写书的目的是进行思想交流。最近一本再版的书要出版发行。这本书的题目是：Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised Edition。 以下是这本书的前言。如果有感兴趣的读者，欢迎提意见。记得网友Liucarl提过一次意见。我将所有长段落缩短到最多不超过1页纸，除非有少数例外，那也顶多长1页再加3行。并且参考了George H. Sabine著：A History of Political Theory (George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd.), 1937。他的那本书里最长的段落有1页。 哪怕是网络交流，也能受益。在此表示感谢。

在前言里，说明此书的目的是要说明语言与国家的关系，并且对过去的哲学家提出过的国家起源理论提出质疑。然后，声称国家起源于语言。最后表示，如要了解详情，请看后面的正文。

一个注释：国家的起源与国家的本质具有互释性。也就是说，从本质主义的观点看，说明国家的起源，也就说明国家的本质。如果重新解释了国家的本质，也就重新解释了人类社会里的政治。从语言角度解释人类文明社会的起源是如此思维的起点。以下就是那个起点。

Prologue

This monograph is a study of the correlation between language and state. It is an attempt to study the fundamental role played by language first and then to study how language creates a condition for the genesis and growth of the state. On one hand, language is defined as a system composed of signs created by humans for communication and it is considered a basic element of the evolution from the primitive society to the civilized one and a basis for the growth of the state. On the other hand, the state is defined as a community which comprises a group of people, a territory and a government with sovereignty and it is considered the result of the evolution of human society due to the role played by language. This is because using language, spoken or written, has no other sociological significance but creating a basic condition for setting up a long-term evolution from the tribe to the state. My reasoning is that, since the dissolution of tribes or communal families in favor of the state, humans have become isolated as individuals outside their core families characteristic of monogamy. Under these circumstances, what connects all is language. Thus, language is to the state what kinship is to the tribe. In the beginning, humans are tribal people. They perform communication by way of behavioral display. For example, they smile or bow or wave their hands, all forms of communication. They may even dance, another form of communication. I consider such behavior non-verbal behavior, and such behavior is the original medium. By “medium,” I mean any being or form that creates a condition for communication. As behavior is the medium in communication over short distances, such a limited method of communication only enables humans to form a small community. Kinship is the essential linkage in such an environment. The birth of language was a revolution. Language enables humans to create various media. Media further play a part in extending the distance of mutual communication. Thus, spoken, or written, communication extends the distance of communication.  In terms of spoken communication, people function as media in the process of communication because such a process of communication is often in the form of human-chain linguistic communication. In terms of written communication, people use materials. They used to use clay tablet, papyrus, and parchment. Today they still use stone, metal object and paper. They are media. The use of media extends the time span and the reach of communication. Humans communicate over a long stretch of time and on a large scale. The exploitation of media in communication results in a long-term increase in the size of their community, leading inevitably to the formation of the state and the dissolution of the tribe. Thus, interpreting the role of language in the formation and growth of the state may allow us to give a true systematic description of the formation and growth of the state, a job that may further enable us to create a new theory about the state.

Pioneering to interpret the origin of the society, the erstwhile philosophers sometimes mentioned the role of language in the formation of the society. They held that language enables people to exchange feelings, to impart thoughts or ideas, and even to chronicle history. They insisted that humans form their society because of language. For example, Aristotle pointed out that language is the peculiarity of humans. He wrote that “a human being is more of a political animal than is any bee or than are any of those animals that live in herds.” He indicated that humans can exchange feelings and present their views about justice and injustice due to the use of language.¹ Thomas Hobbes also mentioned language that plays a role in the formation of the society. He wrote that:

       [T]he most notable and profitable invention of all other, was that of Speech,

       consisting of Names or Appellations, and their Connexion; whereby men

       register their Thoughts; recall them when they are past; and also declare them

       one to another for mutuall utility and conversation; without which, there had

       been amongst men, neither Common-wealth, nor Society, nor Contract, nor

       Peace, no more than amongst Lyons, Bears, and Wolves.²

They might conceive of the role of language in the formation of the society instead of the state. They only believed that humans associate together due to their shared use of language. Yet it is arguable that humans may also associate together to form a society like some social animals even if they have neither written nor spoken language. Their view cannot give clarity to the origin of the state. This view may merely show that language serves as a foundation for humans to form their society, not their state. My view is different. To me, studying the role of language needs studying the role of media since using language in communication necessitates the creation of an array of media. The creation of media extends the distance of linguistic communication. Thus language, together with media, extends the time span and the reach of communication. Then humans build a permanent and large community. This leads to the formation of the state and the dissolution of the tribes. A quantitative change leads to a qualitative change. In the past kinship was the basic element of the unity of the tribe. Today language is one basic element of the unity of the state if we interpret language in the sense of something that language gives origin to all kinds of media except the original medium—namely, behavior—and media further underlie the genesis and growth of the state.

We can reinterpret the theories of the origin of the state, advanced by the erstwhile philosophers, in this view. The interpretations, given by them, may be neither complete nor accurate. If we interpret the origin and growth of the state from a new perspective, we may see the state in a better way.

The key is that in their interpretations of language the erstwhile philosophers failed to behold the role of media in support of the application of language. If they devoted their attention to the role of media in linguistic communication and found that it was the extension of the distance of linguistic communication that led to the formation of the state, they would probably be aware of the role of language in support of the growth of the state. This is because language has irreversibly changed the condition of human communication since humans began to speak. Media rely on language. Media attach themselves to language. Language may be viewed differently if the role of media is also studied. Language not only facilitates humans to communicate with each other, but also necessitates the creation of media that extend the distance of linguistic communication. Then humans associate together on a large scale. This culminates in the dissolution of the original community formed on the basis of kinship and the birth of the new community formed on the basis of linguistic communication. Thus, if we study the role of language in the creation of media, we may be able to invent a new theory about the genesis and growth of the state and this theory may give an interpretation better than the views offered by the erstwhile philosophers. We can compare this newly-proposed view with the related views offered by the erstwhile philosophers to give a systematic interpretation. This interpretation should be more reasonable and more accurate.

