Seeing Like a State: How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition Have Failed is a book by James C. Scott critical of a system of beliefs he calls high modernism, that centers on governments' overconfidence in the ability to design and operate society in accordance with purported scientific laws.
[1][2][3] The book makes an argument that states seek to force "legibility" on their subjects by homogenizing them and creating standards that simplify pre-existing, natural, diverse social arrangements.
Scott shows how central governments attempt to force legibility on their subjects, and fail to see complex, valuable forms of local social order and knowledge.
The book uses examples like the introduction of permanent last names in Great Britain, cadastral surveys in France, and standard units of measure across Europe to argue that a reconfiguration of social order is necessary for state scrutiny, and requires the simplification of pre-existing, natural arrangements.
Schemes that successfully improve human lives, Scott argues, must take into account local conditions, and that the high-modernist ideologies of the 20th century have prevented this.
He highlights collective farms in the Soviet Union, the building of Brasília, and forced villagization in 1970s Tanzania as examples of failed schemes which were led by top-down bureaucratic efforts and where officials ignored or silenced local expertise.
He highlights the importance of embracing the dynamic and diverse nature of practical knowledge derived from experience, emphasizing its relevance in addressing complex challenges and promoting resilience in the face of change.
Scott examines the limitations of high-modernist urban planning and social engineering, contending that these approaches often result in unsustainable outcomes and diminish human autonomy and abilities.
Scott contrasts the rigid, centralized designs of high modernism with the adaptable, diverse nature of institutions shaped by practical wisdom, or "metis."
Examples from agriculture, urban planning, and economics are used to illustrate how rigid, top-down approaches can lead to environmental degradation, social dislocation, and a loss of human agency.
He highlights the role of informal, bottom-up practices in complementing and sometimes subverting formal systems, demonstrating how metis-driven institutions can thrive in complex, ever-changing environments.
DeLong argued that while Scott effectively critiques high modernism, he may avoid explicitly aligning his work with the Austrian perspective due to subconscious fears of being associated with certain political ideologies.
"Metis" alone is not sufficient; we need to find a way to link it felicitously with—to stick with Scott's Aristotelian vocabulary—phronesis and praxis, or, in more ordinary terms, to produce theories more profoundly grounded in actual practice so that the state may see better in implementing policies.