世界的哲学社会科学需要创造宏大理论

从技术上说，哲学社会科学研究的最高目标就是创造宏大理论。人们所说的理论体系就是宏大理论。不妨这么说，创造宏大理论就是创造理论体系。如果说哲学社会科学宏大理论可能涉及很广泛的领域，政治哲学或政治理论对人类社会的影响最大。在哲学的认识论、本体论和价值论中间，政治哲学估计出自价值论。目前整个世界上最缺的就是政治哲学的新理论。价值观的争论和政治哲学有直接关系。本人写的书Language and State就是针对这个领域进行的最新研究。今天，这本书的第二版在加拿大英属哥伦比亚省维多利亚市正式出版了。我为此花费了1.5万多加元。

拷贝以下链接可以直接看到出版社网页上的新书介绍。

https://books.friesenpress.com/store/title/119734000170118742/Xing-Yu-Language-and-State

此书的思路是，在前言部分提出人与语言、语言与媒介和媒介与人的互动，导致国家形成。于是，提出国家起源于语言的观点。然后，将本人的理论与以前的哲学家的国家起源论进行比较，质疑他们的观点，说明只能从语言来解释国家的形成。前言里提到的人物包括柏拉图、亚里士多德、霍布斯、洛克、卢梭、不丹、恩格斯、休谟、威特福格尔、康德等人。指出他们的观点实属片面或谬误，但在语言论的解释之下，可以在不同程度上重新利用其中的一些观察。以后正文就是叙述国家是怎样经过人、语言和媒介的互动一步一步地形成的。这个正文包括三个部分：语言与国家的形成、语言与国家的治理和语言与国家的精神。最后，在后记里，将本人的理论与维科、赫尔德、黑格尔和马克思的理论进行了比较研究，批判和分析他们的理论，从而进一步刻画本人的理论的特殊价值。全书共636页。

个人认为，本人提出的理论是政治哲学的一次巨大进步。该理论视野广阔，提供一种全景图式的解释，论述人类文明社会的方方面面几乎无所不包。但是，思路严谨，一步一步推论。它是一个有关人类文明社会的整全理论。个人认为，该理论在系统性描述方面已完全超过过去西方学者的作品， 包括霍布斯的《利维坦》、孟德斯鸠的《论法的精神》和托克维尔的《论美国的民主》。但是认为，写作的修辞不及马克思和卢梭。本人的文笔风格和他们差别非常大，但是，比较接近维科、霍布斯等人的写作风格。但是，和以往的人都有一个共同点，就是作品的内容和观点独特，真正是这个世界上的独一无二的作品。

如果有读者感兴趣，可读一读以下的文字。这是此书的前言。

Prologue

This manuscript studies the origin and growth of the state through an analysis of the correlation between language and state, or the correlation between the use of language and the building of state. It is an inter-disciplinary study. Although both language and state are studied, this is mainly the study of the state through the analysis of language. This study uses a knowledge of linguistics to conduct research in the field of political theory or political sociology. It adopts a theoretical premise that defines language as a means of communication necessitating the development and utilization of various media. By “media,” I mean any form or process or being, such as a person or a material that facilitates human communication. Most often, this does not mean news media or social media.

On the other hand, this study defines the state as an organization functioning as a community comprising a people, a piece of land as its territory, and a government in charge of its governance or the management of its public affairs. This work is an attempt to find out how language plays a role in the formation and growth of the state through the analysis of the correlation between humans and language, between language and media, and between media and humans. I particularly intend to argue, while mentioning language, that language is not only a tool utilized by humans in communication for the purpose of social intercourse, but also a condition for the formation and the growth of the state. I intend to study how human linguistic interaction contributes to the formation and growth of the state. My reasoning is that when comparing a state (a typical community in civilized society) with a tribe (a typical community in primitive society), we see that these two types of human community are incomparable in terms of population and area. A state usually has a large population. In some cases today, a state has a population of over one billion. But the average size of a tribe is usually in the range of several thousand members.¹ A state usually also has a very large territory, as compared with a tribe. Why do people build a community, like a state, that is so large by population and area?

Correlatively, a state has a government while a tribe has no government, although it may have a council. Why do people form a government when their community grows large by population and area (hence becoming a state)? While thinkers of the past gave their answers to these questions, and their answers are valuable indeed, I intend to give an answer from a new perspective that may enable us to understand human society in a new way. This new way is, I argue, more meaningful in the construction of a theory. This new perspective is in relation to language. By analyzing language, I intend to elucidate people’s use of language as underlying the growth of the state and the dissolution of tribes, and I also intend to give a different interpretation of how humans build their state.

