Editing State (polity) (section)

==Definition==
There is no [[academic consensus]] on the definition of the state.<ref name="Cudworth-2007">Cudworth et al., 2007: p. 1</ref> The term "state" refers to a set of different, but interrelated and often overlapping, theories about a certain range of political [[phenomena]].<ref name="Barrow-1993">Barrow, 1993: pp. 9–10</ref> According to Walter Scheidel, mainstream definitions of the state have the following in common: "centralized institutions that impose rules, and back them up by force, over a territorially circumscribed population; a distinction between the rulers and the ruled; and an element of autonomy, stability, and differentiation. These distinguish the state from less stable forms of organization, such as the exercise of chiefly power."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Scheidel|first=Walter|url=http://oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188318.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780195188318-e-2|title=The Oxford Handbook of the State in the Ancient Near East and Mediterranean|date=2013|publisher=Oxford University Press|chapter=Studying the State|pages=5–58 |doi=10.1093/oxfordhb/9780195188318.013.0002|isbn=978-0195188318 }}</ref>

The most commonly used definition is by [[Max Weber]]<ref>{{cite book|author=Dubreuil, Benoít|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qBXvK0EkTcwC&pg=PA189|title=Human Evolution and the Origins of Hierarchies: The State of Nature|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2010|isbn=978-0-521-76948-8|page=189|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160504025631/https://books.google.com/books?id=qBXvK0EkTcwC&pg=PA189|archive-date=4 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Gordon, Scott|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=5OTyH71czwsC&pg=PA4|title=Controlling the State: Constitutionalism from Ancient Athens to Today|publisher=Harvard University Press|year=2002|isbn=978-0-674-00977-6|page=4|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503110808/https://books.google.com/books?id=5OTyH71czwsC&pg=PA4|archive-date=3 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="IPE">{{cite book|last=Hay|first=Colin|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=lSmU3aXWIAYC&pg=PA1469|title=Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy|publisher=Routledge|year=2001|isbn=0-415-14532-5|location=New York|pages=1469–1474|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503043603/https://books.google.com/books?id=lSmU3aXWIAYC&pg=PA1469|archive-date=3 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Donovan, John C.|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6YxnWSrZJWsC&pg=PA20|title=People, power, and politics: an introduction to political science|publisher=Rowman & Littlefield|year=1993|isbn=978-0-8226-3025-8|page=20|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160508231143/https://books.google.com/books?id=6YxnWSrZJWsC&pg=PA20|archive-date=8 May 2016|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Shaw, Martin|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nwcSTPnTbOYC&pg=PA59|title=War and genocide: organized killing in modern society|publisher=Wiley-Blackwell|year=2003|isbn=978-0-7456-1907-1|page=59|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160603203544/https://books.google.com/books?id=nwcSTPnTbOYC&pg=PA59|archive-date=3 June 2016|url-status=live}}</ref> who describes the state as a compulsory political organization with a [[centralized]] government that maintains a [[monopoly of the legitimate use of force]] within a certain territory.<ref name="cudworth-2007" /><ref name="salmon-2008" /> Weber writes that the state "is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory."<ref>{{Cite book|last=Weber|first=Max|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Y_pqZS5q72UC&dq=%22is+a+human+community+that+%28successfully%29+claims+the+monopoly+of+the+legitimate+use+of+physical+force+within+a+given+territory.%22&pg=PA78|title=From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology|date=1991|publisher=Psychology Press|isbn=978-0-415-06056-1|pages=78|language=en}}</ref>

While defining a state, it is important not to confuse it with a nation; an error that occurs frequently in common discussion. A state refers to a political unit with sovereignty over a given territory.<ref name=Samuels2013>{{cite book |last1=Samuels |first1=David |title=Comparative Politics |date=2013 |publisher=Pearson Education |isbn=978-0-321-44974-0 |oclc=800588734 }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> While a state is more of a "political-legal abstraction," the definition of a nation is more concerned with political identity and cultural or historical factors.<ref name=Samuels2013/> Importantly, nations do not possess the organizational characteristics like geographic boundaries or authority figures and officials that states do.<ref name=Samuels2013/> Additionally, a nation does not have a claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force over their populace,<ref name=Samuels2013/> while a state does, as Weber indicated. An example of the instability that arises when a state does not have a monopoly on the use of force can be seen in African states which remain weak due to the lack of war which European states relied on.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Herbst |first1=Jeffrey |title=War and the State in Africa |journal=International Security |date=1990 |volume=14 |issue=4 |pages=117–139 |doi=10.2307/2538753 |jstor=2538753 |s2cid=153804691 }}</ref> A state should not be confused with a government; a government is an organization that has been granted the authority to act on the behalf of a state.<ref name=Samuels2013/> Nor should a state be confused with a society; a society refers to all organized groups, movements, and individuals who are independent of the state and seek to remain out of its influence.<ref name=Samuels2013/>