First, the study of the genesis and growth of the state, at the angle of the role of language mentioned by us, is more systematic than the view of the formation of the state adduced by Aristotle. This view may enable us to see the formation of the state more completely. When Aristotle wrote his book Politics, he said that the state grew naturally. Describing the city that served as a basis for the formation of the state in ancient Greece, Aristotle stated that:

       The first communities are the two natural ones of (i) husband and wife for

       generation and (ii) master and slave for survival. These two together form the

       household. Households exist for the needs of the day. Villages spring from

       households, above all through the generation of children and grandchildren, and

       exist for needs beyond the day.³

He continued that “[w]hen the community made up of several villages is complete, it is then a city, possessing the limit of every self-sufficiency.”⁴ Aristotle implied that the city was the cluster of many villages and each village was a cluster of many households. Smaller communities merged to become a larger community. Thus the city grew by nature. Though we can see the city as growing by nature, we can interpret this phenomenon, described by Aristotle, to reveal the role of language mentioned by us to examine his theory in depth. Why does the community grow in size gradually?  Why are people willing to form a larger community regardless of the original smaller communities built on the basis of kinship? Will people always form a larger community along with an increase in population? An interpretation of such a situation accentuates that humans create media in their mutual communication. Then media enable them to extend the distance of communication. Extending the distance of communication further enables them to communicate over a long span of time and on a large scale. People, from different tribes, are enabled to communicate with each other. Then they have their common memory of the community; they exchange goods and services; and they share traditional ideas. They may even embrace the same religious belief. They come to have common interest. They form a new community, leaving the original tribes dissolved. A piece of evidence is that the household is composed of a master and a slave or some slaves as discussed by Aristotle. He implied that the slave was a tool. He directly mentioned that “the slave is a living possession.”⁵ The linkage between a master and a slave should not be kinship. Though this slave was the belonging of a family, the formation of such a family revealed the dissolution of the tribe. A new community must have emerged. Language must be behind the emergence of this new community. That is why animals are usually unable to form a permanent and large community. For example, a group of lions or wolves may form a community, but this community may be dissolved at any time and is always small. To put it differently, as humans are able to use language, communicating over a long span of time and on a large scale, thousands of people, or even millions of people, may form a permanent and large community such as a state.    

We may further prove the role of language in the formation of the state this way. We may further indicate that linguistic communication leads to the expansion of the community and the expansion of the community erodes and loosens the organization of the tribe. Then humans, from different tribes, begin to cooperate and unite, and then they form their community in which kinship is no longer an important element of the formation of the community. Kinship attenuates. The attenuation of kinship results in the gradual dissolution of the tribe. Humans form the families characteristic of monogamy because there is no longer the original tribe that conditions group marriage. The reason is that outside the tribe people are usually only able to form the families of monogamy as now people no longer unite on the basis of kinship. The original group marriage community, formed because of kinship, ends and a new community grows on the basis of linguistic communication. Households of monogamy become the basic economic units. The city emerges along with the formation of households of monogamy. Aristotle insisted that a man could not survive if he was not part of the city.⁶  He alluded to the fact that families took shape within the city. Obviously, he believed that the city, instead of tribe, was the chief community of Greeks in which Greeks built their families. This indicates that language is a medium in support of human communication. It extends the time and reach of communication. Then people dissolve their tribes and form their state.

I believe that while Aristotle gave his interpretation of the formation of the state, he only interpreted the formation of the city-state. Though his view is not totally groundless, his explanation seems over-simplified. How can we interpret the formation of ancient empires? How can we interpret the formation of kingdoms in medieval times? Were those states formed in a natural way? While Aristotle presented his view, he emphasized that people depend on each other in production and living. He meant, I argue, that as families depend on each other in production and living, they congregate. Then families congregate to form a village and villages congregate to form a city. People, however, may not always form their states this way. In view of the emergence of some empires in history, we see that sometimes a group of people conquered a region and then a state took form. In other words, humans built various types of states in history. They not only built city-states, but also established some other types of states such as feudal kingdoms and empires. How can we interpret the formation of a kingdom or an empire in history? How do we interpret the formation of a state formed by immigrants in modern times? If we find an approach to interpret the origin of a kingdom or an empire or an immigration state, how do we interpret the formation of city-states in ancient Greece? I believe that since written language is a prerequisite for the formation of a civilized society, language should play a role in the formation of the state. We need to study in depth how humans associate together and then build their society and the state. Describing the course of the growth of the state only may not adequately clarify how a state takes form. The reason is that the formation of a state may not be so simple. But pinpointing the role of language should be a better approach for us to have an insight into the formation of the state throughout history because Aristotle’s view may not enable us to clearly see the formation of all kinds of states.

In presenting a view about the origin of the state from the perspective of language, I prefer not to view the formation and the growth of the state from the angle of the natural formation of the state only. Needless to say, along with an increase in population, people form a large community. Scholars may argue, for example, that a tribe may evolve to be an ethnic group of people and an ethnic group of people may evolve to be a nation along with an increase in population. Then humans form nation-states. However, not all states may come into existence this way as noted earlier. How can we interpret the formation of some states on the basis of national fusion following the migration of a group of people from one region to another in history? How can we interpret the formation of some states that absorbed different ethnic groups of people in history? How can we interpret the origin of some states which were empires in the past? I do not deny that some states take form naturally in history, but I also insist that some other states may take form in a different way. In this aspect scholars may overlook the role of language in the growth of the state. In other words, if we argue that a batch of families form a village and a batch of villages form a town and a batch of towns form a city and a city becomes a state, we will ask how people build kingdoms, empires and some other nation-states formed by different ethnic groups of people. Is there an approach for us to interpret the formation of various types of states that emerged in history? I pinpoint the role of language in the formation and growth of the state. In other words, in some cases a state takes form naturally, but language also plays a role in the formation of the state. In some other cases, a state takes form for a special reason. In these cases, language definitely plays a role in the formation of the state. The reason is that language serves as a basis for the creation of a wide range of media and media extend the reach of linguistic communication across and between communities. People form a large community. If scholars argue that a state takes form naturally, I argue that it is because language plays a role.

I mean that while humans use language in communication, they have to create and use a variety of media. These media constitute the social fabric. Then we see that while humans communicate using language, they interact with language and language interacts with media and media just mean the formation of the society and the state. Then humans interact with the society and the state. Sometimes it seems that a state takes form by nature, but it is actually the extension of the distance of linguistic communication that results in the formation of the state. In some other cases, a state does not take form by nature, but language invariably plays a part in the formation of that state. For example, a number of villages may form a town and a number of towns may form a city. How do these villages form a town and how do these towns form a city? People have to communicate with one another. People have to use language. Then all villages and all towns can communicate with each other. But we can view this case conversely. If humans did not use language, they would not build a large community because they were unable to create and use media. Then they would not form a state. So my belief is that the formation of the state in a seemingly natural way involves the role played by language. Scholars cannot satisfactorily interpret the origin of the state without pinpointing the role of language.

