Seeing Like a State
Tags: #history #politics #sociology #anthropology #economics #power #knowledge
Authors: James C. Scott
 (Z-Library)_thumbnail.jpg)
Overview
In ‘Seeing Like a State,’ I explore how states and large organizations simplify complex social realities to make them more legible and controllable. This simplification, often driven by a high-modernist ideology that celebrates rational planning and scientific progress, can lead to disastrous social engineering projects that ignore local knowledge and the complexities of human behavior.
My argument is not a blanket condemnation of planning or progress, but rather a critique of an authoritarian, top-down approach that fails to appreciate the value of practical, experiential knowledge. I use a variety of historical examples to illustrate this process, from scientific forestry and urban planning to Soviet collectivization and Tanzanian villagization.
I introduce the concept of ‘metis,’ a Greek term for practical knowledge gained through experience, as a key antidote to the thin simplifications of high modernism. Metis, I argue, is essential for navigating complex, dynamic environments, but it is often overlooked or suppressed by those who believe they possess a superior, scientific understanding of the world.
Ultimately, ‘Seeing Like a State’ is a call for greater humility and flexibility in the design and implementation of social and environmental policies. By embracing the wisdom of local communities and the adaptability of metis, we can create more resilient, sustainable, and humane forms of social order. The insights in this book are particularly relevant to those working in fields like AI and technology, where there is a danger of replicating the hubris and shortsightedness of high modernism in the pursuit of efficiency and control.
Book Outline
1. Nature and Space
States often simplify complex realities to make them more legible and controllable. I use the metaphor of scientific forestry to demonstrate this, tracing how states narrowed their focus solely on commercial timber, ignoring the complex ecological and social functions of forests. This simplification, while increasing efficiency in the short run, led to long-term ecological damage and vulnerability. Centralized planning, I argue, often functions like an abridged map, representing only what is of interest to the state and ignoring the rest.
Key concept: This view of early modern statecraft is not particularly original. Suitably modified, however, it can provide a distinctive optic through which a number of huge development fiascoes in poorer Third World nations and Eastern Europe can be usefully viewed.
2. Cities, People, and Language
This chapter extends the concept of legibility to urban planning, using the contrast between the medieval city of Bruges and the planned grid of Chicago. I argue that the seemingly chaotic, irregular layout of Bruges privileged local knowledge and provided a measure of autonomy, while the legible grid of Chicago facilitates centralized administration and control. Standardized street plans, house numbering, and last names all enhance the state’s capacity to locate and monitor its citizens.
Key concept: Historically, the relative illegibility to outsiders of some urban neighborhoods (or of their rural analogues, such as hills, marshes, and forests) has provided a vital margin of political safety from control by outside elites.
3. Authoritarian High Modernism
In this chapter, I introduce high modernism as a driving force behind large-scale social engineering projects. High modernism, I argue, is characterized by a strong faith in scientific and technological progress, the rational design of social order, and the state’s ability to improve society. This ideology, while appearing in both left- and right-wing variants, often leads to an authoritarian disregard for local knowledge and the complex realities of existing social arrangements. The result, I argue, can be disastrous social engineering projects that fail to achieve their stated goals.
Key concept: The troubling features of high modernism derive, for the most part, from its claim to speak about the improvement of the human condition with the authority of scientific knowledge and its tendency to disallow other competing sources of judgment.
4. The High-Modernist City: An Experiment and a Critique
This chapter explores the work of the architect and urban planner Le Corbusier as a case study of high-modernist design. Le Corbusier’s plans for cities like Paris and Rio de Janeiro were notable for their monumental scale, their emphasis on functional segregation, and their reliance on standardized, repetitive forms. This vision, while aesthetically striking, failed to account for the dynamic, complex social life of cities. His work also highlights the authoritarian implications of high-modernist planning, as it relies on a centralized “Plan” and a powerful state to impose that Plan on the populace.
Key concept: Time is a fatal handicap to the baroque conception of the world: its mechanical order makes no allowances for growth, change, adaptation, and creative renewal.
5. The Revolutionary Party: A Plan and a Diagnosis
This chapter examines the ideas of Lenin as another case study of high-modernist thought. Just as Le Corbusier sought to impose order on the urban landscape, Lenin sought to engineer a revolution and build a socialist society. Lenin’s conception of the vanguard party, with its emphasis on centralized control, discipline, and a top-down flow of knowledge, reflects a high-modernist faith in the power of scientific planning and a deep distrust of the spontaneous creativity of the masses. His vision, I argue, ultimately contributed to the authoritarian nature of the Soviet state.
