Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > On historical semantics, state forms, and polit...
View graph of relations

On historical semantics, state forms, and political regimes

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Published

Standard

On historical semantics, state forms, and political regimes. / Jessop, Bob.
In: Sociologica, No. 2, 2010.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Jessop B. On historical semantics, state forms, and political regimes. Sociologica. 2010;(2). doi: 10.2383/32709

Author

Bibtex

@article{3f7778a14616458b8a1531a8e52cd4e3,
title = "On historical semantics, state forms, and political regimes",
abstract = "This comment responds to the provocative arguments of Paul du Gay and Alan Scott on recent Weberian, mainstream, and (neo-)Marxist work on the state. It first addresses their approach to defining the state, their account of periodization, and their distinction between state and regime, indicating problems with each step in this sequence of arguments. Of particular concern are confusion between state idea and the state apparatus, the need to recognize alternative bases of periodization, and the different ways in which the concept of regime is used in analyses states. The response concludes with some general remarks on how the arguments of Gay and Scott relate to the broader body of state theory and their implications for state formation and transformation.",
keywords = "state formation, semiosis, historical semantics, State theory , periodization , political regime , exceptional state , conceptual history",
author = "Bob Jessop",
year = "2010",
doi = "10.2383/32709",
language = "English",
journal = "Sociologica",
issn = "1971-8853",
publisher = "University of Bologna",
number = "2",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - On historical semantics, state forms, and political regimes

AU - Jessop, Bob

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - This comment responds to the provocative arguments of Paul du Gay and Alan Scott on recent Weberian, mainstream, and (neo-)Marxist work on the state. It first addresses their approach to defining the state, their account of periodization, and their distinction between state and regime, indicating problems with each step in this sequence of arguments. Of particular concern are confusion between state idea and the state apparatus, the need to recognize alternative bases of periodization, and the different ways in which the concept of regime is used in analyses states. The response concludes with some general remarks on how the arguments of Gay and Scott relate to the broader body of state theory and their implications for state formation and transformation.

AB - This comment responds to the provocative arguments of Paul du Gay and Alan Scott on recent Weberian, mainstream, and (neo-)Marxist work on the state. It first addresses their approach to defining the state, their account of periodization, and their distinction between state and regime, indicating problems with each step in this sequence of arguments. Of particular concern are confusion between state idea and the state apparatus, the need to recognize alternative bases of periodization, and the different ways in which the concept of regime is used in analyses states. The response concludes with some general remarks on how the arguments of Gay and Scott relate to the broader body of state theory and their implications for state formation and transformation.

KW - state formation

KW - semiosis

KW - historical semantics

KW - State theory

KW - periodization

KW - political regime

KW - exceptional state

KW - conceptual history

U2 - 10.2383/32709

DO - 10.2383/32709

M3 - Journal article

JO - Sociologica

JF - Sociologica

SN - 1971-8853

IS - 2

ER -