Hobbes’ Void


                In a heavily theory-based class, there is some expectation that you must construct situations in a vacuum. In the social sciences just like in ‘hard’ sciences like biology and chemistry, experiments, or in Hobbes’ case, theories of governance, must have specified parameters to prevent a descent into minutiae. Unlike the hard sciences however, where you control for human quirks that might alter the results of a drug study, resulting in a more successful end product, social sciences cannot forever put off the fact that they deal in the actions and reactions of human beings.
                A significant portion of this week’s class discussion focused on the state of nature, or Hobbes’ idea of a human blank slate. With no social classes or systems of governance and equivalent chances of survival, you can take a clear look at the individual traits that make up a person; memory, speech, and desire, to cite a few from Hobbes’ extensive listing. From there you can add in ‘experimental’ subjects like types of governance, socio-cultural norms, etc.
                I think this ability to peel back the layers of a person or country is possibly the most valuable thing that Hobbes offers to the modern international affairs scholar. The caveat being that in real world situations, you cannot simply strip away something when it gets in the way of your operative theory. Still, Hobbes provides a framework with which to consider international scenarios, particularly as we look back on those that have already passed. Those past situations tend to shape our perceptions of current and future events, hence the point of historical and theoretical study of international relations.
                The long-winded point at the end of this tunnel is that Hobbes’ state of nature, though usually not directly applicable to current events, can be used when you are parsing the past. As a very basic example, we’ll say country X and country Y entered into a war over their borders, for simplicity’s sake. But they also have a history of ethnic conflict. Country X, in the real world has vast oil and mineral reserves that contributed to an advanced manufacturing-based economy. Country Y, though it has an agricultural economy, has long held a respected position on the world stage and thus holds sway with a global community. Obviously, these countries do not exist in an international state of nature, they are not equals.
                If though, you strip them of their assets and connections and put them into a ‘state of nature’, you can slowly start adding their real-world layers back in. Perhaps once you, the international scholar, have done so, you see that the war wasn’t actually about borders, but about country X’s hungry citizens, and country Y’s people, who struggle to find enough raw materials for their agricultural equipment. Perhaps their historical ethnic differences prevented them from helping each other. As a student of history, you can look at this conflict, theorize a way to overcome it, perhaps by using a neutral party to negotiate a trade treaty favorable to both sides, and apply that knowledge to future situations you encounter.
                In this way, reason can be used to overcome a situation that might have otherwise required vast expenditures and application of coercion in the form of brute force to end the conflict.

Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Ch. 15, “Of the Laws of Nature,” Touchstone (New York: 1997)

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 17, 2018 at 12:31 PM

    This is a very thoughtful analysis as to how Hobbes's theory of the state of nature can be applied to international relations today. It is of interest to base situations of conflict at their core (i.e. in the 'state of nature') in order to evaluate the more complex issues at hand. Doing so may be beneficial in developing effective and sustainable peace building initiatives. However, this would only be successful assuming that parties do indeed act in a manner that is a) rational and b) intended to promote survival and power. Even then, can one party's rational be another's irrational? When we start adding in issues of socio-cultural norms, religion, and historical context, it becomes clear that societies are vastly incongruous in terms of 'normality.' If we subscribe to Hobbes's theory, though, that all parties' rationale is the same at its core, then this would be of benefit in conflict resolution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHMay 17, 2018 at 5:54 PM

      You hit the problem with applying generalized theories and plans to international situations right on the head. We can propose solutions, and trade ideas as much as we want, but every situation is going to be unique in its own way, when it comes down to it.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousJune 13, 2018 at 1:56 PM

      I definitely agree with this argument. Reading Waltz's work, we tend to extrapolate on theory without taking into account outside factors. I feel that for purposes of fundamentally evaluating one variable of a situation this can be useful, but it is important to understand the role of other factors when conducting a full analysis. Hobbes was very interested in the state of nature, but this in no small part is due to the absence of a strong international system. His reality may have been more like a vacuum in that you really didn't need to take into account factors such as globalization, or the spread of radical new theories. For simplicity, we can utilize the underlying argument of Hobbes, but the amount of variables with which to test his theory seems to have increased with advances in technology and modernization.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anarchy in the USA

           While discussing realist motives and intentions, it seems that the United States is headed down a curious path worth looking at. Clearly a powerful nation, the United States should be in a unique position to latch onto globalization in order to secure a stable future. Calm, cool, collected domination is a much better look than ramping up rhetoric and perceived might, because your neighbor's interest to attack is seemingly when they are most threatened by show of force.             The United States has long taken advantage of its allies, while using economic bargaining to secure peaceful existence. The European Union is a clear ally in the spread of Democracy and Capitalism, two tenants central to the existence of the United States. It is this point that makes recent events troubling with regards to a peaceful future.             In an effort to bolster nationalism, our country has tur...
Read more

Waltz's Neorealism

The reading by Waltz points out some key points that Neorealists believe in. Neorealists view power as a possibly useful means. Neorealism contends that international politics can be understood only if the effects of structure are added to the unit-level explanations of traditional realism. It rejects the assumption that man’s innate lust for power constitutes a sufficient cause of war in the absence of of any other. Specifically, we need to look at the causal link interacting units and international outcomes. We’ve established before with Hobbes that the system we live in is anarchy. States are rational actors that at their basest level want to survive. Neorealism states that within an anarchy, states need to provide their own security to protect themselves from threats. This security dilemma is a problem, war occurs. This depends on situations and characteristics of states, not because states want to have war. The more important question then becomes what started th...
Read more

Corporations Will Run Amuck

Corporations help create domestic and global economic prosperity. However, when they grow extremely rich they can become powerful which may threaten sovereign actors’ authority, both on a national and international level. Additionally, through hefty donations their lobbying capability allows them to manipulate politicians and the political process undermining democratic processes and devaluing the voice of the people.  In order to prevent corporations from interfering with the democratic processes there needs to be an overarching system that monitors what corporations do and how they do it. To a certain extent room and flexibility may help corporations better compete against one another. Capitalist societies like the United States believe that less regulations on corporations means more incentive to be innovative. And while that may be true to some extent, there are also many abuses these companies commit in order to maximize their profits. Without strict gui...
Read more