The premise of this study is that human society evolves from the primitive society, the society in which humans join each other in production and living due to kinship, to the civilized society, the society in which humans join each other in production and living under a well-developed system of government, culture, and way of life. This new life, as part of a state, is lived with a degree of fairness and justice, first resulting in a quantitative change such as an increase in population and an expansion of territory, and then in a qualitative change, such as the establishment of a government as a concomitant, putting an end to the stateless society that existed over a very long period of time.

How do we interpret the formation and growth of the state from the perspective of a relation between the stated quantitative change and qualitative change in this context? My assumption is that when people form a tribe in a primitive society, they do so because of kinship, but when people build their state, kinship is not the prime motivator. People who form a state may share the same blood relationship, as the case of a nation-state often shows, but people are not generally connected to each other by way of kinship. If a small number of people are still connected with each other by kinship within the state, not all are connected with each other by kinship throughout the state. The reason is that since humans commenced to speak and write, they have extended the distance of communication and engaged in mutual interactions on a large scale. People build a large community. This large community is a state.

Although we can conclude, using formal logic, that language is initially spoken in communication within a group of people or a tribe, spoken communication is not a condition for people to keep the tribe. Instead, in view of the long-term development of human community, spoken communication creates the conditions for the appearance of written communication, and written communication leads to the final dissolution of the tribe. This is because using language to communicate means creating an essential condition for the use of various media. With media enabling people to communicate with others who are physically far from each other, people extend the reaches of their communication. They expand their communication range and then can perform their productive and cultural activities on a large scale. They also engage in the governance of their communities on a large scale. These activities change the structure of their community because kinship is no longer a core factor in the formation of the community. Thus, it follows that people, continuing to use language in communication, gradually dissolve their tribes and form their states, and the states grow.

                Specifically, under the condition that language is used by people for their mutual communication, a change takes place in the method of the formation of the human community. If we assume that a tribe is formed because of the mutual interactions realized by those who form the tribe through kinship, a state is formed because of the mutual interactions realized by those who form the state due to the use of language in communication. While using language, people who interact with each other provide information, indicate intention, share ideas, show sympathy, and make friendships. When they communicate with each other, they eliminate loneliness. They feel warmhearted toward each other. They help and trust one another. They cooperate with each other in production, and help each other in living. They find the formation of their common interest. Conversely, cooperation disappears when they do not use language or do not use language properly. For example, when one person lies, the other will no longer trust him. Linguistic communication fails to function in the transmission of information essential to the formation of society. We sometimes also see that when one defrauds the other, he never explains why he defrauds the other. We sometimes also see that when two people are involved in a conflict, they refuse to cooperate with each other. Under these circumstances, they refuse to communicate with each other using language. We sometimes also see that when one loses his temper with the other, he tends not to speak properly, but uses his behavior to show how angry he is. He tends not to rely on language in communication as usual. We sometimes also see that two people who are hostile to each other stop performing linguistic communication with each other, and prepare to fight. These examples show that people who stop performing linguistic communication due to the termination of the related social intercourse ignore the possibility of the formation of the common interest that may occur in the linguistic communication used in mutual interaction. 

                So we see evidence that language has contributed to the construction of human communities, such as the civilized society or the state, since the dissolution of tribes. Language underlies the growth of civilized society and the formation of the state. For example, people communicating with language may feel trust and make promises to each other. They sign a contract or an agreement or execute some other similar document such as a letter of undertaking, indemnity, recommendation, or authorization. We cannot imagine that today there is a society in which people never trust each other and make promises. We also cannot imagine a society in which people do not sign contracts or similar instruments. When people make promises to each other, they trust each other. They may make a contract or similar document. They use language. To put it another way, language must be used in the making of a contract or a similar document. The common interest of people takes shape as a result. For example, people indicate their intention of exchanging goods and services by speaking or writing. As people use language, they are able to make a promise and build mutual trust, even though they do not know each other personally. Even strangers can cooperate with each other as long as they are able to use language to communicate. We cannot imagine that people do not use language when performing economic activities. Similarly, people who build their community may argue about how people should govern the community, and who should govern the community. If one potential governor and ordinary people discuss the governance of the community, they may make an agreement on how people should govern the community, and who should be the governor of the community. We cannot imagine that when people establish democracy, they do not discuss how people should govern the community and who should be the governor and reach no consensus. In addition, by performing linguistic communication, people share ideas, as the ideas of one individual person can be passed on to another individual person. Then we cannot imagine that there is a state in which people have no traditional idea that is shared by all. We also cannot imagine that there is a state in which people have no collective religious belief, historical spirit, and national consciousness. We can assume that people build a state on the basis of a society that is further built on the basis of the mutual trust of people. We can also assume that, at the same time, people build that state because people often engage in mutual discussion, reach a consensus, and hold the same traditional ideas, religious beliefs, historical spirit, and national consciousness. Then we can believe that people build the state in the context of linguistic communication because mutual trust, discussion, consensus, and the spread of traditional ideas, religious beliefs, historical spirit, and national consciousness all appear in the process of linguistic communication.

