STATE SOCIETY RELATIONS AND INTERNAL MIG

Darja Aepli

GEO 511 Master Thesis Department of Geography, University of Zurich

S TATE -S OCIETY R ELATIONS AND I NTERNAL M IGRATION : H OW P RACTICES OF S TATE AND S OCIETY R EPRODUCE THE

R EGISTRATION S YSTEM IN O SH , K YRGYZSTAN .

31 January 2014 Darja Aepli 08-701-856 Submitted to Prof. Dr. Norman Backhaus Supervised by Craig Hatcher and PD Dr. Susan Thieme

This study was conducted within the framework of the Swiss National Centre of Competence in Research (NCCR) North –South: Research Partnerships for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change. The NCCR North-South is co-funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

Cover Picture

Centre of the City of Osh (own photo)

Contact Darja Aepli, Kirchweg 18, 8750 Glarus, darja.aepli@gmail.com

Acknowledgement

This study was conducted in the frame of the NCCR North-South research programme on “migration and development”, in the thematic field of “livelihood, institutions, conflicts”. I want to thank to NCCR North-South for their support and for enabling me this research.

Further I want to thank my supervisors Craig Hatcher and PD Dr. Susan Thieme for their valuable inputs, feedbacks and in general their helpful support during the whole process of the study.

Prof. Dr. Norman Backhaus for his appraisal. In Kyrgyzstan, I want to thank Bermet Ubaidillaeva and Mukadas Tashieva for their research

assistance in Osh: They did an important contribution to the success of the research with their great work.

In Osh, I also want to thank to Asel Botpayeva for her hospitability and for the many interesting discussions which helped me to better understand Kyrgyz politics, history and culture.

Special thanks to Daulet Tinibaev for his valuable support in many ways. Finally I want to thank to all the interview partners, which gave me a comprehensive insight to the

registration system in Osh. This research would not have been possible without their openness and their willing to share their experiences. Great thanks to the Advocacy Centre for Human Rights and the Ferghana Valley Lawyers without Borders for their cooperativeness and their willing to give interviews several times, which were crucial to get a better understanding of the context.

Summary

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, migration became a widespread phenomenon in Kyrgyzstan, while a high percentage of the migrants are internal migrants who move from rural to urban areas within the borders of the country. As in the majority of the countries, people who move from one place to another have to register in the new place of residence, in order to inform the state about their staying. The registration system of Kyrgyzstan goes back to the Propiska system which was applied in the Soviet Union. This system was officially abandoned after Kyrgyzstan became an independent Republic in 1991 and was replaced through a notification- based system which complies with the Guidelines on population registration of OSCE. However, hegemonic practice seems to differ from the given law, as the registration procedure is mostly depending on local self-governance bodies and their local provisions. There are evidences from Bishkek that the registration system remains restrictive as it is difficult to register and the lack of registration results in the limitation of basic services and rights.

The kind of implementation of the registration system in other parts of the country remains largely unexplored. The aim of this research is it to contribute to the knowledge on the implementation of the registration system in Kyrgyzstan. As the south of Kyrgyzstan is socio-economic, ethnically and politically different from the north, this research focus on Osh, which is one of two main attracting points for internal migrants in the south, and there are evidences that there is a huge amount of internal migrants living there without registration. The conducted empirical research should provide insight to the local requirements to get registered, the problems occurring with it, and the problems internal migrants encounter without registration. These insights provide the basis for the research questions how state and society practices reproduce each other through the registration system, what kind of registration system they reproduce and what are the consequences of being registered or not being registered for internal migrants. In order to answer these questions, two months of field research were conducted in Osh, the biggest city of the south of Kyrgyzstan, where principally interviews with internal migrants were conducted.

The empirical material was analysed and discussed on the hand of approaches to state-society relations of Migdal, Mitchell, Gupta and Foucault . Migdal’s approach was basically used to identify the practices of state and of society and their intertwined relationships as an analytical entity to reveal the reproduction of one another in the context of the registration system. Further, the analysis in this master thesis followed Gupta’s recommendation to focus on the lower level of bureaucracy in order to detect how state influences everyday practices of society. To reveal the power generation on the micro-level, the approaches of Mitchell and Foucault were applied as those approaches provide insight how practices of both state and society generate the disciplinary power of the state, while they shouldn’t be analysed distinct of each other, moreover the reproduction of the line between state and society should be included into analysis. Since Weber’s state definition and his concept of bureaucracy forms the starting point for most state-society relation approaches, his work was also important and were included into the analysis of this thesis.