Key concept: Feeling, Comrade C, is a mass element, but thought is organization. Comrade Lenin said that organization is the highest of all of us.
6. Soviet Collectivization, Capitalist Dreams
This chapter examines the disastrous consequences of high-modernist planning in Soviet collectivization. Driven by a desire to procure grain for industrialization and a belief in large-scale, mechanized agriculture, the Soviet state forcibly collectivized millions of peasant farms. The result, I argue, was a catastrophic decline in agricultural production, widespread famine, and the destruction of peasant society. Collectivization demonstrates the dangers of ignoring local knowledge and the complex ecological and social relations that undergird successful agriculture.
Key concept: The aim of collectivization, he said in May 1928, was ‘to transfer from small, backward, and fragmented peasant farms to consolidated, big, public farms, provided with machines, equipped with the data of science, and capable of producing the greatest quantity of grain for the market.’
7. Compulsory Villagization in Tanzania: Aesthetics and Miniaturization
This chapter analyzes the Tanzanian Ujamaa village campaign as a case study of high-modernist social engineering in a postcolonial context. While Nyerere’s vision of ujamaa was more benevolent than Soviet collectivization, it nevertheless shared a similar faith in centralized planning, village resettlement, and large-scale agricultural production. I demonstrate how this program, despite its good intentions, resulted in ecological damage, economic inefficiency, and popular resistance.
Key concept: Negara mawi tata, desa mawi cara (The capital has its order, the village its customs).
8. Taming Nature: An Agriculture of Legibility and Simplicity
I explore the limitations of scientific agriculture, particularly its tendency to simplify complex ecological and social processes. I contrast the narrow focus on yields and profit with the broader concerns of sustainability and food security. I argue that monocropping, while offering short-term gains, creates vulnerability to pests and diseases, while polyculture, often dismissed as backward, proves more resilient and adaptable. Similarly, I challenge the indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers, highlighting the importance of soil fertility and the complex interplay of factors that influence plant nutrition.
Key concept: The best fertilizer on any farm is the footsteps of the owner.
9. Thin Simplifications and Practical Knowledge: Metis
This chapter introduces metis, a Greek term for practical knowledge gained through experience and skillful adaptation. I argue that metis, often overlooked or dismissed by high modernists, is essential to navigating complex, dynamic environments. It is locally specific, context-dependent, and continually evolving. While scientific knowledge excels in well-defined, controlled settings, metis is indispensable in the face of uncertainty and unpredictability. I explore examples of metis in navigation, medicine, agriculture, and other fields, demonstrating its value in a world where unforeseen events and unforeseen consequences are the norm.
Key concept: Metis is most applicable to broadly similar but never precisely identical situations requiring a quick and practiced adaptation that becomes almost second nature to the practitioner.
10. Conclusion
In this concluding chapter, I reiterate the dangers of combining high-modernist ideology with unchecked state power. The hubris of planners who believe they know better than the people they rule for, combined with an authoritarian state’s ability to impose its plans, often leads to disastrous consequences. While not arguing against planning or progress, I advocate for an approach that embraces humility, flexibility, and a deep respect for the local knowledge and practical skills of those who live and work in the environments being planned.
Key concept: If such schemes have typically taken their most destructive human and natural toll in the states of the former socialist bloc and in revolutionary Third World settings, that is surely because there authoritarian state power, unimpeded by representative institutions, could nullify resistance and push ahead.
Essential Questions
1. How and why do states attempt to make societies ‘legible,’ and what are the consequences of this simplification?
States simplify complex social realities to make them more legible and thus controllable. I argue that this simplification, while appearing to enhance state capacity, often leads to unintended consequences and undermines the very goals it seeks to achieve. Using the metaphor of scientific forestry, I demonstrate how the state’s focus on commercial timber leads to ecological damage and vulnerability. I extend this analysis to other domains, such as urban planning, land tenure, and agriculture, showing how the state’s quest for legibility can simplify, and thus distort, the complexities of human society.