Second, the theory of social contract may enlighten us to think of the role of language, but this theory overlooks the fact that people make a contract because they use language. The social contract theory is the theory that stresses the obligations undertaken by ordinary people and the sovereign, or the government, as well as the rights had by ordinary people and the sovereign or the state in the formation of the state. The social contract theory of the state is identical with the interpretation of the genesis of the state from the perspective of language in the respect that humans have to use language when making a social contract. A contract means the formation of common interest between parties. Language itself denotes the possibility of generating common interest because without common interest people will not communicate, or keep on communicating, with each other by using language. But the shortcoming of the theory of social contract is that the use of language is antecedent to the making of a social contract and hence the interpretation, from the angle of contract, may not be a final theoretical solution though the theory of social contract may support the description of the role of language in the formation of the state. The key is that the philosophers of early modern times interpreted the origin of the state by relying on the theory of natural law created by some philosophers of the Roman and Greek world of ancient times. That is, the Stoics discussed the law of nature. Thus, they argued that humans are in the state of nature in the beginning. Each of them is responsible for his own safety and security as well as well-being. All are subject to the law of nature. So in late medieval times or in early modern times, Hobbes insisted in his book Leviathan that as humans are often in a state of war of every man against every man, they cede part of their freedoms and rights to the sovereign in exchange for the protection of themselves by the sovereign. He believed that people are unable to establish order and organize the state unless they cede some of the rights they have to the sovereign and let the sovereign establish order and organize the state. ⁷

John Locke believed that people cooperate with each other in the outset. But he also believed that the government takes form because people make a social contract. In the book Second Treatise of Government, Locke argued that the individual places some of his rights present in the state of nature in trusteeship with the sovereign (government) in return for the protection of certain natural individual rights. ⁸ Locke mentioned that an original compact is entered into to make one body politic under one government.⁹

Hobbes and Locke were followed by Jean Jacques Rousseau in the building of a theoretical edifice of social contract as Rousseau opined that “the social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature and must therefore be founded on conventions.”¹⁰ He offered his theory of social contract on the ground that “Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men.”¹¹ The result is that, according to Rousseau,

        [E]ach man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no

        associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over

        himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force

        for the preservation of what he has.¹²

Undoubtedly, the past philosophers only engaged in hypothetical reasoning. The state of nature was described to offer their views about what the state ought to be. Rousseau made the following comment that:

        Every one of them, in short, constantly dwelling on wants, avidity, oppression,

        desires and pride, has transferred to the state of nature ideas which were

        acquired in society; so that, in speaking of the savage, they described the social

        man. It has not even entered into the heads of most of our writers to doubt

        whether the state of nature ever existed; but it is clear from the Holy scriptures

       that the first man, having received his understanding and commandments

        immediately from God, was not himself in such as state; and that, if we give

        such credit to the writings of Moses as every Christian philosopher ought to

        give, we must deny that, even before the deluge, men were ever in the pure

        state of nature; unless, indeed, they fell back into it from some very

        extraordinary circumstances; a paradox which it would be very embarrassing

        to defend, and quite impossible to prove.¹³

He stressed that the inquiry must not be considered to be historical truths, but only as mere conditional and hypothetical reasoning.¹⁴ 

Why did the past philosophers engage in hypothetical reasoning this way? I venture to argue that they overlooked the role of language in the genesis and growth of the state though the reasoning, based on the view of the law of nature, could follow the logic. If language is assumed to underlie the genesis and growth of the state, we may find out the secret of the genesis and growth of the state. Though the study of the role of language in the genesis and growth of the state is not historical either, it may create a more solid foundation in our study of the genesis and growth of the state. The ground, offered by us, is simple. Humans must have already commenced to use language for their mutual communication if they are aware of the existence of such a contract for no contract is made without using language. Such a contract cannot exist among those who do not perform linguistic communication with each other.

If we argue that the state is formed by those who are originally stateless, we can also believe that the theory of social contract can be viewed as part of the formation of the state set in motion by language. This view can be revised to advance the argument that humans first use language and then make a social contract. Even the interpretation of the state of nature cannot deny the existence of linguistic communication. Thus we can believe that, due to the extension of the distance of linguistic communication, this linguistic communication must, in theory, be performed freely by anyone with all others. All interact with all. So the state is formed in the process of linguistic communication.

Therefore, the theory of social contract, coupled with the interpretation of the state of nature, may be revised to create a theory of the genesis and growth of the state from the perspective of language. The genesis and growth of the state can be viewed from the perspective of the role of language in the dissolution of the tribe and the formation of the state. For example, Hobbes wrote that:

        The Children of Israel, were a Common-wealth in the Wildernesse; but wanted

        the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land  of Promise;

        which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by

        the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their Generall: who when there

        were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of

        Joseph; made nevertheless but twelve portions of the Land; and ordained for

        the Tribe of Levi no land; but assigned them the Tenth part of the whole fruits;

        which division was therefore Arbitrary.¹⁵

His description clearly shows that prior to the growth of the civilized society in which there is a state, humans remain tribal people. When people are the members of the tribe, they are actually organized. They are not isolated individual people without the assistance given by all others whenever they need assistance. Each of them is not isolated because each is connected with all others by kinship. Particularly, the situation may not be that each is totally responsible for his own security. Each and the other may cooperate with each other. They may not be in the state of war though a tribe may be often in the state of war against another one. In other words, tribes, as communities, may often be in the state of war between each other, but each individual within the tribe may not be in the state of war because kinship means love and mutual assistance between one another. The relationship between one tribe and another may be characterized by war while the relationship between one person and another within the tribe may be characterized by peace. The tribe is governed by the tribal chief and is not in the state of disorder. There is the order within the tribe. Customs, as unwritten laws in some cases, may be obeyed by the members of the tribe. The reason that humans depart from tribes to form a state is that they use language. In the meantime, language enables people to communicate on a large scale. People are thus enabled to dissolve tribes and hence to form a larger community along with an increase in population. For instance, in ancient times, Hebrews built their state on the basis of the union of different tribes.

That is, as humans use language, language underlies the formation of their own common interest. If they bear an obligation required by all others in order to gain a right given by all others because they now form a community on the basis of linguistic communication, there should be, at least, a tacit contract. If they admit that they actually gain a certain right given by all others because they bear an obligation expected by all others, there is a de facto contract. Thus, one can give an interpretation of the role of language because people should make a social contract in a process of linguistic communication. In a word, when people perform linguistic communication with each other, they give undertakings to each other this way or that way. They may form their state and dissolve their tribes. Thus history tells us that in ancient Greece tribes existed long after or at least upon the formation of the city-states. Narrating the life of Theseus (legendary), a Grecian noble man, Plutarch wrote that after the death of his father Aegeus, forming in his mind a great and wonderful design, he gathered all the inhabitants of Attica into one town and made them one people of one city, whereas in the past they lived dispersed and were not easy to assemble upon any affair for the common interest. The related background is that differences and even wars often occurred between them. Then  he, by his persuasions, appeased those differences and wars, going from township to township, and from tribe to tribe. ¹⁶.Likewise, in Rome there were also tribes though we believe that the state, such as the Roman Republic, was formed at that time. Narrating the life of Romulus (8th century B.C.), a Roman noble man, Plutarch also noted that the city doubled in number and an hundred of the Sabines were elected senators and the legions were increased to six thousand foot and six hundred horse. Then they divided the people into three tribes: the first, from Romulus, named Ramnenses; the second from Tatius, Tatienses; the third Luceres, from the lucus or grove where the Asylum stood to which many fled for sanctuary. And they were just three and the very name of tribe and tribune seems to show this fact. That is, each tribe contained ten curice or brotherhood.¹⁷

Then I argue that philosophers, advocating the theory of social contract, believe that all must make an agreement to confer all their power and strength upon one man or entity. This cannot happen unless humans are able to use language, albeit also a form of self-alienation. People think that it is so even though they have never acted to make such an agreement. This is imaginary. Their explanation is hypothetical. Yet they imply, or mean, that the power of the state is given by the people. The state, according to their view, is formed because the people make a contract among themselves and make a contract with the power holder of the state. This means that, in the formation of a state, there is already a contract made by all; there is a contract made by the ruled and the ruler and the sovereign rules the state according to the related contract. Such an interpretation is not repugnant to the interpretation of the role of language in the genesis of the state. This is because we can believe that humans must use language in the making of a social contract. But we can revise the related presentation to argue that language comes into use before humans make a contract. Humans first start using language for their mutual interaction, and such mutual interaction leads to the formation of a new community. They cooperate with each other in production and living. Then they may conceptualize the obligations and rights in their cooperation. Then it is arguable that people have already made a contract or two to authorize an individual or an entity to govern the community. This complex process may lead to the birth of the state.

