Talk:Seeing Like a State

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Untitled

The main quotes and book reviews in this article come from Scott's detractors. This ignores the importance and appreciation of the book within sociology, particularly science and technology studies. The negative parts of the reviews come mainly from reviewers' defenses of nation-states or free markets in general, which address Scott's anarchism more than the main contribution of the book (the main contribution is in the concepts "high modernism", legibility, simplification, miniaturization, visual aesthetics of modernism, and metis). Perhaps I can find time to make a thorough edit. ---P

I agree with this assessment to the degree that I added the NPOV banner. I think the article needs to provide a synopsis and a description of the books considerable influence in addition to criticisms. I'm an Inclusionist so I won't cut anything yet. Groceryheist (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this article is lacking, and I agree with the previous comments that the reviews are largely critics. Scott is commonly taught in anthropology courses because he provides a reasoned critique of the state. The article should minimally include a more robust summary oof the key arguments in the book.Dranthrop (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)17Dec2019 Dranthrop[reply]