Hobbes, the State of Nature, and locked doors.
Hobbes claims in his Leviathan that the natural state amongst men when they don't have an overruling power to keep them in awe is a perpetual state of war. To bolster this claim, he provides the following illustrative example in Chapter VI:
But I don't think this argument actually supports his point. In fact, I think this argument actually leads towards anarchism. For if we have this natural distrust of our fellow man, and further if the natural state amongst men is that of perpetual war, then placing another man or group of men in power over us would not actually waylay the state of perpetual war. Indeed, all this would do is intensify it greatly. For while there may allegedly exist a state of 'peace' amongst the ruled, there would still be the state of perpetual war between the rulers and the ruled; in fact, it would only be magnified, since the ruled are now in a totally asymmetrical position.
Thus, it would seem to me that Hobbes has not managed to escape the specter of anarchism. Indeed, what he has done is provided yet another reason why we should want to be anarchists.
What say you?
"It may seem strange to some man, that has not well weighed these things; that Nature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another: and he may therefore, not trusting to this inference, made from the passions, desire perhaps to have the same confirmed by experience. Let him therefore consider with himself: when taking a journey, he arms himself and seeks to go well accompanied; when going to sleep, he locks his doors; when even in his house he locks his chests; and this when he knows there be laws and public officers, armed, to revenge all injuries shall be done him; what opinion he has of his fellow subjects, when he rides armed; of his fellow citizens, when he locks his doors; and of his children, and servants, when he locks his chests. Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions as I do by my words?"
But I don't think this argument actually supports his point. In fact, I think this argument actually leads towards anarchism. For if we have this natural distrust of our fellow man, and further if the natural state amongst men is that of perpetual war, then placing another man or group of men in power over us would not actually waylay the state of perpetual war. Indeed, all this would do is intensify it greatly. For while there may allegedly exist a state of 'peace' amongst the ruled, there would still be the state of perpetual war between the rulers and the ruled; in fact, it would only be magnified, since the ruled are now in a totally asymmetrical position.
Thus, it would seem to me that Hobbes has not managed to escape the specter of anarchism. Indeed, what he has done is provided yet another reason why we should want to be anarchists.
What say you?
Comments (20)
To understand the root of political nature, you have to understand the root of being born in the first place.
-
Well, could you kindly explain that to me please?
What chains us is our needs and wants in the first place which is rooted in being born in the first place. The first political act was for a parent to think that another human needs to experience, deal with life (the game of). The human finds him/herself with this scenario. The next step is to enculturate the new person into a way-of-life, which is ANY society (not just a particular kind). This enculturation process is the second thing put onto a person. Enculturation of individuals into a way-of-life, creates the epiphonemona of politico-economic institutions. People become points to be manipulated to keep the institutions going. Each person thinks it is for them, but they are for the systems in place, rather. There is no way out of this. Neither anarchism, communism, free-market capitalism, mixed-market capitalism, socialism, or the like are an answer. Being born entails this process of dealing with the conditions of life (survival, maintenance of one's comfort, and entertainment). Being born entails the process of enculturation which inevitably leads to the epiphonemena of units to keep the institutions of the system in place. This goes for ANY society.
-
This is empirically false. Political institutions are an extremely recent development. Indeed, for the vast majority of human existence there have not been any states or governments at all. Indeed, we even see stateless societies in our own time, cf. Zomia.
I consider a tribal society an institution.. so difference in terms I guess. The point is replicating a person is replicating social conventions. It is also replicating the assumptions of the parents, that people SHOULD be born, and that it is good FOR them.
-
That's probably true. A fascinating discussion no doubt, but surely outside the scope of this thread.
First let me comment that your OP does not distinguish properly between anarchy and anarchism- two different things. Anarchy is a state of chaotic affairs- truly no order. That is what Hobbes was postulating. Anarchism as a relatively modern 19th century idea that we live in collectives, like the end state of communism.
Also, the government taking control does not entail that people rebel against it. Rather the government, by strongly quashing anarchic tendencies becomes accepted as more tolerable than the former state of affairs.
-
That's surely true, but the distinction between anarchy as chaos is not salient to the issue at hand. I'm just wondering whether Hobbes' example might not lead to an unintended conclusion for him.
-
I agree with this observation, but just because the people don't rebel against the government does not mean that there does not exist a state of war between the two parties.
