Reaction to Hobbes (Week 1, Module 1) - Emma Hedges


This blog post was written by Emma Hedges in her personal capacity. The opinions expressed in this posting are the author's own and do not reflect the view of the United States government.

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan reads much like an anthropological ethnography of mid-seventeenth century western European social mores and governance. The first section’s extensive definitions of human behaviors and thought processes could today be used as a metric by which the success of humanoid artificial intelligence is judged. As the book continued though, it is easy to see why the writers of our own US Constitution leaned heavily on Hobbes’ work.
Hobbes had a gift for distilling the essential points of systems of government then clearly explaining the human behaviors that underlay the development and maintenance of those structures. A modern read of Leviathan gives the reader new appreciation for the applicability of many of Hobbes’ ideas to today’s democracies. In a time of political polarization not only in the US, but in many western democratic states, there is a certain comfort to be found in Leviathan, written so close up on the heels of the English Civil Wars. Not to say, of course, that civil war is a necessary prelude to a time of peace and relative understanding, but rather Hobbes argues that people under a structured government generally gravitate toward internal peace.
The argument is furthered by the rationalization that the avoidance of war is a method of self-preservation. After all, if a sovereign has the nearly-limitless powers Hobbes delineates and can order any (male) citizen off to war as the whim takes him, the average citizen would logically advocate for peace. As Hobbes puts it “the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Leviathan, Chapter 8) is one that could only be disimproved by the addition of war. The quote is vastly overused and misquoted in today’s literature and opinion pieces, but the gist remains the same. If the human condition is already miserable, why make it worse by adding the high taxes, mandatory military service, and import deprivations that are historically the results of war.
Further pondering along those lines and the potential ramifications therein are left to our elected lawmakers, as, according to Hobbes, in our electing them to office, we have given them the right to speak and run the country in our names. No take-backs, for a modern equivalent. Fortunately, recognizing that human fallibility and health do not always ascribe to the tidy rationalizations found in philosophy, our Founding Fathers built fail-safes into the Constitution, making it possible to remove from office members of Congress who are no longer capable of discharging their responsibilities to their constituents.
This also has applications in the case of leaders of countries who lean too far towards what Hobbes refers to as monopolies. By Hobbes’ definition, monopolies occur when monies (he references taxes) are concentrated in the hands of too few. He draws a charming parallel to monopolies as chest inflammations. Here again, the writers of the US Constitution were extraordinarily forward-thinking. Our system of checks and balances not only distributes power, but also responsibility for finances.
The true lesson to be found in Leviathan is ones that Hobbes himself makes clear when he emphasizes that his perceptions of governance are built on those the Romans and Greeks practiced and refined. Granted, Hobbes draws heavily on the Christian underpinnings of the seventeenth century interpretations of the Roman and Greek systems, but the point is that evolution and alteration are necessary for the time in which the system is applied. The US Constitution itself has evolved over time with the addition of amendments. Now other nations borrow from the example set by the US when they establish their own democratic systems. Despite the constantly changing nature of governments, Hobbes’ Leviathan is an irreplaceable brick in their foundations.

Works Cited
Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Edited by Flathman, Richard, Johnston, David. 1997.

Comments

  1. AnonymousMay 7, 2018 at 7:52 AM

    I enjoyed your insights on Leviathan and it made me question the relationship between war and self defense. You mentioned how an absolute power could impose peace because of the citizens' inability to oppose war. They could be forced into war by the sovereign and thus they advocate for peace. Hobbes also states that one right that is reserved to the people and not a part of the social contract is the right to self-defense. Would you say that Hobbes contradicts himself by stating that the people have the right to self defense, but then can be ordered to war in which they have little to no say, thus putting life in jeopardy? Do you think Hobbes would justify a revolt in such cases since it could be interpreted as self-defense?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHMay 7, 2018 at 7:27 PM

      What an interesting avenue to consider! Hobbes' emphasis on the absolute power of the sovereign (and their heirs) leads me to believe that he would call self-defense a personal right, exercisable in situations like mugging, but that the sovereign has the ability to overule it. It would be interesting to hear his thoughts regarding the system the US used during the world wars to handle people who opposed war on religious grounds, i.e. giving them administrative roles, or employing them as stretcher-bearers.

      Delete
  2. AnonymousMay 8, 2018 at 4:16 PM

    I really like how you end focusing on the evolution or alteration of the system. It is hard to make an apples to apples comparison with Hobbes, but I generally think he would agree with the American system (for the most part). How the people have entered into a contract and given, more or less, power to a central force would probably go along with his ideals. I do feel that perhaps he would argue with checks and balances for the sole purpose that it leads to such disunity. He would probably feel it was an unnecessary step, and that the bureaucratic problems we face could be diverted with stronger power in the hands of one leader.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EHMay 9, 2018 at 6:41 PM

      I agree! It is difficult to make an direct comparison, especially since the writers of the constitution were trying to set on paper something that was never before articulated in a western nation. I also think Hobbes would have some serious problems with the liberties granted to our citizens to speak out against laws we believe to be unjust.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Balance of Power Theory is Not All Encompassing

There are several theories that attempt to explain the rise and fall of great powers. In reviewing the theories it appears that no single theory can account for every situation that has occurred in international politics at least the way in which these theories are currently elucidated. This is especially true concerning the balance of power hypothesis, which claims that international stability is created when there is an equilibrium among state actors, especially concerning militarily capability. However, findings show that hegemonic stability may ensue in a multi-state system. While the balance of power theory may account for some of the outcomes in world politics, to some extent, the theory loses credibility through its inability to account for variations between states and the rise and fall of great powers. The balance of power theory certainly does not hold true in the case of the United States. In my view, the US is the current hegemon and thus, we are living in a unipolar w...
Read more

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