Main challenges for internal migrants who fail to register are the required property documents. Especially tenants hardly have any chance to register since most houseowners don’t issue tenancy Main challenges for internal migrants who fail to register are the required property documents. Especially tenants hardly have any chance to register since most houseowners don’t issue tenancy

A further challenge next to the high requirements to get registered is the lacking communication between the passport office and internal migrants. On the one hand, communication is rather intransparent as it is only provided orally , and on the other hand many internal migrants don’t know that they can find information about the registration procedure in the passport office. Again other internal migran ts don’t even think about the registration at all since it doesn’t have any importance to them.

Through those restrictions which make it impossible for most internal migrants to register in Osh from beginning, a part of society is reproduced which doesn’t enjoy full access to basic services and civic rights. The precondition to have a registration in the place of residence in order to get access to basic services isn’t given by the law and even contradicts to it; moreover it is reproduced by everyday practices of state and society. However, the results show that indeed there are some handicaps for people without registration to receive those basic services, but most of them manage to get access without registration, particularly through a spravka from the Domkom or through bribery, while most interviewees didn’t consider bribery as a big handicap. Others just travelled back to their place of origin in order to access basic services. Due to the short distance between Osh and the original village of most of th e interviewed migrants, this travel wasn’t considered to be problematic. Some migrants even purposely left their registration in the village because they saw advantages in it. Thus, the high prevalence of internal migrants without registration in Osh isn’t simply reproduced by the high requirements and the lacking communication of the state; moreover many migrants don’t consider it as important to register in Osh, thus they don’t reproduce the registration system through their practices since they don’t even try to register.

Abbreviations

CIA

Central Intelligence Agency

CIS Commonwealth of Independent States FTI

Foundation for Tolerance International FVLWB

Ferghana Valley Lawyers Without Borders GDP

Gross Domestic Product

HDI

Human Development Index

IOM International Organization for Migration NCCR

National Centre of Competence in Research OSCE

Organisation for Security and Co-operation Europe PPP

Purchasing Power Parity

UN

United Nations

UNDP United Nations Development Program UNECE

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe USSR

Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

WB

World Bank

Glossary

Datcha (russ.) Small holiday or weekend cottage, mostly located in settlements on the edge of the cities in Russia and Post- Soviet countries

Domkom (russ.) Shortage for Domovyi Komitet, also territorial soviet.

A person who is elected to be responsible for the maintenance of the housing area, and to record the inhabitants of the housing area

Domovaya Kniga (russ,) Property ownership document which is needed to register the property in the Gos register

Dormitory State owned temporal living places mainly for students and guest workers

Gos register (russ.) State agency for registration of rights to immovable property

Militia Conventional denomination for police in Kyrgyzstan Novostroika (russ.)

New settlements in the outskirts of Bishkek, inhabited by internal migrants. While some of them are legalized, others still remain illegal

Oblast (russ.) Province; highest territorial administrative unit. Kyrgyzstan is divided into 7 Oblasts.

Propiska (russ.) The Russian word Propiska can be translated as registration or registration permit. It designates a restrictive registration system established and implemented in the USSR.

Rayon (russ.) District; next smaller administrative territorial unit after oblast. Kyrgyzstan is divided into 43 rayons.

Som Kyrgyz currency; 54.76 KGS = 1 CHF (January 2013) Spravka (russ.)

Official certificate

1 Introduction

The vast majority of people who migrate from one place to another do this within the borders of a country. This kind of migration within one nation-state is called internal migration (UNDP, 2009, p.21). Despite the quantitative relevance of this type of migration, the focus of contemporary research lies more on international migration, while internal migration remains rather neglected (Laczko, 2008, p.9). The role of the State on internal migration can be either to enforce, to restrict or to regulate migration (Massey 1999, p.307). Internal migration is recorded in countries around the world with the help of the registration system, which should enable the state to plan its infrastructure according to the numbers of people living in an area, and to contact its citizens (OSCE, 2009). Most countries apply a notification-based registration system, where the citizen is obliged to notify the state about his or her place of residency, which usually is an unproblematic and banal procedure (Schaible, 2001, p.350). However, in some countries – mainly those with a Post-socialist context – the state intends to regulate and even limit internal migration through restrictive registration systems like the Hukou household registration system in China or the Propiska registration system in USSR (Hatcher, 2011, p.2). Those registration systems are institution of the state, which are constantly reproduced by practices of both state and society practices. On the hand of the theoretical frameworks of Migdal, Foucault and Mitchell and Gupta – who provide different approaches to state-society relations – the reproduction through those practices can be analysed. According to those theorists, state and society are intertwined and constantly reproduce each other through their practices. State power should n’t be seen as something distinct which exists self-evidently. Moreover it is reproduced through practices of state and society and their interactions. Especially Foucault, Mitchell and Gupta emphasize the importance to analyse those practices and interaction on the micro-level in order to understand the character of state-society relations and how power is emerging.

