Coercion And Force Theory

The definition of the state as ‘the set of institutions that monopolize the legitimate uses of coercion and violence in society’ comes from Weber (Abercrombie et al, 2000). However, there are other definitions of the state as the concept is complex and open to the interpretation of different researchers and authors. It is important to note that the state is not the government; the government runs the state and so the actions of the state are influenced by the government. The institutions, practices, norms of authority and legality that make up the state outlast governments which change over time. Political power is essentially a social relationship between the state and society to constrain and enhance state action. This essay will be exploring …show more content…
One of Morris’ main concerns is about understanding coercion and force (Morris writes about violence as a type of force) as part of the concept of the state. He does not see them as conceptually tied, as they appear to be in Weber’s definition, as it is possible to comprehend the idea of a state without coercion and force. Morris writes about coercion and force as ways of getting people to conform to laws and policies, even if they do not agree with the state imposed rules and regulations for society. However, coercion and force need to be looked at in contrast to other ways of convincing people to act, such as persuasion and the use of authority. The state has the power to make authoritative decisions affecting all citizens of a given geographic authority without the use of coercion or force. A range of actions are used to compel citizens to act in certain ways that are necessary for the common good. Coercion and force are only needed when the state’s authority is questioned or disregarded (Morris, …show more content…
Defining the state as ‘the set of institutions that monopolize the legitimate uses of coercion and violence’ is just one interpretation of the concept of the ‘state’. Also, Morris (2012) argues that a better understanding of coercion and force is needed in order for the stated position to be critiqued with a full understanding of the concepts and view. There are arguments and evidence for this definition of the state as policies and institutions such as the Montreux Document are put in place to control the use of coercion and violence in society. Policies such as the Montreux Document are put in place to allow the state to control the legitimate use of coercion and violence in other states as well as their own society. The state also uses institutions such as the police to monopolize the use of coercion and violence through arresting and fining those citizens who act against the policies and laws of the state. However, the state is not the only monopolization of legitimate uses of coercion and violence as non-state actors have access to means of violence which they use to act against the state’s authority, in ways that they see as legal but the state does not. In the United States there is a strong link between violence and the state’s political culture as the state has a law which allows citizens to own and use guns. This is the state monopolizing the illegitimate use of