Critical Review

Critical Review

Seeing Like a State by James Scott is an interesting and captivating history book, exposing how attempts by the state to better the wellbeing of its population are usually shallowly thought with a singular lens of view. Specifically, Chapter 2 of the book exposes some interesting arguments elaborating on the ordinary ways in which administrators and influential state officers manipulate the common man. This paper, therefore, presents a critical review of the arguments highlighted in “Seeing Like a State,” Chapter 2, by James Scott.

Arguments

Scott exposes various key arguments in chapter 2, such as simplification and legibility of the state as well as nature, and a manipulation shared amongst the elite. The forestry in the chapter plays as a metaphor for many forms of rationalization and simplification of complex natural phenomena by highlighting how scientific forestry attempts to remedy distinct species into the forest and at the same time infringing on diversity. Moreover, on the legibility of nature and state, Scott advances on the significance of what we cannot see whenever social engineering occurs. This is illustrated by a map, which when drawn only shows the main features of a landscape and leaves out various other components that may be significant to the local populations (Scott, 1998). Another argument presented in chapter two is high levels of manipulations shared amongst the elite and administrative men on manipulation Scott borrows from Isiah Berlin to argue how a scientific forester and cadastral officer who are sharply focused on one big thing and the land tenure who knows many things but with myopic lens hence is susceptible and taken advantage.

Strengths of Arguments

The simplification arguments by Scott draw strength from the various instances where the leaders only choose solutions to the problems without conclusive considerations. This is well demonstrated by the scientific forestry approaches by the Germans whereby in trying to mitigate the undesirable consequences they planted ant colonies in the forest full of hollow trees. The hollow trees forest was home to various species such as owls, tree-nesting birds and woodpeckers hence they failed to honor diversity (Scott, 1998). The argument against the legibility of various administrators’ endeavors such as a collection of taxes, census, and map and provision of land deeds draws its strength from the fact that it cements control, knowledge, and manipulation. This is evidenced by the cadastral lens which leaves out anything outside its sharply defined field of vision and that cadastral map is an instrument that reflects and cements the power of those who commission it. This affirms that legibility is only partisan and provides an edge to some and detriment others.

Weaknesses of Arguments

Though the arguments have extensive strengths they are ingrained with some weaknesses. The weaknesses include contrasting the ancient state functions with the modern state functions as it fails to fully recognize the stepping stone the ancient state's aspirations have played in the 21st-century states. The challenges experienced might appear similar to some degree but are fundamentally different in context. The challenges experienced in the ancient times prompted ancient states to focus on the need for the bureaucratic state to organize itself and control its resources. These gave rise to specialized sectors such as surveying and exact cartography, forestry and rational agriculture as well as hygiene and climatology and statistics. On the other hand, the challenges experienced by states in the 21st century has forced current states to be preoccupied with productivity, education, sanitation, mineral resources, investment, and transportation (Scott, 1998).

Conclusion

The chapter highlights key arguments such as simplicity, which demonstrates how administrators attempt to solve problems without considering conclusively the best ways. Additionally, legibility is demonstrated when state machines such as cadastral maps are used to legitimize the interest of the officers and against the concerns of the ordinary citizens. Contrasting the priorities of the ancient and modern state highlights some of the weaknesses presented in the arguments. Overall, the arguments on simplicity and legibility are strong.

Reference

Scott, J. C. (1998). Seeing like a state: How certain schemes to improve the human condition have failed. Yale University Press.