite
against outside forces and natural disasters (such as drought).

External Pressure
The clearest example of external pressure on a civilization is foreign invasion or sustained warfare.
Protecting a civilization’s borders can be extremely expensive and demand a strong military at the
expense of developing or maintaining other aspects of a civilization.

External pressure can lead to the relatively abrupt end of a civilization (and, often, the adoption of
another). The fall of the Aztec Empire with the arrival of European conquistadores is such an
example.

External pressures can also lead to the gradual diminishing of a civilization. The “fall” of what we
often think of as Ancient Egypt is a good example of how external pressures can redefine a
civilization over hundreds of years. Egypt had faced longstanding, intermittent conflict on its
borders, with competing civilizations such as the Nubians (to the south), the Assyrians (in the
Middle East), and the Libyans (to the west). Later, Egypt encountered the civilizations of Ancient
Greece and Rome, and eventually became part of the Roman Empire.

Ancient Egypt also faced external pressures not directly associated with armed conflict. The
powerful forces of Christianity and Islam influenced the eradication of both hieroglyphics, the
writing system of Ancient Egypt, and its polytheistic religion.

Environmental Collapse
Some anthropologists think that both natural disasters and misuse of the environment contributed
to the decline of many civilizations.

Natural hazards such as drought, floods, and tsunamis, become natural disasters as they impact
civilizations.

Drought contributed to the fall of civilizations such as the Maya and the Indus Valley or Harappan
civilization. The Indus Valley Civilization was a Bronze Age civilization in what is now Pakistan, India,
and Afghanistan. The Indus Valley Civilization depended on seasonal monsoon rains to supply water
for drinking, hygiene, and irrigation. Climate change made monsoons much more unpredictable and
 seasonal flooding less reliable. Harappans suffered from water-borne diseases and were unable to
effectively irrigate their crops.

The collapse of Minoan civilization, a major influence on Ancient Greece, is often associated with a
catastrophic eruption of the Thera volcano on the island of what is now Santorini. The eruption
caused a massive tsunami that reduced the population, trading capabilities, and influence of the
Minoans.

Human activity can also strain the environment to the point of a civilization’s collapse. One of
several factors contributing to the collapse of the Viking outpost in Greenland, for instance, was the
failure of European settlers to adapt to Greenland’s climate and soil. Farming methods that were
successful in the rich, loamy soils of Northern Europe were ill-suited to Greenland’s colder, thinner
soil and shorter growing seasons. The land could not support the crops necessary to sustain Viking
livestock, including goats, cattle, and sheep. In addition, the land itself was harvested for peat, the
outpost’s primary construction material. The Vikings in Greenland also faced internal pressures,
such as a weak trading system with Europe, and external pressures, such as a hostile relationship
with their Inuit neighbors.

‘Lost Civilizations’
History and myth are rich with “lost civilizations,” entire ways of life that seemed to flourish and
then disappear from the historical record.

The disappearance of the Ancestral Puebloan civilization is one such mystery. Ancestral Puebloan
civilization thrived in what is now the Four Corners region of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and
Arizona. Ancestral Puebloan civilization developed around 1200 BCE and thrived for more than a
thousand years.

Ancestral Puebloan civilization was marked by monumental architecture in the form of apartment-
like cliff dwellings and large urban areas known as pueblos. Culturally diverse Ancestral Puebloans
were connected by a complex road system, a standard style of religious worship, and a unique art
style evidenced by pottery and petroglyphs.

Ancestral Puebloans seem to have abandoned their urban areas around 1300 CE. The
disappearance of this civilization remains a mystery, although most scientists say Ancestral
Puebloans engaged in warfare with their Navajo neighbors, internal groups competed for land and
resources, and sustained droughts reduced Ancestral Puebloan ability to irrigate crops in the arid
Southwest.

The Pueblo people never disappeared, of course: Diverse groups developed their own, competing
civilizations after the Ancestral Puebloans migrated or fell apart. These groups include the Zuni and
Hopi civilizations.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org /article/key-components-civilization/

Concept Mapping
Directions: Complete the data on the diagram. Accomplish in 10 minutes. (20 pts.)
Hint:
Rivers
Country
Characteristics
STATE
A community of persons more or less numerous, permanently occupying a definite portion of territory,
having a government of their own to which the great body of inhabitants render obedience, and enjoying
freedom from external control (DE LEON,2005)

Four elements of State

1.People/population- essential element of the state. There can be no state without people.
2.Government-is the aggregate of authorities that rule society and must be obeyed by its people
3.Territory-constitute all the land and water within its external boundaries. Thus, the state must have full
control of its territory
4.Sovereignty-the supreme and independent power of the state to manage its internal affairs and to be
free from external control

Functions of the State

1. Defend man’s basic needs and security

2. Support his quest for natural well being
3. See the administration of justice on fair basis for all
4. Help in the education and cultural life of the people
5. Defend and advance freedom of the citizens

Theory of the State

1. Divine Theory
-is the oldest theory which was almost accepted universally in ancient and medieval era
-this theory posits the idea that the state is of divine origin and God vested political power to certain people
in society to govern
-the power of the state is derived from God and the ruler are considered to be the agent of God. Their
mandates comes from God
2. Social Contract Theory
-the creation of the state was a mutual agreement between the ruler and the ruled to ensure order and
security from outside threats
-has assume that there was a time where humans lived in the state of nature free from political constraint
but only governed by their natural reason. However human’s social nature moved them into social
agreement to form civil society.
3. Forces Theory
-a group forces members of another group to subject themselves to their rules
-asserts that the state exist through sheer force that there was prevalent domination of tribe against other;
a kingdom conquering other kingdom; an empire destroying other empires clashing against each other for
supremacy
4.Paternalistic Theory
-the father essentially is the leader of the first political unit, which grew as the number of his family grew.
5. Natural Theory
-asserts that the existence of the society was based on natural tendencies of human to live in an organized
society
-state is conceived as the product of human’s desire to bind themselves in a political obligation inherent in
them

https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com /essay/state/theories-on-the-origin-of-state-essay-theories-
political-science/1513
Essay # 1. Divine Origin Theory:
The Genesis of Divine Origin Theory:
The oldest theory about the origin of the state is the divine origin theory. It is also known as the theory of
divine right of Kings.

The exponents of this theory believe that the state did not come into being by any effort of man. It is
created by God.

The King who rules over the state is an agent of God on earth.

The King derives his authority from God and for all his actions he is responsible to God alone. Obedience
to the King is ordained to God and violation of it will be a sin. The King is above law and no subject has
any right to question his authority or his action. The King is responsible of God alone.

History of Divine Theory:

ADVERTISEMENTS:

The conception of the divine creation of the state may be traced back to remote antiquity. It was
universal belief with the ancient people that the King is the representative of God on earth and the state
is a bliss of God. Thus the King had both political and religious entity. In the religious books also the state
is said to be created by God. In some religions this conception is explicit, but in others it is implicit.

