Seeing Like a State - James C. Scott

Join us for a discussion of Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.
The synopsis and some tentative discussion questions are below. If as you read, you encounter some thought-provoking lines and/or find yourself wrestling with some burning questions, please note them down and bring them to the discussion!
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join; and if you need help accessing the text, please feel free to reach out to me directly.
The Vancouver Public Library has an unlimited license to the audiobook version of this title through the Palace Project app: https://vpl.bibliocommons.com/v2/record/S38C10383820

Synopsis:
In Seeing Like a State, James C. Scott explores why so many large-scale plans to “improve” society go so badly wrong. He argues that modern states strive to make society “legible” by imposing standardized categories—fixed surnames, cadastral maps, uniform measures, rationalized city plans, monocrop agriculture—that simplify complex local practices so they can be taxed, administered, and controlled.
Scott calls the ideology behind these sweeping projects “high modernism”: a strong faith in scientific planning and technical expertise, often combined with authoritarian power and a weakened civil society. Through examples such as scientific forestry, Soviet collectivization, Tanzanian villagization, and planned cities like Brasília and Chandigarh, he shows how ignoring local knowledge (“metis”) and lived complexity can produce human and ecological disasters, even when intentions are benevolent.

Discussion Questions (subject to revision):

1. Scott argues that states need “legibility” to tax, conscript, and regulate. When does making society more legible feel benign or even helpful, and when does it become dangerous?
2. High-modernist schemes promise order, efficiency, and progress. Why do these promises remain so attractive, even in the face of repeated failures?
3. Scott contrasts abstract, top-down plans with local, experiential knowledge (“metis”). How do you see this tension playing out today—in urban design, education, healthcare, climate policy, or tech?
4. Many of Scott’s examples involve authoritarian regimes, but he also criticizes liberal democracies and market-driven reforms. Do you think his critique targets “the state” as such, or a more general mindset that can appear in corporations, NGOs, and expert communities?
5. To what extent is “seeing like a state” something we all do when we rely on metrics, rankings, and simplified models? Are there situations where we have to think like a state to act at scale?
6. How should we balance the need for coordination and standardization (public health, infrastructure, climate action) with respect for local diversity and knowledge?
7. Scott celebrates informal, bottom-up practices and “everyday forms of resistance.” Do you find this reassuring, romanticized, or something in between?
8. If you were designing an institution or policy in light of Scott’s arguments, what concrete safeguards or design principles would you want to build in?

Thanks to Spartacus Books for generously opening up their space for us! If you’re able, please support them with a small donation (suggested: $2), or with a purchase if one of their titles catches your fancy.