Neuberger offers a slightly different definition of the state with respect to the nation: the state is "a primordial, essential, and permanent expression of the genius of a specific [nation]."<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Neuberger |first1=Benyamin |title=State and Nation in African Thought |journal=Journal of African Studies |date=1977 |volume=4 |issue=2 |pages=199–205 |id={{ProQuest|1303256827}} |oclc=772703025 }}</ref>

The definition of a state is also dependent on how and why they form. The contractarian view of the state suggests that states form because people can all benefit from cooperation with others<ref>[https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/arguments-for-liberty.pdf Arguments for Liberty] {{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> and that without a state there would be chaos.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm | title=The Project Gutenberg eBook of Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes }}</ref> The contractarian view focuses more on the alignment and conflict of interests between individuals in a state. On the other hand, the predatory view of the state focuses on the potential mismatch between the interests of the people and the interests of the state. [[Charles Tilly]] goes so far to say that states "resemble a form of organized crime and should be viewed as extortion rackets."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Clark |first1=William Roberts |last2=Golder |first2=Matt |last3=Golder |first3=Sona Nadenichek |title=Foundations of Comparative Politics |year=2018 |publisher=CQ Press |isbn=978-1-5063-6074-4 }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> He argued that the state sells protection from itself and raises the question about why people should trust a state when they cannot trust one another.<ref name=Samuels2013/>

Tilly defines states as "coercion-wielding organisations that are distinct from households and kinship groups and exercise a clear priority in some respects over all other organizations within substantial territories."<ref name="Tilly-1992">{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |pages=1–2 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}</ref> Tilly includes city-states, theocracies and empires in his definition along with nation-states, but excludes tribes, lineages, firms and churches.<ref name="Tilly-1992a" /> According to Tilly, states can be seen in the archaeological record as of 6000 BC; in Europe they appeared around 990, but became particularly prominent after 1490.<ref name="Tilly-1992a">{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and the European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |pages=2, 4, 45–46 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}</ref> Tilly defines a state's "essential minimal activities" as:

# '''War making''' – "eliminating or neutralizing their outside rivals"
# '''State making''' – "eliminating or neutralizing their rivals inside their own territory"
# '''Protection''' – "eliminating or neutralizing the enemies of their clients"
# '''Extraction''' – "acquiring the means of carrying out the first three activities"
# '''Adjudication''' – "authoritative settlement of disputes among members of the population"
# '''Distribution''' – "intervention in the allocation of goods among the members of the population"
# '''Production''' – "control of the creation and transformation of goods and services produced by the population"<ref>{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |pages=96–97 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}</ref><ref name="Tilly-1985" />

Importantly, Tilly makes the case that war is an essential part of state-making; that wars create states and vice versa.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |title=Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992 |date=1992 |publisher=Blackwell |isbn=978-1-55786-067-5 |oclc=1148616089 |url=https://archive.org/details/coercioncapitale0000till }}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

Modern academic definitions of the state frequently include the criterion that a state has to be recognized as such by the international community.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Strang |first1=David |title=Anomaly and commonplace in European political expansion: realist and institutional accounts |journal=International Organization |date=1991 |volume=45 |issue=2 |pages=143–162 |doi=10.1017/S002081830003304X |s2cid=154734299 }}</ref>

