The statement reflects a common, often idealized, understanding of the state, particularly as conceptualized in Western political thought (e.g., Weberian notions of bureaucracy and rational-legal authority). In this view, the state is an autonomous, impartial, and rational entity that stands 'outside and above society,' acting as a neutral arbiter of competing interests and pursuing the collective good. It is seen as possessing a monopoly on legitimate force, a distinct bureaucracy, and the capacity to implement policies effectively across its territory.

However, the experience of the post-colonial state, particularly in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, often starkly contradicted this ideal. While the newly independent states inherited the formal structures of the colonial state (e.g., administrative apparatus, legal systems, military), their actual functioning and relationship with society were profoundly different and far less autonomous.

Here's why the post-colonial state often failed to live up to this ideal:

1. Colonial Legacy and Artificiality: Colonial powers often created states with arbitrary borders, encompassing diverse ethnic and linguistic groups without organic historical unity. This led to weak national identities and strong sub-national loyalties, making it difficult for the state to command universal legitimacy and act as a unifying force 'above' society.

2. Weak Institutional Capacity: The institutions inherited from colonial rule were often designed for extraction and control, not for fostering development or broad-based public service. Post-colonial states frequently lacked robust administrative capacity, a well-trained bureaucracy, and effective legal systems, making it challenging to implement policies autonomously.

3. Embeddedness in Society and Patronage: Rather than standing above society, the post-colonial state often became deeply embedded within it. Political leaders frequently relied on patronage networks, ethnic loyalties, and clientelism to maintain power. State resources were often used to reward supporters and co-opt opposition, blurring the lines between public and private interests. This meant the state was not a neutral arbiter but a site of intense competition among societal factions.

4. Rent-Seeking and Corruption: The state often became the primary source of wealth and power in economies with limited private sector development. This incentivized rent-seeking behavior, where individuals and groups used their access to state power to extract personal gain, further undermining the state's autonomy and its ability to act for the collective good.

5. External Dependence: Many post-colonial states remained economically dependent on former colonial powers or international financial institutions. This external influence often constrained their policy choices, limiting their autonomy in pursuing national development agendas.

6. Military Intervention and Weak Civilian Control: In many instances, the military, often a powerful institution inherited from colonial rule, played a disproportionate role in politics, leading to coups and periods of authoritarian rule. This further eroded the idea of a civilian state 'above' societal factions.

In essence, the post-colonial state, while formally sovereign, often found itself deeply entangled in societal divisions, economic dependencies, and institutional weaknesses that prevented it from achieving the idealized autonomy and impartiality of a state 'outside and above society.' Instead, it frequently became a contested terrain, shaped by internal and external pressures, and often serving the interests of particular elites or groups rather than the entire populace.