A MOST POWERFUL INVENTION: THE “NATION STATE”

 

Europe in the middle of the 16th century

After the terrible period of the Wars of religion that torn Europe between mid 16th and mid 17th century, the idea of a Universal Christian Empire was replaced by an international order based on the struggle between different “monarchies”. The “official” sanction of these capital change in Western political organization was the Westphalia Peace of 1648 that reorganized Europe after the Thirty Years War. 

                                        Europe after the signing of the Westphalia Peace (1648)

The decadence of the Universal model was the direct consequence of the strengthening of the “state” as political organization. The consequence was that unity was replaced by diversity. There was not a common pope or a common emperor anymore, but a bunch of kings that were heads of their respective independent kingdoms-states”. As a result of this the world is today divided in 192 Nation States. 

As we have already seen in Teaching guide 2 it all started in the Middle Ages when after the Feudal era kings turned into monarchs, because they could organize better their realms creating administrative bodies that enabled them to collect taxes for paying the maintain a permanent army. The result was that they were far more powerful because they were richer as they could use their power (military, political and legal) to impose a protectionist economic policy aiming at augmenting the wealth of the state by the way of increasing as much as possible the reserves of gold and silver. 

Something that could be reached by establishing a favorable balance of trade. That is: exporting more goods than importing and monopolizing as many trades as possible.  This economic policy was called “mercantilism” and reached his height during the reign of Louis XIV thanks to his outstanding Minister of Finances Jean Baptiste Colbert. 

Jean Baptiste Colbert (1665-1683)

So every monarch started competing with other monarchs in order to accumulate wealth and therefore power.  For this it was rather convenient to reunite as many territories as possible because that meant many more subjects that could pay taxes and join the royal armies. But paying taxes and dying in the war was difficult to swallow and this is why they came up with the idea of creating the myth of how great was to love your land and your king. For this monarchs did their best to develop step by step a “proto-national feeling.” 

In France, for instance, this started with Jeanne d’Arc (1412-1431) who was burned at the stake being 19 years old, after helping her king Charles VII to get rid of the English soldiers that occupied a substantial part of French soil during the Hundred Years War (1337-1453). Napoleon considered her the symbol of France and she was beatified in 1909 and canonized in 1920. Since then Saint Joan of Arc is one of the patrons of France. A Woman. Which is extraordinary in such a patriarcal society as France was in the first half of the 15th century. 

A statue of Jean d'Arc in Paris

 In Teaching guide 1 we spoke of the “political use of nationalism”, referring to how 19th and 20th century historians considered the “Germanic Nations” as the origin of European nations.  The real entrance in politics of the word “nation” however does not begin, as you already know, in the 5th century but in the 18th century with the Enlightenment, when Absolute monarchies fell in the name of the “Nation”, as the divine origin of the concept of sovereignty vested in the person of the king was transferred to the joint body of the inhabitants of a kingdom: the National Congress or Assembly. 

The French National Assembly

 This idea had appeared a century earlier with the concept of “Social Pact”, referring to a new explanation of why political power had to be obeyed by citizens. In the Middle Ages the pope, the emperor and the kings were sovereigns because God had created the world this way (Theo centrism). But the religious crisis of the 16th and 17th centuries that brought the dreadful wars of religion –because there was not anymore an only “catholic”, that is “universal creed- obliged political thinkers to develop a laic approach to the justification of political Power. 

It was then when Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) horrified by the long English civil war and the execution of Charles I came up with the idea that sovereignty was vested in a political monster called Leviathan, integrated by the ensemble of citizens that gave up forever all their rights to Him in order to get His protection and avoid chaos.  

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)

This harsh vision of the Social Pact was tempered by John Locke (1632-1704) and Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) as they considered that the Social Pact could not be irreversible and irrevocable. Citizens should accept to obey the Government but only if it works for the “Common wealth”. 

If not they could consider that those in power had broken the social pact and therefore was legitimate to disobey them and bring along a new pact with a new ruler. On top of that, the Social pact included some “special clauses" referring to a bunch of original rights of citizens that could not be given up under any circumstance, as they were considered “fundamental”. This is the origin of the theory of the “Fundamental Rights and Liberties”

The Universal Declaration of Rights of 1789

The result of this mildest vision of the social pact was that it empowered citizens, as they became the “owners” of sovereignty –instead of the kings-, because they were considered the real “protagonists” of the Social pact. A body of people that had in common the fact that they were born in the same territory. This is why they were called its “nationals”, and the ensemble of them a “Nation” with capital “N”. Remember that the celebration of the "Fête de la Fédération" on the 14 of July of 1790, was the origin of French National Day. 

