In the early decades of American political science and its political theory, the state was the main subject matter of the discipline. This book recalls that era (though it is situated mainly in the deeper history of political thought). As the author recognizes, its subject matter is today somewhat unfashionable in political theory. Moreover, the book's theory is first and foremost metaphyscial rather then political, thus reversing the priority that John Rawls and most other contemporary theorists proclaim. To complete his separation from contemporary theoretical currents, the kind of state advocated by Peter Steinberger is “omnicompetent in scope, absolute in authority and organic in composition” (p. xiv).

The bulk of The Idea of the State is devoted to making this last jarring claim palatable in an era of liberalism, limited government, and democracy. The initial key lies in the definition of the state itself. Steinberger distinguishes between the state, on the one hand, and the institutions of government, on the other. “The state” is what defines a political community; it is essentially a set of propositions and ideas about political truth that the community shares (and sometimes contests). Institutions for Steinberger are almost exclusively a matter of shared ideas, and the state is no exception. The state is not government, and different kinds of governmental structures and public policies can be consistent with any particular state. However, the state itself, conceptualized in this idealistic form, provides the grounds on which government and policy are justified and contested (p. 32). Thus, the absolute state can happily coexist with, for example, limited government (p. 38).

In these terms, the state is (following Aristotle) “the institution of institutions” (p. 22). Civil society, for many theorists a realm of associational life distinct from the state, is treated here as synonymous with the state (pp. 10–11)—as are old and new concepts such as the body politic, commonwealth, and political community. Given that shared ideas about the state both define a political community and define the state itself, there is no possible escape from the state. Politics can only exist within the state.

Once the state is defined in these terms, Steinberger shows that differences concerning many major political questions are still possible. The absolute state might coexist with either monarchical or democratic government (chap. 2). The omnicompetent state will have to classify which kinds of practices are tolerable (chap. 4). The absolute state will allow for substantial disagreement about how its core ideas can best be pursued (chap. 5), and even allow civil disobedience if “a law fails to reflect what the state itself desires” (p. 262).

While his claims about the nature of the state are on the face of it startling, close inspection shows that Steinberger has constructed some excellent defenses—if absolutism, omnicompetence, and organicism look contestable in any given instance, all that shows is that a state does not exist there. The state is defined in ideational terms that are encompassing in the way they define a political community to go along with the state; and anything contestable or seemingly at odds with the three core principles can be allocated to the realm of government rather than the state.

Are there any chinks in this self-referential structure? Three spring to mind, all of which attenuate the applicability of Steinberger's theory in the contemporary world. The first occurs in the case of deeply divided societies. If one group's identity can be validated only through suppression of the identity of another group, there is no set of ideas to define a state that they can share. The author does not address this problem; he might respond that each side would have to constitute its own state, but that would fail to get such societies anywhere in practical terms. The second problem is more universal. In an interdependent and occasionally globalizing world, the reality is increasingly that of multiple and overlapping political communities and domains of authority. Steinberger's state is encompassing, well bounded, and exclusive. As such, it belongs to a world of totally sovereign states that (if it ever really existed) is not the same as our world. The third problem arises to the degree that there are things the state must be by virtue of its location within an international system populated by other states, and within a capitalist political economy. To the degree that such constraints apply, the state looks less like the ideational counterpart of a political community.

Such doubts notwithstanding, Steinberger has crafted a theoretical structure that is striking in its originality, comprehensive in its coverage, bold in its willingness to depart from contemporary currents, and learned in its conversation with the history of political thought. Its scholarly achievement is substantial.