Chapter 4

THEORIES OF THE ORIGIN OF THE STATE

The origin of a complex social phenomenon and political organization like the state is
difficult to trace. Over the centuries political thinkers have tried to answer the question:
How the state came into existence? In the absence of adequate historical and
anthropological data, they offered different explanations which are mostly speculative in
nature. Broadly speaking the theories of the origin of the state fall into two categories:
speculative (imaginative) and empirical. While theories like divine origin and social contract
are speculative, those of like kinship theories and evolutionary theories are based on
empirical and verifiable findings.
The Theory of Divine Origin
The theory of divine origin is the oldest concerning the primary origin of the state. It
looks upon the state as a divine institution. The state is created by God and ruled by him
either directly or indirectly through some ruler who is regarded as the agent or
representative of God on earth. The Jews were the earliest advocates of this theory. In
the Hindu epic Mahabharata, it has been said that when people were tired of anarchy and
lawlessness, they prayed to God for respite and he appointed specific rulers for the
purpose. In the Bible it is stated: "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For
there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God". Thus God is the
source of all powers and the rulers are considered his agents. The early church fathers
also propounded this theory. During the middle ages a fierce controversy developed
between the state and Church for supremacy on the basis of this theory. Gradually the
theory of divine origin of the state was transformed into the theory of the divine rights
of kings. In England, James I, the first Stuart King and Sir Robert Filmer were the leading
exponents of this latter doctrine. In his work, The Law of Free Monarchies, James I
wrote: "Kings are justly called gods, for they exercise a manner of resemblance of divine
power upon earth". They are the "breathing images of God upon earth" and the King "is
master over every person, having power over life and death". In France the despotism of
Louis XIV was supported by Bossuet on the strength of this doctrine. The main features
of the theory of divine rights of Kingship are the following:
1. Monarchy is divinely ordained. Kings derive their authority directly from God.
2. Hereditary right is indefeasible. Succession to the throne is governed by the law of
primogeniture.
3. Kings are accountable to God alone for all their acts.
4. Resistance to a lawful King is sin. To go against the King is to go against God.
Disobedience is sacrilegious.
Criticism
1. In modern times it has been rejected as "unsound in theory and dangerous in practice".
1

2.

3.

4.

5.

It is based on certain assumptions which cannot be verified. There is no empirical proof

of any divine delegation of authority to the rulers. Its propositions are to be accepted
as matter of faith rather than of reason.
The theory is dangerous in practice as it leads to royal despotism. It leaves the people
at the mercy of despots. Since the rulers are responsible to God alone for all their acts
of omission and commission, it undermines the democratic principle of the responsibility
of the rulers to the ruled and leads to autocracy.
It is illogical as it is used to justify the rule even of a bad king. Kings as the agents of
God are supposed to be virtuous. The theory should not be advanced in support of bad
and autocratic rulers.
It is highly undemocratic. It rules out the role of popular control in political affairs.
People remain perpetually in a state of servitude. It stifles the political consciousness
and participation of people.
The theory is lopsided as it admits the possibility of only the monarchical form of
government.

Value of the Theory

Notwithstanding these criticisms the theory of divine origin served some useful purposes.
1. At a time when societies were suffering from anarchy and disorder, it taught men the
values of obedience and discipline and brought them together under a common
authority. It has been a powerful factor in preserving order and did a lot to strengthen
the respect of people for person, property, and government.
2. It emphasizes the unifying role played by religion in the development of the state.
3. It invests the state with a high moral status. As Gilchrist remarks: "To regard the
state as the work of god is to give it a high moral status, to make it something which
the citizen may revere and support, something which he may regard as the perfection
of human life. It introduces an element of morality into politics.
4. It highlights the moral responsibility of the rulers to the ruled as they are accountable
to God for the manner in which they exercise their power.
Decline of the Theory
Some of the principal causes which brought about the decline of the theory are as follows:
1. The rise of the social contract theory with its emphasis upon the state as a human
institution and the idea of popular consent gave a death blow to the divine origin theory.
2. The growth of democratic ideas directly opposed autocratic and absolutist basis of
political authority enjoined upon by the divine origin theory. In emphasizing the rights
of individuals and popular control of government, democratic theory discredited divine
right of Kingship.
3. The secular approach of modern man, a product of Renaissance, seeks to separate
religious and political issues. This approach led to a separation of Church from the
2