Third, this view may also help us review the theories of some other philosophers, or thinkers, who do not concur with the philosophers advocating the theory of social contract. Among these philosophers or thinkers, some philosophers, or thinkers, uphold the view that people form the state through the use of force or conquest. They accentuate the role played by the military leader of a social group in the formation of the state. They do not believe that any social contract is made in the building of the state. They believe that the formation of the state is not the volition of ordinary people, but the will of a strong man. They seem to believe that the formation of the government can be equated with the formation of the state. In other words, the formation of the state is the matter of those who hold power. In their view, in the formation of the state, people, residing passively within it, cannot leave this state freely. Thus the state is imposed on those ordinary people. For example, David Hume wrote that:

        Almost all the governments, which exist at present, or of which there remains

        any record in story, have been founded originally, either on usurpation or

        conquest, or both, without any pretence of a fair consent, or voluntary

        subjection of the people. When an artful and bold man is placed at the head

        of an army or faction, it is often easy for him, by employing, sometimes

        violence, sometimes false pretences, to establish his dominion over a people a

        hundred times more numerous than his partizans.¹⁸

He asserted that the theory of social contract disagreed with the facts, saying that everywhere rulers asserted their independent right of sovereignty from conquest or succession¹⁹

Franz Oppenheimer, a German sociologist, largely agreed to Hume’s conclusion though his relevant analysis differs from Hume’s in detail. He insisted that:

        The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during

        the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious

        group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the

        dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself

        against revolt from within and attacks from abroad.²⁰

Although the theory of conquest sheds light on the origin of the state in a certain aspect, an analysis of the role of language, given from the perspective of linguistic communication, may expose one of the major omissions of this view. This omission is that the formation of a government cannot be equated with the formation of the state though the formation of the government is essential for the formation of the state. The formation of the government is one necessary condition for the formation of the state, but cannot represent all the necessary conditions for the formation of the state. The role of language should be stressed for the presentation of an overall view of the formation of the state. My analysis starts here: in the formation of the state, people, forming the state, should be able to communicate with each other, using language so that a great many people, in a large community, can communicate with each other in order to maintain the unity of the state. If, in the outset, the victorious group, using one language, conquers another defeated group using another language, the two languages may  amalgamate into one later. Describing the combination of the victorious group of people and the defeated group, Oppenheimer mentioned that:

         We saw in the second stage . . . how the net of psychical relations becomes

         ever tighter and closer enmeshed, as the economic amalgamation advances.

         The two dialects become one language; or one of the two, often of an entirely

         different stock from the other, becomes extinct. This, in some cases, is the

         language of the victors, but more frequently that of the vanquished.²¹

People, who communicate with each other by using language, also build the common memory of the community, embrace the common religious belief, adhere to the same custom and mores, put into practice common cultural ideas, and know that they belong to the same group. If we argue that conquest is against the will of the conquered people and the conquerors solely intend to exploit the conquered people in the outset, the conquerors may gradually recognize the value of the conquered people. People may understand each other gradually. They may be aware of the formation of the common interest between the two sides. For example, the state may be formed due to the fact that the nomads conquer the peasants. The nomads become the conquerors while the peasants become the conquered people. Yet, they may rely on each other later because the nomads, as the conquerors, need tributes given by the peasants as the conquered people while the conquered people, the peasants, need the protection of the conquerors, the nomads. Nevertheless, as the birth of language antedates conquest, language can be the key to the philosophical interpretation of the totality of the state.

That is, Hume’s and Oppenheimer’s views may be considered single-faceted if we view the role played by language in the growth of the state. My reasoning is that this theory of conquest cannot deny that language appears long before the appearance of the state. When humans were still tribal people, they commenced to use language in their mutual communication. Language should be a factor in the extension of the distance of linguistic communication and the expansion of the human community and hence a factor in the final formation of the state. Thus initial conquest may be a step precipitating the formation of the state. In the formation of the state, people, forming the state, should have already had their mores, religion, art, literature, history, philosophy and law, etc. Even if we accept the view of conquest and believe that the mores, religion, art, literature, history, philosophy and law, had by the victors, differ from those had by the vanquished, those cultural or social forms may amalgamate. For example, as Oppenheimer wrote, “Both cults amalgamate into one religion, in which the tribal god of the conquerors is adored as the principal divinity, while the old gods of the vanquished become either his servants, or, as demons or devils, his adversaries.”²² Thus those cultural or social forms are also the factors conditioning the genesis of the state. The initial effort, made by the conqueror, is merely an element functioning in the formation of the state. In other words, in early times, people, forming small communities in different areas, may not be strongly motivated to form a large community. They may be temporarily under the governance of the society though such a society may not be stable or perpetual. It is the conqueror that conquers the conquered people builds the large community called the state and becomes the ruler of the state. People may be forced by the conqueror to form a state in a period of time only.

This comment is identical with the related historical narratives in which the state is ruled by a despot in the outset. Though in ancient Greek cities people established democracy, the establishment of a despotic system should antedate that of a democracy. Yet we can also believe that from medieval to modern times what is witnessed by people is largely the replacement of despotic states by democratic states in Europe. In North America democracy was built when new nation-states were born. In other regions outside Europe and North America peoples also have built democracy, or intend to build democracy, in modern times. Studying the long-term growth of the state may enable us to see that the conqueror of the state, objectively, functions as a medium that precipitates the formation of the state in history. To put it differently, linguistic communication results in the formation of the common interest of all from different tribes and hence results in the dissolution of the tribes and the formation of the state. But an individual person, acting as a conqueror, may hasten the formation of the state. When discussing representative government, John Stuart Mill wrote that:

        [K]ingly government, free from the control (though perhaps strengthened by

        the support) of representative institutions, is the most suitable form of polity

        for the earliest stages of any community, not excepting a city-community like

        those of ancient Greece: where, accordingly, the government of kings, under

        some real but no ostensible or constitutional control by public opinion, did

        historically precede by an unknown and probably great duration all free

        institutions, and gave place at last, during a considerable lapse of time, to

        oligarchies of a few families.²³

He believed that in the beginning, the government was quite despotic. ²⁴ Yet, we can assert that a kingly government functions in ancient times on behalf of the representative government established in modern times because we can hold that the pre-modern state is inherited by the modern state. This is because in history people cannot build the state at one fell swoop. The conqueror becomes a medium. Despotism creates a condition for the later growth of the state that adopts democracy. Despotism stems from conquest. Conquest is aimed at interest. Interest is available in a large community. If people do not use language in mutual communication and hence fail to form a large community, there should not be an abundance of the property owned by the community. Thus the potential conqueror may not conquer them. This is because the conqueror usually conquers the people of a region in an attempt to seize a great deal of property including land. Nevertheless, though conquest is aimed at interest, after the conquest, the conqueror also needs ruling legitimacy in order to rule the state for long and the conqueror does not gain certain ruling legitimacy until he becomes the ruler. The initial conquest may be only part of a long process of the formation of the state in which language plays an essential role. I have one piece of evidence in support of my argument. That is, feudal states evolve to be nation-states, and nation-states establish democracy. Thus, I argue that the initial conquest may serve as a medium in the process of the formation, or the growth, of the state. For example, France that used to be a kingdom in the Middle Ages grew to be a nation-state in early modern times. In the transition from a kingdom to a nation-state, the kings of France, including Louis XIV, sometimes launched the war of conquest and expanded the territory of, and increased the population of, France. French people later inherited the state growing large historically due to the role played by language after France had become a republic. Thus, any ruler of the Middle Ages in the history of France is only a medium in the formation of the state. He is a historic medium. This is because, at that time, it proved impossible for ordinary people to form a large state. The commitment of the ruler in the expansion of the state created a condition for the formation of the modern state later. But the entire growth of the state proves that the state always grows due to the role played by language and culture derived from that language.

That means that it is language that is fundamentally significant for the formation of the state. Initial conquest is a temporary phenomenon in the formation of the state. The state takes form finally because of the use of language instead of initial conquest. In Chinese history, Mongolians conquered China in the thirteenth century and Manchurians conquered China in the seventeenth century. But the Han Chinese, the main ethnic group, assimilated part of Mongolians and all Manchurians. It is true that the conquerors expanded the territory  of China, but all those assimilated ethnic groups of people learned the Chinese language, namely, Mandarin. It is language, together with the culture developed on the basis of this language, that determines the final formation of the state. When the Japanese army invaded China from 1931 to 1945, many Japanese military officers, staying in China, spoke pidgin Mandarin, communicating with the native Chinese people. The language of a small population gave way to the language of a large population when two different nations interacted widely. In addition, the traditional Chinese culture is more advanced than the Japanese traditional culture because in history the Japanese culture was influenced by the Chinese culture. Thus, I believe that if we suppose that the Japanese army eventually conquered China and Japan annexed China, the final result, shown in the following several hundred years, might be that Japanese were assimilated by Chinese. Then Japan might become part of China. The rulers of Japan in the 1930s believed the theory of initial conquest. This view is single-faceted. That is, language gives origin to the state.

As such, it is arguable that the view of initial conquest may be a facet of the entire process of state formation, but not all facets of state formation. The view of initial conquest can be revised. In order to describe the origin of the state, we need to have a broad field of vision. We can perhaps prove the role of language in the genesis and growth of the state. We can take into consideration a long process of state formation underlain by language. Thus the view of the role of language, in the genesis and growth of the state, should have a unique value.

Fourth, thinkers, or philosophers, or other scholars, sometimes ascribe the origin of the state to the necessity of self-defense of people. This view is in conformity with the view of social contract in a certain aspect because this view stresses that people unite to build a state in order to ensure the security of the community. In other words, people may cede part of their rights to the state for them to be protected by the state. Thus Hobbes admitted that this was one of several reasons for the establishment of the government as mentioned earlier. This view also confirms indirectly its possible relevance to war. It holds that a war precipitates the formation of the state. It may agree to the view that initial conquest results in the formation of some other states. The related philosophers, however, focus on the necessity of the union of people in order to guard against foreign invasion and take the union of people as the reason for the formation of the state. Some of them emphasize, in particular, that self-defense is the sole origin of the state under certain circumstances. They pinpoint the external threat as a special reason for the formation of the state. They insist that people form their state under external pressure. They argue, in particular,  that dispersed families, threatened by the invasion or intrusion of herdsmen or external groups of people, unite to increase their own strength of defense to bar herdsmen or others because herdsmen or others do not regard invasion as forbidden. The union of the local people results in the building of a state. They imply that the common need of all culminates in the union of all and hence the building of the state. The external pressure is the cause. The state is built within a region. In this regard, Immanuel Kant is among a few prominent philosophers particularly holding this view. In the essay entitled Speculative Beginning of Human History (1786), he wrote that:

        When subsistence depends on the earth’s cultivation and planting (especially

        trees), permanent housing is required, and its defense against all intrusions

        requires a number of men who will support one another. Consequently, men

        who adopt this form of life can no longer remain in scattered families, but must

        instead come together and found villages (improperly called towns) in order to

        protect their property against wild hunters or hordes of wandering herdsmen.

        The primary needs of life required by a different way of living could not be

        exchanged for one another. Culture and the beginning of art, of entertainment,

        as well as of industriousness must have sprung from this; but above all, some

        form of civil constitution and of public justice began, at first, to be sure, only in

        regard to the grossest brutality, revenge for which was no longer sought by the

        single individual, as it was in the state of savage, but rather by a lawful power

        that preserved the whole, i.e., became a form of government, and was

        controlled by no other power.²⁵

In later times some other scholars further confirm that the consolidation of defense, needed for the security of all, is the origin of the state. Their descriptions are that a war compels the ruler of the state to recruit soldiers, to increase the levies of taxes and to strengthen administration. All measures, taken for the purpose of defense, lead to the building of the state. As defense is built against possible invasion, they regard a war between one state and another as a cause of the formation and growth of the state. For example, some scholars accentuate the role of a war in the building of nation-state in ancient China, in early modern Europe and in the United States of early modern times.²⁶ They believe that the outbreak of a war hastens the pace of state building. Their basic view is that the defense of the community leads to the ruler’s exertion of his effort in state building for survival. Is this view plausible? My view is that self-defense only necessitates the union of people and merely reflects a course of state building instead of the origin of the state though the related descriptions and researches can be used to support the philosophical view about the origin of the state advanced on the basis of analyzing the role of language in state formation. If humans did not speak, they would not be able to extend the distance of their mutual communication. They would remain within the tribe. If they needed self-defense at that time, they would make an effort to build the tribe instead of a state because people would not be able to form a large community such as a state without language. Yet we can also believe that, as humans speak and write, they are enabled to communicate over a long time and on a large scale. Many people begin to communicate with one another. They unite for self-defense. Then they no longer strengthen the building of the tribe but the building of the state. Therefore, it is arguable that language bolsters the formation of a large community. Civilization germinates because humans extend the distance of linguistic communication. Extending the distance of linguistic communication is the sole basis for the long-time cooperation and the union of a great many people. Strengthening the defense of the community is merely a process in the formation and the growth of the state after the birth of language. The only one plausible interpretation of the genesis and growth of the state should be given in view of language. As people, from different areas, unite, their original heterogeneous cultures may amalgamate into one homogeneous culture. They may have the same memory of history as gradually as time goes on. They may gradually uphold the same religious belief. They may often exchange feelings. They may cooperate in production. They may jointly engage in some large public engineering projects. They may jointly engage in some social undertakings. Then some may come forward to form a government. Forming a government is a step toward the formation of the state.