The "Champ de Mars" in Paris on 14 of July 1790 

 The problem in all this is that, as you know, the "state" is not a very "sexy" idea. It is just an organization, a way of setting the government and the administration of a territory. An idea far too abstract for stimulating and motivating people to get attached to it. For paying taxes or dying in a war people needed motivation. They would not do it for an abstract political and administrative body They needed that the state had a soul, and that was the “national” pride. What we call today “nationalism”. The result was the appearance of a new political organization: the Nation-State, that combined the useful organization with a strong motivation. 

But one thing was to reach the idea of replacing the "Monarch" by the “Nation”, and another very different to put it into practice. And it was not going to be an easy transition. In fact it required a revolutionary movement followed by dramatic "national wars" steered by the “nationalistic narrative”. First in North America, since 1776, and secondly in France since 1792. The constitutional consequences of these enlightened revolutionary movements is what we are going to study today.                                    

 The idea that it was worth dying for your land and people appeared clearly for the first time in North America when colons rebelled against the British Crown and declared their independence on July 4, 1776, starting a Revolutionary War of 7 years (until 1783). 

Signing the US Declaration of Independence on 4th of July 1776

  

Patriotism was at the stake in George Washington’s Camp. British soldiers fought essentially for money, but American soldiers fought to have a country of their own. Of course not all of the Americans were for rebellion. Some wanted to keep on being British subjects: they were called Loyalists. If you want to really feel what was it like I strongly recommend the US TV Serie “Turn". Washington Spies” (2014) and of course the classic and powerful Mel Gibson’s Movie The Patriot (2000). 

      Mel Gibson in The Patriot

 Fighting for your own country and not for your king was at the end a powerful narrative that lead you to accept that it was worth to die by patriotism. That was very clear under another Revolution: the French one. 

Because the French Revolution was such a mess that it would have disappeared if the Revolutionary Constituant Assembly had not had the brilliant idea of declaring the war to the kings of Prussia and the Emperor of Austria on the 20 of April 1792. 

                       

The Battle of Jemappes (6 November 1792)

 The conflict of the newborn United States of America with the UK between 1776 and 1783, and the conflict of Revolutionary France against Absolutist European kings of the Ancien Régime created a new type of State: the Nation-State in which sovereignty was not vested on the Monarch, but on the People, considered as Nation, as a Political Body that governed the state  through its elected representatives (Representative democracy). But the crucial point was that every “Nation” developed its own “nationalism”. A very powerful narrative that consolidated the state to the point that it dissolved any rest of “universalism”. Even the Law ceased to be common to all European kingdoms (Ius commune) and became “national” as a result of “codification”. Every State created its own ordered set of national laws. Including the Law that declared who was “national” of the state and who was to be considered a foreigner. All under its motivating symbols: the banner and the national anthem. 

The first US flag: 13 stripes representing the colonies and 13 stars representing the new states. (Today it has 50 stars but still 13 stripes). The "Star Spangled Banner".   

 And this is the main problem that the European Union has: that its 27 Member states are still heavily rooted "Nation-States", and that usually their nationals do feel closer to their country than to the abstract idea of a United Europe. European narrative is still far less powerful. In contrast with what happens in the United States, where you 50 Member States but only "one nation". Of course their integration process was difficult and had to go through a terrible Civil war, but today they are one of the most powerful countries because despite their diversity they have a common strong narrative.      

            

 In this Teaching Guide 4 we will see the origins of the “Nation State” idea through the American and French Revolution, and how this new concept of state would take Europe to his zenith in the 19th century, when the world lived at the European hour. Something that we will analyze in Teaching Guide, number 5, that describe how our countries reached the apogee of the Nation-States in a period that started with Napoleon and led to the Era of Great colonialism that rendered European states the most wealthy and powerful organizations of the World. Until they committed suicide provoking the holocaust of World War I. 

INSTRUCTIONS: First read the text included in your Materials (pages 54 to 78), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 74 to 75) the crucial dates are the following: 

a) For the American Revolution: 1607, 1620, 1754-1763, 1773, 17775, 1776, 1777, 1783 and 1787

b) For the French Revolution: the periods of Constituant Assembly (June 1789 to September 1791); the Legislative Assembly (October 1791 to August 1792); the Convention (September 1792 to October 1795) and the Directory (October 1795 to November 1799). 

