Theories of the state gravitate toward either of two poles. Few of them have been able to settle in a middle ground. This is unfortunate, since, though most of them get something important right about the state, few of them incorporate the complementary insight associated with the other pole. At one of the poles the state is treated as an instrument for advancing some concrete social force: the economy, a dominant group, or technology. Many recent theories of the state try to avoid this pole through their emphasis on the state's ability to run counter to such social forces. These theories then set out from the autonomy of the state and move in the direction of the other pole.

The key factor associated with this other pole is the legitimating activity of the state. It legitimates its own rule and indirectly the dominant social forces of the nation. The state does a variety of things to gain acceptance. It secures its rule through economic activity, such as bolstering consumer demand; through political activity, such as funneling insurgencies into mainstream parties; and through ideological activity, such as fashioning the framework for public education. Different theories of the state have emphasized some of these legitimating activities over others, but rarely has any of them made its legitimating activity less of a mystery. No light is shed on either its basis or its limits.