Liberal thought provides another possible teleology of the state. According to John Locke, the goal of the state or commonwealth is "the preservation of property" (Second Treatise on Government), with 'property' in Locke's work referring not only to personal possessions but also to one's life and liberty. On this account, the state provides the basis for social cohesion and productivity, creating incentives for wealth-creation by providing guarantees of protection for one's life, liberty and personal property. Provision of [[Public good (economics)|public goods]] is considered by some such as [[Adam Smith]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Smith|first=Adam|title=An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations |year=1776}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref> as a central function of the state, since these goods would otherwise be underprovided. Tilly has challenged narratives of the state as being the result of a societal contract or provision of services in a free market –&nbsp;he characterizes the state more akin as a protection racket in the vein of organized crime.<ref name="Tilly-1985">{{cite book |doi=10.1017/cbo9780511628283.008 |chapter=War Making and State Making as Organized Crime |title=Bringing the State Back in |year=1985 |last1=Tilly |first1=Charles |pages=169–191 |hdl=2027.42/51028 |isbn=978-0-521-30786-4 |s2cid=153680512 }}</ref>

While economic and political philosophers have contested the monopolistic tendency of states,<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Holcombe |first1=Randall G. |title=Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable |journal=The Independent Review |date=2004 |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=325–342 |id={{Gale|A112449190}} |jstor=24562462 }}</ref> [[Robert Nozick]] argues that the use of force naturally tends towards monopoly.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Nozick|first=Robert|title=Anarchy, State, and Utopia|publisher=Blackwell|year=1974|isbn=063119780X|location=Oxford}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

Another commonly accepted definition of the state is the one given at the [[Montevideo Convention]] on the Rights and Duties of States in 1933. It provides that "[t]he state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government; and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states."<ref>Article 1 of the [[s:Montevideo Convention|Montevideo Convention]].</ref> And that "[t]he federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law."<ref>Article 2 of the [[s:Montevideo Convention|Montevideo Convention]].</ref>

Confounding the definition problem is that "state" and "government" are often used as synonyms in common conversation and even some academic discourse. According to this definition schema, the states are nonphysical persons of [[international law]], and governments are organizations of people.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Robinson |first1=Edward Heath |title=The Distinction Between State and Government: The Distinction Between State and Government |journal=Geography Compass |date=August 2013 |volume=7 |issue=8 |pages=556–566 |doi=10.1111/gec3.12065 }}</ref> The relationship between a government and its state is one of representation and authorized agency.<ref>{{cite book|last=Crawford|first=James|year=2007|title=The Creation of States in International Law|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=9780199228423|edition=2nd}}{{page needed|date=March 2023}}</ref>

=== Types of states ===
Charles Tilly distinguished between empires, theocracies, city-states and nation-states.<ref name="Tilly-1992a" /> According to [[Michael Mann (sociologist)|Michael Mann]], the four persistent types of state activities are:

# Maintenance of internal order
# Military defence and aggression
# Maintenance of communications infrastructure
# Economic redistribution<ref>{{Cite book|last=Mann|first=Michael|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gkd5QgAACAAJ&q=States,+War,+and+Capitalism:+Studies+in+Political+Sociology|title=States, War and Capitalism: Studies in Political Sociology|date=1992|publisher=Blackwell|isbn=978-0-631-18509-3|pages=14–15|language=en|orig-date=1988}}</ref>

[[Josep Colomer]] distinguished between empires and states in the following way:

# Empires were vastly larger than states
# Empires lacked fixed or permanent boundaries whereas a state had fixed boundaries
# Empires had a "compound of diverse groups and territorial units with asymmetric links with the center" whereas a state had "supreme authority over a territory and population"
# Empires had multi-level, overlapping jurisdictions whereas a state sought monopoly and homogenization<ref>{{Cite web|last=Colomer|first=Josep M.|date=2017|title=Empires Versus States|url=https://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-608|website=Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics|language=en|doi=10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.608|isbn=978-0-19-022863-7}}</ref>
According to [[Michael Hechter]] and [[William I. Brustein|William Brustein]], the modern state was differentiated from "leagues of independent cities, empires, federations held together by loose central control, and theocratic federations" by four characteristics:

# The modern state sought and achieved territorial expansion and consolidation
# The modern state achieved unprecedented control over social, economic, and cultural activities within its boundaries
# The modern state established ruling institutions that were separate from other institutions
# The ruler of the modern state was far better at monopolizing the means of violence<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hechter |first1=Michael |last2=Brustein |first2=William |title=Regional Modes of Production and Patterns of State Formation in Western Europe |journal=American Journal of Sociology |date=1980 |volume=85 |issue=5 |pages=1061–1094 |doi=10.1086/227125 |jstor=2778891 |s2cid=143853058 }}</ref>

