Long Arms of the Leviathan: Physicalist and Semiological State Power in Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Bourdieu

• In Event: Theory Section Refereed Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Table 4

Abstract

Revolutions are back as substantive phenomena and objects of study. To understand revolutions, it is necessary to first understand the state, the ultimate target and enemy of revolutions. Invoking the classical sociologies of Marx, Weber, Durkheim, and Bourdieu, this paper asks: (i) Whose interests does the state serve? (ii) How does the state exercise power? (iii) What are the possibilities for dissent or social change? I argue that the four theorists emphasized two distinct but complementary dimensions of state power – physicalist and semiological – and represented four figurations of the state: as an instrument of class rule, a coercive actor, a decision-making thinker, and a symbolic hegemon. I argue that each figuration entails different possibilities for dissent and social change, seeing state-centered revolution as class struggle, delegitimation, interest group politics, and an intellectual task.

As an instrument of class rule, the Marxian state serves dominant class interests through physicalist powers like legislation. The state can be seized by class struggle, after which it will become the instrument of another, now dominant class. As a coercive actor, the Weberian state protects its own survival through physicalist powers like bureaucracy but also semiological powers like appealing to sources of legitimacy. Each of these sources can be undermined in different ways or during different windows of political opportunities. As a decision-making thinker, the Durkheimian state seeks to maintain social solidarity through semiological powers like the organization of the collective consciousness. The state can be influenced through professional groups that act as interest groups expressing their industrial interests to the state. As a symbolic hegemon, the Bourdieusian state serves dominant class interests through semiological powers like shaping cultural schemas and designating itself as an official authority. Dissent relies on intellectuals who are most capable of articulating universal interests independently from state thinking.

Author

• Sherman Tai, New York University