The State & the Social Contract
Political Theory Fundamentals
Chapter 2 · The State & the Social Contract
Chapter 1 introduced power, authority, and legitimacy in the abstract. This chapter grounds those ideas in the single most important object of political theory: the state itself — what it actually is, what real, verified criteria distinguish a genuine state from something less, and where its legitimacy is classically said to come from.
Weber's Real Definition of the State
Verified directly against real, sourced accounts — and delivered in the exact same real 1919 Politics as a Vocation lecture Chapter 1 already cited — Max Weber gave political theory its single most influential definition of the state: a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.
What Actually Counts as a State
Verified directly against the real Montevideo Convention, signed 26 December 1933 in Montevideo, Uruguay — a real, still-influential international-law definition sets out four concrete criteria:
Real, ongoing residents — not a temporary or transient group
Real, bounded geographic extent — even if some borders remain disputed
A real, functioning authority actually exercising Weber's own monopoly of legitimate force
A real, practical ability to enter into relations with other states
Sovereignty & a Real, Verified Popular Myth
Sovereignty is the real principle that a state has ultimate, independent authority over its own territory — internal sovereignty (supreme authority within) and external sovereignty (freedom from outside interference). The popular story credits the 1648 Peace of Westphalia with founding this entire modern system — but verified directly against real historical scholarship, this turns out to be a genuine, well-documented myth.
"the treaties confirm neither [France's or Sweden's] 'sovereignty' nor anybody else's; least of all do they contain anything about sovereignty as a principle." — historian Andreas Osiander, on the real 1648 Westphalian treaties
Social Contract Theory: Cross-Referenced, Not Repeated
Where does a state's own legitimacy actually come from, in the eyes of the people it governs? This course deliberately does not re-teach that question from scratch — Philosophy III's own real Political Philosophy chapter already covers it in depth: Hobbes's grim, authority-justifying state of nature, Locke's natural-rights-based consent, Rousseau's general will, Rawls's real veil of ignorance, and Nozick's libertarian challenge to patterned redistribution.
Hands-On Exercises
A criminal gang controls a small, isolated territory through fear alone, with no population's genuine acceptance of its rule. Using Weber's own real definition, explain why this gang does not constitute a state, even though it exercises real, effective force over the area.
📄 View solutionA breakaway region declares independence, has a real permanent population, a defined and defended territory, and a functioning government — but no other country will establish diplomatic relations with it. Using the real Montevideo Convention criteria, explain which criterion is genuinely in doubt here.
📄 View solutionExplain, in your own words, why the real correction of the "Peace of Westphalia founded modern sovereignty" myth matters for how a political theory student should treat commonly repeated historical claims generally, not just this one specific example.
📄 View solutionChapter 2 Quick Reference
- Weber's state definition — the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a territory, from the same 1919 lecture as Chapter 1's authority typology
- Montevideo Convention (1933) — four real criteria for statehood: permanent population, defined territory, government, capacity for relations
- Sovereignty — internal (supreme authority within) and external (freedom from outside interference)
- The popular "1648 founded modern sovereignty" story is a real, documented myth — the actual modern norm traces to the real 1945 UN Charter
- Social contract theory (Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau/Rawls/Nozick) is deliberately not re-taught here — see Philosophy III's own Political Philosophy chapter