States may be classified by [[Political philosophy|political philosophers]] as [[sovereign state|sovereign]] if they are not dependent on, or subject to any other power or state. Other states are subject to external [[sovereignty]] or [[hegemony]] where ultimate sovereignty lies in another state.<ref name="Marek">{{cite book|last=Marek|first=Krystyna|title=Identity and Continuity of States in Public International Law|publisher=Library Droz|year=1954|isbn=978-2-600-04044-0|page=178|quote=It has been thought necessary to quote the Lytton Report at such length since it is probably the fullest and most exhaustive description of an allegedly independent, by 'actually' dependent, i.e. Puppet State}}</ref> Many states are [[federated state]]s which participate in a [[federal union]]. A federated state is a territorial and [[constitution]]al community forming part of a [[federation]].<ref name="AUTOREF4" /> (Compare [[Confederation|confederacies]] or confederations such as Switzerland.) Such states differ from [[sovereign state]]s in that they have transferred a portion of their sovereign powers to a [[federal government]].<ref name="oxford-state">{{cite journal|year=1995|editor1-last=Thompson|editor1-first=Della|title=state|journal=Concise Oxford English Dictionary|edition=9th|publisher=Oxford University Press|quote='''3''' (also '''State''') '''a''' an organized political community under one government; a commonwealth; a nation. '''b''' such a community forming part of a federal republic, esp the United States of America}}</ref>

One can commonly and sometimes readily (but not necessarily usefully) classify states according to their apparent make-up or focus. The concept of the nation-state, theoretically or ideally co-terminous with a "nation", became very popular by the 20th century in Europe, but occurred rarely elsewhere or at other times. In contrast, some states have sought to make a virtue of their multi-ethnic or [[multinational state|multinational]] character ([[House of Habsburg|Habsburg]] [[Ethnic and religious composition of Austria-Hungary|Austria-Hungary]], for example, or the [[Soviet Union]]), and have emphasised unifying characteristics such as [[autocracy]], [[Divine right of kings|monarchical legitimacy]], or [[ideology]]. Other states, often [[Fascism|fascist]] or [[Authoritarianism|authoritarian]] ones, promoted state-sanctioned notions of [[Scientific racism|racial superiority]].<ref>{{cite book | last = Longerich | first = Peter | title = Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews | year = 2010 | isbn = 978-0-19-280436-5 | publisher = Oxford University Press | location = Oxford; New York }}</ref> Other states may bring ideas of commonality and inclusiveness to the fore: note the ''[[res publica]]'' of ancient Rome and the ''[[Rzeczpospolita]]'' of [[Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth|Poland-Lithuania]] which finds echoes in the modern-day [[republic]]. The concept of temple states centred on religious shrines occurs in some discussions of the ancient world.<ref>
For example: {{cite book |last1=Pastor |first1=Jack |year=1997 |chapter=3: The Early Hellenistic Period |title=Land and Economy in Ancient Palestine |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AGeHDna_9dwC |location=London |publisher=Routledge |publication-date = 2013 |page=32 |isbn=978-1-134-72264-8 |access-date=2017-02-14 |quote=The idea of Jerusalem as a temple state is an analogy to the temple states of Asia Minor and the Seleucid Empire, but it is an inappropriate analogy. [...] Rostovtzeff referred to Judea as a sort of temple state, notwithstanding his own definition that stipulates ownership of territory and state organization. [...] Hengel also claims that Judea was a temple state, ignoring his own evidence that the Ptolemies hardly would have tolerated such a situation. |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161219161745/https://books.google.com/books?id=AGeHDna_9dwC |archive-date=19 December 2016}}
</ref> Relatively small [[city-state]]s, once a relatively common and often successful form of polity,<ref>
[[Athens (city-state)|Athens]], [[Carthage]], [[Ancient Rome|Rome]], [[Novgorod Republic|Novgorod]], [[Pskov Republic|Pskov]], [[History of Hamburg|Hamburg]], [[Bremen (state)|Bremen]], [[Free City of Frankfurt|Frankfurt]], [[Free City of Lübeck|Lübeck]], [[Republic of Florence|Florence]], [[Republic of Pisa|Pisa]], [[Republic of Genoa|Genoa]], [[Republic of Venice|Venice]], [[Free City of Danzig|Danzig]], [[Free State of Fiume|Fiume]], [[Republic of Ragusa|Dubrovnik]].</ref> have become rarer and comparatively less prominent in modern times. Modern-day independent city-states include [[Vatican City]], [[Monaco]], and [[Singapore]]. Other city-states survive as federated states, like the present day [[City-state#Stadtstaaten of Germany|German city-states]], or as otherwise autonomous entities with limited sovereignty, like [[Hong Kong]], [[Gibraltar]] and [[Ceuta]]. To some extent, [[urban secession]], the creation of a new city-state (sovereign or federated), continues to be discussed in the early 21st century in cities such as [[London independence|London]].

