Theories of the Origin of State

Submitted to:
Mrs. Anita Samal
(Faculty: Political Science)

Submitted by:
Name: Spandan Pattanaik
Semester: I
Roll No: 159
Section: A
B.A. LLB (HONS.)

Hidayatullah National LawUniversity

Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh
Date of Submission
16-08-2016
 Page |i

Declaration

I, Spandan Pattanaik, hereby declare that, the project work entitled, ‘Theories of the Origin of

State’ submitted to H.N.L.U., Raipur is record of an original work done by me under the

guidance of, Mrs. Anita Samal, Faculty Member (Political Science), H.N.L.U., Naya Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

Name: Spandan Pattanaik

Roll no.: 159

Semester I
 P a g e | ii

Acknowledgements
I, Spandan Pattanaik would like to humbly present this project to Mrs. Anita Samal. I would

first of all like to express my most sincere gratitude to Mrs. Anita Samal for her

encouragement and guidance regarding several aspects of this project. I am thankful for being

given the opportunity of doing a project on ‘Theories of the Origin of State’.

I am thankful to the library staff as well as the IT lab staff for all the conveniences they have

provided me with, which have played a major role in the completion of this paper.

Last but definitely not the least, I am thankful to my seniors for all their support, tips and

valuable advice whenever needed. I present this project with a humble heart.

Name: Spandan Pattanaik

Roll No.: 159

Semester I

BA. L.LB. Hons

Date: 16-08-2016
 P a g e | iii

Table of Contents

Declaration i

Acknowledgements ii

Introduction 1

The Theory of Divine Origin 3

The Theory of Force 6

The Social Contract theory 11

The Evolutionary Theory of State 15

Conclusion 20

Bibliography 21
 Page |1

Introduction
For the first 2 million years of his existence, man lived in bands or villages which, as far as
we can tell, were completely autonomous. Not until perhaps 5000 B.C. did villages begin to
aggregate into larger political units. But, once this process of aggregation began, it continued
at a progressively faster pace and led, around 4000 B.C., to the formation of the first state in
history. (When I speak of a state I mean an autonomous political unit, encompassing many
communities within its territory and having a centralized government with the power to
collect taxes, draft men for work or war, and decree and enforce laws.) Although it was by all
odds the most far-reaching political development in human history, the origin of the state is
still very imperfectly understood. Indeed, not one of the current theories of the rise of the
state is entirely satisfactory. At one point or another, all of them fail. There is one theory,
though, which I believe does provide a convincing explanation of how states began. It is a
theory which I proposed once before1, and which I present here more fully. Before doing so,
however, it seems desirable to discuss, if only briefly, a few of the traditional theories.

Explicit theories of the origin of the state are relatively modern. Classical writers like
Aristotle, unfamiliar with other forms of political organization, tended to think of the state as
“natural,” and therefore as not requiring an explanation.  However, the age of exploration, by
making Europeans aware that many peoples throughout the world lived, not in states, but in
independent villages or tribes, made the state seem less natural, and thus more in need of
explanation.

Of the many modern theories of state origins that have been proposed, we can consider only a
few. Those with a racial basis. for example, are now so thoroughly discredited that they need
not be dealt with here. We can also reject the belief that the state is an expression of the
“genius” of a people, or that it arose through a “historical accident.” Such notions make the
state appear to be something metaphysical or adventitious, and thus place it beyond scientific
understanding. The origin of the state was neither mysterious nor fortuitous. It was not the
product of “genius” or the result of chance, but the outcome of a regular and determinate
cultural process. Moreover, it was not a unique event but a recurring phenomenon: states
arose independently in different places and at different times.  In the absence of adequate
1
R. L. Carneiro, in The Evolution of Horticultural Systems in Native South America: Causes and Consequences: A
Symposium, J. Wilbert, Ed., Antropológica (Venezuela), Suppl. 2 (1961), pp. 47-67
 Page |2

historical and anthropological data, the different explanations are speculative, like the theory
of divine origin and social contract but certain others, like the kinship theory and
evolutionary theory are based on empirical and verifiable findings.
 Page |3

Research Methodology

Research Method:
This is a descriptive research paper. The research method is non empirical. The presentation
is analytical. It is based on secondary data and other secondary sources.