Crucial dates are : 1789 (17 June, 20 June, 27 June, 14 July), 1790 (July 14),  1792 (April 20; 10 August, 20 and 22 September); 1793 (21 January); 1794 (January until July: Robespierre). 1799, 9 November. 

 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: How important is your country for you? 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Are you proud of being “national” from your country? 

2. Do you think your country is an arbitrary invention that does not make sense today?

3. Do you think that separatist nationalist in European states today should be independent Nation-States? Give reasons for and against. 

4. Do you feel more “national” or more European?

5. What moves you more: your local soccer team or your National team?

The "Nation-State", an extremely powerful narrative

THE MYTH OF A UNIVERSAL POWER (TG 3)

Most of Europeans in the Global World of the 21st century are trying to get over the concepts of “nation” and “state”, in order to be able to cooperate together in the frame of the much larger frame of the European Union. Trying to match the influence of the great World powers like the US, China or Russia. Apparently the construction of a Communitarian Europe seems something new. In fact, in the past, our ancestors have lived during long periods of our history in one single political and legal unit.  Concretely since the appearance of the first Western Empire: The Roman Empire. Its history is really interesting because despite the fact that it disappeared more than 1500 years ago, we still live to a large extent from its legacy. And after the Roman Empire disappeared we kept on accepting common authorities like the Popes or the succesive European emperors. 

The Roman Empire at its height (2nd century AD)

The Roman Empire is not the oldest one. In Teaching Guide 2 we spoke about how Sargon created the oldest Empire the Akkadian, 4.300 years ago. That is almost 3000 years earlier. But Sargon’s was an Oriental Empire. In the West the pioneers were the Romans. The first Western power who aimed at becoming “Universal” was the Roman Empire. And it did not appear overnight. 

The origins of Western Political “Universalism”

The first organized Western societies were the Greek Polis, limited to the area of the different Greek cities: Athens, Sparta, Thebes, etc… But the Polises were pretty independent from each other, and they did not stand to be under some larger authority. Greeks only got together every four years for participating in the Olympic Games founded in 776 BC. They even fought together to chase the Persians in the Medic Wars at the beginning of the 5th century, and finally were reunited under the ephemeral rule of Alexander the Great (336-323 BC). But for the rest of the time Greek Polis were independent city-states that fought each other when they had the occasion, as they demonstrated during the Peloponnesian Wars (431-404 BC) that first destroyed Athens, then Sparta and finally Thebes, giving way to the rule of the Macedonian monarchy of Alexander.

Classical Greece: a myriad of polis

 The reality is that the Polis regime was only effective within the city walls. And only if there wasn’t too many people. It is significant that when there was an excess of population in a Polis, the surplus of citizens were sent abroad in order to create in a new geographic location a colony that immediately became an independent Polis. The fact that there were so many polis and that they frequently fought each other instead of cooperating together explains why Greece was so easily conquered by Rome and became in 146 B.C. another Roman Province, like Sicily or Spain, which became province half a century earlier when Rome created the provinces of Hispania Citerior and Ulterior in 197 B.C.

 You might ask yourself why, on the contrary of the Greek Polis, Rome became an Empire. How it is possible that  obscure city that started as a polis at the end of the 6th century B.C., 500 years later it had become a great power that controlled the whole Mediterranean area. What did the Romans do right? Why they succeeded where Greek Polis failed? And the main reason is that Romans were far more organized and had a much better Legal system, and on top of that they soon developed the idea that they could govern and administrate territories far away from the City of Rome itself. Romans founded also colonies integrated by Roman citizens in distant lands, but these Roman colonies were not independent, they were controlled by Roman central Power. First by the Republic and after Augustus (27 B.C. – 14 A.D.) by the Empire.

Roman Imperial Eagle

 Rome was so successful in establishing a powerfull territorial system that the Roman Empire became a symbol that was imitated by further Western leaders like Napoleon or Hitler. 

Napoleon Imperial Eagle

Hitler's Third Reich Eagles

The Eagle of the US Seal

  It is true that the Roman extraordinary territorial expansion provoked a brutal crisis of the Republican regime and brought half a century of dreadful civil wars (86-31 B.C), that only ended with the victory of Octavius Caesar Augustus who was a fine politician that convinced that the only way of preserving the peace was to give the power to one man (monarchy). Augustus was first the Prince (First citizen), but his successors became gradually known as “emperors” because they had full “imperium”. The concentration of power in only one hand  reached its climax at the end of the 3d century BC, in the period known as the Dominate, because the emperor had become the owner and master of the empire (Dominus).    