===State and government===
{{see also|Government}}

A state can be distinguished from a [[government]]. The state is the organization while the government is the particular group of people, the administrative [[bureaucracy]] that controls the state apparatus at a given time.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-link=Frank Bealey|editor1-last=Bealey|editor1-first= Frank |chapter=government |title=The Blackwell dictionary of political science: a user's guide to its terms |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-631-20695-8 |page=147|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6EuKLlzYoTMC&pg=PA147|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160516012636/https://books.google.com/books?id=6EuKLlzYoTMC&pg=PA147 |archive-date=16 May 2016}}</ref><ref>Sartwell, 2008: [https://books.google.com/books?id=bk-aaMVGKO0C&pg=PA25 p. 25] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160623220736/https://books.google.com/books?id=bk-aaMVGKO0C&pg=PA25 |date=23 June 2016 }}</ref><ref name="flint-taylor-137">Flint & Taylor, 2007: p. 137</ref> That is, governments are the means through which state power is employed. States are served by a continuous succession of different governments.<ref name="flint-taylor-137"/> States are immaterial and nonphysical social objects, whereas governments are groups of people with certain coercive powers.<ref>Robinson, E.H. 2013. [http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/State_and_Government.pdf The Distinction Between State and Government.] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131102130436/http://www.edwardheath.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/State_and_Government.pdf |date=2 November 2013 }} The Geography Compass 7(8): pp. 556–566.</ref>

Each successive government is composed of a specialized and privileged body of individuals, who monopolize political decision-making and are separated by status and organization from the population as a whole.

===States and nation-states===
{{See also|Nation state}}

States can also be distinguished from the concept of a "[[nation]]", where "nation" refers to a cultural-political community of people. A [[nation-state]] refers to a situation where a single ethnicity is associated with a specific state.

===State and civil society===
In the classical thought, the state was identified with both political society and [[civil society]] as a form of political community, while the modern thought distinguished the [[nation state]] as a political society from civil society as a form of economic society.<ref name="zaleski">{{cite journal |last1=Zaleski |first1=Pawel |title=Tocqueville on Civilian Society: A Romantic Vision of the Dichotomic Structure of Social Reality |journal=Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte |date=2008 |volume=50 |pages=260–266 |doi=10.28937/9783787336746_12 |jstor=24360940 |s2cid=261197955 }}</ref>

Thus in the modern thought the state is contrasted with civil society.<ref>{{cite book |author=Ehrenberg, John |chapter=Civil Society and the State |title=Civil society: the critical history of an idea |publisher=NYU Press |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-8147-2207-7 |url=https://archive.org/details/civilsocietycrit0000ehre|url-access=registration |page=[https://archive.org/details/civilsocietycrit0000ehre/page/109 109]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Kaviraj, Sudipta |chapter=In search of civil society |editor=Kaviraj, Sudipta |editor2=Khilnani, Sunil |title=Civil society: history and possibilities |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-521-00290-5 |pages=291–293|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AOnRSNob2O8C&pg=PA291|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160501185609/https://books.google.com/books?id=AOnRSNob2O8C&pg=PA291 |archive-date=1 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Reeve, Andrew |chapter=Civil society |editor=Jones, R.J. Barry |title=Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy: Entries P–Z |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2001 |isbn=978-0-415-24352-0 |pages=158–160|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a29qBofx8Y8C&pg=PA158|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160623201355/https://books.google.com/books?id=a29qBofx8Y8C&pg=PA158 |archive-date=23 June 2016}}</ref>

