Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed is a book by James C. Scott critical of a system of beliefs he calls high modernism, that centers on governments' overconfidence in the ability to design and operate society in accordance with purported scientific laws.[1][2][3]
The book makes an argument that states seek to force "legibility" on their subjects by homogenizing them and creating standards that simplify pre-existing, natural, diverse social arrangements. Examples include the introduction of family names, censuses, uniform languages, and standard units of measurement. While such innovations aim to facilitate state control and economies of scale, Scott argues that the eradication of local differences and silencing of local expertise can have adverse effects.
The book was first published in March 1998, with a paperback version appearing in February 1999.
Summary
Scott shows how central governments attempt to force legibility on their subjects, and fail to see complex, valuable forms of local social order and knowledge. A main theme of this book, illustrated by his historic examples, is that states operate systems of power toward 'legibility' in order to see their subjects correctly in a top-down, modernist, model that is flawed, problematic, and often ends poorly for subjects. The goal of local legibility by the state is transparency from the top down, from the top of the tower or the center/seat of the government, so the state can effectively operate upon their subjects.
The book uses examples like the introduction of permanent last names in Great Britain, cadastral surveys in France, and standard units of measure across Europe to argue that a reconfiguration of social order is necessary for state scrutiny, and requires the simplification of pre-existing, natural arrangements. While, in earlier times, a field could be measured in the amount of cows it could sustain or the types of plants it could grow, post centralization, its size is measured in hectares. This allows governors who have little to no local knowledge to immediately understand the outline of the area but simultaneously blinds the state to the complex interactions which happen within nature and society. In agriculture and forestry, for example, it led to monoculture, or the sole focus on cultivating a single crop or tree at the cost of all others. While monoculture is easy to measure, manage, and understand, it is also less resilient to ecological crises than polyculture is.
In the case of last names, Scott cites a Welsh man who appeared in court and identified himself with a long string of patronyms: "John, ap Thomas ap William" etc. In his local village, this naming system carried a lot of information, because people could identify him as the son of Thomas and grandson of William, and thus distinguish him from the other Johns, the other children of Thomas, and the other grandchildren of William. Yet it was of less use to the central government, which did not know Thomas or William. The court demanded that John take a permanent last name (in this case, the name of his village). This helped the central government keep track of its subjects, at the cost of a more nuanced yet fuzzy and less legible understanding of local conditions.
Schemes that successfully improve human lives, Scott argues, must take into account local conditions, and that the high-modernist ideologies of the 20th century have prevented this. He highlights collective farms in the Soviet Union, the building of Brasilia, and forced villagization in 1970s Tanzania as examples of failed schemes which were led by top-down bureaucratic efforts and where officials ignored or silenced local expertise.
Scott takes great effort to highlight that he is not necessarily anti-state. At times, the central role played by the state is necessary for programs such as disaster response or vaccinations. The flattening of knowledge which goes hand-in-hand with state centralization can have disastrous consequences when officials see centralised knowledge as the only legitimate information that they should consider, ignoring more specialised but less clearly defined indigenous and local expertise.
Scott explores the concept of "metis," which refers to practical knowledge gained through experience and shaped by individual contexts. He compares this type of knowledge to "epistemic" knowledge, which is more formalized and associated with scientific methods and institutional education. Unlike epistemic knowledge, which is standardized and centralized, metis is adaptable and diverse. It emerges from the accumulated experiences of individuals within specific contexts, resulting in a rich tapestry of localized knowledge systems. This flexibility allows metis to evolve and respond to changing circumstances, making it highly applicable in various practical domains. However, Scott also discusses the challenges that metis faces in contemporary society, particularly in the context of industrialization and state control. He argues that attempts to standardize knowledge and impose universal ideologies often undermine the diverse nature of metis, marginalizing localized knowledge systems in favor of more centralized and standardized forms of knowledge production. Scott also criticizes authoritarian efforts to impose rigid knowledge frameworks, as they overlook the nuanced and context-dependent nature of metis. Instead of recognizing the value of diverse knowledge forms, these authoritarian approaches seek to homogenize and control knowledge production for political or economic purposes. Scott advocates for the preservation and acknowledgment of metis alongside epistemic knowledge. He highlights the importance of embracing the dynamic and diverse nature of practical knowledge derived from experience, emphasizing its relevance in addressing complex challenges and promoting resilience in the face of change.