State and made it sub-ordinate to the State. Secular ideas destroyed the religious
basis of political power expounded by the divine origin theory. As J. N. Figgis remarks:
"The reason for the decline of the theory lies in the fact that today there is a general
belief in the supreme role of reason and that faith has its proper place in matters
spiritual".
The Theory of Force
As an explanation of the origin and basis of the state, the theory of force is based on an
analysis of the two primary instincts in man craving for power and desire for selfassertion. In the dawn of civilization, these instincts found expression in continuous
conflicts and aggressions. The strong attacked and enslaved the weak. The strong
exercised their rule over the weak. Powerful men began to exercise control over a sizeable
section of people and this led to the emergence of clans and tribes. There were incessant
fights between clans and tribes for supremacy. Through such conflicts the authority of a
successful tribal chief was established on a particular territory and ultimately the state
emerged. The state is the outcome of aggression, the result of superior physical force.
Leacock writes: Hhistorically it (force theory) means that government is the outcome of
human aggression, that the beginnings of the state are to be sought in the capture and
enslavement of man by man, in the conquest and subjugation of feebler tribes and,
generally speaking, in the self seeking domination acquired by superior physical force. The
progressive growth from tribe to Kingdom and from Kingdom to empire is but a
continuation of the same process". In its simplest form, this theory may be stated thus:
"war begat the King".
In his book "The State", Oppenheimer, a keen exponent of the theory, traces the origin of
state through various stages. Jenks, another prominent advocate of the theory, in his
"History of Politics" holds that, "historically speaking, there is not the slightest difficulty
in proving that all political communities of the modern type owe their existence to
successful warfare". The state is not only created by force but also maintained by force.
The use of force is imperative to maintain law and order inside the state and to defend
the state against foreign aggression. Hence force or physical power is the basis of the
state.
Varied Interpretations of the Theory
The theory of force has been given different interpretations by thinkers to serve their
own purposes. In Europe, the middle ages were characterized by struggle between the
Church and the State for supremacy. The Church Fathers used the force theory to justify
the supremacy of the religious authority over political authority. They argued that the
Church was a divine institution while the state was a product of force. Divine sanction
imparted a greater legitimacy to the Church and as such it was superior to the state.
Individualists used the theory in support of individual freedom and rights. The state as an
organization of force is considered as a necessary evil. It should have a restrictive
3

function, namely, maintenance of internal order and defence against external aggression.
Restrictive state functions, they argue, will result in enjoyment of maximum possible
individual freedom.

The Marxists trace the origin and development of the state in conquest and
domination of the economically dominant class over the dispossessed class. They look upon
the state as an instrument of aggressive class exploitation. In the contemporary capitalist
state the power of the state is used by the capitalist class to maintain their own privileges
by exploiting the working class. Social change, according to Marxists, comes by force and
revolution. Force is the midwife of an old society giving birth to a new one. Only in a
classless society (communism), the state (along with force) will be abolished. Hence, the
Marxian analysis of the origin and continuance of political institutions runs in terms of
power and force.
Perhaps the greatest use of the force theory has been made by German thinkers
like Hegel, Bernhard, Sorel, Nietzsche and Treitschke who preached a doctrine of naked
force and coercion with a view to placing Germany on the summit of glory. According to
Bernhard, might is the supreme right and the dispute as to what is right is decided by the
arbitration of war". Nietzsche and Sorel enunciated the doctrine of the revolutionary
right of the strong. Treitschke identified the state with power and power is moralized by
the assumption that it is the condition of upholding and spreading a national culture. These
views provided a philosophical basis to the emergence of Nazism in Germany and Fascism in
Italy which practiced a rule of mass subjugation and forcible suppression of dissent in
domestic politics and militancy in international relations.
Elements of Truth
Force has no doubt played an important role in the historical development of the state.
Wars and conquests have led to the emergence of permanent leadership and to the
establishment of political authority on a fixed territory.
Again the use of force is imperative to maintain internal order and eternal security.
No state can last long without the employment of force or coercion. The defence forces
and the police organization of modern states are illustrative of their superior physical
power over individuals and other associations.
Fear of punishment by the state is one of the plausible grounds of political
obligation. It is a truism that law is obeyed because it is backed by force.
Criticism
In spite of its slender historical truth the theory of force has been subjected to severe
criticism.
4