The divine origin of the state is gleaned first the Old Testament of the Bible. There we find St. Paul saying-
“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers; for there is no power but of God; the powers that be,
are ordained by God. Whosoever resist the power, resisted the ordinance of God and they that resist
shall receive to themselves damnation.”

In 1680 Sir Robert Filmer wrote a book entitled The Law of the Free Monarchies, where it is stated the
Adam was the First King on earth and the Kings subsequent to him are the descendants of Adam. In the
Manusmriti it is said that when the world was thick in anarchy, the people prayed to God to remedy the
condition. God was pleased to appoint Manu to rule over the earth.

This theory prevailed in the old age when religion and politics were combined in the person of the King.
In ancient India the Kings ruled over the people according to the injunction of the Dharma, which stood
for both religion and politics. Laws fay deep in the profusion of the Sastras.

ADVERTISEMENTS:
In the medieval period the Christians held the Pope in semi-God status. In the Muslim world the Caliph
was the Priest-King. The Dalai Lama was the head of the Theocratic state of Tibet. He was considered
there as the incarnation of the Buddhist god Avalokitesvara.

Both the church and the state in their mutual rivalry used the theory of the divine origin in the medieval
age. The church asserted the supremacy of the church over the state. On the other hand, the state
because of its divine nature emphasised on its supremacy over the church.

The Stuart King James I claimed that he derived his authority directly from God. According to him, the
King is wise and intelligent, but his subjects are wicked.

Even if the King is bad, the people have no right to rebel against him. Even in the nineteenth century the
Kings of Austria, Prussia and Russia formed the Holy Alliance under the notion that they were appointed
by God to rule over their people. Anyway, the European Kings took shelter under the divine origin theory
in order to justify their dictatorships.

Be that as it may, during a large part of human history the state was viewed as direct divine creation and
theocratic in nature. The theory was in currency so long as religion was considered to be the chief motive
force of all human activities.

In the twentieth century this, theory came under criticism being an incorrect explanation of the origin of
the state. With the growth of scientific outlook this theory faded into oblivion. Today’s trend is that the
state is a historical growth. We shall now discuss the causes of the decline of the theory.

Causes of the Decline of the Divine Theory:

In the first place, when a more acceptable theory like the social contract theory came out, the divine
theory was dashed to the ground. The new theory suggested that the state is a handiwork of men, not a
grace of God.

In the second place, the Reformation that separated the church from the state debased the coin of the
divine theory. The post-Reformation period is a period of non-religious politics. Thus the secular outlook
made the divine theory totally unacceptable.

In the third place, the emergence of democracy was a big blow for the autocratic dogma of mixing
religion with politics and thereby it blunted the edge of identifying God with the King. Democracy not
only glorified the individual but shattered the divine halo around the origin of the slate.

Last but not the least was the growth of scientific enquiry and materialistic view of the political
mechanism. The result was that the erstwhile blind faith and superstition was no longer acceptable. The
people began to accept only those things that stood the test of logic and reasoning.

Criticism of the Divine Theory:

There are seven lines of argument in the hands of R. N. Gilchrist levelled against the divine theory:

The first line of argument of Gilchrist is that the state is a human institution organised in an association
through human agency. Modern political thinkers cannot accept the view that God has anything to do
with the creation of the state. It does not stand the commonsense of the moderns that God selects
anybody to rule over the state.

The second line of argument is that the divine theory is fraught with dangerous consequences, because a
semi-divine King is bound to rule arbitrarily as he is responsible only to God and not bound to heed public
opinion. Such a theory will make the ruler despotic and autocratic.

The third line of argument is that the divine theory is unrealistic because a bad ruler will continue to rule
under the divine shield. There were some bad rulers like James II of England and Louis XVI of France, who
were replaced by the people. This could not happen if the divine theory was to be accepted.
The fourth line of argument is that the New Testament of the Bible reversed the divine conception of the
state as ingrained in the Old Testament. It is emphatically stated in the New Testament- “Render unto
Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”, which gives the state a
human character as against the divine coating.

The fifth line of argument is that the divine theory is unscientific. The anthropologists and sociologists
after careful scientific analysis have discarded the theory as totally untenable as an explanation of the
origin of the slate.

The sixth line of argument is that the divine theory runs counter to the universally accepted conception
that the state is the result of a historical evolution. The generally accepted theory of the origin of the
state is that various factors like religion, family, force and political consciousness were behind the growth
of the state.

The seventh line of argument is that the divine theory is undemocratic. The inevitable implication of the
theory in content and tone will make the King absolute and his government never democratic. So the
theme of the theory is against the spirit of democracy.

Value of the Divine Theory:

Although the divine theory is totally discredited as an origin of the state, there are some good things in it.
The summum bonum of the theory is that it stimulated discipline and law-abidingness among the
subjects at a time when these were the needs of the hour in those anarchical conditions. This theory also
created the moral responsibility of the rulers, because they were cast with a divine injunction to rule to
the perfect satisfaction of the heaven.

Decline of the Divine Right Theory:

As an origin of the state, the divine right theory is no longer alive. It is a defunct dogma. The emergence
of the social contract theory which held the wishes of the people in high halo dwarfed the godly wishes in
the creation of the state. When human activities were considered the motive force of the state, the
divine one receded to the background and finally vanished away.

The important role assigned to the man in the creation of the state by the social contract theory
shattered all hopes for the divine right theory. The second factor in the decline of the divine right theory
was the Reformation Movement in the sixteenth century Europe, which curbed the authority of the Pope
and the Church and at the same time brought the monarch and the people in the limelight.

The scientific and logical thinking associated with the Renaissance and the Reformation enabled men to
look into the theory of the origin of the state as something which must be created by non-church and
non-god bodies. With the decline of the authority of religion declined the divine authority.

The final nail of the coffin of the divine right theory was the modern theory of Thomas Hill Green that
democracy, i.e., will of the people was the basis of the state.

Essay # 2. The Patriarchal Theory as the Origin of the State:

The principal exponent of this theory is Sir Henry Maine.

According to him, the city is a conglomeration of several families which developed under the control and
authority of the eldest male member of the family.

The head or father of the patriarchal family wielded great power and influence upon the other members
of the family.

His writ was carried out in the household. This patriarchal family was the most ancient organised social
institution in the primitive society.
Through the process of marriage the families began to expand and they gave birth to gen which stands
for a household. Several gens made one clan. A group of clans constituted a tribe. A confederation of
various tribes based on blood relations for the purpose of defending themselves against the aggressors
formed one commonwealth which is called the state.

Sir Henry Maine’s analysis of the growth of the state is- “The elementary group is the family connected by
the common subjection to the highest male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms the gens or the
houses. The aggregation of houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of the tribes constitutes the
commonwealth.”