Objectives:

1. To analyse the various theories of origin of state.

2. To get a brief idea about the theory of divine origin.
3. To understand the theory of force.
4. To study the social contract theory.
5. To critically examine the evolutionary theory of state.

Scope of Study:
The aim of this project is to elucidate on the different Theories of origin of State.
The project is divided into different chapters,
 The first chapter deals with the Theory of Divine Origin
 The second chapter deals with the theory of Force
 The third chapter deals with the Social Contract theory
 The final chapter deals with the Evolutionary theory of State.
 Page |4

The Theory of Divine Origin

1. Statement of the Theory.
The Theory of divine origin of the state is the oldest theory concerning the primary origin of
state. According to it, the state is established by Gods, who rule the state directly or indirectly
through someone regarded as an agent.

2. History

The divine theory or the theocratic conception is almost as old as the state itself, and
was universally popular in primitive society. It is a well authenticated fact that the
early forms of political authority were often connected with unseen powers.
According to MacIver, the earliest rulers were a combination of Priest, Magic man,
and King.2

According to the Mahabharata, there was anarchy in the world, and the people prayed
to God for a King, and God appointed Manu to rule over them. According to the Jews,
the King is treated owing responsibility to God alone for his acts. There are many
references in the Old Testament which state that God appoints, dismisses, and even
slays rulers. These references were used by Medieval writers to assert supremacy of
the Catholic church over political affairs, as the Pope is regarded as a living man
closest to God. The Protestant Reformation gave a new impetus to the divine theory.
It was declared in the Augsburg Confession (1530) that all authority, government, law
and order have been created and established by God himself. Bousset advocated the
theory of divine origin to support the despotism of Louis XIV. James I , in his book
The Law of Free Monarchies asserted this theory, claiming that Kings derived their
authority directly from God.3 James I wrote : “ King are justly called Gods, for they
exercise a manner of resemblance of divine power on earth.” The theory of divine
origin lost its popularity by the late 18th century, although it was still popular in
places such as Czarist Russia until its collapse.

2
K.K Misra, Political Theory, 2012, S. Chand & Company, page 71.
3
V.D Mahajan, Political Theory,2005, S. Chand & Company, page 250.
 Page |5

3. Features of the theory.

 Monarchy is divinely ordained. King derive their authority directly from God.
 Hereditary right is indefeasible. Succession to the throne is governed by the laws of
primogeniture.
 Kings are accountable to Gods alone for all their acts.
 Resistance to a lawful king was a sin. To go against the King is to go against God.

4. Criticisms.

That the State is divinely created does not find any place in the present political
thought. The State is essentially a human institution, and it comes into existence when
a number of people occupying a definite territory organise themselves politically for
achieving common ends. The laws of the State are made by men and enforced by
them.

The Divine Origin theory is dangerous as it justifies the arbitrary exercise of royal
authority by holding that authority has a religious sanction and origin, and Kings are
the vicars of God. When the ruler is made responsible for his actions to God alone and
law is held to reside ultimately “in the breast of the King”, it is tantamount to
preaching absolutism and making the King a despot.

It is, accordingly, bad logic to accept the dogma of James I that “Kings are breathing
images of God upon earth.” Even in the scriptures the theory does not find
unequivocal support. The Bible tells us, “Render unto Caesar the things that are
Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s.” This saying of Christ does not
justify the Divine Origin of the State.

Finally, the theory does not consider any other form of government except monarchy
and that, too, absolute monarchy. Such a form of government is antagonistic to the
democratic ideal which accepts consent as the basis of the State.

The Divine Origin theory is dismissed as an explanation of the origin of the State. At
the same time, the theory has a certain value. We cannot ignore the part which
religion played in the development of the State. The early rulers combined unto
themselves the authority and functions of a king and a priest. Law had a religious
 Page |6

sanction and “divine” or religious law appealed to primitive man more than human
law.

Finally, the theory of Divine Origin adds a moral tone to the functions of the State.
“To regard the State as the work of God is to give it a high moral status, to make it
something which the citizen may revere and support, something which he may regard
as the perfection of human life.”

