Thomas Hobbes: Leviathan
When I started reading Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan I found myself as overwhelmed with the seventh-century language and ideas as I had done during my initial study of Political Science a few years ago. I had to focus in on his main ideas and I began to think the Hobbes’ ideas were archaic and did not hold true in the world we live today. It took me some time to look deeper into his ideas.
One of Hobbes' main ideas is that man in his natural state cares only about his own survival and personal benefit, man is naturally selfish and lawless. What brings order to the chaos? For Hobbes leadership and direction brings such order. Not, any leadership but strong and absolute. Personal liberty and freedoms can be sacrificed for the greater good and security of society as a whole. In Hobbes age this idea makes sense, England was reeling from Civil War and moving into an unknown future. Stability and security of a single leader were needed to reestablish balance.
If we look at the world we live in today his idea might seem ridiculous. From what I know it is true that in the Western World republics based on democratic principles do not engage in wars with each other and are generally stable and secure without sacrificing freedoms. To an extent, Hobbes ideas hold true today. Take the United States, though we have three branches of government the executive branch tends to hold the most power, though it is not absolute and can be checked it is still a powerful force. Throughout the Western World, we have also seen freedoms be given up for the greater good and security of society as a whole. Take various counter-terrorism laws like the various British Terrorism Acts or the US PATRIOT Act. These laws increased security and in some cases suspended certain rights citizens of the said nation held.
I find that for Hobbes' ideas in modern society we must take into account the region where we apply them. Take the Middle East and North African region, I would argue this is where Hobbes' absolute power notion still holds true to its original form. Though I agree there are many aspects a play, we see a region where those nations with absolute monarchies remained relatively stable throughout the upheaval of the Arab Spring. By which I mean limited violent protests and no outbreak of arm insurrection. The others however if they have not turned into lawless states or warzones have reverted back to having strong central governments with absolute power over the governance of the state.
So I take this and think maybe Hobbes' ideas are not so archaic and may still hold true today, albeit not entirely in the way Hobbes would have thought.
Thank you for your response Patrick.
ReplyDeleteLike other popular and influential ideologies, Hobbes's Social Contract Theory is simply another theory. Ideally, it sounds great. Passing on big responsibilities to one person so the rest of society can focus on other things and keep calm is one way to do it, if we were discussing robots or an extremely orderly homogenous society maybe. Hobbes idea seems overly simplified because there are many things to factor in besides electing a leader to ensure peace and order. For example, what happens if the absolute leader becomes corrupt? Or, what about outside influence or aggression? Or, diversity? After our reading this week I thought about Scandinavia a lot. I feel that Scandinavians are so good at following rules and considering the greater good at all times. For example, when my friend finished her masters degree in Denmark last year I asked her if she would file for unemployment while she looked for work. Her reply was, she wouldn't dare be a burden to society if she had the means to get by. I have many Danish and Swedish friends who share this way of thinking and behave in a manner that protects the society they have established which ensures safety, peace, and equality amongst all its citizens. Of course, these countries are homogenous. Now, with the influx of refugees from Syria and other MENA regions, however, the governments in these regions seem to be moving are becoming more conservative. Anyway, the point I was trying to make is that perhaps some societies which are more homogenous tend to better fit Hobbes’ Social Contract theory.
To piggyback off of Alexandria's comment, I do agree that Hobbes' social contract theory, especially when proposing a single authoritarian leader, is a better fit in a homogenous society. There is less room for disagreement when everyone shares much of the same opinions and beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIn Hobbes' view, differing opinions in a society, especially religious pluralism, is a huge threat to the primary objective of a social contract - peace. I probably read his stance to be more dramatic than it actually is, but I understood his argument to be that new members of society would have to give up their beliefs to conform to the beliefs and opinions maintained by the masses already in order for the system to remain stable and society at peace.
A modern day example of this was when France banned the wearing of the hijab. By making this law, France was saying that a person of the Muslim faith must give up their belief in wearing the hijab in public in order for the peace to be maintained. Literally, the peace and stability of France was at risk because of a face covering..... This law was challenged and eventually upheld by the European Court of Human Rights based on "a certain idea of living together".*
With the refugee influx to Europe, there is obviously a lot more intermixing of opinions and beliefs and this is causing states and the citizens to take a more conservative stance in order to preserve the peace and status quo.
I would argue, however, that it is not the differing opinions and beliefs themselves that makes people feel like the peace and stability is threatened. It's the fear of these differing opinions that is actually causes the peace to be threatened.
If a woman in France is wearing a hijab but is abiding by the laws and existing "social contract", the peace of France is not threatened. As long as an individual accepts and abides by the "agreement" that society has entered together, the differing personal opinions and beliefs should be okay.
*Source: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court
Comment by Emma Hedges
ReplyDeleteI largely agree with your observation that societies reeling from social and political unrest look to a strong leader for recovery, but I had one question. What do you think Hobbes would have had to say about countries, western republics mostly, that engage in proxy wars? Would he regard them as a weakness of man, always searching for power, or an attempt to ensure personal stabilty through control of markets and influence over other nations? That turned into two questions I'm afraid.
This is an interesting question, Emma, which I think is particularly relevant today when we look at what is happening in Syria.
ReplyDeleteI think the concept of the proxy war is incredibly consistent with Hobbes' world view. For starters, for the reason you eluded to, which is that man is always interested in gaining more power. The proxy war allows states to gain power by creating a reputation that is feared (as Hobbes mentions on p.38 of Leviathan) by demonstrating their ability to exercise their will and/or to protect their interests. Hobbes believes that this will mean more people will therefore flock/rally behind the states that engage in these kinds of power struggles, which ultimately results in more power.
Additionally, I think the proxy war works well within Hobbes' world view because it allows states to vie for more power without having to assume the same risks as with an all-out war. This gets into the idea of self-preservation, which states (like individuals) are always interested in. If I can fight you in an area that is outside of my homeland, I can gain some credibility and increase my state's power/influence, without having to risk destruction.
Finally, I think it also fits into Hobbes' idea of states or commonwealths as protective entities designed to protect those who fall under it. In a modern sense, this would include those countries that fall into a Huntington-like "sphere" of influence. Most proxy wars are fought in a two-fold sense: to both advance one's power while also protecting those within one's own sphere of influence. To lose states under your influence is to lose power, so to protect that power, war must ensue.
One could also argue that by advancing your power, you are essentially aiming to expand your sphere. Such was certainly the case in most of the proxy wars that made up the Cold War and likewise is the case today in Syria, where the U.S., Russia, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are engaging in a heated exchange for power/influence over the region.
Patrick, I was thrilled to see you tie Leviathan to the civil liberty vs. security discussion. When we ask how much of our personal freedom we are willing to give up for our safety, I like to think of the two in terms of a justice scale. You can’t have more of one without giving up the other. How do we define giving up our civil liberties? Generations have defined some of the differences not necessarily by choice (rather, not by choice at all), but because of the events that shaped their generation. That being said, these differences along with some comments from our peers to your blog made me think of culture. The way we value our liberty and our way of life is not the same as any other non-western, or even any western country does. I don’t believe the United States is in danger of conformism anytime soon though, as we rate higher on the individualism scale than most other countries.
ReplyDelete