Edward Jenks who is the other advocate of the patriarchal theory is of the view that the foundation of
the state was caused by three factors, namely male kinship, permanent marriages and paternal authority.
Thus, the salient feature of the patriarchal theory is that the families grew through the descendants of
the father, not the mother.

The male child carried on the population though marriages with one or several women, because both
monogamy and polygamy were the order of the day. The eldest male child had a prominent role in the
house.

Another important supporter of this theory was Aristotle. According to him- “Just as men and women
unite to form families, so many families unite to form villages and the union of many villages forms the
state which is a self-supporting unit”.

As for documentary evidence in support of this theory, there were twelve tribes who formed the Jewish
nation as we gather from the Bible. In Rome, we are told that the patriarch of three families that made
one unit exercised unlimited authority over the other members.

Criticism of the Theory:

The patriarchal theory as the origin of the state is subjected to the following criticisms:

In the first place, the origin of the state is due to several factors like family, religion, force, political
necessity, etc. So by identifying the origin of the state with family, one makes the same fallacy as taking
one cause instead of several causes. To say in the words of J. C. Frazer- “Human society is built up by a
complexity of causes.”

In the second place, the theory is incorrect, because in the opinion of several critics the primary social
unit was a matriarchal family rather than a patriarchal family. According to Meclennan, Morgan and
Edward Jenks who are staunch supporters of the theory, the matriarchal family and polyandry were the
basis of the state.

The kinship through the female line in primitive society was responsible for the growth of the state. The
process was that polyandry resulted into matriarchal society and the matriarchal society led to the state.

In the third place, the patriarchal theory is built on the wrong premise that the patriarchal family was the
origin of the state. Edward Jenks suggested the correct theory that tribe rather than family was the
beginning of the state, on the basis of his studies in Australia and Malaya Archipelago.

In the fourth place, Sir Henry Maine over simplified the origin of the state by attribution it to the family
alone. It is because of this over simplicity that the theory has to be rejected as untenable. The authority
of the father over the children is only temporary, because his authority ends when the children grow in
age. But the authority of the state over the population is perpetual.

Essay # 3. The Matriarchal Theory as the Origin of the State:

The chief exponents of the matriarchal theory are Morgan, Meclennan and Edward Jenks. According to
them, there was never any patriarchal family in the primitive society and that the patriarchal family came
into existence only when the institution of permanent marriage was in vogue.
But among the primitive society, instead of permanent marriage there was a sort of sex anarchy. Under
that condition, the mother rather than the father was the head of the family. The kinship was established
through the mother.

Edward Jenks who made a thorough study of the tribes of Australia came to the conclusion that the
Australian tribes were organised in some sort of tribes known as totem groups. Their affinity was not on
the basis of blood relationship but through some symbols like tree or animal. One totem group men were
to marry all the women of another totem group. This would lead to polyandry and polygamy also.

This matriarchal system continued until the advent of the pastoral age when the permanent marriage
was introduce. We find the existence of the Queen ruling over in Malabar and the princesses ruling over
the Maratha countries. These are examples of the matriarchal systems of life.

Criticism of the Theory:

The matriarchal theory is attacked on the following grounds:

First, the state was created by several factors, of which the family was one. So this theory makes only a
partial study of the origin of the state. Force, religion, politics, family and contract were all there to
contribute to the growth of the state.

Secondly, like the patriarchal theory, this theory also mistakenly analyses the origin of the family as the
origin of the slate. The state is something more than an expanded family. They are quite different in
essence, organisation, functions and purposes.

Thirdly, the theory is historically false. It is not a fact of history that the matriarchal system was the only
system at a particular time. As a matter of fact, both patriarchal system and matriarchal system prevailed
side-by-side. There was a parallel development of both the systems. We may conclude with the words of
Stephen Leacock- “Here it may be a patriarchal family; there it may be a matriarchal family, but there is
no denying the fact that family is at the basis of the state”.

Essay # 4. Force Theory of Origin of the State:

Another early theory of the origin of the state is the theory of force.

The exponents of this theory hold that wars and aggressions by some powerful tribe were the principal
factors in the creation of the state.

They rely on the oft-quoted saying “war begot the King” as the historical explanation of the origin of the
state.

The force or might prevailed over the right in the primitive society. A man physically stronger established
his authority over the less strong persons. The strongest person in a tribe is, therefore, made the chief or
leader of that tribe.

After establishing the state by subjugating the other people in that place the chief used his authority in
maintaining law and order and defending the state from the aggression from outside. Thus force was
responsible not only for the origin of the state but for development of the state also.

History supports the force theory as the origin of the state.

According to Edward Jenks:

“Historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all political communities of the
modern type owe their existence to successful warfare.”

As the state increased in population and size there was a concomitant improvement in the art of warfare.
The small states fought among themselves and the successful ones made big states.
The kingdoms of Norway, Sweden and Denmark arc historical examples of the creation of states by the
use of force. In the same process, Spain emerged as a new state in the sixth century A.D. In the ninth
century A.D. the Normans conquered and established the state of Russia.

The same people established the kingdom of England by defeating the local people there in the eleventh
century A.D. Stephen Butler Leachock sums up the founding of states by the use of force in these words:

“The beginnings of the state are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man-by-man, in the
conquest and subjugation acquired by superior physical force. The progressive growth from tribe to
kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a continuation from the same process.”

History of the Theory:

This theory is based on the well-accepted maxim of survival of the fittest. There is always a natural
struggle for existence by fighting all adversaries among the animal world. This analogy may be stretched
to cover the human beings.

Secondly, by emphasising the spiritual aspect of the church the clergymen condemned the authority of
the state as one of brute force. This indirectly lends credence to the theory of force as the original factor
in the creation of the state.

Thirdly, the socialists also, by condemning the coercive power of the state as one bent upon curbing and
exploiting the workers, admit of force as the basis of the state.

Lastly, the theory of force is supported by the German philosophers like Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant,
John Bernhardi and Triestchki. They maintain that war and force are the deciding factors in the creation
of the state. Today in the words of Triestchki – “State is power; it is a sin for a state to be weak. That
state is the public power of offence and defence. The grandeur of history lies in the perpetual conflict of
nations and the appeal to arms will be valid until the end of history.”

According to Bernhardi-“Might is the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the
arbitrement of war. War gives a biologically just decision since its decision rest on the very nature of
things.”

Criticisms of the Theory:

Following criticisms are levelled against the theory of force. In the first place, the element of force is not
the only factor in the origin of the state; religion, politics, family and process of evolution are behind the
foundation of the state. Thus to say that force is the origin of the state is to commit the same fallacy that
one of the causes is responsible for a thing while all the causes were at work for it.

This has been rightly pointed out by Stephen Butler Leacock- “The theory errs in magnifying what has
been only one factor in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force.” A state may be created by
force temporarily. But to perpetuate it something more is essential.

