The Modern Government, the Civilizational Government

Document Type : The Quarterly Jornal

Author

Abstract

The distinction between civilizations and national communities based on modern government raises the question that which component distinguishes civilizational society from society based on homeland rationality, based on modern government. What is the distinctive feature that results in civilizational comprehensiveness? And above all this, what are the social consequences of this feature? In this paper, after a consideration about the dependence of modern government on their territories and geographical borders and the independence of civilizational society with respect to this feature, I seek to examine the consequences of such dependence and independence for the formation of some significant social categories, that is, the idea of society, social identity, the demarcation of insiders and outsiders, and the logic of behavioral calculations of governments, drawing their influences on the inclusiveness of civilizational rationality, the formation of models, and objective structures of social management in spite of the possibility of different models and styles.

Keywords


1. اسولیوان، نوئل (1388)، نظریه سیاسی در گذار، بررسی انتقادی، ترجمه حسن آب نیکی، تهران: کویر.
2. بوزان، بری (1389)، مردم، دولت‌ها و هراس، تهران: مطالعات راهبردی.
3. قاضی، ابوالفضل (1372)، حقوق اساسی و نهادهای سیاسی، تهران: انتشارات دانشگاه تهران.
4. مورگنتا، هانس جی. (1374)، سیاست میان‌ملت‌ها، ملت‌ها: تلاش در راه قدرت و صلح، تجدید نظر کنت دبلیو تامپسون، ترجمه حمیرا مشیرزاده، تهران: وزارت امور خارجه، مؤسسه چاپ و انتشارات.
5. ونت، الکساندر (1384)، نظریه اجتماعی سیاست بین الملل، حمیرا مشیرزاده، تهران: دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین المللی.
6. وینسنت، آندرو (1371)، نظریه‌های دولت، حسین بشیریه، تهران: نشر نی.
7. Bartelson Jens (1997), “Second Natures: Is the State Identical with Itself',” European Journal of International Relation, Vol. 4, No.3.
8. D'Entreves, Alexander (1967), the Nation of the State, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
9. Giddens, Anthony (1987), the Nation ـ State and Violence, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
10. Halliday, Fred (1987), “State and Society in International Relation: A Second Agenda”, Millennium, 16, (2).
11. Mann, Michael (1988), States, War, and Capitalism: studies in Political Seedy. Leotard: Blackwell.
12. __________ (1984), “The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results”, European Journal of Sociology, Vol. 25, Issue 2.
13. The source of Social Power (1986), Vol. 1, A History of Power from the Beginning to 1760 AD, Cambridge: Cambridge Uneasy press.
14. Miller, David (1995), On Nationality, oxfor: Clarendon Press.
15. Poggi, Gianfranco (1990), “The State: Its Nature, Development and Prospects, Stanford: Stanford University Press.
16. Robertson, Roland (1985), “The Sacred and the World System,” in: Phillip E. Hammond (ed.), the Sacred in a Secular Age, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
17. Rosenau, P. (1992), Postmodernism and Social Science, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
18. Theda Skocpol (1979), States and Social Revolutions, a Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
19. Tamir, Yale (1993), Liberal Nationalism, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
20. Tilly, Charles (ed.) (1975), the Formation of National States in Western Europe, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21. __________ (1985), “War Making and State Making as Organized Crime,” in: P. Evans, et al (eds.), Bringing the State Back, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Walker, R. B. J. (1995), “International Relations and the Concept of the Political,” in: Ken Booth and Steve Smith (eds.), International Relations Theory Today, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press.
23. Weber, Max (1978), Economy and Society, an Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich, Vol. 1.