It is one-sided. It exaggerates only one aspect of human nature -man's craving for power.
It ignores the noble aspects of human nature. Besides, his power hunger, man displays his
cooperative social sentient by forming society and subjecting himself voluntarily to the
rules and regulations of social and group life.
Force is only one of the elements which has contributed to the origin, evolution and
continuance of the state. According to Leacock the theory "errs in magnifying what has
been only one factor in the evolution of society into the sole controlling force". No state
has emerged solely by brute force. State is the product of several factors such as Kinship,
religion, economic activities and political consciousness.
Force is an essential element of the state but not the real and ultimate basis. Common will
or consent of the people is the real basis of the state. As T. H. Green remarks, "Will, not
force is the basis of the state". According to MacIver, coercive power is a criterion of the
state, but not its essence. No state can last long by mere use of naked force, Laski writes:
"successfully to coerce, it (the state) must be able successfully to persuade. It wins his
(individual's) allegiance not by being the state, but because of what as the state, it is
seeking to do".
The theory is not conducive to democracy. Democracy is government by consent, discussion
and criticism. The use of force suppresses people's right to discuss and debate public
issues and to control the government. Force without constitutional checks and safeguards
leads to tyranny and dictatorship, Force is a means to an end, namely, public welfare, Force
is inimical to healthy international relations. With the growth of international law and
organizations like the U.N. interstate relations cannot continue to be governed on force.
The international community puts a premium on the settlement of interstate disputes by
peaceful means, not through the arbitrament of war.
The Social Contract Theory
The most important speculative theory relating to the origin of the state is the social
contract theory. It was the most popular and influential theory relating to the origin of
the state and the nature of political authority during the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries.
Statement of the Theory
The exponents of the theory hold that the state is the result of a deliberate and
voluntary agreement (contract) entered into by primitive men who originally had no
governmental organization. They divide history into two periods: the period before the
state was formed, called "the state of nature" and the period after the state was
instituted. Contract or voluntary agreement, which is instrumental in the formation of the
state, divides these two periods of history. In the state of nature, men were subject to no
law or governmental regulation. Men were subject only to such regulations as nature was
5

supposed to prescribe (natural law). They enjoyed some rights known as natural rights. The
state of nature was either too unbearable or too inconvenient for primitive men to put up
with it or too idyllic to last long. Hence men decided to abandon the state of nature and
set up a political society through contract or covenant. As a result of the contract, each
man lost his natural liberty partly or wholly, and agreed to obey the laws prescribed by the
government. There is difference of view among the exponents of the theory relating to
the conditions of the state of nature, the character of the laws of nature, nature of the
contract, the features of the political society and other details. But they agree on its
fundamental idea, namely, that the state is a human creation, the result of a voluntary
agreement among primitive people.
History of the Theory
The idea of contract is very old and goes back to the writings of Plato and Sophists of
ancient Greece and Kautilya's "Arthasastra". While sophists described the state to be
product of contract among men, Plato and Aristotle dealt with the theory only to reject it.
In political discussion, the theory assumed significance during and after the Middle Ages.
Two forms of the theory, viz., the governmental contract and the social contract, are
found in such discussions. The first postulates a tacit agreement between the government
and the people; and the second, the institution of a political society (State) by mess of a
contact among individuals.
The idea of governmental contract was employed by antimonarchist writers in the
Middle Ages in defence of popular liberties. Manegold, St. Thomas Aquinas, Du PlessisMornay, Buchanan and Mariana are some of the outstanding theorists of governmental
contract.
Social contract, as distinguished from the governmental contract, is probably first
mentioned in Hooker's "The Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity". Althusius and Milton also used
the idea of social contract in constructing their theories of limited government. The
theory traversed a long way in the history of political thought until it received the most
systematic and comprehensive treatment in the writings of two Englishmen, Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke and the Frenchman J. J. Rousseau.
Views of its Modern Exponents
Thomas Hobbes: Hobbes, who wrote his book "Leviathan" against the backdrop of the
English Civil War (1642-51) presented a very gloomy picture of the state of nature. It was
a condition of perpetual war and conflicts among men who were essentially selfish and
power craving. It was both pre-social and pre-political. Natural right was another name for
might. "Kill whom you can, take what you can" was the order of the day. Life was totally
insecure and Hobbes described it as "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short". Men made a
contract among themselves to come out of this horrible state of nature and formed a civil
society or the state. It was contract of each with all and all with each whereby men gave
6