This is unlike the situation in a tribe. In a tribe, I assume that people also, in some sense, trust each other. But they build the related trust relationship mainly because they have a close blood relationship. The related trust is like the trust given by a baby to its parents just after it is born. Using language is not essential in this case. But since the dissolution of the tribe, people have been unable to build a relationship of mutual trust except through the use of language. Similarly, in a tribe, people also have a certain consciousness of the community. This consciousness takes form naturally when people grow up in a tribe. If people are obligated to help each other, this is because of the functioning of kinship or, at least, the functioning of kinship in a mutated form, namely, transfigured kinship. While describing the organization of the tribe, Stanley Diamond, an anthropologist of the twentieth century, wrote that in a tribe, “all meaningful social, economic, and ideological relations have a kin or transfigured kin character.”² The use of language may not be essential. But since the dissolution of the tribe, people have been unable to build the consciousness of the community unless by way of linguistic communication. Today, people communicate with one another using language. They build a relationship of mutual trust for cooperation so they can live together as members of a community. They build their society and state. They find that they get some benefit in doing so. Thus, in the context of linguistic communication, people are bound to create a condition for the formation of their common interest, because they all build their communities for survival and growth in the processes of linguistic communication. They create a condition for the formation of their common interest this way, even though the common interest that takes shape may be ephemeral at the outset. Yet, as long as people continue to communicate with one another using language, their common interest will remain and increase. This is because continuing to use language to communicate enables people to continue to cooperate with one another in production and maintain their common memory and experience and build their collective consciousness. They realize the formation of their common interest. The common interest that takes shape in the context of linguistic communication substitutes for the common interest that takes shape due to the blood relationships represented by kinship. Then people dissolve their tribes and build their state. As a result, we see that language becomes an essential condition for people to interact with one another and, on the basis of this, to form the state, govern the state, and build the spirit of the state.

                What makes linguistic communication so essential for the formation of the state? The linchpin is the extension of the distance of communication—people lengthen the distance of communication, step by step, using language. As people become able to communicate with each other on a large scale, the common interest of all those inhabiting a large area takes shape on a new basis. Then the state emerges and grows. If we agree that the use of language in communication is a basis for the formation and governance of the state and the building of state spirit, we see that more and more people use language in a large area and communicate with one another, resulting in the growth of the state. Without language, no state would take shape. If we suppose that all the citizens are affiliated with one and the same state, this is because each of the citizens uses the language of that state and is involved in linguistic communication in relation to that state. Thus, we can confirm the existence of a correlation between language and state if we study how the human community evolves from the tribe to the state. Of course, we do not clearly know how the use of spoken language resulted in the growth of the tribe in primitive society, but we can believe that language was spoken in all of the tribes of the primitive societies we can imagine. When people lived in communities in the form of tribes consisting of gentes and phratries, or gentes only, they spoke a dialect. Since people formed their state on the basis of the confederacy of tribes, they have begun to use written language. Lewis H. Morgan once indicated that the state of the human community commenced at the bottom of the scale and worked its way up from the state of savagery through the state of barbarism to the state of civilization.³ His study reminds us of the long-term evolution of human society. His study also indicated that while humans move to build their civilized society, they dissolve their primitive society. The process of forming the civilized society is also the process of dissolving the primitive society. One society substitutes for another though both may co-exist for a period of time. The reason is that the method of forming the civilized society differs from the method of forming the primitive society. Language plays a role in the formation of the state, but people form a tribe because of kinship. The key is language. My reasoning is that humans, as individuals, interact with one another to form their community. Linguistic communication is a special interaction of humans. It is not only communication, but also interaction. Language is used both in the primitive society and the civilized society, but different media are used in different societies. With language playing a pivotal role, humans create media. Media transform communication. This underlies the evolution of human society toward the formation of a civilized society. This is because, when forming a community, people communicate on a large scale in order to keep the unity of the community. They create and use media. Then linguistic communication bolsters the growth of human community. In primitive society, people used spoken language. Spoken language was often used in face-to-face communication. This communication functioned on a small scale. The community that people formed was no larger than a tribe. Since people invented script, they have been able to extend the reach of their mutual communication. They no longer form their communities in the principle of kinship, and people coming from different tribes begin to form their new communities, namely, states. They formed city-states and kingdoms on the basis of the amalgamation of different tribes. They even built empires by forcing the combination of various ethnic groups of people into one state. In modern times, people build nation-states. In each nation-state, people usually communicate with one another using the same language. As kinship no longer plays a role in the formation of the state, the use of language in communication over long distances proves to be an essential condition for the formation of a state, as long-distance communication allows for more people to interact with one another on a large scale. This creates a condition for the formation of a common interest and the building of a state large in population and area.