5. Decline

 The first great setback to the them given by the theory of social contract which proved
that the state was a, human creation, a hand work of man and not a divine creation.

 The growth of democratic ideas further gave a shock to the which defended in its
ultimate sense the absolute powers of the king Democracy glorifies the individual.

 The separation of the church and the state also led to the decline of the theory. In the
modern period sphere of religion has been from the sphere of the state.

 Growth of scientific knowledge and purely materialistic approach further given a rude
shock to the theory of Divine Origin of State. Blind faith and unfounded superstitions
had no appeal to a modern mind. Reason and logic took the place of faith.
 Page |7

The Theory of Force

1. Statement of the Theory.

The theory of Force is another fallacious theory, but historically important, which is offered
as an explanation of the origin and meaning of the State.

There is an old saying that ‘war begets the king,’ and true to this maxim, the theory of Force
emphasises the origin of the State in the subordination of the weak to the strong.

The advocates of the theory argue that man, apart from being a social animal, is bellicose by
nature. There is also a lust for power in him. Both these desires prompt him to exhibit his
strength and in the early stages of the development of mankind a person physically stronger
than the rest captured and enslaved the weak.

He collected in this way a band of followers, fought with others, and subjugated the weak.
Having increased the number of his followers, over whom he exercised undisputed authority,
he became a tribal chief.

A clan fought against a clan and a tribe against a tribe. The powerful conquered the weak and
this process of conquest and domination continued till the victorious tribe secured control
over a definite territory of a considerable size under the sway of its tribal chief, who
proclaimed himself the King.

Leacock gives a matter- of-fact explanation of the Force Theory when he says that
“historically it means that government is the outcome of human aggression, that the
beginnings of the State are to be sought in the capture and enslavement of man by man, in the
conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes, and generally speaking in the self-seeking
domination acquired by superior physical force.

The progressive growth from tribe to kingdom and from kingdom to empire is but a
continuation of the same process.” The theory, in fine, tells us that the State is primarily the
result of forcible subjugation through long continued warfare among primitive groups and
“historically speaking,” as Jenks says, “there is not the slightest difficulty in proving that all
political communities of the modem type owe their existence to successful warfare.”
 Page |8

Once the State had been established, force, which had hitherto been utilised for subjugating
others, was used as an instrument for maintaining internal order and making it secure from
any kind of external aggression. But this alone was not sufficient.

Force was used as the sinews of war and power and in a bid for superiority, one State fought
against another, eliminating the weaker and only those survived which either could not be
conquered, or no venture was made to conquer them as they were comparatively powerful.
The theory of Force, therefore, traces the origin and development of the State to conquest and
“justifies its authority by the proposition that might is right.”

The theory has, thus, four implications. First, force is not only a historical factor, but is the
present essential feature of the State; secondly, that the States were born of force only;
thirdly, that power is their justification and raison d’etre; and, finally, that the maintenance
and extension of power within and without is the sole aim of the State

2. Varied Interpretation of the Theory.

The theory of Force has been advanced by different thinkers and writers for advocating their
own point of view. It was first used by the Church Fathers in the medieval period to discredit
the State, and to establish the supremacy of the Church. They claimed that the Church was
divinely created whereas the State was the outcome of brute force.

Gregory VII wrote in 1080: “Which of us is ignorant that kings and lords have had their
origin in those who, ignorant of God, by arrogance, rapine, perfidy, slaughter, by every crime
which the devil agitating as the prince of the world, have continued to rule over their
fellowmen with blind cupidity and intolerable presumption.”

In modem times the Individualists owned the theory to protect individual liberty against
government encroachment. They characterised the State as a necessary evil and argued that
the State should leave the individual alone, laissez faire, and should not interfere in what he
does, except for the maintenance of internal peace and external security.

The Individualists base their arguments on the principle of survival of the fittest and try to
prove that it is only the strong who survive and the weak go to the wall. The Socialists, on the
other hand, hold that the State is the outcome of the process of aggressive exploitation on the
 Page |9

weaker by the stronger; the latter constituting the propertied class who had ever manned
administration and directed the machinery of the government to their own benefit.

