Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2 Ph.D Student, Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Introduction
The significance of war as a key factor in the formation of modern states is acknowledged by certain scholars, particularly Neo-Weberian historical sociologists. In the 1970s, the Neo-Weberian historical sociology paradigm emerged as a critique of reducing the origins of the state to non-political factors. Aiming to revitalize the conception of state as an influential and autonomous institution, the Neo-Weberians explored the impact of wars on political transformations, viewing war as a key variable in shaping state structures and strengthening their authority. These studies highlight the argument that the requisites of military conflicts play a significant role in the development of Western states, enhancing their power and extending their societal reach. The current research aimed to examine the mechanisms through which war positively impacts state power, with a focus on the work of sociologists such as Weber, Tilly, Giddens, and Mann. Furthermore, it analyzed the applicability of these theories to historical experiences of non-Western societies, challenging the widely accepted conclusion among sociologists that war has a positive effect on state power. Instead, its central hypothesis argues that the relationship between war and state-building is not always positive and that military conflicts often undermine state authority in many societies.
Literature Review
The existing literature presents a variety of perspectives on the question at hand. Generally, the Neo-Weberian approach remains a key reference for numerous researchers and historians, with military conflicts recognized as one of the primary drivers of political transformations in societies (MacMillan, 2023). In the context of non-Western societies, the relevance of these theories is a topic of special interest. For example, Hodgson (1974) argued that the invasions of the Mongols and the Crusaders significantly influenced the civilizational developments, geopolitical formations, and advancements in military and political structures of major Islamic empires. In contrast, Luchmann (2021) challenged the effectiveness of applying the military model of state-building. He highlighted historical evidence on the lack of cohesion within European state armies, their exploitative relationships, and their failure to raise financial resources to support their objectives. Recent research has also criticized the narrow perspective of Neo-Weberians, particularly Charles Tilly, regarding the causal relationship between war and the state. These studies present alternative theories to explain state formation in both Western and non-Western contexts. Adopting a broader view, some scholars reject the Neo-Weberian approach, arguing that war is not a necessary condition for the development of political institutions. Instead, they focus on other influential variables in the development of states in both Western and non-Western settings (see Kaspersen & Strandsbjerg, 2017). Some scholars specifically contend that applying Neo-Weberian theories to third-world societies is not feasible (Charlotte Ng, 2008; Sorensen, 2011). Among Iranian researchers, with the exception of a few review articles, no specific studies have been conducted to assess the generalizability of Neo-Weberian historical sociology theories.
Materials and Methods
As a descriptive inquiry, the current research employed a qualitative research method to address the topic. Relying on a library research, it reviewed the theoretical literature and relevant studies to collect the data from various resources and documents.
Results and Discussion
While the analysis acknowledged the value of the historical sociological approach in understanding the political history of societies, it highlighted a tendency among proponents of the Neo-Weberian perspective to make unconditional generalizations of their theories. Although wars have had a positive impact on state consolidation in certain cases, they have often resulted in political and social erosion, as well as a decline in state capabilities. The findings suggest that the relationship between war and state-building, whether positive or negative, should be explained by considering additional variables, such as the nature of the war, foreign forces, and the economic and social conditions of the societies involved in conflict. Factors such as demographics, economics, technology, the type of war (domestic or foreign), the method of war financing (rent or taxation), social structure (ethnic group cohesion or lack thereof), and the strategies employed by leaders all influence the impact of military conflicts on state power. In light of these additional variables, the widely accepted conclusion of Neo-Weberian historical sociologists is not universally valid.
Conclusion
While Neo-Weberian theories emphasize war as a primary factor in state-building, a review of more recent scholarship reveals a more complex relationship than these theories initially proposed. This suggests a need to refine and revise the core tenets of the Neo-Weberian framework. In other words, while recognizing the value of a militaristic perspective in understanding state-building, the findings of this study align with critical scholarship that challenges the limitations of the Neo-Weberian perspective. Therefore, future research may explore the relationship between war and state-building through more rigorous case studies.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)