1. The idea of the State has been under heavy criti-
cism during the last decades. Historians tend to con-
sider the State a comparatively modern phenomenon,
while some political scientists, for different reasons,
reject the notion altogether as useless and out of date.
Now, if it is certainly true that “States” have not
always existed, it is equally true that they have existed
long before being called by that name. We may hesitate
to attribute State character to the tribal organizations
of primitive peoples. But who could honestly deny that
the Greek polis was, in more than one sense, a State?
What then is needed, in order to write the history of
the concept, is to consider the reasons which prompted
its appearance, i.e., both the peculiar experience and
the particular ideal which it was devised to express.
According to a widely held opinion the merit—if
it be one—of first having brought into the limelight
the idea of the State belongs to the ancient Greeks.
It is difficult to see how this opinion can be seriously
challenged; indeed, many reasons can be given for the
special relevance given to the idea of the State in
classical Greek thought. The first and foremost may
well be a psychological reason, linked to a typical bent
of the Greek mind. The same desire for knowledge
which inspired the Greeks in submitting to rational
enquiry the nature of the world that surrounded them
was reflected in their attitude towards social and polit-
ical problems: they were a source of endless discussion,
indeed of passionate controversy at times. But along-
side this almost natural predisposition, there are other
reasons which account for the keen interest of the
Greeks in the problems of the State. They are to be
found in the particular character of Greek political
experience, with its complex variety, its very in-
stability, and its constant flux. Here was something
entirely different from the closed and static social
systems of the East. Here too was a mine of information
to exploit, of data to compare, in order to elicit the
basic laws of political development, centering around
the most efficient, the most elaborate, and the most
“perfect” type of human organization: the organization
of the
polis or city-state.
Most efficient, elaborate, and perfect: thus did polit-
ical organization appear to the Greeks; different not
only quantitatively, but qualitatively, from all other
types of organized social life. Thus when Aristotle says,
at the beginning of his Politics, that the polis or politi-
cal association is “the most sovereign and inclusive
association,” he immediately adds that it is not size
nor numbers alone that distinguish political power
from all other powers that men exercise over men, but
a peculiar quality which that power possesses, a par-
ticular aim which it pursues: the attainment of justice,
that is, of a system of relations between men ensuring
certain standards and determined by law.
The idea of the State thus appears to be inspired
from the start by the awareness that, among all human
associations, there is one that stands out for combining,
however differently in proportions, might, power, and
authority: might, in order to be able to defend itself
from outside dangers and to impose upon its members,
if necessary, conformity by force; power, insofar as that
force is exercised in the name of and in accordance
with certain rules; authority, inasmuch as that power
should be considered legitimate and entail an obliga-
tion on those who are called to obey its commands.
These three properties have been stressed differently
over the centuries. The types of organizations which
possessed them have varied, and have been called by
different names. But such diversity is no excuse for
overlooking what they had in common, for it is pre-
cisely these common elements which have gone into
forging the idea of the State.