Kyrgyzstan is a country with a high migration rate, while a big part of migration takes place within the borders of the country (Thieme, 2012). The most prevalent direction of internal migration flows is from the south to Bishkek, followed by the Northern Oblasts Chui and Yssik-kul, but there are also migration flows from rural to urban areas within the south (BMP, 2011, p.69). Most prevalent place of origin of the migrants is the south of Kyrgyzstan (Thieme, 2012, p.5). Despite a lot of research on migration in Kyrgyzstan focus on emigration mainly to the neighbouring countries Russia and Kazakhstan (e.g. Ruget and Usmanalieva, 2010), there is some research conducted on internal migration as well, yet most of it focus on migration to Bishkek (e.g. Flynn and Kosmarskaya, 2012; Hatcher, 2011; Nasritdinov, Zhumakadyr and Asanalieva, 2012; Azimov and Azimov, 2009), while migration within the South remains largely unexplored.

As a former Soviet cou ntry, Kyrgyzstan’s registration system is a legacy of the former Propiska registration system of the USSR. Even if the Propiska registration system was officially abandoned after independence and the “Law on internal migration” prescribe a notification-based registration system, there are evidences that the practice of registration fairly contradicts to that law, since it is regulated more through local self-governance bodies than through that law (Azimov and Azimov, 2009). Some research on Bishkek shows that the implementation of the registration system there As a former Soviet cou ntry, Kyrgyzstan’s registration system is a legacy of the former Propiska registration system of the USSR. Even if the Propiska registration system was officially abandoned after independence and the “Law on internal migration” prescribe a notification-based registration system, there are evidences that the practice of registration fairly contradicts to that law, since it is regulated more through local self-governance bodies than through that law (Azimov and Azimov, 2009). Some research on Bishkek shows that the implementation of the registration system there

The aim of this research is to identify state-society practices and their relations to each other which are reproducing the registration system, which is characterized by the widespread absent of registration.

Research Questions: (1) How do state and society practices reproduce each other in relation to the registration

system in Osh? (2) What kind of registration system do they reproduce through their practices?

(3) What are the consequences of being registered or being not registered for internal

migrants? State in the context of this thesis always refers to the state actors who are dealing with the

registration system. This includes the officials of local self-government bodies, police deputies, politicians and people working in state institutions like teachers and doctors. The registration system as an institution of the state is constituted by the practices of those state actors. However, these practices of state stand in an intertwined relation to the practices of society. Society in the context of the registration system in this research refers to the internal migrants moving to Osh. Their everyday practices in the context of the registration system reproduce the practices of state and therefore the registration system as well. Moreover state and society practices continuously reproduce each other. Reproduction in this research thus refers to the influence of practices of both state and society on the registration system, which is built and constituted through these practices.

The state of the art on the implementation of the registration system in Bishkek builds the starting point for this research. Interviews mainly conducted with internal migrants in Osh within a framework of an empirical field study provide insight to the implementation of the registration system in Osh. On the hand of these insights, it will be revealed how state and society practices reproduce this registration system, which kind of registration system is reproduced. Since the registration system in Osh is characterized by a widespread absence of registration, the consequences of living in Osh without registration should be evaluated as well.

