The Great Illusion · Chapter
The State as a Person: A False Analogy and Its Consequences explained
This chapter argues that the common analogy of a state to a person is fundamentally false and leads to dangerous consequences.
What happens
This chapter argues that the common analogy of a state to a person is fundamentally false and leads to dangerous consequences. It contends that modern states are not homogeneous entities with a single will or responsibility, but are composed of diverse groups with conflicting interests and moral conceptions. The chapter critiques thinkers like Professor Spenser Wilkinson who rely on this analogy to justify the necessity of war, pointing out that collective responsibility is diminishing and that economic and moral interdependence across state borders is increasing. It uses the example of Anglo-German rivalry to show how the idea of a unified national enemy is an abstraction that ignores internal opposition to armaments. The chapter concludes that the real divisions in society, such as those of religion or political ideology, cut across state lines, making the state a poor proxy for the 'person' that is supposedly being defended or attacked.
Themes in this chapter
False Analogy of State as Person
The central theme of the chapter, arguing that the state is not a homogeneous person and that this analogy is a fatal error in political and military thinking.
Interdependence of Nations
The chapter argues that economic and moral interdependence is growing across state borders, breaking down the psychological divisions that the state-as-person analogy reinforces.
Changeability of Human Nature
The chapter asserts that human nature and collective responsibility are changing, with a drift away from physical force and a diminution of pugnacity, contradicting the idea of unchanging national hostility.
Role of Public Opinion
The chapter discusses how public opinion, as shaped by figures like Mr. Blatchford, can be based on false abstractions like 'the German', and how this contrasts with the actual diversity of opinion within nations.
Characters to notice
- Spenser Wilkinson
Quoted at length for his argument that the State's fundamental function is the employment of force, which the author critiques as relying on the false analogy of the State as a person.
- Aristotle
Mentioned as the source of an outdated conception of the State that some still appeal to as final, ignoring the changes since his time.
- Robert Blatchford
Cited for his articles claiming Germany is deliberately preparing to destroy the British Empire and is homogeneous, which the author refutes as a dangerous untruth.
- Norman Angell
The author, who presents the chapter's argument against the false analogy of the state as a person and its consequences for international conflict.
Key passages
“Despite the common idea to the contrary, we dearly love an abstraction—especially, apparently, an abstraction which is based on half the facts.”
People are fond of simplifying complex realities into neat but incomplete concepts, even when those concepts ignore crucial facts.
The author introduces the chapter's core critique of the abstract and misleading conception of the state as a unified person.
“Now, our international hostilities are largely based on the notion of a collective responsibility in each of the various States against which our hostility is directed, which does not, in fact, exist.”
Our anger towards other nations assumes that the entire population of that nation is collectively responsible for its government's actions, but this is not a reality.
This is a key argument explaining how the false analogy leads to misplaced hostility, using the example of English anger towards 'the German'.
“The real divisions of all those ideals, which the critic enumerates, cut right across State divisions, disregarding them entirely.”
The true lines of division in society, such as those based on religion or political ideology, do not follow national borders and often unite people across them.
The author uses this point to show that the state is not the embodiment of a single set of ideals, making the state-as-person analogy even more untenable.