What rules a man emotion or reason? If reason, how do the people of a society get their reasoning?
What are the circumstances that shaped Hobbes' consciousness?
Wanting a faster and more powerful computer or car or a larger and more elegant home has what to do with being born? Is it our birth or what we are born into?
Yes, Hobbes says an authority is the only way to suspend the war of all against all.
He is also a Monarchist who dismisses forms of the Republic that would presume to provide such authority as is needed to stop that war.
The two ideas are obviously intertwined but are not identical.
Unless you agree with Hobbes on the matter.
-
I have absolutely no idea. This seems to me to be an empirical question; so I'm not sure that I can comment on it.
-
You will have to expand on this question. What do you mean by 'consciousness'? Consciousness of what?
-
This is an accurate description of Hobbes' view, but I'm trying to ascertain whether the example he provides really serves to establish this conclusion.
I think this is a fair criticism of Hobbe's reasoning. Kant makes a broadly similar point when laying out his theory of the social contract. If the state of nature was a perpetual state of war where even the concept of rights and duties doesn't exist, not only is there no reason to ever trust your fellow man, there is also no reason to band together to change the state of affairs. The latter requires you to already have some idea how a better, more cooperative soceity could operate. So the basic concepts that underlie that society must already exist.
I'd agree to you insofar as the supposed "perpetual state of war" is not ultimately a good argument against anarchism. All humans have the desire and ability to cooperate to reach certain goals, and will do so without coercion. I think the problem that anarchism faces is a bit more down the line: How to effectively organise large-scale social cooperation without establishing hierachies and ruler / ruled relationships.
-
I agree with all this entirely. But I didn’t know that Kant made similar remarks. I am more familiar with his work on epistemology and ethics, so it looks like I will need to do some reading into his political philosophy.
-
This is definitely a major problem. Anarchism does seem to be more fitting for small-scale social arrangements; so cooperation between communities is a delicate issue. Not to mention we have things such as nuclear power plants which need constant large-scale maintenance.
Well for sure anthropology does not support Hobbes's opinion that authority over the people is the only way to maintain a civil culture. Culture is the determining factor, not a hierarchy of authority. It appears to me that Hobbes's opinion was based on Christian mythology.
Hobbes's consciousness was shaped by the Christian cultures he experienced in Britain and France and not by living in India or China or among tribes in North America, as all our different consciousnesses are shaped by what we personally experience. Some of our individual consciousness is private and some is shared, some of it is in our subconscious and some of it we are aware of. Philosophy demands that we think about what we think and that improves our awareness of ourselves and others, but our consciousness is different depending on where we grow up and what we experience in a culture and at that time in history. We can not think and have the consciousness of people 200 years ago.
I'd say make this more concrete and personal. I'm in the US. The government is shitty, but I can imagine a far shittier situation in which a shitty government is replaced by lots of local warlords. Or the chaos in New Orleans after Katrina. Of course a powerful central government becoming completely evil is terrifying. Stalin is not what Hobbes had in mind, but it fits in with the danger you mention. As I understand Hobbes, it was less the state of nature that concerned him than civil war. He did have a grim view of human nature, but I think the state of nature fit into his system in which rights are radically contractual. Until there is a law against something, it was not evil. Hobbes at least pretended to identify sin or evil with what was forbidden by law. He was a truly eerie and fascinating thinker.
A war of all against all seems worse than a war against a single ruler?
And I think that the idea was that the social contract would adres some of that mistrust by regulating that relation. If the ruler doesn't hold up his end of the bargain, than the people will rebel, which is what has in fact happened numerous times in history. The relation is only assymetrical vs an individual, not if the people unite... or rather then it's assymetrical in favour of the people. So a ruler allways needs to make sure he doesn't alienate to many people... Mandate of heaven!
In so far as Hobbes points to how we guard ourselves against violence and theft, he is contrasting those measures with the desire to not live that way. He is not saying that wanting to live differently is wrong.
By asking: "Does he not there as much accuse mankind by his actions as I do by my words?" he is challenging the idea that "we" are all beyond that because of a standard of community we celebrate. The social order is an advance over anarchy but not a complete victory.
In that way, his embrace of the Monarchist point of view is to make the desire to live without war higher than any other concern. The position is not an argument for the best system, it accuses those who speak in those terms of not being honest with themselves on some level.