The existing system of industrial organisation, it is maintained, hinges upon force because “a
part of the community has succeeded in defrauding their fellows of the just reward of their
labour.” They further argue that force is the origin of civil society and government represents
merely the coercive organisation which tends to curb and exploit the working class in order to
maintain the privileged position of the propertied class.

The theory of Socialism is a revolt against the State, as it is the product of force and power is
its justification and raison d’etre. Karl Marx, accordingly, concluded that the State must
ultimately ‘wither away’.

During recent times the theory of Force was a favourite theme of political philosophy with
German writers. Imbued with the desire to make their country a Greater Germany, and at the
peak of its glory, they lavished praise on force and considered its indiscriminate use as the
most important factor for the solidarity of the nation.

Treitschke said that “the State is the public power of offence and defence, the first task of
which is the making of war and the administration of justice.” War, he said, consolidates a
people, reveals to each individual his relative unimportance, causes factional hostilities to
disappear, and intensifies patriotism and national idealism.

“The grandeur of history,” he further maintained, “lies in the perpetual conflict of nations”
and “the appeal to arms will be valid until the end of history.” General Von Bernhardt held
might as “the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the arbitrament
of war.

War gives a biologically just decision, since the decision rests on the very nature of things.”
Nietzsche preached the doctrine of the will to power and the superman. The individual who
can command the highest admiration, according to this doctrine, is the strong man who
compels other men to act in fulfilment of his will.

Nietzsche, while glorifying the “masterly” virtues of man, says that a truly moral person “has
no place for the vulgar and slavish virtue of humility, self-sacrifice, pity, gentleness.” Hitler
and Mussolini put into real practice the doctrines of these writers.
 P a g e | 10

They regarded force as the normal means for maintaining a nation’s prestige, cultural
influence, commercial supremacy in the world, and for holding the allegiance of citizens at
home. This general doctrine of political authoritarianism, both with Hitler and Mussolini,
became “a creed of dominance by intimidation—militancy in international relations and
forcible suppression of political dissent in domestic government.”

Hitler and Mussolini pushed mankind into another World War, causing unprecedented
misery, havoc and destruction. The United Nations Organization was established after the
War to save the succeeding generations from the scourge of war. Yet there is no end to war.
There is a show of might everywhere and a never-ending race between all powers, big and
small, to invent and manufacture deadly weapons of warfare, some to defend, others to
offend.

3. Criticisms.

Force, indeed, has played an important part in the origin and development of the State. Some
of the greatest empires of today have been established through ‘blood and iron.’

We may see even more of this ‘blood and iron’ in the days to come. Force is an essential
element of the State. Internally, the State requires force to ensure obedience to its commands.

Externally, it is necessary to repel aggression and to preserve the integrity of the State.
Without force no State can exist and sovereignty of the State always rests ultimately on force.
Kant said, “Even a population of devils would find it to their advantage to establish a
coercive State by general consent.”

But, all this does not sufficiently explain the origin of the State. Force is, no doubt, one of the
factors which contributed to the evolution of the State. It is, however, not the only one, nor
the most important factor, and the theory of force “errs in magnifying what has been only one
factor in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force.”

Force is, also, not the only basis of the State. Something other than force is necessary in
binding the people together. It is will, not force, which is the real basis of the State. Sheer
force can hold nothing together because “force always disrupts—unless it is made subservient
to common will.”
 P a g e | 11

Force we do need in maintaining the State, but its indiscriminate use cannot be permitted. It
must be used as a medicine and not a daily diet as force is the criterion of the State and not its
essence. If it becomes the essence of the State, the State will last so long as force can last.
Indiscriminate use of force has always been the forerunner of revolutions, overthrowing
governments which rest on force.

Since the State is a permanent institution, only moral force can be its permanent foundation.
T.H. Green has aptly said that “it is not coercive power as such but coercive power exercised
according to law, written or unwritten, for maintenance of the existing rights from external or
internal invasions that makes a State.” Might with rights is as lasting as human minds on
which it depends.