While we offer a view about the origin of the state, such a view should be able to interpret the origin of all types of the state. If we advance a view about the origin of some types of the state only, we have to think about why sometimes humans form their state in some other way around. Is the view about the origin of the state presented from the perspective of defense or war plausible? How do we interpret the formation of the United States, or modern Italy, or modern Germany as a nation? How do we interpret the formation of many states in Africa and Asia after World War Two? Were those states not formed in the state of peace? How should we understand the birth of some states in the state of peace in this world? Accentuating the role played by language in the origin of the state is, I argue, a better interpretation of the formation of the state. This view can interpret the origin of all types of the state successfully. A war may not lead to the formation of the state if people do not use language. A war may lead to the formation of the state in some cases if people have already built a large community. Yet such a war should be deemed as a medium that precipitates the building of the state that originally takes form after humans begin their mutual interaction realized by using language on a large scale. Tribes are also often at war. Prior to the arrival of Europeans in North  America, the tribes of Indigenous people were at war from time to time. A war might not lead to the formation of a state because a state has to be a large community. To form a large community, people have to communicate in writing. Written language is a basis for the formation of a state. This point of view is in line with the common sense that the birth of scripts symbolizes the beginning of human civilization. A state emerges in the civilized society. So even though sometimes a war seemingly leads to the formation of a state, this war only hastens the formation of the state because the process of forming a state should begin at the time people began to use written language. If we see that sometimes a war leads to the formation of the state and sometimes a war does not lead to the formation of the state, the interpretation of the role of war in the formation of the state should be problematic. People may doubt the accuracy of such an interpretation.

In other words, a war often breaks out in the course of the formation of the state rather than before it. The formation of a state often needs a long period of time. This period of time starts when humans begin to communicate by using language. Despite that sometimes a war breaks out before the final formation of the state in a certain region, what underlies the formation of the state is language rather than a conflict between a group of people and another. A conflict, such as a war, even sometimes destroys a state or states. For instance, the First Emperor unified China in 221 BC through a series of wars, putting an end to the Period of Warring States in Chinese history. Yet these wars were also the reason for the disappearance of many other kingdoms. If scholars can argue that war is also the reason for the disappearance of many states, it is not plausible to assert the state always takes form through a war. If scholars assert that some states emerge through a war and some other states disappear due to a war, war should not be a constant condition for the formation of the state. Is there a constant condition for the formation of the state? Scholars are likely to give diversified interpretations of the origin of the state. The interpretation of the role of war in the formation of the state is one of them. I believe that people need to have a clear understanding of the evolution from the primitive society to the civilized one. An interpretation of the role of language in the formation of the state can give clarity to the understanding of the formation of the state. Therefore, if we can accept the interpretation of the role of language in the formation of the state, we should regard war merely as a medium that precipitates the formation of the state. The interpretation of the role of war in the formation of the state is not totally groundless, but such an interpretation is not the best. The interpretation of the role of language in the formation of the state is the best. Such an interpretation is the most systematic and complete. Such an interpretation is also reliable.

In short, the state normally comes into existence for the internal reason. If there is an external reason for the formation of the state, this external reason should not substitute for the internal reason. If one argues that the state takes form only through a war, others may question if the state is to be dissolved when people are at peace. The interpretation of the role of war in the formation of the state accentuates external pressure. One has to explain why a state grows steadily when people are at peace. Does peace affect the formation of the state? If one admits that peace does not affect the formation of the state, he still has to explain why the state can endure at peace? If a state exists no matter whether it is at peace or at war, there should be another reason for the formation of the state. I pinpoint the role of language.

Fifth, the theory, arguing that the formation of the state is due to the appearance of private property and the emergence of social classes, may be another theory needing to be discussed here. This theory holds that both the formation of families and the dissolution of tribes pertain to the appearance of private property. The appearance of private property is a condition for the development of the division of labor and social classes emerge from the division of labor. On the basis of analyzing the arguments offered by some other scholars, including Lewis Henry Morgan, Frederick Engels argued that originally humans lived in a state of sexual promiscuity.²⁷ Group marriage appeared later. Then humans experienced the periods of polyandry and polygyny before the appearance of monogamy. He mentioned language. When describing the lower stage of Savagery, he wrote that:

         Man still lived in his original habitat, in tropical or subtropical forests, and was

         partially at least a tree-dweller, for otherwise his survival among huge beasts

         of prey cannot be explained. Fruits, nuts and roots served him for food. The

         development of articulate speech is the main result of this period.²⁸

Thus we can believe that humans begin to extend the distance of mutual communication at that time. This is the time the human community begins to expand. Thus in the beginning the tribe or gens is just a big family. Children may have several fathers and mothers. At that time, people formed pairing families as called by Morgan. In pairing families there was no doubt about whom to call father, mother, son, daughter, brother and sister. But these names were used differently. In the Sandwich Islands, Hawaii, in the first half of the nineteenth century, there existed the form of family in which the fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, sons and daughters, uncles and aunts, nephews and nieces were exactly what was required by the American ancient Indian system of consanguinity. According to this system, all children of brothers and sisters were, without exception, brothers and sisters of one another and were considered to be the common children not only of their mother and her sisters or of their father and his brothers, but of all the brothers and sisters of both their parents without distinction.²⁹ By contrast, the form of family of Iroquois was a later one. The Iroquois called not only his own children his sons and daughters, but also the children of his brothers, and they called him father. The children of his sisters, however, he called his nephews and nieces, and they called him their uncle. The Iroquois woman, on the other hand, called her sisters’ children, as well as her own, her sons and daughters, and they called her mother. But her brothers’ children she called her nephews and nieces, and she was known as their aunt. Similarly, the children of brothers called one another brother and sister, and so do the children of sisters. A woman’s own children and the children of her brother, on the other hand, called one another cousins.³⁰ When people trace back the origin of the family, they may find that humans live in polygamy and their wives in polyandry, and their common children are therefore considered common to them all. This situation changes gradually later. This means that the system of primitives undergoes a long series of changes before they finally end in monogamy as indicated by Engels.³¹ 

Why does the family evolve this way? My view is that language extends the distance of mutual communication of people and extends the reach of their activities. The community grows in size as a result. An increase in the population and area of the community loosens kinship ties until the dissolution of kinship. In the meantime, as people interact with more other people, it becomes difficult, or impossible, for group marriage or polygamy to continue. People may often interact with strangers for business, for example. They and others do not live together day and night. As living space expands greatly, a person cannot keep close relationship with many other people. A man cannot get married with many women at the same time. Monogamy finally appears. The formation of the state is along with the formation of monogamy, but this does not mean that the formation of monogamy leads to the formation of the state. Extending the reach of linguistic communication leads to the formation of the state. Likewise, extending the reach of linguistic communication leads to the formation of monogamy.