Augustus : The First Emperor?

 It is important to know that Rome created a “universal” empire because it reigned all over the known antique world. Especially since 212 AD, when all the inhabitants of the empire became overnight Roman citizens, subject to the same political leader and under the same Law. 

 That lasted –at least in the Western part of the Empire- until the year 476, when suddenly there were no more Roman West emperors because they were replaced by different Germanic “Nations” (meaning peoples: like the Goth, the Franks, the Angles or the Saxons), that settled down in different parts of the extinct empire creating new and independent political units called: Germanic kingdoms. 

 The interesting part on all that is that the division of the Empire in different kingdoms did not mean the end of “Universalism.” Because the role of the Roman emperors was assumed by a religious authority: the Pope, as in the course of the 4th century the Roman Empire was penetrated by a new religion Cristianism, that started being prosecuted by the Roman emperors, before being first tolerated, and finally being declared the Official cult of the Empire by Theodosius I in 380. It was then that Cristianism became the “universal” religion of the Empire and therefore became “Catholicism”.   

  The Pope Francisco. The actual head of the "Universal" Church

 From political to religious universalism:  Cristianism vs. Catholicism

When Rome became a great Empire, the Romans grew rich and powerful, making them disbelieving materialists. They could not really give a damn about religious diversity, as long as it did not affect the integrity of the Empire. In fact, the Roman emperors tolerated all kinds of faiths; apart from the traditional veneration of ancestors, the only genuinely Roman religion was emperor worship, a political cult pragmatically aimed at glorifying the public authority wielding power over all the inhabitants of the Empire. But it went no further than that. 

 This milieu of worldliness and spiritual disinterest was, undoubtedly, what fuelled the rise of Christianity, a faith rooted in Judaic monotheism and based on an alluring and effective narrative, among other things, because it upheld equality between all people, and argued that the wealthy were spiritually bankrupt, and likely doomed to damnation. In a sceptical Roman Empire, one sustained by hordes of slaves, Christianity spread like wildfire in the years after the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which occurred under the rule of Augustus's successor, Tiberius. Although, historically, the emperors couldn't care less about their subjects' religious beliefs, Christianity was different because it posed a threat to power by placing man's relationship with God above loyalty to the emperor. This menace spurred Rome's leaders, beginning with Nero (54-68), who detected the danger the Christians constituted, to persecute and even martyrize them. By doing so, however, they only fanned the flames of the new religion and fomented its spread throughout the Empire. 

Despite its repression –or, perhaps because of it– Christianity grew so strong that the emperors had no choice but to, first, tolerate the new religion, and then legalize it, through the Edict of Serdica, in 311, issued by Emperor Galerius; and the Edict of Milan, promulgated by Constantine, just two years later.

Christianity proved a powerful social movement, so unstoppable that emperor Theodosius I, in 380, made it the official religion of the Empire, with the momentous consequence that all other religions were rendered illegal. As a result, Christianity became a religion as "universal" as the imperial power itself, which is why its name changed, and it came to be called "Catholicism", from the Greek katholikós; meaning "universal" or "general".  Does the word “universal” seems familiar to you?                                      

Again, the secret to Catholicism's stunning success was that the Christians were very well organized, managing to develop, in a short period of time, a powerful structure, the Church, effectively established thanks to a highly hierarchical territorial network starting at the local level of the parish, and extending all the way up to the Pope in Rome, after passing through the heads of the "ecclesiastical provinces": the bishops.

                                            Percentage of catholics by country in the world

As a result, the Church, initially a clandestine group of ragtag rebels, became, after its officialization, a veritable "state" within the Roman state. Over time the emperors began to lock horns with the bishops who, soon wielding great powers themselves often proved unruly. And this is where the stormy history of relations between Church and State begins, which received the name "Caesaropapism", as the conflict involved the heads of these two "states": the Caesars (emperors) and the Popes. Today, two millennia after its appearance, the Catholic Church continues to be headquartered in an independent state: the Vatican, which rules over an impressive territorial network spanning the entire world. Its institutional longevity and effectiveness are truly impressive.                              