Moreover, the Theory of Force unduly emphasises the principle of the survival of the fittest.
It means that might is right and those who are physically weak should go to the wall. It is
dangerous to employ such a principle in the internal existence of the State. Might without
right is antagonistic to individual liberty.

The State is duly bound to protect equally the weak and the strong and create equal
opportunities for all. Externally, if might is the supreme right, and the dispute as to what is
right is decided by the arbitrage of war, there can be no international peace. Every State will
be at perpetual war with the rest.

This is a condition of chaos, pure and simple, endangering the peace and security of the
world. The attention and efforts of every State will be directed towards war-preparedness and
to win the war, if it comes. War, which is an alias for murder, glorifies brute force,
suppressing the moral forces. This is the mean self of man and not his real sell.
 P a g e | 12

The Social Contract Theory.

1. Statement of the Theory.

In moral and political philosophy, the social contract or political contract is a theory or
model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of
the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social
contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly,
to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or
to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The
question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social
contract theory. The Social Contract (Du contrat social ouPrincipes du droit politique) is also
the short title of a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau on this topic.

Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic
philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to
early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The
starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition
absent from any political order that Thomas Hobbes termed the "state of nature". In this
condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From
this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate, in different ways, why
a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the
benefits of political order.

2. History

The concept of the social contract is posed by Glaucon, as described by Plato in The Republic
Book II and in Kautilya’s “Arthashastra.” Plato and Aristotle dealt with this theory only to
reject it. In political discussions, the theory gained prominence during and after the Middle
Ages. Social Contract as distinguished from governmental contract is probably first
mentioned in Hooker’s “The Law of Ecclesiastical Polity.” Althusius and Milton also used
the idea of social contract in constructing their theories of limited governance. The theory
traversed a long way in the history of political thought until it received the most systematic
and comprehensive treatment at the hands of two Englishmen, Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke and Frenchman, J.J Rousseau.
 P a g e | 13

3. Views of its Modern Exponents.

 Thomas Hobbes.

According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "solitary, poor,
nasty, brutish and short", a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts
prevented the 'social', or society. Life was 'anarchic' (without leadership or the concept of
sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and asocial. This state of nature
is followed by the social contract.

The social contract was an 'occurrence' during which individuals came together and ceded
some of their individual rights so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up his/her
right to kill person B if person B does the same). This resulted in the establishment of the
state, a sovereign entity like the individuals now under its rule used to be, which would create
laws to regulate social interactions. Human life was thus no longer "a war of all against all".

But the state system, which grew out of the social contract, was also anarchic (without
leadership) with respect to each other. Just as the individuals in the state of nature had been
sovereigns and thus guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so states now acted in
their self-interest in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were thus
bound to be in conflict because there was no sovereign over and above the state (i.e. more
powerful) capable of imposing some system such as social-contract laws on everyone by
force. Indeed, Hobbes' work helped to serve as a basis for the realism theories of international
relations, advanced by E.H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau.

Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that humans ("we") need the "terrour of some Power" otherwise
humans will not heed the call of "(in summe) doing to others, as wee would be done to".4

 John Locke.

John Locke's conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes' in several fundamental
ways, retaining only the central notion that persons in a state of nature would willingly come
together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be bound
morally, by the Law of Nature, not to harm each other in their lives or possession, but without
government to defend them against those seeking to injure or enslave them, people would
4
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1985 London: Penguin. p. 223.
 P a g e | 14

have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Locke argued that individuals would
agree to form a state that would provide a "neutral judge", acting to protect the lives, liberty,
and property of those who lived within it.

While Hobbes argued for near-absolute authority, Locke argued for inviolate freedom under
law in his Second Treatise of Government. Locke argued that government's legitimacy comes
from the citizens' delegation to the government of their right of self-defense (of "self-
preservation"), along with elements of other rights as necessary to achieve the goal of
security (e.g. property will be liable to taxation). The government thus acts as an impartial,
objective agent of that self-defense, rather than each man acting as his own judge, jury, and
executioner—the condition in the state of nature. In this view, government derives its "just
powers from the consent [i.e, delegation] of the governed,".