                In other words, the point of view presented in this functional analysis is that the birth of language was a revolution in the history of human communication. Before the birth of language, people communicated with each other by displaying their body movements. I define this way of communication as the “communication of behavior.” Behavior was the medium used by people in their mutual communication at the outset. I call this medium the “original medium.” This is because people communicated with one another by showing their varying behaviors in the formation of their society. For example, people communicated through their facial expression or gestures. The related communication happened face-to-face. People performed this sort of communication using the “original medium.” People performed such communication largely within the reach of human audio or visual perception. People, living in a tribe, usually performed such communication in their mutual interactions in the beginning. Later, the birth of language allowed for people to extend the reach of communication. This is because, by using language, people could perform long-distance communication. They have been performing long-distance communication ever since. My reasoning is that linguistic communication enabled people to create and use various media such as stone, paper, and many others. Thus, we see the situation noted earlier: people performing long-distance linguistic communication. Long-distance linguistic communication means the possible engagement of more people in the related process of communication, resulting in more people interacting with one another, cooperating in production, sharing the same experiences, holding the same traditional ideas and beliefs, and discovering that they have a common interest in the community in which they survive and grow. A large community, such as a state, takes shape.

Long-distance linguistic communication has basically two forms. One form is spoken language communication, or spoken communication. When the first person conveys a piece of information to a second person, the second person may further convey the same information to a third person. People may thus perform “human-chain linguistic communication.” Some people themselves function as media in communication. For example, stories and legends are told by the first person to the second person, and then by the second person to the third person. Spoken communication may also be supported by some other media. Thus, people perform long-distance communication.

                Another form is written language communication, or written communication. When written language is used, media other than the human body or the air are used. As these media can be separated from the human body, people may realize long-distance communication of another kind. For example, humans use script printed on the paper of books in communication. Those who write the books communicate with the people who read the books. As people circulate books in the society, humans realize long-distance communication between the authors and the readers. Written communication is direct communication, while spoken communication is indirect communication under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, no matter whether humans perform communication directly or indirectly, it may be long-distance communication. As people perform long-distance communication, many people have access to this process of communication. People develop their common memory. They develop a collective consciousness. They have a sense of belonging. They are aware of the existence of their community. They show the identity of the community. They create the conditions for the formation of their common interest. The state finally takes shape. So language or linguistic communication should be a physical condition for the formation of the state.

                When scholars study the formation of the state, they give different interpretations and create different theories. These theories include many insights. Those insights sometimes include some discussions of language. Aristotle, an ancient Greek philosopher, alludes to the role of language in the formation of city-state or society, for example; he states that a human being is more of a political animal than any of those animals that live in herds because “humans are the only animals who possess reasoned speech.” In the meantime he famously discusses the growth of city-states in ancient Greece. For example, he mentions that along with an increase in population, people form villages and cities.⁴ But his study focuses mainly on the building of the city-states and the comparison of the forms of government of ancient times. He does not directly narrate the correlation between language and the formation of city-state. He only simply studies the growth of city-states in ancient times. By contrast, I intend to study the correlation between language and the formation of the state in light of a sort of linguistic ontology about the state. I intend to study systematically how language plays a role in the formation and growth of the state. I intend to study not only the formation and growth of ancient states but also the formation and growth of modern states. I intend to study the formation of the states of all types including city-state, empire, territorial state (By “territorial state,” I mean the territorially bounded polity that typically appeared in medieval Europe) and nation-state.