2. What is ‘high modernism,’ and how does it contribute to the failures of large-scale social engineering projects?
High modernism is a faith in scientific and technological progress, rational planning, and the ability of the state to improve society. It often involves a utopian vision of a transformed future and a disregard for traditional practices and local knowledge. While not inherently authoritarian, high modernism can, when combined with unchecked state power, lead to disastrous social engineering projects that damage the lives and livelihoods of those it seeks to improve. Examples include Soviet collectivization, Tanzanian villagization, and Le Corbusier’s urban planning schemes.
3. What is ‘metis,’ and why is it essential for understanding the limits of centralized planning and for creating more effective and adaptable institutions?
Metis refers to a kind of practical knowledge gained through experience and skillful adaptation. It is locally specific, context-dependent, and continually evolving. Metis enables people to navigate complex, dynamic environments, make sound judgments in the face of uncertainty, and solve problems creatively. High modernism often ignores or suppresses metis, favoring instead standardized, top-down solutions that fail to account for local variations and the need for adaptation. By embracing the value of metis, I argue, we can create more resilient, sustainable, and humane social and economic systems.
4. Why do high-modernist projects so often fail, and what are the key lessons to be learned from these failures?
The failures of high-modernist projects often stem from a combination of factors: the inherent complexity and unpredictability of social and natural systems, the hubris of planners who believe they possess a superior, scientific understanding of the world, and the authoritarian nature of states that are able to impose their plans on a largely unwilling population. I argue that a more successful approach would involve taking small steps, favoring reversible interventions, planning for surprises, and above all, respecting the local knowledge and practical skills of those who live and work in the environments being planned.
5. What is the tension between ‘thin simplifications’ and ‘thick’ local knowledge, and how can we navigate this tension in the design of modern institutions?
The tension between ‘thin simplifications’ and ‘thick’ local knowledge highlights a key dilemma of modernity. While simplification and standardization are often necessary for achieving certain goals (e.g., efficient production, public health measures), they can also create brittle, vulnerable systems that are prone to failure and can stifle the creativity and adaptability of individuals and communities. Finding a balance between these two approaches, I argue, is essential for creating a more just, sustainable, and humane world. This balance requires a recognition of the limits of scientific knowledge, a respect for local knowledge and practical skills, and a commitment to democratic and participatory forms of decision-making.
Key Takeaways
1. The importance of local knowledge
The success of any intervention, be it in agriculture, urban planning, or social policy, depends not just on technical expertise but also on a deep understanding of the local context. This includes ecological factors, social relations, cultural practices, and the knowledge and skills of those who live and work in the environments being planned.
Practical Application:
In designing an AI system for agricultural management, it is crucial to incorporate local knowledge and farmer practices. Instead of relying solely on generalized models and data, the AI system should be able to learn from and adapt to the specific conditions of each farm, taking into account factors such as soil type, microclimate, pest pressures, and farmer preferences. This can be achieved through techniques such as machine learning, participatory design, and ongoing feedback from farmers.
2. The dangers of thin simplifications
High-modernist schemes often fail because they rely on simplified models of social and natural systems that ignore the complexities and dynamism of real-world environments. This simplification, while appealing to planners seeking order and control, often leads to unintended consequences and ultimately undermines the effectiveness of the project.
Practical Application:
In developing an AI product, it is important to avoid ‘thin simplifications’ that ignore the complexities of human behavior. For example, an AI assistant designed to schedule meetings should not assume that all participants have the same priorities and preferences. It should be able to learn from user behavior, adapt to individual needs, and accommodate unforeseen events and contingencies. This can be achieved through techniques such as user modeling, reinforcement learning, and flexible scheduling algorithms.
3. The value of metis
Practical knowledge, or metis, is essential for navigating complex, dynamic environments. Metis is gained through experience, skillful adaptation, and a ‘feel’ for the situation. It is often difficult to articulate or codify, yet it is indispensable for making sound judgments in the face of uncertainty. High modernism often undervalues or suppresses metis, leading to rigid, inflexible systems that are prone to failure.
Practical Application:
AI systems, while powerful, should not be designed to replace human judgment and expertise. Rather, they should be tools that augment human capabilities, allowing people to make better informed decisions and to adapt more effectively to complex situations. For example, an AI system for medical diagnosis should not replace the physician but rather provide additional information and insights that assist the physician in making a diagnosis. This requires a design philosophy that embraces human-machine collaboration and respects the limits of both AI and human intelligence.