 J.J Rousseau.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract, outlined a
different version of social contract theory, as the foundations of political rights based on
unlimited popular sovereignty. Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at the
time the freest people on earth, he did not approve of their representative government.
Rousseau believed that liberty was possible only where there was direct rule by the people as
a whole in law making, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable. But he
also maintained that the people often did not know their "real will," and that a proper society
would not occur until a great leader ("the Legislator") arose to change the values and customs
of the people, likely through the strategic use of religion.

Rousseau's political theory differs in important ways from that of Locke and Hobbes.
Rousseau's collectivism is most evident in his development of the "luminous conception"
(which he credited to Diderot) of the general will. Rousseau argues a citizen cannot pursue
his true interest by being an egoist but must instead subordinate himself to the law created by
the citizenry acting as a collective.
 P a g e | 15

4. Criticisms.

First, social contract theorists must assume that a nation is a bargain. The view is a non-
starter to those who disagree on this bargain view. What theories of justice social contract
scholars come up with depends on how good the bargain is. Hobbes who regarded a nation
state as the best bargain declared that a ruler has the absolute power over his subjects since
their alternative is 'the brute and short' life of the state of nature. Locke who viewed living in
the state of nature pretty OK maintained that the government power is limited to protecting
the natural rights of each and every individual. 

Secondly, social contract theorists misunderstand the nature of political power. A nation state
is not a club. You cannot cancel a membership of a nation state just because you do not like
the way the gov operates.  There is an extremely high exit-cost. A most recent example can
be the sufferings of Syrian refugees. A nation state is a territorial monopoly power that is
'entitled’ to make laws, to punish offenders and to raise a levy. The government is deaf to the
protest that you did not consent to the actions of the government.

Third, the social contract idea must assume that individuals in the state of nature are clothed
with rights. That is, a person is a priori a bundle of rights, which they bring to the table. A
contract between two parties cannot happen if one party has nothing to offer. The reality
however is that what is clothing individuals with rights is not the nature, but a nation state.
Utilitarian theorists object to social contract for this mistaken causality (e.g., Hume and T. H.
Green). We have the right to the bodily integrity in a way because the police punish the
violators of the right. I find "The Cost of Rights: Why Liberty depends on Taxes," authored
by renowned law professors Holmes and Sunstein helpful to understand this utilitarian
genesis of rights.
 P a g e | 16

The Evolutionary Theory of State.

1. Statement of the Theory.

The State is, as Garner said, “neither the handiwork of God, nor the result of superior
physical force, nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor a mere expansion of the
family.”

It is an institution of natural growth which originated in the bare needs of the life of man and
continues in existence for the sake of good life.

The theory which explains, and is now accepted as a convincing origin of the State, is the
Historical or Evolutionary Theory. It explains that the State is the product of growth, a slow
and steady evolution extending over a long period of time and ultimately shaping itself into
the complex structure of a modem State.

Burgess has aptly said that the State is a “continuous development of human society out of a
grossly imperfect beginning through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a
perfect and universal organisation of mankind.”

It is difficult to say how and when the State came into existence. Like all other social
institutions, it must have emerged imperceptibly, supported by various influences and
conditions.

Apart from the influences of physical environment and geographical conditions, there are five
important factors which made men to aggregate at different places and separated one group
from another, thereby paving the way for the rise and growth of the State.

2. Features of the Theory

 Kinship

The earliest form of social organisation was based upon blood relationship and kinship was
the first and the strongest bond of unity. What bound people together and made them cohere
into a group was the belief in common descent and the earliest and closest unit of kinship was
the family.
 P a g e | 17

It is, of course, a disputed point whether tribe, group or family came first, yet it cannot be
denied that family constituted the first link in the process of the evolution of the State,and
government must have begun in a clearly defined family discipline; command and obedience.
Even the advocates of the Matriarchal Theory ultimately veer round to the family and
recognise the authority of the patriarch.

With the expansion of the family arose new families and the multiplication of families led to
the formation of clans and tribes. Throughout the process of this evolution sanction of kinship
was the only factor which bound the people together.