After the introduction to the theoretical background and the context of research, the results of the field study will be analysed and discussed, where the first part focus on practices of state and the second part on practices of society, i.e. internal migrants. However, on account of their intertwined relation to each other, it can’t be regarded isolated on state and society as entities which are After the introduction to the theoretical background and the context of research, the results of the field study will be analysed and discussed, where the first part focus on practices of state and the second part on practices of society, i.e. internal migrants. However, on account of their intertwined relation to each other, it can’t be regarded isolated on state and society as entities which are

2 Theoretical Background

2.1 Theories on State-Society Reproduction

In this chapter the appropriate approaches to identify the reproduction of state through society should be identified and presented. Theories on the way how society and state transform and reproduce each other have their origin in the state-society relation discourse. This discourse can be divided into two strands of fundamental concepts: On the one hand there are the statist approaches where state-society relations are analysed with a focus on state itself. In contrast, there are approaches which explore state-society relations with a focus on interactions and interdependency between state and society. (Sellers, 2011, p.124)

2.1.1 Weberian Conception of State

Independent from the focus of the approach, most conceptions of state in state-society relation scholars are based on the Weberian conception of state (Kohli, 2002 cited in Sellers, 2011, p.124). Max Weber defines state through the following terms:

“State is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state.” (Weber, 1946, p.13)

Even if there are other organizations which have the right to use physical power, they are only legitimated to do so with the permission of the state.

“State is a relation of men dominating men, a relation supported by means of legitimate (i.e. considered to be legitimateд violence.” (Weber, 1946, p.14)

His definition of state is based on Hobbes interpretation of Leviathan. If this order of a state ruling

a society wouldn’t exist, there would be anarchy (Corbridge, 2008, p.107). Bureaucracy is another essential concept of Max Weber which other state analysts often refer to. It

can be applied for the state as well as for economic entities, but for this thesis only the meaning for state should be pointed out. Bureaucracy is the main concept of the way how modern states perform, where state is defined as a bureaucratic apparatus which follows certain principles: (1) “There is the principle of official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations ” (Weber, 1968, p.49). This principle refers to the right manner of distribution of official duties, and that these duties have to be fulfilled by qualified employees. (2) “The principle of office hierarchy and of channels of appeal” (ibid.) means that a lower level of hierarchy is always supervised by a higher one. The next principle says that (3) “The management of the modern office is based upon written documents.” (Weber, 1968, p.50) Through this principle, the objectivity and impersonality should be guaranteed. On this place, Weber also emphasizes the importance to “Separate the bureau from the private domicile” in order to “separate official activity from the sphere of private life”. Further (пд “Office management […] can be applied for the state as well as for economic entities, but for this thesis only the meaning for state should be pointed out. Bureaucracy is the main concept of the way how modern states perform, where state is defined as a bureaucratic apparatus which follows certain principles: (1) “There is the principle of official jurisdictional areas, which are generally ordered by rules, that is, by laws or administrative regulations ” (Weber, 1968, p.49). This principle refers to the right manner of distribution of official duties, and that these duties have to be fulfilled by qualified employees. (2) “The principle of office hierarchy and of channels of appeal” (ibid.) means that a lower level of hierarchy is always supervised by a higher one. The next principle says that (3) “The management of the modern office is based upon written documents.” (Weber, 1968, p.50) Through this principle, the objectivity and impersonality should be guaranteed. On this place, Weber also emphasizes the importance to “Separate the bureau from the private domicile” in order to “separate official activity from the sphere of private life”. Further (пд “Office management […]

All these principles have the goal to separate the private from the public sphere on different levels: On the one hand through the spatial separation between the working place and the offi cial’s private place, and on the other hand through universal rules according to which official work is made to a profession, where the official does n’t have to decide anymore on the basis of his own weighing up as there are rules which he can follow to for every decision. Thus these rules contribute to an impersonal behaviour of state officials, what means that they have to treat anyone in the same way, independent of ethnicity, gender, etc. An external person must be treated in the same way like a family member. However, this model is only an ideal type while in reality these boundaries often become blurred and the model can only be converged as near as possible. Weber’s definition of state which is performed according to bureaucracy principles became highly popular in the time after 1945 and is still important for contemporary approaches on state-society relations. (Corbridge, 2008, p.108)

2.1.2 State-Society Concepts Based on the Weberian State Definition

State-society relation approaches which are based on the Weberian definition of state re-emerged in state- society discourses in the mid1970s through the call to “bring the state back in” (e.g. Skocpol 1985; Krasner 1984). They mostly presume a clear distinction or even a separation between state and society, and they are still hegemonic in the contemporary discourse on state- society relations (Sellers, 2011, p.126). However, there are also approaches based on the Weberian state definition which focus on the interaction between state and society. One of the main approaches taking account of these interactions – especially in developing countries – is Joel Migdal with his state-in-society approach (Sellers, 2011, p.129).

