In a survey of peer reviewed history journals, I found seven reviews of Seeing Like A State by James C. Scott. There was a narrow majority which agreed with Scott’s theories and conclusions, and a large minority which agreed with his conclusions but rejected his theories. He was also frequently criticised for oversimplification, even in the positive reviews.

I’ll begin by noting that James C. McGann gave a completely positive review. Michael Biggs also gave a completely positive review, but voiced concerns that the book’s conclusions would by co-opted by fiscal conservatives. Jon Agar gave a very positive review but made a mild critique that the book was oversimplified.

Ronald Creagh gave a very positive review but believed that Scott did not adequately explore the relationship between states and capitalism. Creagh was concerned that the implicit conclusion of the book was that unfettered capitalism was the only alternative to state social engineering.

Michael Adas gave a mixed review. He approved of the book as an overview of failed state planning, but believed it failed to prove its thesis on the exact conditions necessary for creating the potential for catastrophic state planning: civil society being levelled by severe traumatic shocks and a subsequent takeover by authoritarians with a commitment to high modernism and social transformation. Adas noted that fascism was not motivated by high modernism so much as romanticism and a rejection of modernities it found undesirable. Adas believed that Scott may have intentionally given less attention to far right social engineering to avoid acknowledging that. Adas also pointed out that while Scott was fixated on failed attempts by the elite to make society legible (i.e. easy to understand), Scott also admitted in the book that there have been indisputably successful state projects inspired by legibility, which he made no attempt to explain or refute.

Tim Cresswell also gave a mixed review. He agreed with Scott’s conclusions but believed that Scott focused on the most obvious, authoritarian, and catastrophic social engineering projects to make his theses stronger than they were. Cresswell also felt that Scott was overly optimistic about the mētis (i.e. common sense) of the average person. Cresswell suspected that there have been countless successful instances of state social engineering that we take for granted as they have been integrated into society. Cresswell also believed that the book should have paid more attention to the subtle social engineering of technocratic elitists in liberal democracies.

David D. Laitin gave the only fully critical review. Laitin believed that Scott ignored instances of state projects correcting problems caused by faulty mētis. Laitin noted that Scott claimed that for catastrophic social engineering to take place it required an authoritarian state with a high modernist ideology which was seeking to simplify nature and the prostrate society it controlled. However, Laitin pointed out that in many of Scott’s examples, some of those components were missing, despite his claim that all of them were necessary. Overall, Laitin believed that Scott oversimplified the facts to strengthen his spurious theses.

In conclusion, a narrow majority of historian reviewers completely agreed with Scott’s theories and conclusions. However, while there was a consensus among the reviewers agreeing with Scott that ideologically motivated governments indifferent to the local concerns and knowledge of the people were the cause of the greatest social engineering catastrophes, there was frequent critique of Scott’s models for determining the when and why.

Sources:

Adas, Michael. “Review: Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.” Journal of Social History 33, no. 4 (2000): 959-963.

Agar, Jon. “Review: Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.” The British Journal for the History of Science 45, no. 1 (2001): 114-115.

Biggs, Michael. “Review: Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 44, no. 4 (2002): 852-857.

Creagh, Ronald. “Review: Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.” International Review of Social History 44, no. 2 (1999): 307-309.

Cresswell, Tim. “Review: Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.” Journal of Historical Geography 27, no. 1 (2001): 132-133.

Laitin, David D. “Review: Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.” The Journal of Interdisciplinary History 30, no. 1 (1999): 177-179.

McCann, James C. “Review: Seeing Like A State: How Certain Schemes To Improve The Human Condition Have Failed by James C. Scott.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies 31, no. 1 (1998): 115-116.