I was wondering if anyone on this forum has encountered the work of Philip Bobbitt. He is a constitutional lawyer who has written about the evolution of the state. He wrote a book called The Shield of Achilles which was published around 2001.

This link has a summary of his ideas - https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intr...philip-bobbitt

It's impossible to read his work and not consider the parallels with generational theory. Bobbitt's boundaries of the different types of states don't line up exactly with the turnings, but there is some alignment, notably with the American Revolution and the U.S. Civil War.

He posits that we are currently evolving away from the nation-state and to a new form he calls the market-state. Much of what he writes about the market-state sounds like a description of Third Turning trends, but even if some of those trends reverse, we would expect that the order emerging in the Fourth Turning will not be exactly like the previous "nation-state" order. Bobbitt's ideas may help shed light on the likely differences.

I am curious to know if anyone on this forum has read his work and has any opinions. If not, I recommend his book mentioned above as connecting to generational cycles, with the caveat that it is very long.

Thanks,
Steve

Originally Posted by Steven McTowelie

I was wondering if anyone on this forum has encountered the work of Philip Bobbitt. He is a constitutional lawyer who has written about the evolution of the state. He wrote a book called The Shield of Achilles which was published around 2001.

This link has a summary of his ideas - https://www.stratfor.com/weekly/intr...philip-bobbitt

It's impossible to read his work and not consider the parallels with generational theory. Bobbitt's boundaries of the different types of states don't line up exactly with the turnings, but there is some alignment, notably with the American Revolution and the U.S. Civil War.

He posits that we are currently evolving away from the nation-state and to a new form he calls the market-state. Much of what he writes about the market-state sounds like a description of Third Turning trends, but even if some of those trends reverse, we would expect that the order emerging in the Fourth Turning will not be exactly like the previous "nation-state" order. Bobbitt's ideas may help shed light on the likely differences.

I am curious to know if anyone on this forum has read his work and has any opinions. If not, I recommend his book mentioned above as connecting to generational cycles, with the caveat that it is very long.

Thanks,
Steve

Looks interesting. Thanks
The Shield of Achilles: War, Peace, and the Course of History [COLOR=#555555 !important]Hardcover[/COLOR] [COLOR=#555555 !important]– May 14, 2002[/COLOR]

Originally Posted by Steven McTowelie

I was wondering if anyone on this forum has encountered the work of Philip Bobbitt.

I went to the link and had them sent the article to my e-mail. It was just one page, mostly a single table. Is that all?

Originally Posted by Mikebert

I went to the link and had them sent the article to my e-mail. It was just one page, mostly a single table. Is that all?

Yes, I used that link because of the table. So you can see how Bobbitt's dates line up with Strauss & Howe. You really have to read the book to get the full picture. But here are some other links flushed out with a Google search:

http://www.fsmitha.com/review/r-bobit.html

https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/200...-market-state/

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n11/david-r...and-the-meadow

A naysaying review-
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-0...terribly-wrong

I read several of the links. My first impression is that the princely state and the kingly state are really the same thing, just different scales, city-state versus kingdom. The territorial state would seem to be distinct. The kingly state was defined in terms of the person of the monarch. Great Britain began as the personal union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1603 by the fact that the same person (James I/V) was king of both lands. A century later things had changed, Great Britain had become a territorial state, which was formally recognized by the Acts of Union in 1707. The kingly state that preceded it might be said to have been formed in 1485 with the end of the Wars of the Roses.

On the other hand the state nation period would seem to have started with the Glorious Revolution in Britain. So for Britain I would say the territorial state and state nation would overlap. America formed its own state-nation during the Revolution and might have shifted to nation-state as early as 1830’s with white male suffrage or 1865 with de jure universal male suffrage. For Britain I would date this transition no earlier than the 2^nd reform act in 1867. A better choice might be the third reform in 1884.

So I see the main tracking following secular cycles over 1485-1690 and 1690-1867/84 (Britain). For America we have the state-nation era falling into the 1794-1865 saeculum.