St Peter of Rome: the headquarters of the Vatican State

The Church, thus, became a very powerful force, one that would prove able to exert pressure not only on the Roman emperors, but also on their successors, the Germanic kings, whose subjects, mostly "Roman", shared a common creed, Christianity, which placed them under the bishops' authority. Thus, the German monarchs converted to Catholicism, embracing the old adage that "if you can't beat them, join them". In fact, not only did they become Catholics, but they also reached an agreement with the bishops of their kingdom whereby the Church consecrated the king, rendering him a sacred and indisputable figure. In return, the ecclesiastical structure was integrated into the kingdom's government.

The important thing for you to understand is that in the Europe of the High Middle Ages (8th to 11th centuries) Catholicism had been established as a universal religion extending throughout all of "Christendom". Thus, even though there was no longer an emperor in Rome, there did rule in the Eternal City a pope, who served as the head of the Catholic, apostolic (because its objectives included spreading the faith, through "evangelization" among non-believers, or pagans) and "Roman" church. When the feudal system spread across Europe its people were, then, already devout Christians, not only fully integrated into the structure of the Church, but also entirely convinced that the world ought to be governed by the Law of God. They were no longer united by a common political structure, since the old Western Empire had crumbled into a diverse set of kingdoms, but they did share a "theocratic" conception of the world and of society. Everyone firmly believed that the only legitimate power was that granted by God, "Creator of heaven and earth", and, of course, the legal order.

    Pantocrator of Sant Climent de Taül

  A two head universalism: Popes and Emperors

On top of that, relatively soon the Popes became heads of a real territorial State, since the creation in 754 of the Papal States, thanks to the alliance with the Frankish Monarchy of Pepin the Short  (751-768). In return of the favour the popes helped Pepin’s son “Charlemagne” (the Great Charles) to become the first Western Medieval emperor on December 24 of the year 800. 

It would be renewed by Otto I who became in 962 the first head of the Holy Roman Empire that would last nominally until 1806.

The emperor Mathias in 1625

The Universal model had therefore not disappeared with the fall of Western Roman Empire in 476. Though now in its medieval version it had two heads: a pope and an emperor. In a Catholic society were all men were equal under the eyes of God (Theocracy). Popes and emperors were therefore the most important figures in politics at least until the beginning of the 14th century. 

The power of popes and emperors nevertheless was not enduring or strong as the late medieval European kings were becoming more and more important since the 14th century and ended up having a lot of power during the Absolutist period (16th and 17th centuries). It was then that the European Monarchies became fully independent from Popes and Emperors. “Universalism” was finally replaced by and European order where independent states were the real protagonists. Something that became the rule after the Westphalia Peace (1648). 

Swearing Oath of the Westphalia Peace

You have to bear in mind that the decadence of the papacy was more and more obvious because of the Avignon’s Captivity (1309-1376) and the Western Schism (1378-1417), that brought a severe coup to papal prestige. Universalism of the Catholic church was done when Luther started the Protestant reform in 1520, and Henry the VIII of England created in 1534 his own Anglican church and became the head of it displacing the pope. 

Henry the VIII of England

 Of course the disappearance of Universalism obliged political thinkers to find a new narrative to justify the power of these independent kings. As the reference to traditional legitimacy of Imperial Rome and of the Papacy disappeared, a new approach was required for convincing people they should blindly obey their monarchs even if they were not the representatives of God on Earth. And thanks to Machiavel, Bodin and Hobbes, among others, the narrative of the absolute state and the full sovereignty of the king was found: the prevention of anarchy and chaos.  

The persistency of the Imperial idea

 It is interesting that the triumph of the idea of a European continent integrated by independent States did not abolish completely the myth of an Emperor. The Imperial idea lasted after the signing of the Westphalia Peace in 1648.  Despite the fact that Charles V (1519-1558) was the last old universal emperor in the medieval way, the emperors did not disappeared from European politics. Essentially because they were ambitious leaders who wanted to become emperors. Like Napoleon, for instance who provoked the abolition of the First German Reich (962-1806) and become Emperor of the French in 1804.  

Official portrait of Napoleon as a Roman Emperor

                                   

And after the French Empire -with Napoleon I (1804-1815), and Napoleon III (1851-1870)- came  the German Empire of Bismarck (1871-1918). 

Foundation of the Second Reich in Versailles (18.01.1871)

 And even Queen Victoria (1837-1901) was formally named “Empress of India”, the Jewell of the mighty British Empire. 

