Political theory question

[Sir Og]

People come up with various "excuses" to group together because grouping together is beneficial.

Some ideas for grouping together are better and work for a more varied population.

It seem also that most people not only want to group but want there to be a competing group. Nobody seems to want to group together with the whole world. I guess that it seems that grouping with the whole world is the same as no grouping.

[Colonâ„¢]

People come up with various "excuses" to group together because grouping together is beneficial.

Well yes, exactly. And it seems rather reasonable to say there are several categories of such excuses.

[Aeson]

If you apply it mechanically it doesn't work, but I don't think you're supposed to apply anything mechanically in a social science.

Yes. In social science you should never talk specifically about why things actually happen. Instead you should make sweeping generalizations in vague vocabulary and hope no one ever calls you on it (at least not before you get a book deal ... afterwards it's good for publicity to have a flame war).

And it does seem to fit with a lot of going-ons in countries. For instance, is it coincidence that at a time people the authorithy of the monarchy is on the wane that separatism has become such a major issue in the UK, Spain and Belgium?

Because there never were separatists in the UK when the Monarchy were strong?

It sounds like some vague mumbo-jumbo someone made up because they want to try to support Monarchy as anything other than a stupid relic from the past.

Or take the ACW: the one time the US was in danger of falling apart it wasn't about a specific ruler or ethnicity, but about political ideas.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with this. If you're trying to prove there are 3 types of X, proving that the 3 things have had effects is not of any use. You have to disprove the countless other factors ever have effect.

[Colonâ„¢]

Are you taking issue with the whole idea that there are broad categories of forces that cement states or do you merely disagree there's just 3 of them?

[Aeson]

Are you taking issue with the whole idea that there are broad categories of forces that cement states or do you merely disagree there's just 3 of them?

I disagree that there's 3 of them of course. Since there are certainly others which don't fall into those broad categories. I also think that the categories are much too broad to be of any actual use.

I also disagree with your premise that somehow having a weaker monarchy would necessarily increase separatism ... as in many cases strong monarchies were the impetus for the creation of separatist movements.

[The Mad Monk]

What do you think of Hobbes' argument that there are only three kinds of Sovereign?

[Aeson]

The difference between people composes in the genitalia. Either one haseth a dicky, or one haseth a vagina, or one haseth both. Forsooth I say, Hobbes is a man, and as sucheth, should aughteth be seeneth as any othereth of his fellows.

[The Mad Monk]

[snoopy369]

I'm a little confused by Germany being the example of "one people". Germany is made of quite a few different people, who together make the Germanic tribes... along with the folks in France and some of the British.

Personally the OP theory sounds like like a tautology; the terms were defined such that they included everything, but they don't really add much value to political theory. "Religion" certainly needs to be its own category, for one; it's not really ideology in the same sense it is used for, say, America. And there should also be a category for "common protection from bullies" (ie, grouping together to form one nation because otherwise you're a bunch of little countries that everyone picks on); Germany and Italy both largely exist for that reason (Prussia bullied the other Germanic states into joining, but it was largely by showing them that Prussia was capable of making them a power on the international front.)

[Aeson]

If you need an interpretation, just ask ...

[The Mad Monk]

I'm in the middle of reading it so I understand the humor, I was just hoping for something different.

[Aeson]

I will take that to mean whatever point you thought you had by bringing up Hobbes was soundly thrashed by my treatise on genitalia. Thank you for your concession

[The Mad Monk]

[Aeson]

I'm in the middle of reading it so I understand the humor, I was just hoping for something different.

I thought about labeling him a philosopher, and thus of the category "not worth listening to". (The other categories being "worth listening to" and "somewhat worth listening to".)

[C0ckney]

And it does seem to fit with a lot of going-ons in countries. For instance, is it coincidence that at a time people the authorithy of the monarchy is on the wane that separatism has become such a major issue in the UK, Spain and Belgium?

i think it might well be a coincidence. spain didn't have a monarch from 1931 until 1975. under franco's dictatorship, obviously political freedom of expression, including separatism, was limited. so you might see an increase in it since then as a natural consequences of the liberalisation of society. in the UK separatism has been on the rise, especially in scotland, but i don't think this is linked to the monarchy. the monarchy is still popular in the UK, and the scottish nationalists, calling for independence, have promised to keep the queen as their head of state. presumably, if this were not popular, they wouldn't do it.

as for authority, i'm not sure. the king belgium and the queen have (as far as i know) more or less the same powers as they had 30 or 40 years ago. if by authority, you mean relevance or respect, then i would say that this is probably linked to a more general disengagement from politics (lower turnouts, fewer people joining political parties etc.), which has taken place in western europe in the last generation. this lessening of trust in, and respect for, political institutions, probably aids the cause of separatists.

there has also been a trend in europe in the last 30 years towards different national identities wanting their own country. this has happened mostly in eastern europe and the balkans (the soviet republics, the former yugoslavia, czechoslovakia etc.), but i don't think this has had no impact in western europe.