As scholars have created quite a few new branches of learning or theories, including the theory of media, in modern times, we can now see the essence of language, a situation unlike that faced by Aristotle. I mean that we can explore the role of language in the formation and growth of the civilized society from the perspective of linguistics and the study of media. This new situation reminds us of the possibility of creating a unique theory about the role of language in the formation and growth of the state in modern times. We can even credit the origin of the states of all types to language, for the reasons mentioned above, in order to create a theoretical system because, I argue, political theory or the theory of political sociology or the theory of political anthropology needs a comprehensive system, which has not taken shape yet. Judging by the status quo of existing political theory or the existing theory of political sociology or the existing theory of political anthropology, we need to engage in inter-disciplinary study in order to make a breakthrough. The study of a correlation between language and state can be this breakthrough because it cannot be denied that without language, humans would not build their state. A view of language in the formation of the state can deepen and broaden our understanding of the state. This view should be always reliable and tenable. Conversely, if scholars credit the origin of the state to any act committed by humans in the formation of the state, or any matter in the formation of the state other than language, their views or theories will usually, if not absolutely, end up being controversial or single-faceted. Whenever a theory is controversial or single-faceted, it tends to be incomplete or immature. Such theory often ends up not being quintessential. Scholars need to find a proper method to create a quintessential theory. A further effort needs to be made. An interpretation of the role of language in the formation of the state may be one such endeavor. We can compare the views of the origin of the state presented by thinkers of the past with the theoretical view of the role of language in the genesis of the state. This may help to demonstrate that an interpretation of the role of language in the formation of the state is always reasonable and convincing, and this interpretation can support our endeavor of finding the truth.

                First, some of the thinkers of the past held a theory of the matriarchal or patriarchal society, arguing that the state may evolve from the enlargement of an original family under the authority of the parents or elders because, with an increase in population, a family evolves to be a tribe, and a tribe evolves to be a state. Jean Bodin holds the view that a state takes shape because of the evolution of a community growing from matriarchal or patriarchal society.⁵ And Sir Henry Maine goes further, insisting that states are invariably formed this way.⁶ They confirm the role of the common lineage of people in the formation of the human community, along with an increase in population. They imply that the matriarchal or patriarchal society gives origin to the state. They have their basis for this argument. Yet, to me, this theory merely confirms the role of common lineage in the organization of the human community without interpreting why humans can build one community with a large population and area. While it can interpret the origin of a state of a traditional type formed by a nation in some sense, it cannot interpret the origin of some other states of a non-traditional type formed by immigrants in modern times. Can we use this theory to interpret the origin of the United States or Canada? We have to interpret why humans can build a community with a large population consisting of people with different national backgrounds. In primitive society, tribes were small communities. By contrast, in civilized society, states are large communities. Without language, people may not interact with one another on a large scale. In this case, small communities may not be combined to form a large community. As a result, people may not build their state. Can we interpret the origin of the state in which kinship attenuates, by stressing the role of common lineage? Is kinship still socially important in a society that keeps on growing? If we expect that a group of people who are no longer bound together by kinship can jointly build their new community—like a state—how can they build a community that is large in population and area? The theory of the matriarchal or patriarchal society needs revision and supplementation. Scholars have to explain if there are other conditions that facilitate humans in building their state.

                Second, Robert Carneiro, an American scholar, believes that geographic circumscription and population pressure lead to the formation of the state, arguing that throughout history, population pressure resulted in increased competition and warfare for the same resources. This competition was noticed particularly in regions where the areas of good land were surrounded by the areas of poor land, such as deserts, unproductive mountains, or by the sea, and it resulted in the struggle of village against village, and chiefdom against chiefdom, until an entire circumscribed valley was unified to be a single state. He implies that warfare culminates in the combination of various small political units until the birth of the state.⁷ He does not object to the view that a chiefdom has a population larger than that of a tribe, and a state has a population larger than that of a chiefdom. Yet should we believe that the state is always maintained using force? Is there any case in which geographic conditions are not important in the formation of a state? Do we believe that geographic conditions in the formation of a state are absolute? Do we believe that sometimes a powerful regime may expand its territory even though geographic conditions are favorable? Should we believe that all people who form the state do not need to perform linguistic communication with one another?

                Holding the view that language plays a role in the formation of the state, I argue that, although a state cannot come into existence without a ruler in charge of its governance, without language, people may not be able to form a large community, and hence a state. If there is warfare, such warfare will not result in the organization of a large community, but will simply be a slaughter or pillage between two separate small communities such as tribes or chiefdoms if people have no language to use to communicate with one another. As language enables people to exchange goods and services and have a common memory of the community and a common religious belief, language underlies the unity of the people, and hence the formation of the state. Warfare may not lead to the formation of a large community because people who speak different languages tend not to form one state. If they are forced to form one state, they tend to resist the attempt. The prevalence of nation-states in today’s world is a piece of resounding evidence.