Queen Victoria: the symbol of the 

British Empire at its height

The British Empire in 1921. 

As you may know the last European emperor would be Adolf Hitler (1933-1945) head of the Third Reich, though it did not give himself the title of Emperor but of "Guide": The Führer   

Europe in 1942, the height of nazi domination.  

                                                        

The big question is if Adolf Hitler was really the last “de facto” emperor? And here some consider that in our multipolar world there are some leaders that try to be considered the 21st century “De facto” emperors: as Donald Trump,

 or the new Czar (word that comes from the term “Caesar”) Vladimir Vladimirovitch Putin, 

or the new Red Chinese emperor: Xi Jiping, 

as the two latter ones are doing everything they can to jeopardize the American superiority. For now the White House is still a reference in the world, but we could ask: For how long? 

HOW TO STUDY TEACHIG GUIDE 3 

First read the text included in your Materials (pages 31 to 45), before proceeding to answer the Concrete Questions, the Concepts and the General Questions. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 46 to 48) the crucial dates are the following: 590-604, 754, 800, 962, 1054, 1075, 1198-1216, 1303, 1378-1417, 1527, 1534, 1618-1648, 1804-1815, 1806, 1852-1870, 1871-1918, 1929, 1933-1945. 

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Is globalization a de facto return to an Universal Model, as States cannot act anymore on their own, isolated, in the World context?

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. Why Rome became a great Power and Greek Polis disappeared. 

2. How did Octavius Cesar Augustus solved the Crisis of the Roman Civil wars?

3. Why after 476 AD the idea of “Universalism” did not disappear in the West?

4. Why Universalism failed after Charles V (1519-1556) in Europe? What conflict provoked the disappearance of the idea that all westerners were under a supreme unique authority. 

5. What was the main feature of European Political History after 1648?

6. How was organized Europe under the Napoleonic Empire (1804-1815)?

7. How was Europe organized under Hitler’s Third Reich (1933-1945)?

8. Why the World was so relatively stable during the period 1948-1989?

9. Are States in our global world really as independent as they appear? 

10. Is the accelerated "urbanisation" of the planet (by 2050 very much likely 2/3 of the inhabitants of the Planet will live in cities) contributing to globalisation as big cities are beginning to be more important than the States? 

ON THE ORIGINS OF THE STATE AS HUMAN ORGANIZATION

The best visual representation of what the State represents: the front page of Leviathan's first edition from Hobbes (1651). An engraving y Abraham Bosse. 

 Last week we dealt with the origin of a concept as complex as "nation" that since the 5th century AD has been constantly a part of our European culture. The reality and significance of the term "nation" has changed over history. But it is still a fiction that people believe and that enable "nationals" to cooperate together. The question is how to articulate practically this cooperation of a large number of people believing they are part of the same "nation".  Because the nation was not enough, sapiens, in order to organize themselves more efficently, came up with different types of group organization, trying to develop more powerful models of cooperation.   

Historically groups were originally united by blood ties in tribes (on the Hunter-gatherers period).

 And even today some primitive tribes of hunter-ghaterers survive, for instance in Australia, or in the Amazonian "Matto Grosso".

 

Family ties were the first form of human organisation, for most of the history of Humanity.

And even if a couple is not necessarily in our days a union of a man and a woman, family is still important as members of the LGBTIQ community can adopt children or have them through the modern in vitro fertilization techniques.

  When sapiens discovered agriculture and breed livestock -after the appearance of the  Agricultural Revolution 12000 years ago- -they could concentrate in larger numbers in a small area. The city was born. The oldest known is Jericho which was founded 11.000 years ago. 

Jericho, the oldest city in Human history in the Biblical Times                         

 With time sapiens could organize in larger territories originally called : empires. Sargon created the oldest known Empire the Akkadian, 4.300 years ago. It was a great idea and some empires would follow.

The Akkadian Empire. The oldest Empire in Human History

 In the West the first big empire was created by the Romans and lasted 500 years (from the 27 B.C to 476) if we just consider the Western Part of the Roman Empire and 1500 years if we take into account the Byzantine Empire, as it only disappeared in 1453.

The Roman Empire at its height

 And in another part of the World by the Chinese became the biggest and longer lastin Eastern empire between the Reign of Emperor Qin (221-210 BC) to the Reign of Emperor Puyi (1908-1912). 2.133 years.

