Are States Defined by What They Do or How They Do It?

このQ&Aのポイント
  • According to Weber, states are defined by their means, specifically the use of physical force.
  • The modern state can only be sociologically defined in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, such as the use of physical force.
  • Weber argues that the defining characteristic of the modern state is its unique means, which include the use of physical force.
回答を見る
  • ベストアンサー

英文についての質問です

According to Weber are states defined by what they do (their ends) or how they do it (their means)? という質問があり、回答の一文を探したのですが、 As Weber explains: one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force. この文を簡単に答えることはできないでしょうか? one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association このように少し省くことはできるでしょうか? もし他にも言いやすい表現などあれば教えて欲しいです。 よろしくお願いします。

  • wxw
  • お礼率89% (1045/1166)
  • 英語
  • 回答数1
  • ありがとう数1

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率80% (9522/11836)
回答No.1

>この文を簡単に答えることはできないでしょうか? >one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association >このように少し省くことはできるでしょうか? ⇒失礼ながら、省き方があまりうまくないと思います。 (ほとんどWeberのまま!=「理解してないな」と見られるかも知れません)。 >もし他にも言いやすい表現などあれば教えて欲しいです。 ⇒せめて、主語と目的語を交換する、受身文にする、語句を要点化する(枝葉を捨象する)というような作業をしましょう。例えば、こうです。 The modern state can be (sociologically) defined only in terms of its specific means peculiar such as the use of physical force. =「現代国家は(社会学的に見て)、物理的な力の行使のように、もっぱらその国家特有の手段の観点から定義づけられる。」

wxw
質問者

お礼

なるほど。 そのような作業をしたらいいのですね。 日本語訳もつけていただきありがとうございます。 大変わかりやすかったです。 ありがとうございました!

関連するQ&A

  • 英語についての質問です

    According to Weber, all states are based on what? という質問がありました。 で、文中の中からWeberについて記載のある箇所を探したのですが… [A] state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.” Second, the state has an “intimate” relationship with violence (as Weber describes it). [T]he state cannot be defined in terms of its ends. . . . [T]here is no task that one could say has always been exclusive and peculiar to . . . the state. . . . Ultimately, one can define the modern state sociologically only in terms of the specific means peculiar to it, as to every political association, namely, the use of physical force. とありました。 質問に対する答えは2つ目のthe state has an “intimate” relationship with violence でいいでしょうか? 基礎になっているか、と聞かれたら違う気もするのですが… もしくはこの中には答えはないでしょうか?(私が見落としているだけかもしれません) ** 英文の質問に対する答えがthe state has an “intimate” relationship with violence であっているかどうか。 私が引用してきた文章の中に別の答えがあるなら、「これじゃない」と教えて欲しいです。 また、答えになりそうな文章がない場合も、そのような旨を教えて欲しいです。 ややこしいのですが、よろしくお願いします。

  • 英文についての質問

    Do states limit their use of violence to legitimate purposes? という質問があり、答えになりそうな文章を抜き出しました。 But no state always confines itself only to legitimate violence. More precisely, the government of the state is made up of individuals, and inevitably some of those individuals, in seeking their political ends, will employ violence outside the bounds of the rules. つまり「国家は常に合法的な暴力だけに限られている」ということですよね? ということは答えは「Yes」でいいのでしょうか? Yes, no state always confines itself only to legitimate violence. こちらの回答でいいでしょうか? よろしくお願いします。

  • 英文についての質問

    What it a unitary system? A confederal one?という質問があったので、下記の文章を探しました。 英文が長くて申し訳ないです。 参考にしたのは2段落目からです。 The issue was resolved through compromise, the first of many at the Convention. To keep the Virginia Plan a live proposal, Madison withdrew the proposal for a national veto over state laws, and the Convention agreed in principle to redistribute some of their state’s powers to a government of the United States. This form of government we now call federal, a system in which sovereign political authority is shared between the central government and regional (state or provincial) governments. This is in in contrast to a confederal system, as the states had under the Articles, where the regional governments are sovereign, and the central government has only as much authority as the regional governments allow it, and a unitary system where the central government is sovereign, and the state or provincial governments have only as much power as the central government allows them. この文章を踏まえて、質問に対する答えは [Unitary systemはconfederal oneとは対照的で中央政府が主権国家である。] でいいでしょうか? 質問の回答(英文)はまとめて、また後日に質問させていただくかもしれません。 よろしくお願いします。