In the second place, the theory of force runs counter to the universally accepted maxim of Thomas Hill
Green- “Will, not force, is the basis of the state.” No state can be permanent by bayonets and daggers. It
must have the general voluntary acceptance by the people.

In the third place, the theory of force is inconsistent with individual liberty. The moment one accepts that
the basis of a state is force, how can one expect liberty there? The theory of force may be temporarily the
order of the day in despotism as against democracy.

In the fourth place, the doctrine of survival of the fittest which is relied upon by the champions of the
force theory has erroneously applied a system that is applicable to the animal world to human world. If
force was the determining factor, how could Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violence triumph over the brute
force of the British Imperialists?
Lastly, the force theory is to be discarded because political consciousness rather than force is the origin of
the state. Without political consciousness of the people the state cannot be created. This is so because
man is by nature a political animal. It is that political conscience that lay deep in the foundation of the
state.

We may conclude with the words of R. N. Gilchrist- “The state, government and indeed all institutions are
the result of man’s consciousness, the creation of which have arisen from his appreciation of a moral
end.”

Merits of the Theory:

The theory of force, though untenable as an explanation of the origin of the state, has some redeeming
features:

First, the theory contains the truth that some states at certain points of time were definitely created by
force or brought to existence by the show of force. When the Aryans came to India they carried with
them weapons of all kinds and horses to use in the war against the non-Aryans and by defeating the non-
Aryans they carved out a kingdom in India.

Later on, the Aryans sprawled their kingdoms and broad-based their government and ruled with the
backing of the people.

Secondly, the other silver lining of the theory is that it made the slates conscious of building adequate
defence and army to protect the territorial integrity of the state. That is why we find commanders of war
or Senapati as an important post in the ancient kingdoms.

In the modern state, we find a substantial amount of money used on defence budget. Every state in the
modern world has got a defence minister which unmistakably recognises the use of force in modern
statecraft too.

Essay # 5. The Social Contract Theory:

Genesis of the Theory:

The most famous theory with regard to the origin of the state is the social contract theory. The theory
goes to tell that the stale came into existence out of a contract between the people and the sovereign at
some point of time.

According to this theory, there were two divisions in human history – one period is prior to the
establishment of the state called the “state of nature” and the other period is one subsequent to the
foundation of the state called the “civil society”. The state of nature was bereft of society, government
and political authority. There was no law to regulate the relations of the people in the state of nature.

There were three exponents of this theory. They were Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques
Rousseau who differed about the life in the slate of nature, reason for converting the state of nature to
civil society and the terms of the contract. They all, however, agreed that a stage came in the history of
man when the state of nature was exchanged with civil society to lead a regulated life under a political
authority.

The net result of this changeover was that the people gained security of life and property and social
security, but lost the natural liberty which they had been enjoying in the state of nature.

The crux of the social contract theory is that men create government for the purpose of securing their
pre-existing natural rights – that the right come first, that the government is created to protect these
rights. These ideas were based on the concepts of a state of nature, natural law and natural rights.

According to John Locke, prior to the establishment of society, men lived in a “state of nature”. Thomas
Hobbes, an anti-democratic philosopher, emphasised, that in the state of nature there was no
government to make and enforce laws, men made war on each other and life was “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short”.
But Locke argued that even in a state of nature there was a law governing conduct-there was the “natural
law”, comprising universal unvarying principle of right and wrong and known to men through the use of
reason. Thus Locke would have us believe that if an Englishman was to meet a Frenchman on an
uninhabited and ungoverned island, he would not be free to deprive the Frenchman of his life, liberty or
property. Otherwise, he would violate the natural law and hence was liable to punishment.

Thus according to Locke, the state of nature was not a lawless condition, but was an inconvenient
condition. Each man had to protect his own right and there was no agreed-upon judge to settle disputes
about the application of the natural law to particular controversies. Realising this, men decided to make a
“compact” with one another in which each would give to the community the right to create a
government equipped to enforce the natural law.

In this way, every man agreed to abide by the decisions made by the majority and to comply with the
laws enacted by the people’s representative, provided they did not encroach upon his fundamental
rights. In this way, the power of the ruler was curtailed.

Background of Social Contract:

The doctrine of social contract is faintly mentioned in the ancient period by both the western and Indian
philosophers. Plato was the first among the western thinkers to use the term. It is also referred to in the
Arthasastra of Kautilya.

The ideas of the contractual obligations were mouthed by the anti-monarchical writers like Richard
Hooker, Hugo Grotius, John Milton, Sir William Blackstone, Immanuel Kant, Johann G. Fichte and Edmund
Burke.

It is admitted at all hands that the two English political thinkers, namely Thomas Hobbes and John Locke
as well as the French political thinker Jean-Jacques Rousseau, gave the concrete shape to this theory. This
trio is considered as the godfathers of the social contract theory.

The theories of foundation of the state were laid down in the great works on social contract, particularly
those of the English philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke in the seventeenth century and the
French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the eighteenth century. The back ground of their theories
‘was the aftermath of the Protestant Reformation which had shaken the fundamental constitution of
European Christendom and had broken up the divinely sanctioned contractual relation. Another
significant thing was that the Holy Roman Empire was torn apart by the wars of the Reformation.

In England King Henry VIII made the Church of England independent of Rome. Under these circumstances,
there was a need to search for a new basis of order and stability, loyalty and obedience. In such search,
the political theorists, and especially the Protestants among them, turned to the old concept in the Bible
about a covenant or contract such as the one between God and Abraham and the Israelites of the Old
Testament. This gave the presumption that God had created the political unit by choosing his partners in
an eternal covenant.

The result was that the secular theorists of the social contract reversed the process of choice. They
discarded the old idea that God chose his subjects. The new theory was that it was the people who,
through their representatives, succeeded in choosing their rulers and the method of governance by
means of a social contract or construction. The social contract theorists suggested that the political unit
was established by means of promise or promises in the Biblical fashion.

Nature of Social Contract Theory:

According to the social contract theory the state was the creation of the people living in a state of nature
which was a lawless and order-less system. The slate of nature was controlled by unwritten laws
prescribed not by men but by nature. The exponents of the theory gave conflicting views about the
nature of the state of nature. Some considered it gloomy, while others painted it as bright like paradise.
For some reasons the people did not like the system and terminated it by an agreement to save one man
from the rapacity of the other. The nature-made laws were replaced by man-made laws. The originally
independent people subordinated themselves to the will of either the whole community or a particular
person or a group of persons. The three proponents of the theory interpreted the theory in their own
way.

Thomas Hobbes Theory of the Social Contract:

Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan delineates very precisely and straightforwardly the creation of the
state by an agreement. To begin with, before the state was created, there was a state of nature in which
a war was raging. There was no law or justice. Human life was marked by force and deceit. Might was
right in that situation. Hobbes gave a gloomy picture of the state of nature in his oft-quoted words
“Solitary, poor-nasty, brutish, short”.

