Motivation vs. causation

[marct]

I suppose two groups agreeing to kill as many of one another as possible at every available opportunity could be said to constitute a social contract of sorts. Whether that contract would be a viable basis for nationhood is another question.

What is fascinating about it is, really, the structures negotiated to contain conflict to specific times, places, styles and forms. "Nationhood", like the concept of nation state, is, IMO, quite tricky and a very recent invention. Honestly, as far as establishing a model of social contracting between either different ethnoi or sub-groups of the same ethnoi, nation states are pretty irrelevant except as a special case.

Where it does become relevant is when we start examining how multi-ethnoi, multi-group polities can function. Again, the nation state is a special, and quite recent, case, so it can't serve as the basis for a general theory.

It might be more accurate to say that these contracts evolved, rather than speaking of establishment. The process of evolution varies widely from case to case; sometimes it's peaceful, sometimes it's not, sometimes the groups involved end up separating and establishing different nations. I don't think it's something something that can be effectively imposed on a deus ex machina basis.

It's a very interesting question - evolution vs. contract ex machina. In most cases, I suspect that initial contract conditions are imposed and, from that imposition, evolve over time; that was certainly the case in Canada.

I'd like to throw in a little wrinkle on the social contract discussion that's evolving here as it's a term that's come up a lot for me recently in the international development business (when I'm not winning no bid contracts and fleecing american taxpayers...).

International Review of Administrative Sciences 75(4), "Decentralized local governance in fragile states: learning from Iraq" by Derick W. Brinkerhoff and Ronald W. Johnson, the authors use the word "covenant"....

Donors, especially USAID, have consistently focused on supporting civil society and building the social contract (largely in the absence of a strong or even functional government) and I've been wondering if the use of "covenant" is an attempt to strengthen and expand the concept/approach. I find the concept and approach appealing, but it does have a lot of issues when it comes to international development.

It's an interesting term, especially since they are using it in the 19th century sense. Technically, using "covenant" as a "coming together" it is correct, although you're right that it now carries religious connotations. How do you see it as being useful for development work?