2.1.2.1 Joel Migdal State Conception of Migdal

Even if it’s said that Migdal’s approach is also grounded on Weber’s state conception (Sellers, 2011, p.129), he offers a further development of the latter:

“The state is a field of power, marked by the use and threat of violence and shaped by the image of a coherent, controlling organization in a territory, which is a representation of the people bounded by that territory, and the actual practices of its multiple parts.” (Migdal, 2001, p.16)

The two terms “image” and “practice” are highlighted in his definition, they are the elements which form the state, and they can overlap, reinforce, contradict or destruct each other. With “Images”

he refers to the imaginations people have from state, how people perceive the state. The origins of all the imaginations of the state can be located in the emergence of states in North-West Europe in the fifteenth century. This image of state became dominant and was spread all over the world. This fundamental image of states creates two kinds of boundaries which define a state: First the territorial boundaries which confine the state from other states. These on the one hand limit the territorial control of the state, and on the other hand they connect the people living within that boundary. Therefore he agrees with Weber in that point that territory would be one of the characteristics of state. The second type of boundary is the boundary between the state with its public actors and the society with its private subjects of rule. Through this boundary, state and non-state actors become distinct. Also in that point Migdal agrees with Weber who sees the conceptual separation of public and private as a fundamental attribute of the modern, bureaucratized state. These boundaries separate state from society, and because state is a unique representation of its population, he argues that state is not only separated, but even elevated over society. (Migdal, 2001, pp.15-17)

The second key attribute of Migdal ’s state definition, “practices”, refers to the practices performed by state actors and agencies as well as actors outside of the state, or even of both of them combined. Either they reinforce, neutralize or weaken the image of state with its social and territorial boundaries. Examples for practices which underpin the territorial boundaries of the state are passports, border markers, armies, official maps etc., as well as certain ceremonies or the spatial restriction of official state work to definite places like federal buildings confirm the separation between state and society and even the elevation of state. However, corrupt and criminal practices neutralize or weaken the image of state with its territorial and public-private boundaries. In contrast to the images of the state, which imply one singular morality, there is a multiplicity of various practices and they don’t always reproduce the image of the state how it should be. For example, Public-private boundaries can become weak through officials who do private business in their official working place, or through more complex situations like relations between criminal groups and the influential state actors. These kinds of practices challenge the sharp distinction between state as a rule maker and society as a recipient of those rules and these boundaries becomes blurred. Moreover, the territorial boundaries can be affected by practices of groups which refuse these boundaries like nomadic groups or minorities which claim for an own state. (Migdal, 2001, pp.18-20)

Shortly said, Migdal argues that even if state and society are two distinct entities which are not only separated from each other, moreover state is elevated over society, there are some practices of state and of society which challenge this clear distinction and make the boundary between public and private becoming blurred. The image gives the state a clear dimension of a unified organization which can be seen like a single actor which performs in a certain way. However, the practices of actors from inside and outside of state, which determine if this image is enforced or deconstructed, are fragmented and loosely connected, with an unclear distinction from each other (Migdal, 2001, p.22). This challenging of boundaries between state and society in his approach is the crucial difference to Max Weber ’s theory.

Migdal’s State-in-Society Approach

Migdal ’s state-in-society model is built on this dual definition of state through image and practice. Only through this duality and the interplay between those, processes of domination can be understood (Migdal, 2001, p.22). Through the transformative power of these practices, a continuous struggle for social control and domination between state and society forces takes place (Migdal, 1993, p.26). He criticizes that these struggles for domination between state and society are often neglected by state-centred scholars, and that the prevalence of the state as a unitary actor isn’t questioned. (Migdal, 1993, p.8)

As the state on the one hand forms society through its actions and on the other hand is formed by the society it is embedded in (Lambach, 2004, p.3), object of analyse in research which applies Migdal ’s state-in-society approach should be the processes of interactions between groups with one another as well as between ruling groups and the subjects they want to influence or to control. Migdal states that:

“like any other group or organization, the state is constructed and reconstructed, invented and reinvented, through its interaction as a whole and of its parts with others. It is not a fixed entity; it organization, goals, means, partners, and operative rules change as it allies with and opposes others inside and outside its territory. The state continually morphs.” (Migdal, 2001, p.23)

This means, to understand how state is reproduced, the practices of state and non-state actors and the interactions between them have to be examined.