up their natural rights except the right to self-preservation to a "common power' who was
called the sovereign. His command was law. This sovereign enjoyed absolute and indivisible
power and guaranteed security of life and protection of property to every other individual.
Hobbes was basically an individualist philosopher who justified absolute power of the
government in the interest of peace and security which are the basic needs of human
beings.
John Locke: While Hobbes's philosophy was used in defence of absolute government,
Locke in his "Two Treatises of Government" sought to justify the English Revolution of
1688. He was an ardent advocate of constitutional government and rule of law. He analyzed
human nature in terms of essential social virtues and characterized the state of nature as
a condition of "peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation". Men were free and
equal. The state of nature was pre-political but not pre-social. Men enjoyed the natural
rights to life, liberty and property under the governance of the laws of nature. But men
experienced three inconveniences, viz. the absence of settled and fixed laws; the absence
of known and impartial judge and the absence of an executive power to enforce just
decisions. Men made a contract to escape from the state of nature, which was a will
condition and establish the civil society in which the whole community enjoyed supreme
power. Each individual surrendered his natural right of interpreting and enforcing the law
of nature so that his fundamental natural rights to life, liberty and property could be
secured. Supreme power was vested in the community which set up a government as a
"fiduciary trust" to carry out the functions delegated by the community. Government was
based on the consent of the people who could overthrow it when it acted against the trust
reposed in it. Locke's theory thus results in constitutional or limited government.
J. J. Rousseau: Rousseau's views on Social Contract inspired the French Revolution of
1789 and also provided the basis of the theory of popular sovereignty. Man, according to
Rousseau, is essentially good and sympathetic. The state of nature was a period of idyllic
happiness. Man was a "noble savage" and led a happy and simple life. With the growth of
population and the idea of private property men became selfish, greedy and aggressive.
With the dawn of reason, human nature became increasingly complex. Conflicts and
tensions in the later stages of the state of nature forced men to enter into a contract
whereby they surrendered all their natural rights to the community or the "General Will".
The people as a collective body became sovereign and each member was an inseparable part
of the general will which was the voice of all for the good of all. Law is an expression of
the general will and can be made only in an assembly of the whole people. As the general
will is the will for collective good, so it is always just and right and every member of the
community is under an obligation to obey its commands. Government remains an agent of
the community and exercises only executive power delegated to it by the community.
Freedom of the individual consists in acting in accordance with general will. Rousseau's
ideas inspired the movements for democratic rights in eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries; and at the same time his doctrine of general will has been manipulated to serve
7

the purpose of the totalitarian states.

Criticism of the Theory
The theory of social contract has been assailed from various angles. It has been
characterized as bad history, bad law and bad philosophy. In other words, it has been
attacked from three different angles the historical, the legal, and the philosophical or
rational.
Historical
1. Historically, the theory is untenable. It has no basis in fact. Historical records are
lacking as to those primitive times when, if at all, such contracts must have been made
for the institution of the state. The idea of a contract is too advanced for primitive
man. Formation of a state through common consent presupposes a high degree of
political consciousness which primitive people hardly possessed.
2. Anthropological studies have demonstrated that people always lived under some form of
political organization, however crude it might be. The concept of a state of nature as
pictured by Hobbes, is without any basis in history.
3. There have been instances of governmental or political contracts whereby rights and
duties of the rulers and the people have been defined. Such contracts have been made
by people already living in the civil state. The idea of social contract whereby the state
originated for the first time is a fiction.
4. The theory assumes that primitive man enjoyed ample freedom to enter into contracts
with his fellow men. Sir Henry Maine's historical researches have disproved this.
Primitive society was governed by communal laws and the individual was not free to
change his status through contract. Individual's position was determined in society.
Primitive society rested not upon contract but upon status. Maine shows that the
movement of societies has been from one of status to one of contract. Contract is not
the beginning but end of society. Under such conditions, the idea of free contracting
individuals forming a state, seems highly improbable.
Legal
1. A contract, in order to be valid, must be backed and enforced by adequate sanctions.
But there is no such sanction behind the contract among primitive men for the
formation of a political society. There was no common authority in the state of nature
to enforce it. In the words of T. H. Green, "the covenant by which a civil power is for
the first time constituted cannot be a valid covenant. The men making it are not in a
position to make a valid covenant at all".

