FROM WARRE TO TYRANNY: LETHAL CONFLICT AND THE STATE* Mark Cooney University of Georgia tovhng Hobbes, many social theorists have claimed that the state reduces the amount of violence in human societies. Are they right? I review the cross- cultural and cross-national evidence on the impact of the state on the most common form of extreme violence—lethal conflict (i.e., war, rebellion, homi- cide, and execution). Drawing on the sociology of conflict management (Black 1993), I argue that the relationship between the state and lethal conflict is not negative as Hobbesian theory predicts. Rather, it appears to be U-shaped. A combination of materials from anthropology, criminology, and political sci- ence suggests that rates of lethal conflict tend to be high when state authority is absent and also when it is extremely strong or centralized. Between these extremes, in less centralized states, lethal conflict typically declines. T heorists have long argued that the state reduces violence among those subject to its jurisdiction. Hobbes ([1651] 1909) pro- vided an early and eloquent statement of this idea, contending that in tbe absence of a strong central authority, violence pervades social life. Weber's ([1922] 1968:54) influ- ential definition of the state emphasizes its ability to successfully monopolize the legiti- mate use of violence, a capacity that would seem to depend partly on the state's ability to restrict violent behavior. Elias ([1939] 1982) nominates the state as a primary source of the long-term civilizing process that decreases violence in everyday life. And Koch's (1974) experience as an ethnographer in New Guinea leads him to stress the importance of third- party modes of conflict management, like those provided by state legal systems, as vio- lence-controlling mechanisms in human so- cieties. But are these authors correct? Does the state diminish violence in human affairs? If * Direct all correspondence to Mark Cooney, Department of Sociology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602-1611 (mcooney@uga.cc.uga. edu). An early version of this paper was presented at the annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Miami, November 1994. For com- ments and advice I thank M. P. Baumgartner, E. M. Beck, Donald Black, William Finlay, John Herrmann, Ivy Kennelly, James Tucker, and sev- eral anonymous ASR reviewers. the state did not exist, would life be more violent? Neither the literature on the state nor that on violence contains a sustained empiri- cal analysis of these issues, even though the "many-sided problem of order" remains a prominent topic of theoretical discussion (Wrong 1994). In this paper, I seek to fill the void, reviewing the available information in light of ideas developed in the sociology of conflict management, a broad field dedicated to describing and explaining the handling of human conflict (Black 1976, 1984, 1993; also see Horwitz 1990). The argument I advance is that the Hobbe- sian thesis is only partially correct. Anthro- pological evidence suggests that the state tends to reduce the amount of violent con- fiict in human societies. But political science data indicate that the state may, under cer- tain conditions, also increase violence. Con- sequently, while the form of violent conflict may change from the "warre of every man against every man" (Hobbes [1651] 1909:98) to state tyranny directed against citizens, the sheer volume of violence may remain ap- proximately the same. I therefore propose that the overall relationship between the state and violent conflict is U-shaped: High levels of violent conflict are found when state au- thority is weak or absent and when it is ex- tremely strong or centralized. Between these extremes, in less centralized states, low and intermediate amounts of violence are found. 316 American Sociological Review, 1997, Vol. 62 (April:316-338)