The people became fed up with the state of nature. In order to get rid of the unbearable condition they
entered into an agreement by which they established a government or authority to which they
surrendered all their rights. The surrender was unconditional and irrevocable. The authority was a single
person or a group of persons endowed with unlimited power. The authority to rule was the result of the
contract.

Since he was not a party to the contract, he was not bound by the terms of the agreement. The people
had no right to depose the ruler or to agitate against the ruler. If the people revolted against the
authority they would be guilty of violation of the contract and would face the consequence of going back
to die state of nature. This theory of Hobbes supported the despotism of the Stuarts in England.

In Hobbes’ view there was one single contract in the creation of the state and the establishment of the
government. From that it would follow that if the state was gone, with it would go the government. It is
apparent that Hobbes was supporting legal sovereignty and had no quarter for political sovereignty.
Disgusted with the useless dispute between the monarchy and parliament in England, he supported
despotism, keeping chaos as its only alternative. So he gave all powers to the sovereign.

Thomas Hobbes called his state Leviathan which came into existence when its individual members
renounced their power to exercise the laws of nature which was one of “each for himself” and at the
same time promised to turn these powers over to the sovereign who was created as a result of his
promise and also to obey thenceforth the laws made by this sovereign.

These laws stood on a better footing since they enjoyed authority because the individual members of the
society were, as a matter of fact, the co-authors of these laws.

Locke’s Theory of Social Contract:

In his book Treatise on Civil Government John Locke, justifying the limited monarchy of English type,
drew his own state of nature. He did not agree that the state of nature was a gloomy and dismal one as
painted by Thomas Hobbes. In contrast, Locke’s state of nature was one of peace, reason and goodwill.
Yet this semi-paradise could not satisfy the people because they were pining for law and impartial
authority.

So they abandoned the state of nature though for a different reason. So in replacing the state of nature
the people created the civil society by a contract. That done, they made another contract by which the
government in the person of the King was set up. Here the ruler was a party to the contract. The people
would obey him so long he would protect their life and property. So in Locke’s theory there were two
contracts, one for the creation of the civil society and the other for establishment of the government.

The people’s surrender of rights was partial and conditional. If the people would violate the contract, the
people would be entitled to depose the worthless King. Thus Locke supported the Glorious Revolution of
1688. His sovereign was political rather than legal as propounded by Hobbes. He was clear in
distinguishing the government from the state, which Hobbes failed to do. While Hobbes destroyed
individual liberty, Locke destroyed the authority of the state.
When Hobbes took brief for royal absolutism, England was getting disgusted with the meaningless fights
between the King and the parliament during the Stuart period. Lock’s timing was related to the period
when the King was maintaining a low profile and the parliament was in the ascendance. This would
culminate in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

John Locke’s view was that the individuals promised to accept the judgements of a common judge (i.e.,
the legislature) when they agreed to the accord, which established civil society. According to Locke,
another set of promises was made between the members of the civil society on the one hand and the
government on the other.

The government, in its turn, promised to execute its trust faithfully. It was agreed that in case the
government broke the terms of the pact or in other words if it violated the constitution, the people
would have the right to rebel.

The subsequent generations by acceding to the terms of the compact accepted the inheritance of private
property which was created and guaranteed by the compact. If any individual would disobey the
constitution, he must leave the territory of political unit and go in vacuis locis, i.e., empty places.

The indication was that the disloyal people might take shelter in America which was an empty place at
that time. In his book Letters on Toleration, Locke excluded the atheists from religious toleration since
they were not likely to be bound by the original contractual oath or to abide by the divine sanctions
invoked for its violation.

Rousseau’s Theory of Social Contract:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the third player of the game of social contract theory, struck a middle course
between the two English counterparts. His book Social Contract published in 1762 reconciles the
authority of the state and liberty of the individual. His state of nature had an overflow of idyllic felicity.

There human lives were free, healthy, honest and happy. But there was debasement and degradation
with the increase of population and with the progress of civilization particularly with the emergence of
private property in land which destroyed the natural equality among men.

To get out of this menacing position, men entered into an agreement with the pledges- “Each of us puts
his own person and all his powers in common under the supreme direction of the General Will, and in our
corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” Unlike Hobbes and
Locke, the authority created was not given to the ruler, but was retained by the whole community.

As a matter of fact, the whole community expressed the General Will in a public meeting. Subsequently,
the government was created by a legislative measure. The people delegated power to the government.
Rousseau’s theory’s hallmark is the General Will.

Rousseau’s General Will:

Jean-Jacques Rousseau stood for the Popular Sovereignty as against Legal Sovereignty of Thomas Hobbes
and Political Sovereignty of John Locke. In his concept, political authority, arrived at after the Social
Contract, was not the King, absolute or delegated, but the people themselves. Rousseau called his
sovereign General Will. What was that General Will? It is as monstrous a concept as Leviathan of Hobbes.

The kingpin of the General Will is the people. Does it mean the whole population of the state? The
answer must be an emphatic “No”, because Rousseau himself used two terms General Will and Will of
All. The general will is the best in the will of all. So the general will must be the filtered cream of the will
of all.

Thus common interest or welfare interest of the people is the general will. We may say with certainty
that the enlightened public opinion of a state is the general will of Rousseau. He called it “will for the
general good”. In practice, however, it may mean the majority opinion of the people.

As we read Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau we find three interpretations of the social contract theory.
Hobbes’ contract is one in which the people unconditionally surrender their rights to the monarch who is
bound to become a despot. In Locke’s case, the people conditionally delegate their power to the King and
make the ruler accountable to them. Thus Locke supports the limited monarchy in England. Rousseau is
most radical in enthroning the people and making the people themselves the rulers. Hobbes stands for
legal sovereignty, Locke supports political sovereignty and Roussean, popular sovereignty.

According to Rousseau also, the essential ingredient of social contract was the “general will”, to which
the individuals agreed to subject themselves. The popular sovereign was the embodiment of the general
will. The experience of his native place Geneva in Switzerland might have influenced Rousseau in taking
this position. In Germany the Swiss confederation is still officially referred to as Eidgenossenscaft which
means “fellowship of the oath”.

Hobbes on Sovereignty:
Thomas Hobbes’ radical rationalism was his main contribution to constitutionalism. Hobbes took the
position that individuals came close to each other out of the evils of the state of nature which was
plagued by disorder and war. In such a condition their reason convinced them that they could best ensure
their self-preservation by giving all powers to a sovereign. That sovereign might be a single person or an
assembly of the whole body of citizens.

Whatever may be their forms and variations, the authority to be called sovereign must have all powers
concentrated and combined in it. Hobbes called the state the commonwealth. Any decision of that power
would destroy the sovereignty and put back the members of the commonwealth to the state of nature
where life was “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”.

