Comparing Anderson And Hobbes

My assessment of the method about what Hansen and Anderson use to define a polis is to compare their ideas with social sciences. In this manner, a comparison of both author’s ideas about the topic of what a polis could be defined could yield with a nice conclusion. After my reading and analysis, I can see two different sides that one of them is Weber and Hansen, and the other side is Hobbes, Berent, and Anderson. Hansen disagrees with Berent’s outcomes about how a Greek polis must be defined. In 2002, Hansen criticized that Berent used social sciences to define a polis incorrectly that Berent claimed that a Greek “polis was not a state.” Hansen does not agree with Berent’s conclusion about the definition of a polis because Hansen accepts Weber’s outcomes about a polis, which was “Weber” claimed “that a state was an entity that had a monopoly over the use of legitimate force.” On the contrary, Anderson states that “Greek poleis tend to appear stateless to modern eyes.” In this manner, Anderson adduces Hobbes’ expression that “Hobbes called the state” “as a mortal god.” Moreover, he adduces Moshe Berent, too, that Berent stated “that poleis were entirely stateless entities” in Berent’s “articles.” I agree that they are right to pull from the social sciences to help explain the polis because social sciences, such as political science, sociology, and anthropology, would help to define what a Greek polis is.