                Third, some scholars, including David Hume, insist that the state is often built through the use of force. He maintains that in every case, rulers asserted their independent right of sovereignty from conquest or succession.⁸ Franz Oppenheimer insists that in the pristine or early times, a group of nomads often conquered a group of peasants amid the competition between the nomadic and sedentary societies. This activity resulted in the domination of the vanquished group by the victorious. Thus, the state is a social institution forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group.⁹ Their arguments are true in many cases, I agree. The reason is that the victorious group is often led by a military leader. This military leader becomes the ruler because he has a tool of coercion. Yet can we claim that the conquest is the only path for people to build their state? Is there any case in history in which people voluntarily form a state? How can we interpret the formation of the United States, modern Italy and Germany, and many other nation-states in Latin America before World War Two and the emergence of more nation-states in Africa and Asia after World War Two? Indeed, the conquest of a group of people by another group of people leads to the building of a regime. Without a regime controlling a population and an area, humans will not build a state. Without a ruler commanding an army, people may not be able to form a state. Yet if we suppose that humans do not speak or write, we are likely to believe that they will not be able to build a large community. In this context, the conquest will mean only the conquest of a tribe by another tribe. Therefore, the conquests that often happened in history only accelerated the formation of the state, as a medium. The narrative of the conquest cannot be the ultimate interpretation of the origin of the state. Linguistic communication underlies the whole course of the growth of a human community such as a state, while the conquest that sometimes happens in the middle of the course of state formation, objectively, only hastens the pace of the formation of the state. The conquest only serves as a medium in the formation of the state while language underlies the genesis of the state from the very beginning and underlies the whole process of the growth of the state as well. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, in their work, The German Ideology, which describes the ancient history of when Germans invaded and occupied the Roman Empire, write that: “The conquerors very soon adopted the language, culture, and manners of the conquered.”¹⁰ Likewise, the Mongolian people and the Manchu people conquered the Han Chinese in the thirteenth century and the seventeenth century respectively, but later they were assimilated by the Chinese people because the Chinese language, spoken by the majority, was adopted by the minority (which ruled the majority). In the short run, the ruler plays a role in the formation of the state, but in the long run, language plays a role in the formation of the state. If we assume that culture also plays a role in the formation of the state, we should believe that the ruler functions only as a medium in the formation of the state in the context of linguistic communication.

                Fourth, some thinkers, such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau contend that the government takes form because people make a social contract.¹¹ They argue that people, originally in the natural state and in need of security and the protection of their private property, inevitably move to make a social contract, and cede some of their freedoms for security ensured by a government, although they sometimes view the social contract in different ways. Their theories are considered by some modern scholars to be the theories interpreting the origin of the state from the perspective of the theory of natural law. Yet this theory may not be in line with reality. Anthropology indicates that all humans were tribal people before the formation of the state. The state took form because of the dissolution of the tribe. The tribe was an organization. People were not isolated individuals in the natural state at the outset. How can we interpret the formation of some ancient despotic states if we assume that an ideal government can be established on the basis of a social contract? While we hold that a social contract is a basis for the building of a democratic state, we cannot interpret the formation of a despotic state according to this theory. It is hard to say that the making of a social contract always results in the formation of the state. The formation of the government does not necessarily mean the formation of the state. The conditions for forming a state are more than the conditions for forming a government. If people do not have a common memory, common religious belief, and common culture, they may not be willing to form a state. In modern times, a state is usually formed on the basis of the formation of a nation. A nation is usually a group of people or a community formed by those who have the same ethnical characteristics. They have a national consciousness. People are often motivated by their national consciousness to build their states. People do need the protection of their civil rights. But in the meantime, they also hope that one nation builds one state. The birth of many nation-states since the end of World War Two evinces that peoples do not simply build their states because of the need to protect their civil rights. Can language be interpreted as a solution to the construction of the state in all respects, including the construction of the political system and the building of the spirit that directly and indirectly guides the organization of the state? Can language be interpreted as a basis for the formation of the state, long before people gain the consciousness of rights and obligations, a consciousness usually held by citizens in modern times, so that scholars can use a theory to interpret the origin of the states of all types and of all times? I think so.