The chinese empire        

Today the most common organization for humans to cooperate is the State.  The World is divided in 193 states, represented in the United Nations Organization.

The UNO´s Flag

 Today there are concretely 193 member states of the United Nations Organization, to which must be added others that do not enjoy full recognition. South Korea and North Korea do not recognize each other. The People's Republic of China remains unrecognized by 19 countries that, nevertheless, recognize the ROC (Republic of China) of Taiwan. The State of Israel is not recognized by 32 countries, and the Republic of Palestine is only recognized by 136. Turkey does not recognize the Republic of Cyprus, which is, nevertheless, a member of the European Union, but it does recognize the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is not recognized by any other state. Pakistan does not recognize the Republic of Armenia. The Republic of Abkhazia has, so far, only been recognized by 6 countries. The Republic of Kosovo has only been recognized by 104 of the 193 UN countries. Other territories are struggling to become members of the UN, such as the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, South Ossetia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, aka Transnistria. The most unique case is that of Somaliland, which remains unrecognized by any state despite having declared itself an independent state and functioning as one.

The latest addition to the Officially UN's recognized States happened in 2011, when the state of South Sudan broke away from the Republic of Sudan after years of a bloody civil war. 

193 Flags in front of the UNO’s building

The State is an artificial creation, a myth created by sapiens, that originated precisely in Europe in the Middle Ages. When some kings became so powerful that they become “monarchs”. Of course the State organization did not appear overnight. This European invention  required centuries of development, going through different steps: 1) the Greek polis, 2) the Roman empire, the 3) Medieval European Kingdoms, the 4) Absolute Monarchies, and the 5) contemporary Nation-States that appeared since the last third of the 18th century in the United States of America or in France. 

Today we will look into the origins of the organization that we call today "State" in the European tradition. Starting with how the Germanic "kings", became "monarchs", and how the feudal concept of "suzerainty" turned into the one of "sovereignty". How the principle of personality of the Law, according to which in the Germanic kingdoms every "nation" had its own "national law," (Personality of the Law) was replaced by the principle of one single law for the whole kingdom (Territoriality of the Law). The example of Philip II of France, who started his reigns as "king of Francs" and ended it as the first "King of France" is self-explanatory.  

The Crowning of Philip II, the first king of "France" 

As you realize, the "State" is a pure Western invention. Another "fiction", like the nation. A very abstract fiction that only Abraham Bosse has represented  in a very expressive iconic way in the front page of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan first edition of 1651. Though, despite it is hard to explain clearly what a state is, as it is a completely abstract fiction, we have to recognize that it is a very popular fiction as  this form of organizing a political community has been adopted by almost everyone. 

States, then, seem to remain inevitable, although one has to wonder why. Are they imposed on us, or do we really crave them? Why do we humans like so much the State as a way of organizing our cooperation? 

Well, the fact that states have multiplied all over the planet is due to the fact that they are, undeniably, highly operative instruments for social organisation. The state is such an effective apparatus of power that, centuries after they were created, they not only continue to exist, but have thrived and spread all over the world. Basically, this is because it is a form of organisation that makes possible to pool large amounts of human and material resources to jointly achieve specific objectives. Human beings organised into states are simply more powerful. 

 Of course this western invention is not accepted by everyone The terrorist organization ISIS (Islamic state of Irak and Siria) wants to get rid of the artificial states of Siria and Irak created in 1916 by the British and the French and propose to get back to the Islamic original Religious community known as the Caliphate. 

ISIS flag carried by a Faith Warrior

But with not a lot of success, as Syria and Iraq are still full states and their respective governments are not willing to give up at all on this. 

In any case thank to this medieval "monarchs", the European Kingdoms expanded and got organized not only politically but from an administrative and legal perspective.From this perspective the first strong European  monarch was Alphonse XI (1325-1350) of Castile.

Image from the 14th century Book of the Coronation of the Kings of Castile

However western monarchs became really powerful when during the 16th and 17th centuries they became Absolutist kings, (from “legibus solutus”, latin expression meaning that the Monarch-kings could create their own rules through "legislation", besides being the supreme judicial authorities of the kingdom. Their absolute power, was initially justified by the lawyers formed in Medieval Universities that studied Roman Imperial law and considered the kings as "emperors" in their own realms, and the idea was consolidated by political thinkers as Nicholas Machiavel (1469-1527) and Jean Bodin (1530-1596), that considered that a strong state headed by a powerful sovereign was the only way of establishing order and avoid chaos.  