Persons unconnected by ties of blood, unless admitted into the tribe by adoption, were
deemed strangers and treated as enemies. The name of the common ancestor was the symbol
of kinship. The “magic of names,” as Maclver sums up, “reinforced the sense of kinship, as
the course of generations enlarged the group.

The blood bond of sonship changed imperceptibly into the social bond of the wider
brotherhood. The authority of the father passed into the power of the chief. Once more under
the aegis of kinship new forms arose which transcended it.

Kinship created society and society at length created the state.” The origin of the political
activity of man is, therefore, embedded in Aristotle’s cogent remark that man is a social and
political animal.

It is, then, clear that the germs of government must have begun in clearly defined family
discipline and the patriarch evoked respect and obedience to authority. The authority of the
father of the family over its members was complete, absolute and undisputed.

The patriarch, who afterwards became the tribal chieftain, combined unto himself religious,
administrative, judicial and military powers. This is the evidence of history.

 Religion

Closely connected with kinship, as a factor in State-building, is religion. Kinship and religion
in the primitive society were two aspects of the same thing and both acted simultaneously in
welding together families and tribes. “Religion was the sign and seal of common blood, the
expression of its oneness, its sanctity, its obligation.”
 P a g e | 18

When the bonds of kinship steadily weakened with the expansion of the family into the gens,
the clans and the tribes, a common form of worship reinforced the sense of unity and respect
for authority.

The primitive religion evolved from animism to ancestor-worship. The early man was
surrounded by natural phenomena which he could not understand. He looked towards natural
forces, such as storms, thunder and lightning, clouds and wind, the sun, moon and stars with
awe and reverence.

The sanction of law in primitive society was religion and, as it was the terrible aspect of
religion that appealed to primitive minds, the breaking of law was followed by terrible
punishment. This is how the relation of command and obedience, which was natural in family
relations, was definitely established by religion.

Side by side grew up superstitions and magical customs. In primitive communities magical
rites and incantations were practised both privately and publicly. Anyone who could
propitiate the spirits began to acquire commanding importance and unique influence.

The sorcerer became the leader and it is here that we witness the emergence of magician-
kings. From magician the step to chief or king was simple. Magicians gave way to priests,
when people had lost faith in the spirits and the power of magic.

The priests, too, came into eminence in the same way as the magicians. The evidence
available sufficiently shows that early kings were priest- kings, combining the duties of
ceremonial observances and secular rule. The rise of the magician and of his kingly successor
has been the special thesis of Sir James G. Frazer.

According to Frazer’s theory, the first form of tribal government was the gerontocracy or
council of old men, representing the various families constituting the tribe. Their control over
the tribe was perfect and complete as they alone were deemed to be familiar with the secret
mysteries of the tribal religion, and they alone were considered eminently competent to know
all that could be known about the spiritual world.

Out of the council of elders emerged the magician, “a resolute and ambitious man, a clever
and unscrupulous man, who pretended to extraordinary powers of divination and sorcery.
 P a g e | 19

The fertility of the soil, rain or drought, the success or failure of crops seemed to depend
more upon his incantations and rituals than upon human effort. His influence, especially
among an agricultural people, assumed enormous proportions. The magician eventually made
himself priest-king.”

 Property and Defence.

In order to understand the origin of the State and government we must observe how the
kinship group earned its living. “The basic factor in any given society,” says Laski, “is the
way it earns its living all social relations are built upon provision for those primary material
appetites without satisfying which life cannot endure.

And an analysis of society will always reveal the close connection between its institutions
and culture and the methods of satisfying material appetites. As these methods change, so
also will the institutions and culture of the society change?

Changes in the methods of economic production appear to be the most vital factor in the
making of changes in all other social patterns we know. For changes in those methods
detuning the changes of social relationships; and these, in their turn, are subtly interwoven
with all the cultural habits of men.” The key to social behaviour must, therefore, be sought in
the economic system.

 Force.

The new system also placed a great emphasis upon military life, first for defence, then for
conquest. It is often contended that the State began in conquest when the herdsmen
conquered the husbandmen or peasants.