2. If the original contract has no legal meaning and validity, all subsequent contracts based
upon it are equally invalid, and the rights and obligations derived from it have no legal
foundation.
3. It is illogical to suppose that the original contract made by one generation of people
should bind succeeding generations who have had no say in the matter at all. As a
matter of fact each generation must be free to shape its own future.Tom Paine
criticized the conception of contract for being eternally binding on future generations.
He asserted: "Every age and generation must be as free to act for itself in all cases as
the age and generations which preceded it".
4.
5. A contract presupposes at least two parties who must be bound by its terms and
conditions. But the contract in Hobbes's writing does not bind the sovereign who is not
a party but a product of it. Such a notion of contract is one-sided and illegal.
Philosophical
1. The social contract theory is highly mechanical which reduces the state to an artificial
creation of man. State is the most natural and universal of all social institutions and
membership of it is compulsory" The relation between the individual and the state is not
a voluntary one. Individuals are born into the state. State is the result of slow, gradual
growth. Various factors like Kinship, religion, force, economic activities and political
consciousness have gone into its making and evolution. It was not created abruptly at
any particular point of time by the voluntary choice of individuals.
2. The theory reduces the relationship between the individual and the state to some sort
of partnership. The obligations of the individuals to the state are not contractual at all.
Individuals are not free to enter it or withdraw his membership at will. Burke states
this point well. "It ought not to be considered as nothing better than a partnership
agreement in a trade of pepper and coffee, calico or tobacco or some other such low
concern, to be taken up for a little temporary interest and to be dissolved by the fancy
of the parties It is to be looked on with other reverence. It is a partnership in all
science, a partnership in all art, a partnership in every virtue and in all perfection. As
the ends of such a partnership cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a
partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living,
those who are dead, and those who are to be born".
3. The entire concept of the state of nature and laws of nature is fallacious. It is wrong to
assume that whatever preceded the formation of the state is "natural" and whatever
has followed it is artificial. "Man is a part of nature and the state is the highest
expression of his nature. The state is a growth and not a manufacture";

4. T. H. Green aptly remarks that "it implies the possibility of rights and obligations
independently of society". The idea that men enjoyed natural rights in the state of
nature is false. Rights and obligations are possible only in the state and not prior to its
existence.
5. According to Bluntschli, the social contract theory is in the highest degree dangerous,
since it makes the state and its institutions the product of individual caprice. The
theory is favourable to anarchy and encourages revolution. If the state is the creation
of men they could overthrow it when they so desire. It undermines reverence for the
state and has paved the way for great revolutions and unrests.

Value of the theory

In spite of the above inadequacies and weakness of the social contract theory, we cannot
overlook its elements of truth. It has been rejected as an explanation of the historical
origin of the state. But as an explanation of the right relations between the state and
individuals or the ground of political obligation, it is more satisfactory than theories of
divine origin and force. It provides a satisfactory and human explanation of the fact of
political authority and duty of obedience rendered by men in political societies.
1. It emphasizes the role of human will in the formation and continuance of political
institutions. It laid down the fundamental truth that obedience to political authority
rested on .the voluntary consent of free individuals, and that the powers that be had no
right to act arbitrarily. In working out this truth, the theory laid down the foundation
of democracy. Locke's idea of "consent" and Rousseau's concept of "general will" served
as the basis for modern democracy.
2. The theory emphasizes the importance of the individual and the human purposes for
which the state exists and the government exercises its authority. Political institutions
are not sacrosanct; they exist for human welfare. Human beings can modify such
institutions to serve their needs and purposes.
3. The theory was primarily responsible for discrediting the theory of divine origin and
thereby rejecting the claims of absolute monarchs and despots.
4. The contribution of the modern contractualists to the theory of sovereignty has been
tremendous. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau were the champions of legal, political and
popular sovereignty respectively. Again Locke's theory of separation of powers, as a
safeguard of political liberty was later developed by Montesquieu. Although Hobbes's
writings have an anti-democratic undertone, his emphasis on secularism (subordination
of the Church to the State) helped the cause of democracy.
10