[[Antonio Gramsci]] believed that civil society is the primary locus of political activity because it is where all forms of "identity formation, ideological struggle, the activities of intellectuals, and the construction of [[hegemony]] take place." and that civil society was the nexus connecting the economic and political sphere. Arising out of the collective actions of civil society is what Gramsci calls "political society", which Gramsci differentiates from the notion of the state as a polity. He stated that politics was not a "one-way process of political management" but, rather, that the activities of civil organizations conditioned the activities of political parties and state institutions, and were conditioned by them in turn.<ref>{{cite book |author=Sassoon, Anne Showstack |title=Gramsci and contemporary politics: beyond pessimism of the intellect |publisher=Psychology Press |year=2000 |isbn=978-0-415-16214-2 |page=70 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=gZQJgfmplQoC&pg=PA70|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160503105634/https://books.google.com/books?id=gZQJgfmplQoC&pg=PA70 |archive-date=3 May 2016}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |chapter=Gramsci and international relations: a general perspective with examples from recent US policy towards the Third World |editor=Gill, Stephen |title=Gramsci, historical materialism and international relations |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=1993 |isbn=978-0-521-43523-9 |page=129|chapter-url= https://books.google.com/books?id=Opkof1vyDAgC&pg=PA129 |author1=Augelli, Enrico |author2=Murphy, Craig N. |name-list-style=amp|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160502034756/https://books.google.com/books?id=Opkof1vyDAgC&pg=PA129 |archive-date=2 May 2016}}</ref> [[Louis Althusser]] argued that civil organizations such as [[Christian church|church]], [[school]]s, and the [[family]] are part of an "[[Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses|ideological state apparatus]]" which complements the "[[Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses#Repressive state apparatuses|repressive state apparatus]]" (such as police and military) in reproducing social relations.<ref>{{cite book |author=Ferretter, Luke |title=Louis Althusser |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-415-32731-2 |page=85 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=fn0ZLu27jVoC&pg=PA85}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |author=Flecha, Ramon |chapter= The Educative City and Critical Education |editor=Apple, Michael W.|display-editors=etal |title=The Routledge international handbook of critical education |publisher=Taylor & Francis |year=2009 |page=330|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hD3qp2tvrLcC&pg=PA330 |isbn=978-0-415-95861-5}}</ref><ref>Malešević, 2002: [https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA16 p. 16] {{webarchive|url= https://web.archive.org/web/20160723035005/https://books.google.com/books?id=Lc_nMFoGcYkC&pg=PA16 |date=23 July 2016 }}</ref>

[[Jürgen Habermas]] spoke of a [[public sphere]] that was distinct from both the economic and political sphere.<ref>{{Cite book |author1=Morrow, Raymond Allen |author2=Torres, Carlos Alberto |name-list-style=amp |title=Reading Freire and Habermas: critical pedagogy and transformative social change |publisher=Teacher's College Press |year=2002 |isbn=978-0-8077-4202-0 |page=[https://archive.org/details/readingfreirehab0000morr/page/77 77] |url=https://archive.org/details/readingfreirehab0000morr|url-access=registration}}</ref>

Given the role that many social groups have in the development of public policy and the extensive connections between state bureaucracies and other institutions, it has become increasingly difficult to identify the boundaries of the state. [[Privatization]], [[nationalization]], and the creation of new [[regulation|regulatory]] bodies also change the boundaries of the state in relation to society. Often the nature of quasi-autonomous organizations is unclear, generating debate among political scientists on whether they are part of the state or civil society. Some political scientists thus prefer to speak of policy networks and decentralized governance in modern societies rather than of state bureaucracies and direct state control over policy.<ref>{{cite book |author=Kjaer, Anne Mette |title=Governance |publisher=Wiley-Blackwell |year=2004 |isbn=978-0-7456-2979-7 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=AY5SIsf1nI4C|url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160611003517/https://books.google.com/books?id=AY5SIsf1nI4C |archive-date=11 June 2016}} -- {{page needed|date=January 2011}}</ref>

=== State symbols ===
{{see also|National symbol}}
* [[national flag|flag]]
* [[Gallery of country coats of arms|coat of arms]] or [[national emblem]]
* [[seal (emblem)|seal or stamp]]
* [[national motto]]
* [[national colors]]
* [[national anthem]]