If people perform spoken communication only, spoken language hampers the steady growth of the community because spoken language, as a dialect, is used on a small scale. Among the Northern American Indians an originally homogeneous tribe spread over a huge continent. Language changed until they not only became unintelligible to other tribes but also lost almost every trace of their original identity.³² In the meantime, people find that, when a tribe grows in population and area to a certain extent, it breaks up into several tribes. The distance of spoken communication sets a limit to the size of the community and humans do not form the large community, namely, the state until they begin to perform written communication for the reason that people use written language on a very large scale. Thus written language is a condition for the formation of the state.

In the meantime, private property appears. Private property appears along with the enhancement of people’s ability of production. Engels gave his interpretation. He seemed to believe that private property originated from the exploitation of domesticated animals and slaves. He accepted Morgan’s criteria that the difference between Savage and Barbarism is that in the period of Savage humans gather food while in the period of Barbarism they produce food.³³  He mentioned that, after humans learn to domesticate some animals, they begin to use those animals as tools of labor. Later they start to use some other people as the tools of labor. People, captured in a war, become slaves. Thus he wrote that “Once it had passed into the private possession of families and there rapidly begun to augment, this wealth dealt a severe blow to the society founded on pairing marriage and the matriarchal gens.”³⁴ 

Plainly, his view differs from the interpretation of Immanuel Kant. Kant held that when property was secure, men started to produce food. ³⁵ My view is that people establish private property while developing productive forces or people develop productive forces while establishing private property. Each of them may be a condition for the appearance of the other. But both productive forces and private property system cannot be a decisive condition for the formation of the state if the community cannot grow in size. People’s egoism is the reason for the formation of private property. This egoism should not stem from the existence of private property. Egoism stems from the nature of humans. Nature orders humans to be egoist because otherwise nature will not ensure people’s survival. The consciousness of kinship, however, suppresses people’s egoism. For example, the father may be very altruist toward his son. Likewise, the mother helps her daughter without considering her own interest. This means that after humans commence to speak and write, they extend the distance of linguistic communication. Extending the distance of linguistic communication leads to the expansion of the community and the expansion of the community leads to the formation of the state. Kinship no longer plays a role in the formation of the community. Thus as kinship is no longer the crucial element of the formation of the community, no consciousness of kinship checks egoism outside the family of monogamy. Egoism becomes prevalent. Engels mentioned that when humans are on the lower stage of Savage, the period of time when they gather food, they begin to speak. That time should be the beginning of the expansion of the human community. So we can believe that private property originates from language because after humans start to use language, egoistic action becomes the action of keeping private property.  If one argues that private property appears as a result of food production and hence the appearance of surplus food, this does not necessarily result in the appearance of private property. If humans did not begin to use language, their community must be no larger than the original tribe. Within the tribe all are connected with all by kinship. Even though there is a lot of surplus food, the consciousness of kinship will remind people of keeping common property.

This amounts to the fact that if language is, fundamentally speaking, a reason for the appearance of private property, it may also be the reason for the appearance of social classes. After humans commence to communicate using language, the community grows large and becomes complex. People engage in  large-scale production. They realize the division of labor in production. The development of the division of labor magnifies the variation of competence from one person to another. The opportunities of giving play to one’s competence increase substantially. Engels, discussing the origin of social classes, showed this picture. He stated that:

        The first division of labor is that between man and woman for the propagation

        of children.’ And today I can add: The first class opposition that appears in

        history coincides with the development of antagonism between man and

        woman in monogamous marriage, and the first class oppression coincides with

        that of the female sex by the male. Monogamous marriage was a great

        historical step forward; nevertheless, together with slavery and private wealth,

        it opens the period that has lasted until today in which every step forward is

        also relatively a step backward, in which prosperity and development for

        some is won through the misery and frustration of others.³⁶

He ascribed the emergence of social classes to the progress of the division of labor. He pointed out that the first great social division of labor led to the appearance of masters and slaves.³⁷ The second great social division of labor led to the separation of handicraft from agriculture.³⁸ The third great social division of labor led to the appearance of merchants that were no longer concerned with production, but only with the exchange of the products.³⁹ Yet, if humans did not extend the distance of linguistic communication and hence did not expand their community, social classes might not appear because the emergence of social classes originates from the division of labor that appears in a large community. One can find the relevance of extending the distance of linguistic communication to the emergence of social classes. That is, social classes appear following the formation of the state. This does not mean that the irreconcilable contradiction of social classes leads to the formation of the state. When humans communicate using language, they create a condition for the formation of their common interest. Social classes originate from the division of labor and the division of labor stems form the variation of competence from one person to another. The variation of the competence of people will not disappear. What humans can do is to let themselves to show their diversified competences so that the disadvantageous position of one person in one aspect can be compensated by the advantageous position of that person in another aspect. The state exists not because of the oppression of one class by the other, but because of the formation of the common interest of people within the state. Exploitation exists indeed. But it is usually committed on individual basis. The members of the ruling class never unite to form a monolithic organization completely on the basis of the class, or on behalf of this class, throughout the state though some power holders may govern the state in the interest of their own that is objectively in line with the interest of others in the same class. The so-called oppression of one class by another in the state was fancied because the state is inherently not a natural tool used by one class to oppress the other. The exploitation and oppression of one class by another may appear in the society, but this problem can be solved by the state when a reasonable political system is established and a reasonable policy is made. If there is the discourse created by the writers or thinkers on behalf of the bourgeoisie in the state in history because they belong to the times of capitalism, those writers, or thinkers, advocate democracy and equality of all. A step forward for one class may not mean a step backward for another class. Industrialization benefits all albeit to a varying extent. The state does not specifically belong to a certain social class. As Engels stated, the absolute monarchy of the 18th century balanced the nobility and the bourgeoisie against one another. The Bonapartism of the First and particularly of the Second French Empire played off the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. In the German Empire of the Bismarckian nation, the capitalists and the workers were balanced against one another.⁴⁰ The state is not, in a fundamental sense, formed as a result of the initiative of a ruling class. The formation of the state antedates the emergence of any social class. It is also likely for social classes to emerge along with the formation of the state. My view, in this aspect, is that if humans did not use language, they would still stay in the tribe. No private property would appear because egoism was checked by the consciousness of kinship that is a basic element of the unity of the tribe. No exchange of goods and services would appear. In the meantime, people would not have any lasting common memory of the community and would not have their ripe common culture. They would not build their state.