5. The theory emphasized the value of rights. Men form political societies for the
protection of certain fundamental rights like rights to life, liberty and property. Right,
not might, becomes the basis of the state. People possess the inherent right of
resistance against unlawful and despotic authority.
Decline of the Theory
The growth of historical and empirical methods of enquiry administered a severe blow to
the social contract theory primarily based on speculation and deductive methods of
reasoning. Darwin's theory of biological evolution influenced different disciplines and led
to the evolutionary theory of the origin of political institutions. State was considered as
the result of slow, gradual growth, rather than a manufacture based on social contract.
The Patriarchal Theory
The patriarchal and matriarchal theories, jointly known as the "Kinship theories" seek to
explain the origin of the state in terms of the expansion of the family which is the oldest
social organization and basic unit of society. The state is an expanded family. The family
served the simplest and earliest link in the evolution of the most complex of all human
organizations the state. Long back Aristotle believed that the state came into existence
as a result of the natural expansion of the family.
Sir Henry Maine, the chief advocate of the patriarchal theory, stated it in his
books Ancient Law (1861) and Early History of Institutions (1875). He defines it as "the
theory\of the origin of society in separate families, held together .by the authority and
protection of the eldest male descendant". Maine derived his historical evidence from
three sources: (i) accounts by contemporary observers of civilizations less advanced than
their own; (ii) records which particular races (e.g. the Greeks) have preserved concerning
their primitive history; and (iii) ancient law (e.g. Roman and Hindu). Maine believed that the
unit of primitive society was the family, not the individual. Descent was traced through
males and the eldest male parent possessed supreme power. His power extended to life
and death over his children, the houses and the slaves. The single family broke up into
more families which were held together by the head of the first family (the Chief or
Patriarch ). The multiplication of families held under the supreme control of one head and
bound by kinship (blood relationship) led to the origin of the tribe. In course of time
tribes proliferated. When several tribes belonging to the same kin-group acted together
for common purposes, especially for defence, and rallied round a common authority, the
state came into existence. As Maine explained this process of development in his "Ancient
Law". The elementary group is the family connected by common subjection to the highest
male ascendant. The aggregation of families forms the genes or house. The aggregation of
houses makes the tribe. The aggregation of tribes constitutes the common wealth".
The state is thus an extension of the family. It is the family writ large. In support
11

of his theory Maine provides examples of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament, the
"Brotherhoods of Athens, the patria protests in Rome and the joint family system in
India.
The theory is based on three fundamental assumptions: (i) That the patriarchal
family is based on permanent marriages and male kinship. Members of the patriarchal
family traced their descent through males (ii) That the state is a collection of persons
descended from the progenitor of an original family; and (iii) That the ultimate source of
political authority is traced back to the supreme power exercised by the head of the
patriarchal family who on his deathbed bequeathed to his successor all the power he
enjoyed.
Criticism
1. It is held that patriarchal family system was by no means universal. McLennan, Morgan
and Jenks, the exponents of the Matriarchal theory have held that in early societies
descent could be traced through females on account of the existence of polyandry.
They seek, to prove that the matriarchal system was the earlier social organization and
the patriarchal system developed later when p01yandry developed into monogamous
family in subsequent phase.
2. It has been further argued that the process of social evolution is just the reverse of
what Henry Maine contended. According to Jenks, the tribe instead of the family is the
earliest and primary group. The tribes break into clans, clans to households and then
finally come the family. Jenks cites the examples of some primitive races such as those
of Australia and the Malaya Archipelago in support of his contention.
3. The assumption of the institution of permanent marriage in primitive societies is held to
be untenable. The existence of polyandry and transient marriage relationships in some
primitive communities run counter to the universality of the patriarchal system.
4. The theory does not account for the origin of the state. Critics say that it is at best a
speculation into the beginnings of early society, particularly the family. The state as
the most complex organization came into being as a result of the interplay of many
factors and forces.
5. MacIver holds that the family is the basis of government, rather than of the state.
Government may be regarded as "the continuation and expansion of the regulation
developed within the family". Besides the family, the elements which lead to the
formation of the state are, according to MacIver property, customary law, war and
conquest. However, the theory has the merit of drawing our attention to the role of
kinship in the making of the state.
The Matriarchal Theory
The Chief exponents of the matriarchal theory are Mc Lennan (Primitive Society, 1865 ),
Morgan (Studies in Ancient Society, 1877) and Jenks (A History of Politics, 1900). As
distinguished from the patriarchal theory, this theory holds that matriarchal family is the
12

earliest form of social organization. Descent in such societies was traced through females.
Evolving through a number of stages the matriarchal family ultimately gave rise to the
state.
The aborigines of Australia and certain communities in India provide illustrations of the
matriarchal system. The fundamental features of this society are:
1. Transient marriage relationships,
2. Female kinship,
3. Maternal authority, and
4. Succession of only females to property and power.