In fact the term "State" was used for the first time to refer to our political and administrative organization by Machiavel in his capital work The Prince (1532). This is the sense he gives to the expression in the following texts extracted from Chapter 18th:  

 - "And you have to understand this, that a prince, especially a new one, cannot observe all those things for which men are esteemed, being often forced, in order to maintain the state, to act contrary to fidelity,[4] friendship, humanity, and religion [...]"

- "Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are, and those few dare not oppose themselves to the opinion of the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of all men, and especially of princes, which it is not prudent to challenge, one judges by the result [...]".

- "For that reason, let a prince have the credit of conquering and holding his state, the means will always be considered honest, and he will be praised by everybody; because the vulgar are always taken by what a thing seems to be and by what comes of it; and in the world there are only the vulgar, for the few find a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on [...]".            

Portrait of Nicholas Machiavel

 In Teaching guide 2 we will discover how the western idea of state appeared and how it developed as an extremely efficient way of cooperation, to the point that most of Humanity in the 21st century is organized in states. 

HOW TO STUDY TEACHING GUIDE 2

First read the text included in your Materials (pages 18 to 25). And then proceed to answer the Concrete questions, Concepts and General Questions. Do not hesitate to ask in class if anything is confusing or you do not understand it. 

Concerning the Basic Chronology (pages 26-27) the crucial dates, the ones you have to remember, are the following: 1188, 1215, 1223, 1302, 1348, 1390, 1513, 1547, 1576, 1624, 1651 and 1661.   

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION IN CLASS: Be prepared to comment the following quote of Henry Kissinger (1923) : “If I had to choose between justice and disorder, on the one hand, and injustice and order, on the other, I would always choose the latter.” based on a quote from Goethe ("I prefer to commit an injustice than tolerate disorder").

Though as Michel Houellebeq precise, these words "[...] were said during the French Revolution in front of the city of Mainz, which had been recovered by the Prussians. He said it only minutes after personally intervening to prevent the lynching of a French soldier who had been evacuated by the troops of the Duke of Weimar. In the context, the "injustice" consists of sparing an enemy soldier who may be a great criminal. The "disorder" is that of the unleashed, bloodthisrty rabble, ready to tear a man to shreds. Thus, in his mouth the phrase really means the opposite, exactly the opposite of what you say he meant. Indeed, since Barrès he has allways been misinterpreted." (Extracted from Michel Houellebeq and Bernard Henry Levy (2011) Public Ennemies London: Atlantic Books). 

Please consider the following aspects: 

1. The contrats between the Greek Classical Polis and the Roman Empire. Why Rome became a big power and Athenian democracy did not?

2. How traditional kings, issued from a concrete family (dinasty) became "monarchs" (From the Greek "monos" one and "arcos" power). 

3. The difference between the concepts "Suzerainty" (within the frame of a feudal society) and "Sovereignty" (framed in the late medieval period, and in the Absolutist era by Jean Bodin). 

4. What means that the Medieval monarchies turn "territorial"? What are the consequences of this territorialisation? (Remember from the TG 1 the difference between the principles of “personality” and “territoriality” as far as the Germanic kingdoms were concerned). 

5. Bear in mind the "Technical advantages" of Absolutism (pages 22-24) over a theocentric and feudal society where the kings shared their power with the "Assemblies of Estates". 

6. Please consider that the growth and development of the idea of "State" relies on the expansion and growth of European Monarchies demanding a significant bolstering of royal power. 

7. Consider also why after World War I, the European liberal "laissez faire" regimes gave way to totalitarian models of state like in the Soviet Union, the Fascist Italy or the Nazi Germany. Think of the conditions that enabled the bolstering of State power and the dissolution of democracy and the disappearance of the Rule of law. 

8. Do you think that exceptional situations like Pandemics (like COVID Pandemic 2019-2022) justify a bolstering of the Government powers, restricting individual liberties and fundamental rights (like the right of moving freely), as for instance happened when the Spanish government proclaimed the "state of alarm" for 6 months, in clear violation of the 1978's Spanish constitution which clearly requires its renewal every two weeks.  By the way the Spanish Constitutional Court recognized the unconstitutionality of the measure. A clear abuse of power in the frame of the Rule of Law principle.  

Charles De Gaulle (1959-1969): the strongest supporter of the contemporary French State