                Fifth, Frederick Engels contends that the division of labor in the enhancement of productivity in the economic development of human society leads to the emergence of different social classes. As upper social classes oppress and exploit the lower social classes, they are often in conflict. Then, to control social class antagonism and establish order, “it became necessary to have a power seemingly standing above society that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of ‘order’.” But actually, this power would be used by the economically dominant class to hold down and exploit the oppressed class. This power became the state.¹² He was clearly aware of the role played by the ruling class in the formation of the state. He may not have objected to the view, advanced by Hume and others, that the state takes form through the use of force, because he believes that the ruling class relies on the use of force to keep their rule. Yet, should we believe that the formation of the state is always due to the confrontation between different social classes? Is there any case in history in which people united to build an independent state on voluntary basis? How can we interpret the formation of many African and Asian nation-states in the process of decolonization since the end of World War Two? Are these not the cases in which different social classes united to build one state voluntarily? Did these states not take form due to the formation of the common interest of all? While those who organize the state play an important part in the building of the state, the masses may also take part in the building of the state. Do we not believe that sometimes different social classes cooperate to build their state? How do we interpret the growth of the motherland? Do we also disbelieve that sometimes the state takes form because people expect the state to keep social order, which may be threatened by some social crimes such as robbery and stealing? Do we not believe that the state needs to perform some internal functions according to the expectations of ordinary people? While we believe that the organization of the regime is important in the organization of the state, we should not ignore that the state always persists because people are willing to be members of the state. People with the same historical memory, traditional ideas, and religious beliefs tend to unite. Usually, people form their society naturally, and that society is a foundation for people to build a state. The state is usually a result of long-term evolution of a related society. This society serves as a basis for the growth of their motherland. People, belonging to the same motherland, tend to form a state. We need to explore the origin of the motherland. This may require us to adopt a different research approach.

                Sixth, Karl August Wittfogel offers a unique theory of the origin of the state. He describes a sort of agricultural society emerging on the basis of an irrigation system, as the hydraulic economy in ancient China, India, Japan, Egypt, and so on. According to Wittfogel, “Irrigation farming depends on the effective handling of water.” Channeling a large quantity of water needs the use of mass labor, which “must be coordinated, disciplined, and led.” Thus, hydraulic economy involves a specific type of division of labor that “necessitates cooperation on a large scale.” As farmers must “subordinate themselves to a directing authority,” cooperation in the division of labor produces hydraulic leadership. Such leadership tends to change into political leadership.¹³ My understanding is that this implies that the organization of a large-scale irrigation project gives rise to the formation of a regime in agricultural society, and this regime builds a state. According to Wittfogel, people unite to form a state because they need cooperation in the division of labor in the agricultural production so important for people to survive and grow. Though his description may interpret the organization of agricultural production in history in some areas, I believe that Wittfogel regards the origin of the government as the origin of the state. Like the theory of social contract, his theory interprets the origin of the state in a single-faceted way. The origin of government can be part of the origin of the state, but not all of it. Culture or history or religion may play a role in the formation of the state. Each state has its own spirit. Without a shared spirit, people may not be able to unite to form a state. He seemed to be trying to build a theory about the origin of the state in Asian societies, and some others. This theory, unfortunately, only interprets some aspects of the formation of the state in a certain period, in some regions in the world. We have to ask this question: Does irrigation alone underlie the formation of a large community? Can a ruler who controls a local irrigation system control a state large in population and area? Can such a ruler defend his state against invasion? Is there any case in which irrigation for the development of agriculture is not so important in the formation of the state? How do we interpret the origin of some states built by nomads in history? How do we interpret the origin of some states built by people who reside in mountainous areas? Is there any case in which a military or religious leader plays a role in the formation of a state? Are we sure that the building of water control works inevitably leads to the formation of the state? How do we interpret the formation of states in Europe? Is there any possible condition giving origin to all the states around the world?

                Seventh, Immanuel Kant insists that the defense of the community leads to the formation of the state, arguing in his insightful meditation that people whose subsistence depends on the earth’s cultivation and planting require permanent housing. Defense against all intrusions, prompts men to support one another. They no longer remain as scattered families, but come together to found a village to protect their property against wild hunters and hordes of wandering herdsmen. The custom of industriousness and culture spring from the union of people. Some forms of civil constitution and public justice begin to appear. A government is formed in the aftermath.¹⁴ Herbert Spencer, a British sociologist who created a theory dubbed “social Darwinism,” further summarizes directly that war unites otherwise disparate parts against a common enemy, and he contends that if warfare is prevalent, the subordination of the social division to the military governing center will stabilize, leading a loosely compounded social aggregate toward a more consolidated society with a general governing center.¹⁵ In short, he insists that “wars between societies originate government structures.”¹⁶ His view is often regarded by scholars as an interpretation of the origin of the state given from the perspective of war.

                Since the twentieth century, following these philosophers, some scholars have been further firmly affirming that war forces the power holder of the state to strengthen the building of army, the establishment of a bureaucracy for taxation, and the mobilization of the masses. Charles Tilly confidently ascribes the growth of nation-states in early modern times in Europe to the frequent outbreaks of a war between or among European nations, and concludes that “war made the state and the state made war.”¹⁷ Should war, however, always result in the formation of the state? In the primitive societies, humans also waged war between different tribes. Humans waged war frequently. Why was there no state at that time, assuming that war leads to the formation of the state? In a civil war, the war breaks out in the existing state. If the war is a war between two states, these states have been formed prior to the outbreak of the war. Waging a war does not necessarily lead to the formation of a state. In China, a civil war of the last century resulted in the split of one country into two parts against each other. A war may not always lead to the formation of a state. If a state is formed not because of war, we may see that there are some other reasons for the formation of the related state. In this light, I believe that we should refrain from viewing the origin of the state from this perspective.

