Far beyond legitimate violence

contributions to the critique of Max Weber's concept of State

Abstract

Weber’s work remains relevant to understanding contemporary interactions between States, governments, bureaucracies, organizations, and society. However, there are questions about what remains and what needs to gain new interpretations in his vigorous work. This article has three main objectives. The first consists of revisiting the methodological foundations and main concepts and arguments developed by Weber about the State throughout his work. The second seeks to present a critical assessment of possible permanence, incompleteness, or improvement in Weberian formulations for understanding the State in contemporary societies. The argument is that there are flaws or, at least, limiting selectivity in the definition of State by the typical means, since this delimitation does not incorporate other equally typical means identified by Weber himself in other works, and summarily refuses to consider ends, some which the eminent sociologist’s own analyses identified in the formation of modern states, as we will try to demonstrate. The third is to present indications of an alternative concept of state that reconciles means and ends that are historically determinant in the conformation of contemporary states. To achieve its objectives, this article presents a concise reconstruction of Weber`s arguments for the most diffuse and comprehensive concepts of the State that appear mainly, but not only, in his pre-war historical and methodological works. Then it presents the more restricted concept of State that emerges from its post-war reformulation in search of the affirmation of its (unfinished) sociology of the State, briefly addresses the concept of ideal type and, finally, offers a synthetic assessment, though not finished, of permanence, incompleteness or improvement in Weber’s formulations on State by developing an alternative concept of State that dialogues with Weber, though seeking to go beyond his vigorous formulations on the subject. This analysis points to the limits in the construction and use of ideal types and argues that the ideal type concept of modern State based exclusively on its characteristic means (monopoly of violence considered legitimate) should be replaced with a concept of State that equally considers socially relevant and politically disputed ends and means.