States were once expected to produce passions, not merely check them

Evidence

All nation-states, capitalist and state socialist, within the “developed” sectors of the world, are primarily reliant upon industrial production for the generation of the wealth upon which their tax revenues are based. The socialist countries form something of an enclave within the capitalist world economy as a whole, industry being more directly subject to political imperatives. These states are scarcely post-capitalist, but the influence of capitalistic markets upon the distribution of goods and labour power is substantially muted. The pursuit of growth by both Western and East European societies inevitably pushes economic interests to the forefront of the policies which states pursue in the international arena. But it is surely plain to all, save those under the sway of historical materialism, that the material involvements of nation-states are not governed purely by economic considerations, real or perceived. The influence of any particular state within the global political order is strongly conditioned by the level of its wealth (and the connection between this and military strength). However, states derive their power from their sovereign capabilities, as Hans J. Morgenthau emphasises. They do not operate as economic machines, but as “actors” jealous of their territorial rights, concerned with the fostering of national cultures, and having strategic geopolitical involvements with other states or alliances of states. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 181 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Early-modern statecraft aimed to master affect, not oppose it.; The reason-versus-passion state division is historically recent.; Colonial states engineered morality by harnessing affect in their agents. — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 426 (+5 more)

Related

• Early-modern statecraft aimed to master affect, not oppose it. (similarity 0.86)
• State power derives from sovereign capabilities, not merely economic wealth (similarity 0.84)
• The rational state producing affect was once not seen as contradictory. (similarity 0.83)
• Exported capital requires strong state power over new domains (similarity 0.81)
• Philosophical debates about reason versus passion shaped colonial political decisions. (similarity 0.80)
• The rational-affective state split is recent, not timeless (similarity 0.80)
• Civilizing policies normalized the presence of subjects in a nation of citizens (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial states continuously staked political security on governing subjects’ feelings (similarity 0.79)
• Industrial growth subordinated political power to economic capacity (similarity 0.79)
• Colonial states engineered morality by harnessing affect in their agents. (similarity 0.79)
• Statecraft in early modernity meant mastering subjects’ passions (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• The reason-versus-passion state division is historically recent. #corroborates (0.85)
• State power derives from sovereign capabilities, not merely economic wealth #expands (0.75) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 181
• Colonial training schemes aimed to shape sentiments and restrict desires #qualifies (0.60)
• Colonial states engineered morality by harnessing affect in their agents. #qualifies (0.55) — Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain_ Epistemic…, 426
• Colonial officials stumbled over sentiments impervious to rational state control. #complicates (0.50)