The State of Nature
Does the realm of international politics reflect the "state of nature" described by Hobbes? This is an interesting question that could have an enormous impact on state to state interactions, as well as governing international bodies. The state of nature that Hobbes depicts is one of survival of the fittest, where existence is the only motivating factor for individuals. Those seeking to preserve their lives should, therefore, submit to an unquestioned power that will be charged with keeping them alive at the cost of freedom or choices. Does this definition fit the international community, and can it be applied to countries as Hobbes applied the theory to individuals?
I am of the opinion that the international community does not reflect the state of nature set forth by Hobbes. The global village we have erected is less about equality and preservation, and more about power struggles between key actors. Those who think our international community allows for survival of the fittest should take note of the proxy war being waged in Yemen. The sovereignty of Yemen is non-existent in the sectarian war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What chance does Yemen have of striking back? The state of nature should allow equal footing for all countries, or the ability to survive and defend one's sovereignty, making this metaphor weak.
Perhaps the difficulty in equating the state of nature to the international system of today lies within the structure of countries in general. Globalization has erased borders, and it has blurred the lines between self-governance and international order. In a Gemeinschaft, where communities were homogeneous, perhaps it would have been easier to submit all voices to one power. This may have helped in taming all countries under one international order, as well. The intermingled complexities of modern society create too many chances for dialogue and dissent for countries to follow a specific path. The polarized American opinion is an extreme example of how a treaty one day could be a war the next. This sort of bi-polar interaction wreaks havoc when dealing with other countries.
Hobbes may have allowed for an international body that governed over the countries of the world, provided it was stable and unquestioned. If there was an international victor that reigned over all countries, he may have seen that as an absolute power. An international body governed by five dominant voices, however, would sow too much discord to function under his paradigm. The cycling temporary members create even more ambiguity, but not to the extent that it sets an equal playing field for all members. Regardless of the accuracy or reality of Hobbes's state of nature, our international model does not fit well with his definition.
Globalization may not have been something Hobbes would have accounted for. Maybe the idea that borders would crumble, or that the world wide web would turn continents into neighbors, would be unfathomable during his feudal period of history. While history continues to prove that conflict rears its ugly head incessantly, the international community proves that it can do just enough to tip the tides of war based on personal interest, but not enough to show impartiality. Survival of the fittest comes with a caveat; that caveat being you must not only be fit, but powerful, strong, wealthy, and connected. The international community is a farce for equality, and although brutish, it does not equate to the state of nature laid out in Leviathan. Countries are not people, but if they were, the international community would be charged with the inability to honor its pact and protect its subjects.
I am of the opinion that the international community does not reflect the state of nature set forth by Hobbes. The global village we have erected is less about equality and preservation, and more about power struggles between key actors. Those who think our international community allows for survival of the fittest should take note of the proxy war being waged in Yemen. The sovereignty of Yemen is non-existent in the sectarian war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. What chance does Yemen have of striking back? The state of nature should allow equal footing for all countries, or the ability to survive and defend one's sovereignty, making this metaphor weak.
Perhaps the difficulty in equating the state of nature to the international system of today lies within the structure of countries in general. Globalization has erased borders, and it has blurred the lines between self-governance and international order. In a Gemeinschaft, where communities were homogeneous, perhaps it would have been easier to submit all voices to one power. This may have helped in taming all countries under one international order, as well. The intermingled complexities of modern society create too many chances for dialogue and dissent for countries to follow a specific path. The polarized American opinion is an extreme example of how a treaty one day could be a war the next. This sort of bi-polar interaction wreaks havoc when dealing with other countries.
Hobbes may have allowed for an international body that governed over the countries of the world, provided it was stable and unquestioned. If there was an international victor that reigned over all countries, he may have seen that as an absolute power. An international body governed by five dominant voices, however, would sow too much discord to function under his paradigm. The cycling temporary members create even more ambiguity, but not to the extent that it sets an equal playing field for all members. Regardless of the accuracy or reality of Hobbes's state of nature, our international model does not fit well with his definition.
Globalization may not have been something Hobbes would have accounted for. Maybe the idea that borders would crumble, or that the world wide web would turn continents into neighbors, would be unfathomable during his feudal period of history. While history continues to prove that conflict rears its ugly head incessantly, the international community proves that it can do just enough to tip the tides of war based on personal interest, but not enough to show impartiality. Survival of the fittest comes with a caveat; that caveat being you must not only be fit, but powerful, strong, wealthy, and connected. The international community is a farce for equality, and although brutish, it does not equate to the state of nature laid out in Leviathan. Countries are not people, but if they were, the international community would be charged with the inability to honor its pact and protect its subjects.
From the writing on the wall in your post, so to speak, it seems like you think that Hobbes would have suggested some changes to the structure of our supposed global powerhouses. Do you think that Hobbes would advocate for more sovereignity to be turned over to organizations like the UN, or do you think he would prefer that nations remain independent?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the international community does not follow the same natural principles that govern individuals in Hobbes's theory. Your example of the situation in Yemen was an interesting point that is repeated innumerable times throughout history. Weak nations are essentially incapable of defending themselves against the larger countries because of internal weakness. Even if they put their all into a war, they would never be able to effectively "kill" the other country.
ReplyDelete