For Hobbes, a sovereign in the form of an individual, i.e., the King was preferable to sovereignty in the
form of an assembly or the whole body of citizenry, because a singular sovereign was less likely to be
internally or functionally divided. All powers of war and peace, taxation and the judiciary would be
concentrated on the sovereign.

The individuals would retain their natural rights which they cannot surrender to the common pool of
sovereign powers. These natural rights are comprised of the rights against self-incrimination, right to
purchase a substitute for compulsory military service and the right to act freely in all cases where the law
is silent.

Locke on Individual’s Natural Right:

John Locke firmly gave assurance of individual’s natural rights by providing separate but cooperative
powers to the King and the parliament and by reserving the right to the individuals to resist an
unconstitutionally oppressive government. Locke did not use the word sovereignty. In the characteristic
English tradition he prevented the concentration of all powers in a single organ of government.

Rousseau’s Theory of General Will:

While Thomas Hobbes established his unitary sovereign through the mechanism of individual and
unilateral promises and while John Locke eschewed the excessive concentration of power by requiring
the conditions of the different organs of government to fulfill different objectives, Jean-Jacques Rousseau
threw all individual citizens into an all-powerful sovereign with the primary purpose of general will.

The expression “general will” cannot be vague or mistaken because when something contrary to the
general will is expressed or done, it may at the most be called “will of all”, since it does not emanate from
the sovereign, i.e., the general will.

With a view to safeguarding the legitimacy of the government and law, Rousseau had no objection for
universal participation in legislation because this alone would “force men to be free”, as he paradoxically
phrased it Like his two English predecessors, Rousseau insisted on the consent of all to the general social
contract.

He was in favour of smaller majorities for the adoption of laws of lesser significance compared with the
importance attached to the constitution. Whereas Hobbes’ and Locke’s main concern was to provide
constitutional stability through consent, Rousseau was more concerned to provide for legitimacy through
universal participation in legislation. The result was that Rousseau’s thought was apparently more
democratic than Hobbes’ and Locke’s.

It is for this reason that Rousseau is often accused of laying the foundation of the theory of “totalitarian
democracy.” This gains credence from the fact that he described in The Social Contract that the sudden
changes or even transformations of the constitution of the state would be subject to the universal and
unanimous sovereign.

Criticism of Theory:
The social contract theory is strongly denounced on the following grounds. In the first place, the theory is
not borne out by any historical record. It is not known to history that any such contract was made. The
only historical instance of contractual obligation is said to be the foundation of a state by the early
settlers in America by the May Flower Contract of 11 November 1620 and the deposition of King Philip II
in 1581 by the Netherlander where the people said- “The King has broken his contract and the King
therefore is dismissed like any other unfaithful servant.”

But in both the cases the state existed there before it was said to be created or at least the people had
some knowledge of the state and the government before these were created, or the contract was made.
These examples do not establish that the primitive people who had no knowledge of the state could
establish a state by a contract. Similarly, a state of nature antedating a real state is a fiction and has no
historical basis.

In the second place, Sir Henry Maine attacked the theory as one of putting the cart before the horse,
because contract is not the beginning of the society, but the end of it. The universally accepted view is
that the society has moved from status to contract and not vice versa. With the growth of age, status lost
its rigour of fixity and its place was taken by contractual obligations.

The other serious fault with the theory is that it presupposes political consciousness in the state of nature
even prior to the establishment of the state. How can one have the idea of the good of a state when he
has no experience of the state?

In the third place, there cannot be any right even if it is a natural right without the state. Right follows
from the womb of the state. Without an established civil society there cannot be any right. It does not
follow from logic that the people had a bundle of rights even before the creation of the state.

In the fourth place, it is a fact in history that the state came into existence as a result of a long process of
growth and development. The sociologists have established that the state is created by a long term
process of social development. Kinship, force, divine sanction, family and various other known and
unknown factors are there behind the growth of the state.

Modern social scientists and historians are of the view that men are by nature social animals and they
never lived in a pre-social and pre-governmental state of nature. The state is never a consciously created
institution but is a development like the family.

So Edmund Burke rightly observed- “The state should not be reduced to the position of a partnership
agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco or some such low concern, to be taken up
for a little temporary interest, and to be dissolved by the fancy of the parties. It is to be looked upon with
reverence. It is a partnership in all science; a partnership in all art; a partnership between those who are
living and those who are yet to be born.”

In the fifth place, the theory is dangerously wrong by certifying the state to be a handiwork of human
beings. The error is that the state is never a creation of man but it is an independent social institution.
The theory carries with it the portent of revolution by giving too much importance to men as even the
creators of the state. The truth is that the government, not the state, is the creation of man.

Modern political scientists have rejected the contract theory as unacceptable. J. K. Bluntschli condemned
it as highly dangerous, Jeremy Bentham called it a rattle. Fredrick Pollock discarded it as “fatal of political
impostures”. According to Sir Henry Maine, there was nothing more worthless than the social contract
theory as an explanation of the origin of the state.

Value of the Theory:

Although as an explanation of the origin of the state the social contract theory is unacceptable, it has
some merits or values. First, the theory dashed to the ground the more worthless theory that the state
was the creation of God. There might not be any social contract anywhere in history but it carried the
message of the supremacy of the people in the statecraft and gave encouragement to the growth of
democracy and gave a deterrent to the arbitrariness of any government.

Immanuel Kant Rightly Observed:

“The contract is not to be assumed as historical fact for as such it is not possible; but it is a rational idea
which has its practical reality in that the legislator may so order his laws as if they were the outcome of a
social contract.”

The second merit of the theory is that it helped the growth of the modern concept of sovereignty. It is,
therefore, said that John Austin’s concept of legal sovereignty is a direct outcome of Thomas Hobbes’
concept of the Leviathan.

The third benefit of this theory is that John Locke answered some of the most critical questions by clearly
distinguishing the state from the government.

The fourth fruit from the social contract theory is the concept of popular sovereignty as propounded by
Jean-Jacques Rousseau so much so that Rousseau’s social contract inspired several peoples in the world
to overthrow their despised rulers.

Thus the contractual theory of the government may be historically gleaned for the first time in 1581 in
the Netherlands, where the people dismissed the lawful King Philip II. “The King”, the people said, “has
broken his contract and the King, therefore, is dismissed like any other unfaithful servant”.

We have a good example of an agreement between the ruler and the people in Indian history. On the
death of Iltutmish, the Sultan of the Slave Dynasty in 1236 A.D. the throne passed on to Ruknuddin Firoz
Shah, who proved to be a worthless fellow. There was chaos and unrest all over the country.

At this stage, on a Friday, Iltutmish’s daughter Raziya came out to the public in red clothes and gave the
undertaking that he could deliver the goods to the country if she was made the Sultan and she gave the
undertaking that if the proved unequal to the task, the people would have freedom to depose her.