Migdal ’s state-in-society approach especially addresses the explanation of power relations in developing countries or the ex-colonized world. His approach further develops the hitherto predominant Eurocentric perspective to the state, in which the existence of the nation-state is taken for granted. He criticizes the neglecting of the fact that many ex- colonized states aren’t historically grown. But this fact is essential for evaluating states of the developing world. (Lambach, 2004, p.3)

2.1.2.2 Strong and Weak States

If a state can be considered as a strong or a weak state largely depends on its relations to society (Luong, 2004, p. 271). Even if Migdal didn’t develop the state-in-society approach yet, he already discussed the struggle for domination or social control in one of his previous works “strong societies and weak states” in 1989, where he focus on the capability of developing states to perform social control. These capabilities …

“…include the capacities to penetrate society, regulate social relationships, extract resources, and appropriate or use resources in determined ways. Strong states are those with high capabilities to complete these tasks, while weak states are on the low end of a spectrum of capabilities.” (Migdal, 1989, pp.4-5)

Thereby, social penetration which is part of the struggle for domination can occur in four forms: In the first form, the state manages to transform society actors fully, e.g. with the tool of forced migration or displacement. So the domination of state over society is strong. In the second form, the state is able to incorporate in existing social forces. In the third form social forces are incorporating the state, and the last form is that state fails in all of those attempts. With all of these presented forms, state domination declines while the power of social forces increases. While in the first form state power is strong, power of society overhang in the last form. (Migdal, 1993, pp.25-26)

According to Smith (2005 cited in Ruget and Usmanalieva, 2007, p.442), weak states are “unable to maintain political order and security, to enforce laws, implement policies and to deliver services.” However, a state can be weak in one of these obligations, while in others it can be successful and strong. As a consequence of the weakness of a state, Ruget and Usmanalieva argue that people have low expectations on state and that “citizens are less likely to perform their duties, to trust the regime and to have a sense of loyalty towards their nation state.” (Ruget and Usmanalieva, 2007, p.443) In ot her words, a weak state reproduces a society which isn’t law- abiding but strongly self-relying, which brings forward that society builds its own structures where it can rely on.

Ruget and Usmanalieva (2007, p.442) state that if a state is weak, the boundaries between state and society can become blurred. This assumption matches to Migdal ’s theory, as discussed above, that the image of the state with its territorial and social boundaries is determined by practise, and if practice is challenging state power, boundaries between public and private can be blurred. However, in the other way round, blurred boundaries don’t compelling have to signify weak states. Luong (2004) illustrates that point with his explanations of state-society relations during the Soviet Times: There he writes that state-society boundaries where blurred while the state was strong and society was weak. While Migdal and Ruget and Usmanalieva emphasize more that blurring boundaries are a sign that the obligations of state are contested by the mixing of private and public, Luong shows that the infiltration of state in non-state spheres can also strengthen the state,

e.g. through the control and infiltration of NGOs. Furthermore, he also talks about non-state actors which can’t be clearly assigned neither to state nor to society. As an example he refers to the role of Mahalla committees in Uzbekistan which are composed by citizens which are independent social actors, but in the same time they are empowered as local leaders by the Uzbek state. So they represent both society as well as state and therefore can be seen as “mediators” between state and society. He doesn’t compelling see the strength of the state challenged through these non-state actors. For studying contemporary state-society relations in Central Asia, he argues, it is crucial to take into account the Soviet legacy of these blurred state-society relations and the societal weakness (Luong, 2004, p.274).

2.1.3 Alternative Approaches Beyond the Weberian State Definition

There is another discourse strand where the Weberian conception of state and the strong distinction between state and society is criticized. Gupta (1995) for example denominates state- society distinctions according to Weber’s Bureaucracy as a model of Western modern states, which There is another discourse strand where the Weberian conception of state and the strong distinction between state and society is criticized. Gupta (1995) for example denominates state- society distinctions according to Weber’s Bureaucracy as a model of Western modern states, which

Mitchell’s (1991, p.82) critique to Weber’s state definition is that it’s rather a characterization than

a definition of state and does n’t give information about the contours of state. It is still open where the boundaries of state can be drawn. In his approach of state as “a set of structural effects”, he developed an own definition of state. This definition is based on Foucault’s concept of disciplinary power, where society continuously reproduces the power of the state.