According to the supporters of this theory polyandry (one woman having several
husbands) and transient marriage relationships were more common in primitive society.
Under such a system the usual husband-wife relationship was non-existent. Instead of
family, there were loosely connected groups or "hordes" within which promiscuous sexual
relations prevailed. Children belonged to the clan of the mother. On account of the
prevalence of exogamy, the father belonged to a clan separate from that of the mother.
Under such a system descent was traced through the mother; for as Jenks pointed out,
motherhood in such cases was a fact, while paternity was only an opinion. Jenks illustrated
the system from the living conditions of Australian aborigines who live in "packs" or
"totem-groups" and may not marry within the totem. Rejecting Maine's contention that the
process of social evolution started from the family, he held that the earliest group was
the tribe which broke into clans and later into households and families. With the advent of
pastoral life and settled living, monogamous or polygamous marriage system gave rise to
patriarchal family.
Criticism
1. Sociological and anthropological researches have proved that neither patriarchal nor
matriarchal family system was universe in primitive societies. It is incorrect to regard
matriarchal family as the oldest form of social organization everywhere.
2. According to MacIver the terms "matriarchal" and "matriarchate" implying some sort of
"mother-rule" or "woman-rule" are misleading. For, in primitive society woman was "the
agent of transmission, not the active wielder or even the participant of power".
3. Other factors and elements besides "kinship" stressed by patriarchal and matriarchal
theories have entered into the origin of the state.
4. It is not possible to believe that a complex social organization like the state developed
through the expansion of the family, whether patriarchal or matriarchal. As Willoughby
observes: "It would not be true to say that the state developed out of this small social
unit. The two institutions are different in essence. In the family the location of
13

authority is natural (i.e., in the father). In the state it is one of choice. Subordination is
the principle of the family; equality that of the state. Furthermore, the functions or
aims of the state are essentially different from, and even contradictory to those of the
family".
The conclusion to which we are led with regard to both the patriarchal and
matriarchal theories is that they are "more sociological than political". They seek to
explain the origin of the family rather than that of the state. Nonetheless they highlight a
vital element in the formation and evolution of the state, namely, kinship.
Evolutionary or Historical Theory of the origin of the State:
The theories discussed so far, for reasons already stated, have been rejected as
unsatisfactory. The generally accepted and most satisfactory theory of the origin of the
state is known as the evolutionary or historical theory. In rejecting the earlier theories
largely based on speculation Garner writes: "The state is neither the handiwork of God,
nor the result of superior physical force, nor the creation of resolution or convention, nor
a mere expansion of the family".
According to the evolutionary theory, "the state is growth, not a make". It is the
product of a gradual evolutionary process in which more than one factor participated. It is
a historical growth and a continuous development. Leacock says, "The state is a growth, an
evolution, the result of gradual process, running throughout all the known history of man
and receding into remote and unknown past". The state was not created at any single point
of time. Its origin lies in the long evolutionary process through which it has passed. As
Burgess puts it: "The proposition that the state is a product of history means that it is a
gradual and continuous development of human society out of a grossly imperfect beginning
through crude but improving forms of manifestation towards a perfect and universal
organization of mankind".5 Slowly and imperceptibly, the state developed from simple to a
complex political organization of the modern type. As Gettell writes: "Like all other social
institutions, the state arose from any sources and under various conditions, and it emerged
almost imperceptibly. No clear-cut division can be made between earlier forms of social
organizations that were not states and later forms that were states, the one shading off
gradually into the other".
The evolutionary theory highlights the forces and factors that created the
necessary unity and organization in early social groups out of which the state emerged.
The following factors and influences have been considered significant for the origin and
evolution of the state.
Kinship
Kinship or blood relationship was the first and strongest bond in early society. The belief
in common descent bound the early people together. Kinship bound family members
14