Suggested Deep Dive
Chapter: Chapter 9: Thin Simplifications and Practical Knowledge: Metis
This chapter delves deeply into the concept of ‘metis,’ offering a nuanced understanding of practical knowledge and its importance in navigating complex, dynamic situations. It provides a framework for understanding the limitations of formal, deductive knowledge and for appreciating the value of experiential learning and adaptation.
Memorable Quotes
Chapter 1: Nature and Space. 18
The controlled environment of the redesigned, scientific forest promised many striking advantages. It could be synoptically surveyed by the chief forester; it could be more easily supervised and harvested according to centralized, long-range plans; it provided a steady, uniform commodity, thereby eliminating one major source of revenue fluctuation; and it created a legible natural terrain that facilitated manipulation and experimentation.
Chapter 2: Cities, People, and Language. 54
The homogenization of measures, then, was part of a larger, emancipatory simplification. At one stroke the equality of all French people before the law was guaranteed by the state; they were no longer mere subjects of their lords and sovereign but bearers of inalienable rights as citizens.
Chapter 3: Authoritarian High Modernism. 120
Modern science, which displaced and replaced God, removed that obstacle [limits on freedom]. It also created a vacancy: the office of the supreme legislatorcum-manager, of the designer and administrator of the world order, was now horrifyingly empty.
Chapter 4: The High-Modernist City: An Experiment and a Critique. 176
It was this failure of the general urban planning models that so preoccupied Jacobs. The planners’ conception of a city accorded neither with the actual economic and social functions of an urban area nor with the (not unrelated) individual needs of its inhabitants. Their most fundamental error was their entirely aesthetic view of order.
Chapter 9: Thin Simplifications and Practical Knowledge: Metis. 385
Formal order, to be more explicit, is always and to some considerable degree parasitic on informal processes, which the formal scheme does not recognize, without which it could not exist, and which it alone cannot create or maintain.
Comparative Analysis
While ‘Seeing Like a State’ shares common ground with other critiques of modernity and development, such as those by Hayek, Foucault, and Jane Jacobs, it offers a distinctive perspective. Hayek focuses primarily on the limitations of centralized economic planning, while Foucault examines the expansion of state power into ever more spheres of social life. Jacobs critiques high-modernist urban planning from the perspective of everyday urban experience. My analysis complements these perspectives by focusing on the epistemic blind spots of high modernism and its disregard for metis, or practical knowledge. I show how this disregard, coupled with an authoritarian state’s ability to impose its plans, often leads to disastrous social engineering projects that fail to achieve their stated goals and often damage the very people and environments they were meant to improve.
Reflection
In ‘Seeing Like a State,’ I offer a critical perspective on the modernist impulse towards simplifying complex realities for the sake of legibility and control. While my analysis draws heavily on historical examples of state-led social engineering projects, its implications extend far beyond the realm of government. In an age of Big Data, algorithmic decision-making, and globalized markets, the temptation to reduce complex social and ecological systems to ‘thin simplifications’ is stronger than ever. My book serves as a cautionary tale, reminding us of the inherent limits of centralized planning and the dangers of ignoring local knowledge and the adaptability of metis.
While I acknowledge the potential benefits of simplification and standardization in certain contexts, I argue that a more nuanced approach is needed for addressing the complex challenges of the 21st century. An uncritical faith in ‘scientific’ solutions, coupled with an authoritarian disregard for local expertise, can lead to disastrous unintended consequences.
By embracing humility, flexibility, and a willingness to learn from the practical knowledge of those who live and work in the environments being planned, we can create more resilient, sustainable, and humane forms of social order.
Flashcards
What is scientific forestry?
The attempt to create a simplified, legible, and controllable version of nature for the purpose of maximizing timber yields.
What is high modernism?
An ideology that emphasizes scientific and technical progress, rational planning, and the state’s ability to improve society.
Who is Le Corbusier?
A French architect and urban planner known for his high-modernist designs, such as the ‘Radiant City’ concept.
What is metis?
Practical knowledge gained through experience and skillful adaptation to a specific environment or task.
What was Soviet collectivization?
The forced collectivization of Soviet agriculture in the 1930s, a prime example of high-modernist planning gone wrong.
What was the Ujamaa village campaign?
Tanzania’s program of forced village resettlement in the 1970s, another case study of high-modernist social engineering.
What is monocropping?
The practice of growing a single crop in a field, often favored by high-modernist agriculture.
What is polyculture?
The practice of growing multiple crops in the same field, often dismissed as backward but often more resilient and sustainable.