The conquest theory is favourably received by the Sociologists. Oppenheimer, the most
prominent advocate of this theory, maintains that “the cause of the genesis of all States is the
contact between peasants and herdsmen, between labourers and robbers, between bottom
lands and prairies.”

The conquest theory does not explain the origin of the State. But the part played by warfare in
moulding political institutions at any stage of human development cannot be discounted,
more so in a primitive society. Private property, in the form of flocks and herds, afforded a
 P a g e | 20

strong incentive to looting, which in turn had to be checked by systematic defence and
punitive expeditions against hostile tribes.

Concerted action for common defence and chastisement of the warring tribes created the dire
need for military leadership which was an important factor in creating the chieftainship and
strengthening its powers.

The office of the chieftain became hereditary and consequently it led to the establishment of
the monarchy. Yet, the emergence of the State, as Maclver says, and he is supported by the
weight of evidence, “is not due to force, although in the process of expansion force
undoubtedly played a part.”

Among primitive peoples there were successive economic stages that marked the growing
importance of property and that brought about corresponding changes in social organisation.

 Political Consciousness.

The last is political consciousness arising from the fundamental needs of life for protection
and order. When the people settle down on a definite territory in pursuit of their subsistence
and a desire to secure it from encroachment by others, the need for regulating things and
persons is felt imminently and this is the essence of political consciousness.

It is doubtful whether there was ever a conscious expression for such a need. But there is no
denying the fact that the institution of private property and the requirements of self-defence,
both from within and without the tribe, and consequently the emergence of military
leadership was probably the first distinctive political authority to which the people
ungrudgingly submitted.

Religion reinforced family discipline and gradually created the wider discipline necessary for
the existence of the State. Custom was the first law and there was a religious sanction behind
every custom and the magicians who controlled religious sanctions were more powerful than
any agent of political authority.
 P a g e | 21

Conclusion
In conclusion, the theories of origin of state in their elaborated form go forward towards
accounting for the origin of the state. They explain why states arose where they did, and why
they failed to arise elsewhere. It shows the state to be a predictable response to certain
specific cultural, demographical and ecological conditions.

Thus, it helps to elucidate what was undoubtedly the most important single step ever taken in
the political evolution of mankind.
 P a g e | 22

Bibliography
Books Referred:

1. K.K Misra, Political Theory, 2012, S. Chand & Company

2. V.D Mahajan, Political Theory, 2005, S. Chand & Company
3. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1985, Penguin Ltd.

Research Paper Referred:

1. R. L. Carneiro, in The Evolution of Horticultural Systems in Native South America:

Causes and Consequences: A Symposium, J. Wilbert, Ed., Antropológica
(Venezuela), Suppl. 2 (1961)

Websites Referred:

1. Theory of Divine Origin at

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Theory_of_divine_origin_of_the_state (Accessed on 11
August at 4:30 AM.)
2. Theory of Origin of State at
https://www.scribd.com/document/285910769/Theories-of-Origin-of-state (Accessed
on 11 August at 3:00 AM)
3. Theory of Divine Origin at
http://www.preservearticles.com/201106238459/critically-examine-the-theory-
regarding-the-divine-origin-of-state.html (Accessed on 11 August 5:00 AM.)
4. The Theory of Force at http://www.slideshare.net/satyavrat1994/force-theory
(Accessed on 12 August at 1:30 AM.)
5. The Theory of Force at http://emmrckashmir.com/force-theory-state%E2%80%99s-
origin (Accessed on 12 August at 2:00 AM.)
6. Social Contract Theory at http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ (Accessed on 13 August
at 2:00 AM.)
7. Patrick Riley, 12 - Social contract theory and its critics at
http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/histories/chapter.jsf?
bid=CBO9781139055413&cid=CBO9781139055413A020 (Accessed on 13 August at
3:30 AM.)
 P a g e | 23

8. Samuel Gregg, John Locke and the Inadequacies of Social Contract Theory at
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2011/07/3583/ (Accessed on 13 August at 4:30
AM.)
9. SasaKovacevic, Breaking the Social Contract at http://center-for-frihed.dk/breaking-
the-social-contract/ (Accessed 0n 14 August 12:30 AM.)