The mentioned analysts criticized the dominating state-centred discourse as too imprecise to cope with contemporary state-society relations. Thus they developed these dichotomist state-society conceptions to more sophisticated approaches which more emphasize the intertwined relationship between state and society and their mutual reproduction and take into question their distinction in the first place. In the following chapters, some of these approaches will be presented in detail as they are important concepts to answer the research question how state and society reproduce the registration system.

2.1.3.1 Akhil Gupta: Challenged Bureaucracy and the Local Perspective

In his research on corruption in a small town in North-India, Gupta identified state-society boundaries accordi ng to Weber’s model of bureaucracy as blurred. Albeit he analysed the ways how these boundaries become blurred, he takes into question the model of those boundaries between state and society at the first place. He states that this model is based on the Western state model and therefore shouldn’t be applied to any other places without being questioned. It doesn’t mean that he fully abandoned Weber’s concept of Bureaucracy, but he pleads for applying it with caution and not to taken for granted the boundaries between state and society. (Gupta, 1995, p.214)

Gupta also pleads for a local perspective. Onto the time he wrote his paper, ethnographic research had a strongly large-scale focus on politics while the lower levels were rather neglected. He states that it were the everyday practices of officials which give insight on the effects of politics on the daily lives of rural people. It is the local, lower level of bureaucracy where people engage with the state through making contact with officials in different concerns. Therefore in those local spaces state-society interactions emerge. The way how these interactions are performed builds a crucial part of the image of people from the state. Thus it is important to focus on this local level in order to understand interactions between state and society and their implications for the imagination of state. (Gupta, 1995, p.212)

Gupta further illustrates the linkages between this local levels and the state as a transnational actor: The state is constituted by a “complex set of spatially intersecting representations and practices” (Gupta, 1995, p.213), which means that both large- and small scale practices as well as their interactions form the image of the state. Out of that reason, it is important to include all the levels into analysis of the state. Even if the research object is the state as a transnational actor, the influences of local practices are important and should be taken into account. (ibid.)

These arguments show that Gupta doesn’t consider state as a unitary actor as many statist analysts see the state. Moreover he pleads for the importance to take into account the different levels of bureaucracy to achieve a comprehensive analyse of the state. (Gupta, 1995, p.214)

2.1.3.2 Timothy Mitchell: The State as a Set of Structural Effects

Timothy Mitchell criticizes the statist state-society conceptions after the call for “bring the state back in”. The definition of the concept “state” were too narrow as it became reduced to a “subjective system of decision making” (Mitchell, 1991, p.78). However, his main critique point (Mitchell, 1999, p.169) on statist state-society conceptions concerns the distinction between state and society: State is always perceived as a distinct entity which stands outside or is even opposed to the larger entity called society, and analyses are limited to the question on the degree of independence of these two entities from each other. This doesn’t embrace the reality where these boundaries are often blurred (Mitchell, 1991, p.89).

Further he takes into question the distinction between state as something abstract, conceptual in opposition to society as something concrete, empirical and he criticized that in the hitherto state- society discourse after the “bring back the state in” call in the 1970s this distinction hasn’t been taken into question (Mitchell, 1991, pp.81-82). According to him, state and society stand in an intertwined relationship to each other and both of them are abstractions in relation to concrete structures (Mitchell, 1999, p. 185).

However, Mitchell argues that those boundaries – even if they are blurred – are still important and shouldn’t be downplayed. He reveals this argument in the first point of his approach where he defines the state as “a set of structural effects” (Mitchell, 1991, p.95). As an example of blurred state-society boundaries he refers to relationships between governments and economic exponents, which can act on the same level, if economic actors, which belong to the private sphere, begin to codetermine in politics, i.e. in the public sphere. These relations and with it the permeability of these boundaries have a certain political importance for the state. (Mitchell, 1991, p.89) Therefore this example illustrates that the boundaries between state and society can still be powerful, even if they are uncertain. On the base of these findings, he suggests to accept the elusiveness of a state- society boundary as a characteristic, as the nature of the state itself, instead of seeing it as a conceptual problem of the state definition. Therefore the definitions of state-society relations should include these uncertain distinctions and examine the political processes which produce (elusive) state-society distinctions. Instead of seeing the boundary between state and society as a boundary between two discrete entities, it should be seen as a line existing within the system of institutional mechanism. (Mitchell, 1991, p.78)

