Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan

My first reading of my graduate school career is Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan which, though described as “somewhat archaic prose” on the back of the book, I find to be of totally archaic language. Still, I turned my brain to overdrive and have two main questions/points of discussion to elaborate on here in regard to Leviathan. Hobbes says that tyranny is better than the state of nature. Nature is chaotic, and the organization any form of government promotes within society is better than this disorder. First, how does this concept relate to politicians acting out of political self-interest? And, secondly, what drives people to follow the laws put in place by the sovereign power? 

I attended the Immersion Program this past weekend on AU’s campus. While there, former Senator Russ Feingold, gave an exemplary (and candid!) seminar on the U.S. Senate and foreign policy. In this, we discussed several moments throughout history in which the executive and legislative branches have evidenced instances of acting out of their own political self-interests. These political actors behaved in a state of natural selfishness. Hobbes explains that one role of the sovereign power is to enforce a state of law, order, and peace, thereby directing society away from one’s natural state and interests (i.e. chaos and disorder). I wonder, then, how Hobbes might interpret the societal impact of these instances where self-interest trumps the “greater good”? How do we entrust into one person—or group of people—the power to rule if they themselves are privy to our natural urges of selfishness and self-preservation? I discussed this with a fellow student in the MAIR program. His stance is that it is in the sovereign’s best interest to enforce law and order, therefore he is constricted—to some degree—by his own interests. Given that this student actually teaches Leviathan in a college course, I feel inclined to take his word for it, but I do not feel totally satisfied with this explanation. 

As a former student of psychology and criminology, my second question stems more directly from my experience and interest in these fields. The functioning of the Leviathan relies not only on the power of the sovereign, but on the assumption that the people will follow the sovereign’s laws. Hobbes affinity for a government bordering on the dictatorial leads me to believe that any dissenting opinions are forcefully dealt with, but this stance applies to the time of Hobbes. Now that the U.S. Constitution is in place and organized in a way which deviates from the monarchial norm of Britain, something other than force must drive people to follow the laws of our government. But, what? Hobbes maintains that there are moral laws existing even in the chaotic state of nature. These are what allow colonies of animals to live in harmony, despite a lack of higher functioning, reward, etc. Perhaps we as humans do have an intrinsic moral code, thus giving us an inherent affinity towards the order our government promotes. However, this assumption challenges the assumption that without government, chaos and unrest would ensue. In this way, I feel that Hobbes’s own arguments are contradictory, though it is not implausible that I am misinterpreting his work! Still, this topic may be best examined from a social sciences perspective in order to inform future political endeavors (i.e. the purpose of political psychology).