together and they subjected themselves to the authority of the head of the family, either
a matriarch or a patriarch. W. Wilson points out that government must have begun in
clearly defined family discipline. In course of time blood relationship went beyond the
boundaries of the original family. Families developed into clan and clans into
tribes and when a tribal chief conquered and subjugated other tribes and established his
sway over a sizeable territory, the state emerged. MacIver maintains that "the authority
of the father passes into the power of the chief Kinship creates society and society at
length creates the state". The contribution of kinship to the development of the concepts
of authority and obedience cannot be minimized as it imparted a feeling of unity and social
cohesion which is essential to political life and organizations.
Religion
Along with kinship, religion played an important part in forging the links of unity in
primitive society. As Gettell observes, kinship and religion were simply two aspects of the
same thing. Common worship strengthened the bond of unity among families, clans and
tribes. This worship evolved from animism (worship of. natural forces) to ancestorworship. Common belief in Gods and deities and worship of common ancestors served to
promote community discipline and group solidarity. The head of the family, clan or tribe
became the chief-priest, magic man and the medicine man. Most of the early rulers were
priest -cum- Kings. Religion provided the sanction for law and customs. It subordinated
barbaric anarchy and accustomed early man to authority and discipline. It was a unifying
force in early communities. Long after Kinship ceased to bind the people together because
of expanding social organizations, religion was a sufficient binding force to unite people
into dynasties and to create states.
Force and War
In early times, wars and conquests brought into existence larger political units. With the
weakening of the bonds of kinship and religion consequent upon the expansion of the group,
open use of force was necessary for maintaining peace and order and securing unity and
obedience to laws and customs. Force was also necessary for purposes of defence and
attack. War brought together families, clans and tribes under the leadership of the tribal
chief. Survival of the fittest was the rule in early societies. Demands of constant warfare
led to the rise of permanent leadership. Coercive force exercised by leaders laid down the
foundation of the sovereign state. Further, war and conquest helped to give the state the
mark of territoriality. Force was the Chief instrument of the territorial expansion of the
state. MacIver writes, "Conquest and domination was the pathway of the extended State".
Great empires had been built up by the use of military force. Soltau aptly observes:
"Struggle and warfare are therefore historically a most important element in state
formation, and it is certain that the union of two groups even by force, develops after a
while common interests, out of which is born a sense of unity".7 Force has been a factor in
the origin, expansion and maintenance of the state.

15

Economic Factors
Gettell writes, "The economic activities by which men secured food and shelter, and later
accumulated property and wealth, were important factors in state building". Cooperation is
necessary for every form of economic activity. Primitive men, passing through different
stages of economic life like huntsmen, herdsmen and husbandsmen evolved roles and
regulations to govern their common life. These rules and regulations contained the nucleus
of the state. With the development of agriculture, primitive people settled in fixed places
permanently. Permanent residence and secure income from agriculture gave rise to the
idea of private property and social distinction based on wealth. The need for protecting
property and regulating complex economic activities hastened the process of governmental
regulation and the emergence of the state.

Political Consciousness
Man is by nature a political animal. Common consciousness among men for order, security
and welfare gave rise to early political organizations. People organized themselves under
political authority and rendered willing obedience to its commands in order to solve their
manifold problems and to promote common welfare. Thus the state came into being
because people wanted it and voluntarily submitted to rules and regulations of social living.
The day people realized that the advantages of organizing politically with others were
greater than those of living an independent, isolated life, political consciousness had
dawned upon them and the stage was set for the formation of political authority. With the
growing complexity of political organizations, instinctive desire was gradually replaced by
conscious purpose. Political consciousness thus provided the psychological basis of the
state, by preparing the people to obey the laws and commands of the state voluntarily.
It is said that the evolutionary theory highlights the evolution and not the origin of
the state. One cannot say with precision as to when and at what point of time, the state
emerged simply because as MacIver observes, "Origins are always obscure". A complex
social organization like the state is a product of slow and steady evolution. It is the
outcome of various factors and forces which have acted both separately and conjointly at
different historical periods. The evolutionary theory, based on a pluralistic explanation, is
the most satisfactory one as it takes into account the multifarious factors and forces that
have operated in the formation and growth of the state.
REFERENCES
1. A. Roy and M. Bhattacharya, Political Theory: Ideas and Institutions, Calcutta, The
World
Press, Ninth ed. 1985, P.58.
2. R.N. Gilchrist, Principles of Political Science, London, Longmans, P.74.
16

3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

S.Leacock, Elemecnts of Political Science, London, Constable.

Willoughby, The Nature of the State, P.20.
Quoted by A.Appadorai, The Substance of Politics, OUP, Seventh editft}n, 1954, P.38.
RM. Mac Iver, The Modem State, London, OUP, 1926, P.33
Soltau, An Introduction to Politics, P 53.
Gettell, Introduction to Political Science, P .65.

17