Concept of the Day: The STATE (Food for thought)

I am a translator. Everyday I work with words: I take them from language A, turn them around, turn them upside down and inside out, then I write what I find in language B. Then I repeat this process again and again, with each word I come across. Finally, I take sentences and check for coherence.

Most of my work is done with legal documents. This has been a great opportunity to study the structure of the world(s) we live in, and how they interact. One thing that jumps into my attention every time I write the name of a country, or the title of a government representative, is the concept of “State” and how it has evolved over the millenia.

The word STATE comes from the latin word status and the verb stare, which meant to stand. In time it became the currency term to refer to the state of things, the public situation or status reipublicae. If we trace it further back into more obscure ages of language, we may find, coincidentally, that the word SYSTEM has the same root. This etymology is true for romance languages and germanic root languages. Some words for STATE are: Estado, État, Stato and Staat.

I’d like you to ask yourself the following question: What does this origin have to do with our modern conception of STATE?

We know that the STATE is the conglomerate of institutions that carry on public functions; it is the gears that make a country’s (country is the combination of state, people and territory) constant movement possible. Public functions are determined by public needs, which differ from place to place but almost invariably around the globe fall upon economy, health and education.

As you can see, a country is like a house: it has a physical place, a certain number of people living inside it, and figures (father, mother, pet, etc.) that make the gears move.

Maybe it is the continuous action of sensationalist media, maybe it is the fact that we are not being taught the basic political principles of life at schools anymore, but I bet the first thing the word STATE brings to mind is either Trump, a tie, or a ton of prefabricated sentences that mean nothing to anyone, like “deeply concerned about the deeds that took place” or “take on the enemy with vigor”. Sound familiar? Do you know what deeds those were? Or which anime they might refer to?

Now imagine you are in ancient Athens, where the concept of State was refined, and some “deeds” took place. A public building fell down. Immediately, the people closer to the event will clear off the debris, savage the wounded, bury the dead, clean it all up and start figuring out how to rebuild it. These people may or may not have been appointed officials, but they would’ve no doubt taken care of the situation. A leader certainly existed, but no one would’ve waited for him to get to work.

Is it so with the holes in the pavement in your neighborhood? Is it possible for you and your community to get some cement and fix the holes yourselves? Is it possible to put together a community clinic to help your neighbors in need? Or a spontaneous community school?

The answer probably is no, and the reason for the negative is because you -us- have relinquished power onto the STATE, the institutions, in virtue of the so called social contract. We have given part of our power to the STATE in exchange for their protection. This is the historical turning point, when the classic concept of governance turned into the modern way we look upon our institutions.

The next question I’d like you to ask yourselves is: Is this ok?

Obviously, before the theory of the Social Contract, humans were in an infinitely worse condition than we are now. But this doesn’t mean that we have to keep a system that is flawed. What it means is that we should perceive how our institutions interact with us, instead of following their instructions like cattle.

The thing with the current STATE of political things is that we have been fooled to believe that we choose our political leaders. Trust me, we don’t. They choose themselves, and then they work their way up like ravenous, flesh eating slugs. Mind you, smiling, kind-looking, ravenous flesh eating slugs. I do not mean to say that all politicians are bad, or that all of the people running for any office are corrupt. What I mean to say is that they want power, otherwise they wouldn’t run for it. It’s not just a coincidence that the Roman God of politics -Jano Bifronte- has two faces. And that brings me to the third question I’d like you to ask yourselves: Why do people want power?

On a personal level, I wouldn’t vote for anyone I wouldn’t trust to help me with a flat tire in the middle of the night.

(I don’t vote)

In my opinion, if I am being asked by a “social contract” to relinquish part of my power and give it to someone, and this new person will use this power to rule upon my lifestyle, my opportunities and my basic freedoms… I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me but I’d like to at least have dinner with this person.

So this is the STATE of things, when it comes to politics. And this STATE is true for most of western civilization. I am not an abolitionist, I am not a radical, I am not an anarchist. I am just a person who likes to ask difficult questions in the hope of creating waves of thought that lead us closer to an answer.

Source: translation from http://etimologias.dechile.net/?estado

Images
The School of Athens, by Raphael

Portrait of Jean Jacques Rousseau