In summary, the view this monograph is going to present may serve as the one in contrast to the views of the genesis of the state adduced by the past philosophers. Each of the theories of the genesis of the state usually addresses its subject matter in only one aspect. If scholars regard the state as being formed naturally, one may find that sometimes people proactively build the state. If scholars describe the state as originating from the making of a social contract, one may find that sometimes people build a despotic state as a result of initial conquest. If scholars regard the state as being formed in the outset due to initial conquest, one may sometimes find a case that people build a state on voluntary basis. If scholars consider the state to be formed because people, forming the state, intend to strengthen their defense against the invasion of foreigners, one may also find a case that people form themselves into the state in the state of peace.  If one interprets the state as a ruling apparatus amid class struggle, one may also find that people may form the state on the basis of the cooperation of all. These arguments are inconsistent with each other to a varying extent. We cannot piece together all of these arguments in order to adduce a comprehensive theory of the genesis of the state.

Unlike the traditional hypothetical views about the genesis of the state, the view of the role of language in the genesis and growth of the state is not hypothetical. Specific facts can prove this view. One can present this view in almost all aspects of the genesis and growth of the state. One can offer this view by way of showing that humans are social animals. They must interact with each other. In their mutual interaction, language extends the distance of communication. They change the mode of their mutual interaction as a result because now they interact on a very large scale. This paves a way for the formation and growth of the state. Then we can demonstrate that language is a medium in the realization of mutual interaction between one another on a large scale. Language leads to the disappearance of immediacy between one another in the tribe. I mean direct blood relationship by the word “immediacy.” Language is an extension of humans. Then it further becomes a proto-medium that conditions the creation of a variety of other media. These media further lay a foundation for the construction of a new community in which humans interact with each other more and more by way of those media. Humans build their new community, namely, the state, on a new basis. They develop the new modes of their mutual interaction to build their state, to support the organization of their state and to rationalize their state. Then language conditions the formation of the state and underlies the dissolution of the tribe, resulting in a critical progress from the primitive society to the civilized one. In short, humans do not form their state freely, but in linguistic communication. Please allow me to try to present my view systematically in the main body of this monograph as follows.

Notes

  1.  Aristotle wrote that “It is clear, then, that a human being is more of a political animal than is any bee or than are any of those animals that live in herds. For nature, as we say, makes nothing in vain, and humans are the only animals who possess reasoned speech. Voice, of course, serves to indicate what is painful and pleasant; that is why it is also found in the other animals, because their nature has reached the point where they can perceive what is painful and pleasant and express these to each other. But speech serves to make plain what is advantageous and harmful and so also what is just and unjust. For it is a peculiarity of humans, in contrast to the other animals, to have perception of good and bad, just and unjust, and the like; and community in these things makes a       household and a city. Please see: Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, translated by Peter L. Phillips Simpson (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 11.

  2. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, edited with an introduction by C. B. Macpherson (New York: Penguin Books, 1985), 100.

  3. Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, 9. He believed that a household should include a house, a wife and an ox if the household is poor because an ox can replace a slave. See: Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, 10.

  4.  Ibid.,11.

  5.  Ibid.,14.

  6. Aristotle wrote that “[T]he city is by nature prior to the household and to each one of us taken singly. For the whole is necessarily prior to the part. For instance, there will be neither foot nor hand when the whole body has been destroyed (except equivocally, as when one speaks of a foot or hand made of stone), for such a foot or hand will have been

ruined. Everything is defined by its work and by its power, so that a foot and hand in

such a condition should no longer be said to be the same thing (except equivocally).

It is clear, then, that the city exists by nature and that it has priority over the

individual. For if no individual is self-sufficient when isolated, he will be like all

other parts in relation to their whole.” See: Ibid., 11–12.

  7.  Hobbes wrote that the only way to erect a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such a way, as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth, they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will.  See: Hobbes, Leviathan, 227.

  8.  Locke wrote that “Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent. The only way whereby any one divests himself of his natural liberty, and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe, and peaceable living one amongst another, in a secure enjoyment of their properties, and a greater security against any, that are not of it. This any number of men may do, because it injures not the freedom

of the rest; they are left as they were in the liberty of the state of nature. When any

number of men have so consented to make one community or government, they are

thereby presently incorporated, and make one body politic, wherein the majority

have a right to act and conclude the rest.” See: John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, edited by C.B. Macpherson (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980), 52.

  9.   Ibid.

10. Jean Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 387.

11. Ibid., 389.

12. Ibid., 391.

13. Jean Jacques Rousseau, A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind (Chicago: William Benton, 1952),333.

14. Ibid., 334.

15. Hobbes, Leviathan, 296–297.

16. Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, the Dryden Translation  (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 9.

17. Ibid., 24–25.

18. Please see: Jerry Z. Muller (ed.), Conservatism: an Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 55.

19. See: Ibid., 54.

20. Franz Oppenheimer, The State (Montréal,  Canada: Black Rose Books, 2007), 8.

21  Ibid., 48–49.

22. Ibid., 49.

23. John Stuart Mill, Representative Government (Chicago: William Benton, 1952), 353.

24. Mill wrote that “To enable it to do this, the constitution of the government must be nearly, or quite, despotic. A constitution in any degree popular, dependent on the voluntary surrender by the different members of the community of their individual freedom of action, would fail to enforce the first lesson which the pupils, in this stage of their progress, require. Accordingly, the civilisation of such tribes, when not the result of

juxtaposition with others already civilised, is almost always the work of an absolute ruler, deriving his power either from religion or military prowess; very often from foreign arms. Please see: Ibid., 339.

25. Immanuel Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals (Annapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1983), 56.

26.Please see: Victoria Tin-bor Hui, War and State Formation in Ancient China and Early Modern Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Charles Tilly, Coercion, Capital, and European  States, AD 990–1990 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell, Inc., 1990); Bruce D. Porter, War and the Rise of the State (New York: The Free Press, 2002); and other related books.

27. See: Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1972), 75.

28. See: Ibid., 87. 

29. Ibid., 95. 

30. Ibid., 94. 

31. Ibid., 96.

32. See: Ibid., 158. 

33. See: Ibid., 13.

34. Ibid., 118–119.

35. Kant wrote that “Among all the animals, the horse was the first that man learned to tame and to domesticate in the process of populating the earth and the first instrument of war (for the elephant belongs to a later period, to luxury of already established nations). The art of cultivating certain kinds of grasses, called grains, whose original characteristics are no longer known, as well as the propagation and refinement of various fruits by transplanting and grafting (in Europe perhaps only two species, the crab apple and the wild pear), could arise only under conditions provided by already established nations, where property was secure, and it could occur only after men had already undergone the transition from the lawless freedom of hunting, fishing, and herding to the life of agriculture. See: Kant, Perpetual Peace and Other Essays on Politics, History, and Morals, 122.

36. Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, 129. 

37. Ibid., 220.

38. Ibid., 222.

39. Ibid., 224–225. 

40. Ibid., 231.