A complicating factor is Bobbit is looking at the broad picture. Transitions happen in different countries at different times and so the periods are really just a broad brush. I think a better way to look at state evolution is on a case by case basis. I focus on Britain (England) because it is the ancestor polity of the America polity. For Britain, Bobbit’s phases apply to a fixed territory identified as the kingdom of England, which has remained politically unified for a millennium. So England has always been a kingdom and a territorial state in the sense that it was limited by the island borders (and Scottish arms).

So it seems to me that for Anglo-America there have been two key transitions, kingly state to state nation, and state nation to nation state. I would say the first began no later than 1485, but I not sure how the post-1485 state is radically different from the pre-1485 state. As for the market state, methinks Bobbit is jumping the gun. In all the previous cases, before a new stage emerged, the state which would take on the characteristics of that stage already existed. The market state is a supra-national polity. No such polity exists that could evolve into this entity. What you have is a set of national elites in control of their states who desire a higher level of coordination. Were these elites in charge of a kingly state or even a state nation, they could accomplish this higher level of coordination.

If you think about it, the pre-1485 system was a supranational system (the concept of nation was at best embryonic) and the elites operated over multiple nations. Another old example is empire, which is why some (like me) refer to the current American-led world system as an empire. Rather than a new thing, the market state may be the return of an old form of civilization, as is the reappearance of military religious orders (e.g. ISIS) that strongly resemble entities like the Teutonic Knights.

Thanks for taking the time, Mike, and for your thoughtful response. I agree that Bobbitt uses a broad brush and his ideas could be adapted by focusing on specific countries. It is noteworthy, though, that Bobbitt is always defining the state in the context of the inter-state order. He contrasts two ordering principles - law within the boundaries of the state, and strategy (ie the application of military power) in the interstices between states. Together, law and strategy define the constitutional order of an international system, and what drives the evolution of the form of the state is great wars (he calls them "epochal wars"). And so he fixes dates for the shift from one form of the state to another for all countries. But he is generalizing.

As for the market-state, when you look at what he calls the characteristics of the market-state form, some of it is familiar as trends of the third turning. Specifically, that the market-state exists to promote economic opportunity as opposed to social welfare, and to promote human rights as opposed to national power. But these are trends that could reverse in the fourth turning (President Trump, anyone?) But then just because these trends reverse, doesn't mean Bobbitt isn't on to something, having identified a cycle that (roughly) aligns with the turnings.

I think the alignment between Bobbits dates and the saeculum is partly happenstance. As I mentioned earlier, major political changes tend to occur at secular cycle boundaries (these boundaries feature a state collapse, which is an excellent time to introduce constitutive changes). The saeculum appears to be a sumharmonic of the secular cycle in that the boundaries of the latter are secular crisis turnings. Bobbit's scheme is a consensus of many countries whose secular cycles (and consitutive changes) vary, but should occur during secular crisis turnings. Hence a consensus cycle from many countries will show some sort of change everr secular crisis, giving an apparent alignment with the saeculum.

I noted this correspondence 15 years ago, which is why I long maintained that the saeculum operated on the world systems scale, rather than the the national. Thus, I saw the Armada 4T as part of a larger 4T in which the central role was played by the Dutch republic. The Dutch revolt against the Spanish empire certainly qualifies as a state collapse/reformation (and secular cycle boundary) just as the American revolt against the British empire two centuries qualifies as the same. Both of course are 4Ts too.

The French revolution is a slate collapse/reformation and secular cycle boundary also (and also a 4T for France) and Bobbit uses this as one of his breakpoints.

Modelski and Thompson also provide a sort of world system saeculum with their leadership model that dove tails with Bobbit's scheme in some places.

I did a search trying to find a short summary for the leadership cycle. What I found quickest was an old version of something I wrote on it years ago (figures missing). Just look at the table.

Great site, Mike; too bad the figures are missing.

Do you still have your stuff up on a personal site somewhere?

The original site is long gone. It was in my Kondratief book.

I have seen George Modelski's work. It looks interesting. Here is the URL: http://abuss.narod.ru/Biblio/WS/ws-history1_2.htm

Anyone want to comment about it?