A fifth boon of this theory of consent was constitutional experiments in several countries. In the next two
centuries this theory ignited three mighty world revolutions, first in 1688 in England called the Glorious
Revolution, the second in 1776 in America called the War of American Independence and the third in
1789 in France called the French Revolution.

The English Revolution of 1688 proclaimed that the government is accountable to the people and if the
government goes astray the people can overthrow it and establish a new one. The Declaration of
Independence on 4 July 1776 announced- “That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among
men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The diction used in the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen during the French Revolution is-
“The end of all political associations is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man;
and these rights are liberty, property, security and resistance of oppression.” Thus all these three big
political experiments emphasised on the element of the consent of the people as a factor to be reckoned
with in the governance of the country.

In the political thought of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau may be found theoretical considerations of the
practical issues that were to confront the authors of the American and French constitutions. The
influence of theories of social contract, especially as they relate to the issue of natural rights and the
proper functions of government, effected the constitution-making of the revolutionary era that began
with the War of American Independence and was indeed enshrined in the great political manifestos of
the time, namely the Declaration of American Independence, the Bill of Rights and the French Declaration
of the Rights of man and citizen.

The constitutional experience of these countries had great influence on the liberal thoughts in Europe
and other parts of the world during the nineteenth century and these found expression in the
constitutions that were demanded from the European Kings.

The extent to which the ideal of constitutional democracy has become entwined with the practice of
constitutional government is the main features of the constitutions of the countries of Europe, Asia and
Africa in addition to the USA.

Essay # 6. Marxician Theory of Origin of the State:

The Marxists are of the view that the state is a creation by the class-struggle with the help of force.

So it is altogether a different theory of origin of state with the recognition of force which we have studied
as a theory of origin of state.

The Marxists began with the primitive society where there was no surplus wealth to quarrel with and so
there was no state.

With the passing of time, society was getting split over hostile classes with conflicting interests. This class
antagonism was the root cause of the state. When agriculture was learnt as an art of culture there was
ample food which resulted in private property. The insoluble contra-dictions as a result of division of
labour became so acute that it was not possible for any class to keep reconciled in the state or to keep
the quarrelling classes under control.

The most dominant class that controlled the mode of production came to establish the state to ensure its
dominance over the other classes who did not own the modes of production. The state thus became an
instrument of domination and oppression of one class over the other classes.

Thus the state came in to ensure the right of the dominant class to exploit the other classes. As the
dominant classes kept on changing hands so also changed the character of the state. So V. G. Afanasyev
in his book Marxist Philosophy maintained that the state was not imposed from outside, but it was a
product of society’s internal development at a certain stage of development. With the break-up of the
social order ensued class-conflict which the society became powerless to dispel.

Emphasising the economic factor as the key element in the class struggle, Fredrich Engels observed- “But
in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume
themselves and society in sterile struggle, a power seemingly standing above society became necessary
for the purpose of moderating the conflict, of keeping it within the bounds of ‘order’ and this power,
arisen out of society, but placing itself above it and increasingly alienating itself from it is the state.”

The state was the medium of the economically dominant classes. V.I. Lenin developed on the above
thesis by bringing the communist party as the dominant class, namely the proletariat and his state,
namely the USSR where the proletariat was the dominant class which was to exploit the other classes.
Lenin also emphasised on the element of force to be resorted to by the proletariat against the bourgeois.
Thus Lenin incorporated the element of force too in the creation of the state.

The Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci made a little departure from the Marxist tenet by stating that a
state is the creation of the political party that holds on power. According to him, the political party is the
“modern prince”, evidently using the expression of N. Machiavelli. He went to the extent of asserting
that the party represents the national popular collective will and aims at the realisation of a higher and
total form of modern civilisation. Here we find that the author is more in agreement with the German
idealist Hegel than the Marxists.
This is in broad analysis of the Marxist views as culled from the writings and opinions of Engels, Lenin and
Gramsci. Now we shall draw up the criticism of it.

Criticism of Marxist Theory of Origin of State:

The Marxist theory of origin of state as based on class struggle is subjected to the following fierce
criticism:

In the first place, it is nowhere stated in history that state in its origin is linked with the class struggle.

In the second place, there might be different class interests, but it is difficult to say that these classes
were at arms as the Marxists have us to believe. The classes, on the other hand, cooperated with each
other and contributed in their way in the composite development of the state.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

In the third place, the Marxist theory is not original, but secondary because it carries the old wine of the
force theory in a new Marxist bottle. Force has been discarded as unsatisfactory theory in the creation of
the state.

In the fourth place, Lenin and Gramsci, by identifying the state with the political party, have erred by
generalising the communist state as an example for all other states. The communist state in Russia and
China might have originated with the communist party. Russia and China were already there in the map
of the world. They were not created with the communist party. Today communist party is over in Russia.
Does it deny the statehood to Russia?

In the fifth place, Marxism, by identifying the state with the party, encourages the totalitarianism of the
worst type like Fascism and Nazism. So the theory is a dangerous one.

Lastly, the Marxist dogma that the state is a creation of the class and it will die with the death of class is
false and misleading. The states are permanent and no state withered away for want of a class to back it.

So we fail to accept the Marxist theory as a suitable answer to the, origin of the state.
Activity
Summary Diagram
In this activity, the learners will summarize the main idea of each theory about the rise of the state. The
teachers may instruct the learners to summarize and provide a brief explanation on the theories on the rise
of states.

Socialization and Enculturation

 Identify the difference between socialization and enculturation

 Explain the process by which one acquires a sense of self
 Distinguish the three major aspect of socialization

How do individuals learn culture?

  Through biological inheritance (nature)
 Through cultural inheritance (nurture)

Two primary opposing perspectives:

Proponent of social learning theory argue that the set of behaviors of an individual is acquired through
socialization and enculturation

Proponents of sociobiology counter this perspective by advocating that humans acquired their behavior
genetically

Case of Feral Child

Victor of Aveyron
Genie a California girl

Today, the social learning theory is more accepted by sociologist and anthropologist in explaining
the development of behavior and attitude among humans. Sociologists use the term socialization to refer to
the process o by which an individual is oriented and taught by his or her society’s norm. This norm includes
belief, attitudes, practices and behaviors. Similarly this process is studied in anthropology through the
concept of enculturation.

Socialization

 Refers to the general process of acquiring culture as you grow up in a society

 Is a lifelong process by which people learn the ways of the society in which they live
 A form of interaction by which people acquire personality and learn the way of life of their society
 Socialization is a continuing process whereby an individual acquires a personal identity and learns
norms, values, behavior and social skills to his/her social position

Enculturation

 A process of being socialized to a particular culture

 The process by which an individual learns the culture that they are surrounded by that enables
them to function as a member that society
 It teaches amongst other things moral values, behaviors, expectations, rituals and language so as to
think, feel and behave

Socialization and Enculturation are two distinct terms yet closely related. Both play an important role in the
formation of personality and the development of the sense of self.

