Organic Theory of State Origin

Comparisons of the state with the organism by its origin are no less ancient than political atomism . Their origin must also be sought in pre-scientific concepts — in the “natural” way of thinking, which instinctively in its characteristics of the state applies such concepts as the “ political whole ”, “ head of state ”, its “ members ”, “ organs ” of the state, its “Controls” or “functions”, etc. ^[1]

Plato at the base of his political philosophy lays the assimilation of the state to the individual: the state is more perfect, the more it is like an individual. Aristotle likewise encounters a comparison of a state (many) with one person - many-legged, many-armed, with many feelings. John of Salisbury , referring to Plutarch , characterizes the state as an organism similar to the human body (the clergy are the soul of the state and, as such, have power over the whole body, not excluding the head of the state, that is, the sovereign). Hobbes , Spinoza , Russo have analogies. ^[2]

Erasmus of Rotterdam said so about organic theory in the famous satire "Praise of Stupidity" ^[3] :

What calmed the Roman plebs, ready to destroy the republic? Is it not a philosophical dissertation? Not at all! Just a ridiculous childish fable about the womb and members of the human body.

This refers to the tradition of how in 494 BC. e. Roman plebeians, indignant at the brutal oppression by the patricians, left Rome and retired to the Sacred Mountain (not far from the city). Ambassador of the Patricians Menenius Agrippa pacified the people, telling a fable about the members of the human body that rebelled against the stomach, for which they themselves were paid with extreme exhaustion.

Hegel pointed out that the definition of the state cannot be, that the state is an organism, that is, the development of an idea in its differences. "The nature of the organism is such that if not all its parts become identical, if one of them considers itself independent, then everyone should die. Using predicates, principles, etc., one cannot also reach a judgment on the state in which one should see organism, using predicates, it is impossible to comprehend the nature of God, whose life I must contemplate in myself. " ^[four]

Chollen defined the term “ geopolitics ” as follows: this is the science of the state as a geographical organism embodied in space. R. Chellen's thesis: "the state is a living organism." This is developed in his main work “The State as a Life Form ”: “The State is not an accidental or artificial conglomerate of various aspects of human life, held together only by the formulas of legalists; it is deeply rooted in historical and concrete realities, it is characterized by organic growth, it is an expression of the same fundamental type as a person. In a word, it represents a biological entity or living creature. As such, it follows the growth law: ... strong, viable states with limited space obey the categorical imperative of expanding their space through colonization, merger or conquest ” ^[5]

In “Political Geography” by F. Ratzel , which formed the basis of geopolitics, a number of fundamental ideas are given: 1) the state is an organism that is born, lives, ages and dies; 2) the growth of the state as an organism is due to "soil"; 3) the properties of the state are made up of the properties of the people and territory; 4) the “historical landscape” leaves its mark on the citizen of the state; 5) the “living space” (lebensraum) is decisive in the life of the state. In accordance with these ideas, the scientist gives the following definition: “The state is formed as an organism attached to a certain part of the earth’s surface, and its characteristics develop from the characteristics of the people and the soil.” ^[6]

The following analogies are drawn: the constituent structural unit of the state as an organism is the family (in biology, the cell ); police - the immune system ^[7] ; money, economics - the circulatory system ^[2] .

Currently, this theory is rejected by the vast majority of Russian-language sources. N. N. Alekseev writes that no communication can be an organism, but some complex relationship between social units, monads or souls. That which is an organism or a personality is not a society, just as a society can never be an organism or a personality. These ideas can be applied to society only figuratively or conditionally, but even so they will do more harm than good, since they will bring an unlimited number of concepts alien to it in sociology ^[8] . F. F. Kokoshkin wrote that the relations of power and subordination that exist in the state and the dependence of parts of the body on the whole are different phenomena. In the second case, this is a physiological phenomenon, which has the character of absolute necessity, and in the first, psychological , interaction between individual consciousnesses, which does not have such a need ^[9] .

MM Kovalevsky considered drawing analogies between the functions of the state and state institutions with the functions of the body unscientific ^[10] . He wrote: “from the whole organic theory in the future only the concept of the state as something arising regardless of the contract of people will survive” ^[11] .