                In short, I argue that language enables humans to create and use various media. Media enable humans to extend the distance of their linguistic communication, a fact that enables them to interact on a large scale and form a large community. This large community becomes a state. In contrast to this view, each of the interpretations of the formation and growth of the state given by the past philosophers can be regarded as the interpretation of the formation and the growth of a certain type of state, or only one aspect of the formation and growth of the state, or the only one condition for the formation of the state of a certain type. To interpret systematically the formation and growth of all types of state, or all aspects of the formation and growth of the state, I choose to study the formation and growth of the state from the perspective of the operation of language. I regard the study of the role of language as the starting point in thinking about the formation and growth of the state in all its aspects. I argue that whenever people communicate using language, they have to use a certain medium. I regard the use of language as the reason for the proliferation of media. There is a relationship between language and media. Language interacts with each medium. Language plays a pivotal role, and media assist language in playing this role. Language functions in all aspects, but a certain medium cannot. Therefore, in describing the role played by language, I further describe the role of media. Then I explore the formation and growth of the state through the analysis of language first, and then media. This approach makes it possible for scholars to study all aspects of the state, and states of all kinds throughout history, because language makes it possible to study all kinds of media. The operation of media further represents the formation and growth of the state. Please allow me to give an interpretation of the state in all possible aspects from this perspective in the following text.

Notes

  1.  The average size of a tribe may have been 3,000-6,000. We seldom find a document that states that the members of a tribe exceed 30,000. According to Frederick Engels, the average strength of American tribes was less than 2,000 members, and the Cherokee numbered about 26,000, the greatest number of Indians in a tribe in the United States. See: Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1972): 154.

  2.  Stanley Diamond. In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization (New Brunswick, U.S.: Transaction Publishers, 1974): 145.

  3.  Morgan H. Lewis, Ancient Society (Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1964): 11.

  4.  Aristotle, The Politics of Aristotle, trans. Peter L. Phillips Simpson (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997), 10-11.

  5.  Jean Bodin wrote that: “Commonwealth refers to the family because it is not only the true source and origin of the commonwealth, but also its principal constituent.” Jean Bodin, Six Books of Commonwealth, Trans: M.J. Tooley (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955): 6.

  6.  Henry Maine said, “In most of the Greek states and in Rome, there long remained the vestiges of an ascending series of groups out of which the State was first constituted. The Family, House, and Tribe of the Romans may be taken as the type of them.” Henry Maine, Ancient Law (London: John Murray, 1866): 128.

  7.  Robert L. Carneiro, “Political Expansion as an Expression of the Principle of Competitive Exclusion,” in Ronald Cohen and Elman R. Service ed., Origins of the State: The Anthropology of Political Evolution (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1978): 205-212.

  8.  Jerry Z. Muller ed., Conservatism: An Anthology of Social and Political Thought from David Hume to the Present (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997), 54.

  9.   For the view adduced by Franz Oppenheimer, see Franz Oppenheimer, The State (Montreal, Canada: Black Bose Books, 2007): 8.

10.  Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The German Ideology, ed. C.J. Arthur (New York: International Publishers, 1970): 90.

11.  Hobbes held that men are unable to establish order unless they cede some of their rights to the sovereign and confer all their power upon one man. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, ed. C.B. Macpherson (New York: Penguin Books, 1985): 227.
Locke believed that government is formed because men make a social contract; he said that an original contract is entered into to make one body politic under one government. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, ed. C.B. Macpherson (Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1980): 52.
Rousseau wrote that: “The social order is a sacred right which […] must therefore be founded on conventions.” Jean Jacques Rousseau, Social Contract (Chicago: William Benton, 1952): 387. 

12.  Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (New York: International Publishers, 1972): 229-231.

13.  Karl August Wittfogel, Oriental Despotism: A Comparative Study of Total Power (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957): 18; 22; 27.

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

15.  Elman R. Service, Origins of the State and Civilization (New York: W.W. Norton Inc., 1975): 38-39.

16.  Herbert Spencer, Principles of Sociology, ed. Stanislav Andreski (Hamden, Connecticut: Anchon Books, 1969): 80.

17.  Charles Tilly, “Reflections on History of European State-Making” in Charles Tilly ed., The Formation of National States in Western Europe (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975): 42.