Enculturation and Socialization result to:

 Identity formation
 Norms and values
 Status and roles

Identity Formation
Identity –refers to the understanding people hold about who they are and what is meaningful to them
Two types of Identity:
1.Social identity
2.Self-Identity or Personal Identity
Social Identity
refers to the characteristics that other people attribute to an individual which seal ways to consider human
beings are the same as others. This in any way similar to Social Status or Social Position.
Example : citizen, mother, brother, student, Catholic, adolescent
Self-Identity or Personal Identity
Characteristics which make human being distinct from one another
Refers to our life experiences and self-development process base through which we create a unique sense
of ourselves and our relationship to the world exposed to us
Norms and Values
Norms are culturally determined rules that guide people regarding what is right, wrong, proper or
improper.
Norms create predictability in daily affairs and interactions, making it easier to live with other members of
society
Norms are fundamental to establishment of social order in any society
TYPES OF NORM
Formal norm-generally written down with specific punishment
Informal norms-generally understood but are not precisely written with no specific punishment or sanction
Values are standards people use to determine desirable goals and outcomes
Values are criteria on which people base their judgments regarding behaviors and decisions
Values are often used as parameters in separating what is considered normal and moral from taboo and
predatory

STATUS AND ROLE

Status refers to socially defined position in a group

Status can be classified into:

1.Ascribe status-a status that is based on biological factors say sex, age and race
2.Achieved status-a status that is earned through one’s own effort say billionaire, a valedictorian, a college
graduate, beauty queen, athlete, doctor

Roles refers to socially defined expectations to every status an individual is given

Activity:
Differentiate ascribed and achieved statuses through completing the diagram below. Don’t forget to use the
hints.

Hints:
 Those which are assigned to the individual from birth.
 It is acquired by choice, merit, or individual effort.
 It involves little personal choice like age and sex.
 Made possible through special abilities or talents, performance or
opportunities
 It carries with it certain expectations of behavior.
  Choice in occupation, marriage, joining religious organization are examples.

Conformity and Deviance

 Differentiate conformity and deviance

 Discuss the significance of social control among members of the society
 Distinguish Robert Merton’s Modes of Adaptation leading to deviance

Conformity is the act of following the roles and goals of one’s society. This behavior often met with rewards
and acceptance from other members of society
Different types of conformity according to Kelman(1958)
1.Compliance
2.Internalization
3.Identification
4.ingratiational
1.Compliance(group acceptance)
Occurs when an individual accepts influence because he hopes to achieve a favorable reaction from another
person or group
He adopts the induced behavior he expects to gain specific rewards or approval and avoid specific
punishment or disapproval by conformity
2. Internalization (genuine acceptance of group norms)
This occurs when an individual accepts influence because the content of the induced behavior-the ideas
and actions of which it is composed-is intrinsically rewarding.
He adopts the induced behavior because it is congruent or consistent with his value system
3.Identification
This occurs when an individual accepts influence because he wants to establish or maintain a satisfying self-
defining relationship to another person or group.
Individuals conform to the expectation of a social role, eg. Nurses, police officers
4.Ingratiational
This is occurs when a person conforms to impress or gain favor/acceptance from other people.
It is similar to normative influence but is motivated by the need for social rewards rather than the threat of
rejection. Example group pressure does not enter to the decision to conform
Deviance is the act of violating the prescribed social norms. Act of deviance are often associated with
stigma-a strong sense of disapproval on nonconforming behavior from the members of society

TYPES OF DEVIANCE
1. Innovation-accepts goals but reject means to achieve those ex: corrupt government officials
2. Ritualism-reject goals but accept social norms ex: religious fanatic
3. Retreatism-rejects both goals and means to achieve those ex: alcoholics
4. Rebellion- reject both goals and means to achieve those but sets up new goals or means ex: rebel
leaders

Functions of Deviance
- Deviance serves as an outlet for diverse forms of expressions.
- Deviance serves to define the limits of acceptable behavior.
- Deviance may also promote in group solidarity
- Deviance can serve as a barometer of social strain

Social Control
Social control is needed to maintain social order and stability. It is the ways in which a society encourages
conformity to its norms and expectation and discourages deviance by punishing deviants.
Two elements that promote social control:
1. Internalization-is an integral part of communicating and incorporating social norms to an
individual’s personality
2. Sanction –are powerful in leading an individual to conform to social norms
4 TYPES OF SANCTION
FORMAL SANCTION –rewards or form of punishment that are formally awarded by an institution such as a
government, a council or an establishment
INFORMAL SANCTION-reward and form of punishment that are spontaneously given by an individual or a
group of people as responsible to a behavior that was either accepted or disapproved
POSITIVE SANCTION-are actions or statement that reward a particular behavior, which reinforce its
repetition
NEGATIVE SANCTION-are actions or statement that punish or threaten to punish an unacceptable behavior
which enforce conformity

Human Dignity

Human dignity is self-respect

Human dignity an individual or group’s sense of self respect and self-worth physical and psychological
integrity and empowerment

Human dignity is inherent to every human being, inalienable and independent of the state

Human rights are rights inherent to all human being regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language,
religion or any other status.

United Nation defines it as universal legal guarantees protecting individuals and groups against actions
which interfere with fundamental freedoms and human dignity
It magnifies the idea that we are equally entitled to our human rights

Human Rights are natural rights of all human beings whatever their nationality, religion, ethnicity,
sex,language and color. We ara equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.

1. Natural Rights- rights inherent to man and given to him by God as human being. (Right to live,
love and be happy)
2. Constitutional Rights- rights guaranteed under the fundamental charter of the country (rights
against unreasonable searches and seizure, rights safeguarding the accused.)
3. Statutory Rights- rights provided by the law making body of a country or by law, such as the
right to receive a minimum wage and right to preliminary investigation.
4. Civil Rights- These are rights specified under the Bill of rights. (freedom of speech, right to
information) Rights enjoyed by an individual by virtue of his citizenship in a state or community.

5. Economic Rights- rights to property, whether personal, real or intellectual. (right to use and
dispose his property, right to practice one’s profession, right to make a aliving)
6. Political Rights- rights an individual enjoys as a consequence of being a member of body
politiv. (right to vote and right to be voted into public office.

Common Good as defined by Fr. Joaquin G. Bernas (2006) an authority of Constitutional law, projects the
idea of a social order that enables every citizen to attain his or her fullest development economically,
politically, culturally and spiritually. To be a country of high regards of human dignity and human rights, we
must promote inclusive citizenship that all- whether a member of minority or majority, must all have equal
access to legal equality. Legal equality includes equal treatment to every citizen or person provided by law
hence providing opportunities to them to fully improve and develop all spheres of human development.

https://www.history.com/topics/ancient-middle-east/mesopotamia