Scott examines the limitations of high-modernist urban planning and social engineering, contending that these approaches often result in unsustainable outcomes and diminish human autonomy and abilities. Scott contrasts the rigid, centralized designs of high modernism with the adaptable, diverse nature of institutions shaped by practical wisdom, or "metis." Scott criticizes the monocultural, one-dimensional nature of high-modernist projects, suggesting that they fail to account for the complexity and dynamism of real-life systems. Examples from agriculture, urban planning, and economics are used to illustrate how rigid, top-down approaches can lead to environmental degradation, social dislocation, and a loss of human agency. Furthermore, he emphasizes the importance of diversity, flexibility, and adaptability in human institutions, arguing that these qualities enhance resilience and effectiveness. He highlights the role of informal, bottom-up practices in complementing and sometimes subverting formal systems, demonstrating how metis-driven institutions can thrive in complex, ever-changing environments. Scott advocates for institutions that are shaped by the knowledge and experience of their participants, rather than imposed from above. He suggests that such institutions are better equipped to navigate uncertainty, respond to change, and foster the development of individuals with a wide range of skills and capabilities.
Reception
Book reviews
Stanford University political scientist David D. Laitin described it as "a magisterial book." But he said there were flaws in the methodology of the book, saying the book "is a product of undisciplined history. For one, Scott’s evidence is selective and eclectic, with only minimal attempts to weigh disconfirming evidence... It is all too easy to select confirming evidence if the author can choose from the entire historical record and use material from all countries of the world."[4]
John N. Gray, author of False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism, reviewed the book favorably for the New York Times, concluding: "Today's faith in the free market echoes the faith of earlier generations in high modernist schemes that failed at great human cost. Seeing Like a State does not tell us what it is in late modern societies that predisposes them, against all the evidence of history, to put their trust in such utopias. Sadly, no one knows enough to explain that."[2]
Economist James Bradford DeLong wrote a detailed online review of the book. DeLong acknowledged Scott's adept examination of the pitfalls of centrally planned social-engineering projects, which aligns with the Austrian tradition's critique of central planning. Scott's book, according to DeLong, effectively demonstrates the limitations and failures of attempts to impose high modernist principles from the top down. However, DeLong also suggested that Scott may fail to fully acknowledge his intellectual roots, particularly within the Austrian tradition. DeLong argued that while Scott effectively critiques high modernism, he may avoid explicitly aligning his work with the Austrian perspective due to subconscious fears of being associated with certain political ideologies.[5][6] DeLong's interpretation of the book was critiqued by Henry Farrell on the Crooked Timber blog,[7] and there was a follow-up exchange including further discussion of the book.[8][9]
Economist Deepak Lal reviewed the book for the Summer 2000 issue of The Independent Review, concluding: "Although I am in sympathy with Scott’s diagnosis of the development disasters he recounts, I conclude that he has not burrowed deep enough to discover a systematic cause of these failures. (In my view, that cause lies in the continuing attraction of various forms of 'enterprises' in what at heart remains Western Christendom.) Nor is he right in so blithely dismissing the relevance of classical liberalism in finding remedies for the ills he eloquently describes."[10]
Political scientist Ulf Zimmermann reviewed the book for H-Net Online in December 1998, concluding: "It is important to keep in mind, as Scott likewise notes, that many of these projects replaced even worse social orders and at least occasionally introduced somewhat more egalitarian principles, never mind improving public health and such. And, in the end, many of the worst were sufficiently resisted in their absurdity, as he had shown so well in his, Weapons of the Weak and as best demonstrated by the utter collapse of the soviet system. "Metis" alone is not sufficient; we need to find a way to link it felicitously with—to stick with Scott's Aristotelian vocabulary—phronesis and praxis, or, in more ordinary terms, to produce theories more profoundly grounded in actual practice so that the state may see better in implementing policies."[11]
Russell Hardin, a professor of politics at New York University, reviewed the book for The Good Society in 2001, disagreeing with Scott's diagnosis somewhat. Hardin, who believes in collectiveness (collective actions) concluded: "The failure of collectivization was therefore a failure of incentives, not a failure to rely on local knowledge."[13]