Second he argues that state should be seen not only as an abstraction of ideas, moreover it is constantly represented and reproduced in everyday life. Through architecture, language, passports etc. state can also manifest itself as something material, as a concrete realm. If state is only perceived as an abstract ideological construct, all these manifestations of state are excluded of the concept state, and therefore he argues to include the material dimension to the concept of state. (Mitchell, 1991, p.81) In his third point he pleads for abandoning the narrow concept of state as a system of decision making as it is only one aspect out of many others which are defining the state Second he argues that state should be seen not only as an abstraction of ideas, moreover it is constantly represented and reproduced in everyday life. Through architecture, language, passports etc. state can also manifest itself as something material, as a concrete realm. If state is only perceived as an abstract ideological construct, all these manifestations of state are excluded of the concept state, and therefore he argues to include the material dimension to the concept of state. (Mitchell, 1991, p.81) In his third point he pleads for abandoning the narrow concept of state as a system of decision making as it is only one aspect out of many others which are defining the state

Fifth, all these mentioned processes create a sum of structural effects which are building the state, while state isn’t a discrete entity outside of society, but more it becomes a distinct dimension of structure, framework, codification, planning and intentionality. The distinctions between abstract and concrete are constructed from the social processes which build the state. (Mitchell, 1991, p.95)

Mitchell also uses Foucault ’s approach of disciplinary power to underpin his argument that state doesn’t stand outside from society. He argues that the modern way how states exercise power

works on a micro- level within society, and isn’t applied from outside (Mitchell, 1991, p.92). However, he further develops Foucault ’s conception with his arguments that in the same time as disciplinary power is origin from within the society, it also becomes an exterior force, for example with a military apparatus emerging out of individual discipline which becomes greater than only the sum of its parts, like an emerging machine (Mitchell, 1991, p.93).

On the one hand, this emerged machine becomes something separately existing, next to society, but in the same time it’s impossible that it exists independent of its individuals. It’s in the same time a part of society because it consists of individuals as well as something more than just a part of the society, a new entity which emerged out of society and became something by itself. The

institutions are not the same like the practice of individuals, they are more, but they are emerging out of it and later also can stand as an own entity in opposite to it. This demonstrates the unclear distinction between state and society. The two entities indeed exist as own entities and even can stand in opposite of each other, but they can’t be fully separated because they depend on each other. (Mitchell, 1991, p.93) Because of this constitution of the state, he calls state “a set of structural effects ” (Mitchell, 1991, p. 94), a set of effects, consisting of practices of individuals where the result is more than only the sum of it. Therefore, state as well as society is something abstract as well as something concrete. Concrete actions are building the abstract elements which the state is composed of. Because of the significance of Foucault’s concepts for Mitchell’s theory and its implications for all state theorists (Jessop, 2001, p.12), the next chapter will reveal in detail how the exercise of power through discipline according to Foucault works.

2.1.3.3 Michel Foucault: Disciplinary Power, Panopticism and Governmentality

Michel Foucault is a further fundamental analyst on whose theories an own scholar was built: The scholar of the Foucauldians. The Foucauldians focus strongly on the far-reaching power of state through surveillance and social reach (McNay, 1994 cited in Corbridge, 2008, p.110). Foucault ’s theory on disciplinary power offers an image of the state, reinforced by its practices. It is a

Western image of states which begun to form themselves in direction to modern states in the 18 th and 19 th century, but considering the exportation of the Western image of states during the colonization, and now continuing with the globalization, it can be assumed that it also becomes meaningful for other countries. (Mitchell, 1991, p.92).

As Mitchell explains Foucault’s concept, the power achieved from state isn’t an authoritative power emerging from outside of the state. If state is perceived as a freestanding agent, which is ruling society through making law and orders, the way how power functions in the contemporary world can’t be fully explained. In the modern sate, power doesn’t derive only from state; it also has to be created from society. Power emerges on a micro-level through the practice of society members. It derives from discipline which is permeating every kind of life of individuals. Through discipline, complex processes are split in particular movements, every activity is split in elementary sequences which are easy to conduct and in total build the complex process. This discipline is applied in all the institutions, for example school, army, prisons, hospitals, government offices and even commercial establishments. This applied discipline doesn’t compelling constrain individuals, moreover they are produced by this discipline. Through this way of behaviour - through disciplinary power – institutions are produced and are able to work, and a modern individual is produced. (Mitchell, 1991, pp.92-93)