  • 英文についての質問です

    What is the “habit of compliance”?という質問があるのですがそれに該当する文を引用しました。 (引用文が長くて申し訳ないです。訳していただかなくて大丈夫です) Whether we can philosophically justify it or not, the state is an institution of violence, and yet most often people do not revolt. As a practical matter, it is this acquiescence that political scientists call legitimacy. [Indeed this acquiescence is the primary reason people obey laws, not out of fear of punishment. ] [This “habit of compliance,” as political scientists call it,stems from people viewing the laws as legitimate enactments of the state. ] And their view of state legitimacy may itself be primarily a habit, or it may be based on their perceptions of whether they are getting sufficient benefits in exchange for the price the state extracts from them. In any case, it is rarely a considered philosophical conclusion. そして質問に対する答えです。[]内が該当する文章かな、と思いそれに基づいて英文を作りました。 ・Hibit of compliance is acquiescence that the people abey laws. It is that political scientists considers it the laws as legistimate enactments of the state. これらの回答は質問に対する答えになっているでしょうか? また、こちらの英文も添削して欲しいです。 よろしくお願いします。

  • 英文についての質問です

    How did the Convention agree to have Senators selected?という質問がありました。 The Convention soon moved toward appointment by state legislatures, a move opposed by Madison and Hamilton, who wanted to weaken the state legislatures. But to their dismay, in the end the Convention settled on equal representation of each state in the Senate with each state’s legislators choosing its Senators. This meant that the Senate didn’t just represent the states as political bodies, but that it literally represented the state legislatures. The House belonged to the people; the Senate belonged to their state governments. 回答はここに出てくる「in the end the Convention settled on equal representation of each state in the Senate with each state’s legislators choosing its Senators. 」 からの文章をそのまま引用して  The convention settled on equal representation of each state in the Senate with each state's legislators choosing its Senators. でいいでしょうか? よろしくお願いします。

  • 英文についての質問

    In fact states appear to have been created through initial acts of violence that are themselves not justified by individual self-preservation. The Marxist political theorist Leon Trotsky suggested that “Every state is founded on force,” and Max Weber, not a Marxist, agreed. という文章がありあます。 ここでいう「Every state is founded on force」というのは「全ての国家は力(暴力)によって設立された」という訳でいいでしょうか?

  • 英文を訳して下さい。

    The line here remained intact until the very end of the war in Macedonia, when the forces occupying it had to retreat due to the breakthrough at Dobro Pole. The offensive however also provided some satisfaction as the Serbian troops were able to return to the border of their country. The Bulgarians and Germans alike were also satisfied with their resistance to the superior numbers of the Entente. General Nikola Zhekov went as far as to describe the Battle of the River Cherna as "legendary" in terms of the tenacity of the Bulgarian defense - "conducted without regard of casualties".

  • 英文の邦訳

    From an empirical standpoint, their sensitivity to very fine connections makes it difficult to distinguish concentrated long-term from arm’s-length market-based relationships and obscures specific structures within a cloud of enormous complexity. 上記英文の和訳をお願い致します。

  • 英文の書き換え

    the other class of machine consists of those whose function it is to be as sensitive as possible to some kind of change in their surroundings. タイトルの英文ですが下記のように書き換えられますか? the other class of machine consists of function which is to be as sensitive as possible to some kind of change in their surroundings.(1) the other class of machine consists of that those function is to be as sensitive as possible to some kind of change in their surroundings.(2) 宜しくお願い致します。

  • 英文についての質問です(2)

    (1)からの続きです。 ・・・・Since a genius, whatever it be, is like fire in the flint, only to be produced by collision with a proper subject, it is the business of every man to try whether his faculties may not happily cooperate with his desires, and since they whose proficiency he admires, knew their own force only by the event, he needs but engage in the same undertaking, with equal spirit, and may reasonably hope for equal success. 1)全体の構造はどのようになっているのでしょうか? Since a genius~=~なので it is the business of every man ~=~である and since they whose proficiency =~なので he needs but engage ~、and may reasonably hope =~であり、~である というのが大まかな形ですか?(sinceは"~なので"の意味?) 2)Since a genius, whatever it be, is like fire in the flint, only to be produced by collision with a proper subjectについて whatever it be・・・・itはgeniusを指しているのでしょうか? 天才はどんなものであっても? Since a genius~is like fire in the flint・・・火打石の火のようであるので only to ・・・~するだけで? only to be produced by collision with a proper subject ふさわしい主題に衝突することによって生じるだけで 3)it is the business of every man to try whether his faculties may not happily cooperate with his desires whetherは"・・・かどうか"の意味ですか? それは彼の能力が彼の願望とうまく引き合わないかもしれないかどうかを試すすべての人の仕事であり 4)and since they whose proficiency he admires, knew their own force only by the event そして彼が熟達を称賛する彼らは彼ら自身の力をイベントよってのみ知っていたので (内容が掴みにくいです) 5)he needs but engage in the same undertaking, with equal spirit, and may reasonably hope for equal success. needsは副詞の是非とも、という意味ですか? engageが原形になっているのはなぜなのでしょうか? 彼は同じ仕事に、対等な精神で、是非ともしかし携わり、そして対等な成功を道理に従って望むかもしれない (ここも内容がとりにくいです) 質問がたくさんになってしまいましたが、よろしくお願いいたします。