Hobbes, Lock and Rousseau in a Comparative Perspective

(ABackgroundMaterialfortheSocialScience2OnlineLectureSeries) PreparedbyRaymundJoseG.Quilop FortheclassicalGreekphilosophers,particularlyPlatoandAristotle,thestate hasbeenseenassomethingthatisnaturalandorganic.Thestatecomesaboutbecause manbynatureisapoliticalanimal.Therefore,withoutanyconsciousactoragreement amongmen,thestatenaturallycomesintobeing.Conversely,mannaturallybelongsto astateorsocietybecauseitisonlyinbelongingtosuchasocialorganizationwherehe couldliveagoodlifeintermsofhavingmaterialwellbeingaswellasfulfillinghisfull potential. Inbelongingtosociety,itisbynaturethatmenarenotbornequal,withsome beingborntoruleandothersbeingborntoberuled.Whatisinterestingthoughistheir beliefthatwhiletherearefewwhoarebornasrulersandothersnaturallybornas followers,therelationshipbetweentherulersandtheruledaresupposedtobe symbiotic,withoneunabletoliveandsurvivewithouttheother.Suchhasbeenthe dominantthinkingregardingthestatebeforethethreesocialcontractthinkerscameinto thepicture. Thesocialcontractthinkers,namelyHobbes,LockeandRousseauhadadifferent viewofthestate.Whiletheyhavetheirowndifferencesasregardstheirindividual perspectivesofthestate,theysharedthecommonnotionthatthestateissomethingthat doesnotnaturallycomeintobeing.Rather,thestateresultsfromaconsciousagreement amongmentoleavethesocalledstateofnatureandinstitutecivilsocietywhose maincharacteristicisthepresenceofastatemanifestedthroughthegovernment, hencetheconceptofasocialcontract.Inaddition,menaresupposedtobebornequal; butanequalitywhichvanishesassocietyisestablishedbecausethepresenceofastate orgovernmenteventuallymakessomerulersandtheothersfollowers. Beyondthesecommonthemesofthestatebeingaproductofasocialcontract andmenbeingbornequalrunningthroughthewritingsofHobbes,LockeandRousseau aresomeinterestingdifferences,specificallyinregardtotheirideasofstateofnature, civilsociety,governmentandsovereignty. ForHobbes,thestateofnatureisequatedwithastateofwar.Whenmenare equal,itwouldbenaturalforthemtobeinaconstantstateofconflict.Withoutno institutiontogovernandarbitrateamongthem,itnaturallyfollowsthatmanbecomes thejudgeforhisowncaseaswellastheonewhoexecuteshisdecisionsregardingacase thatinvolveshim.Thisbeingthecasefortheothers,itthereforefollowsthatmenarein

2
constantwaragainsteachother.Toputitbluntly,ifonepersonhastherighttokill anotherperson,theotherindividualequallyhasthesameright. Thus,lifeinthestateofnature,whereonlytherightofnatureexists,isshort, nastyandbrutish,accordingtoHobbes.Menareunabletopossesspropertiesfor somethingishisforonlyaslongashecankeepit.Ownershipofsomethingtherefore becomesdependentononesabilitytoprotectit.Thissituationeventuallyleadsmento agreeamongthemselvestogiveuptheirabsoluterighttoeverythingandsurrender theirsovereigntytoagoverninginstitutioninexchangeforasenseofsecurity. Theestablishmentofagovernmentisthereforethekeyfactorinthe establishmentofcivilsociety.ForHobbes,civilsocietybecomesafunctionofthe government.Inmathematicalterms,thismeansy=f(x)whereyissocietyandxis thegovernment. Whenmensurrendertheirsovereigntytoagovernment,theydosoabsolutely. Theylosealltheirrightsandpowersandsurrenderthemtoanabsoluteauthority,hence HobbessideaofLeviathanoramortalgod. Andonceestablished,thegovernmentcouldnolongerbedissolvedforseveral reasons.First,givenHobbesbeliefthatitisthepresenceofagovernmentthatmakes civilsociety,dissolvingthegovernment,evenifitnolongerservestheinterestofthe peoplewhoestablisheditinthefirstplace,wouldmeanthedissolutionofcivilsociety andthuswouldautomaticallybringmenbacktothestateofnature.Menknowingthe difficultiesoflifeinthestateofnaturewouldnotwanttodissolvegovernment. Second,assumingthatmenarewillingtotaketheriskofgoingbacktothestate ofnaturewiththedissolutionofgovernment,theywouldstillhesitatetodissolveit becauseitwouldmeanatacitadmissionthattheymadeamistakeinestablishingitin thefirstplace.Men,accordingtoHobbes,bynaturewouldnotwanttoadmitthatthey committedamistake. Third,evenassumingthatmenarewillingtoadmitthattheycommitteda mistakeinputtingupthegovernmentandarereadytoapproveofitsdissolution,they wouldstillbeunabletodoso.Whentheyestablishedit,theyhavealreadysurrendered everythingtothegovernmentmakingthemselvespowerlessandthegovernment absolutelypowerful. Giventhese,onceestablished,thegovernmentcouldnolongerbedoneawayit. Menarestuckwithit.Theysimplyhavetolivewithit.Afterall,itmaybecomeevilbut anecessaryevilnonetheless,soHobbesargued.

3
WhileLockesharedHobbesviewthatmenarebornequalwitheachother,he didnotthinkthatsuchequalityautomaticallytranslatesandequatestobeinginastate ofwar.Lockebelievedthatmanisbornequallywithreason.Andbeingbornwith reason,itfollowsthatheoughttofollowthesocalledlawofnature,whichinLockes termsmeantthatbeingallequalandindependentofeachother,theyoughtnottoharm oneanother. Nonetheless,menarestillinducedtoenterintoasocialagreementamong themselvestoleavethestateofnatureandmoveintothestateofcivilsocietyforthree mainreasons.First,evenifmanisbornwithreason,itdoesnotautomaticallyfollow thatheuseshisreasonallthetime.Hisinabilitytousehisreasonthereforemeansthat hedoesnotabidebythesocalledlawofnature. Second,evenassumingthatmanisabletousehisreasonandthereforefollows thelawofnature,conflictofinterestwithhisfellowmenissomethingthatcouldnotbe avoided.Andwhenapersoncomesintoconflictwithanotherindividual,theabsenceof agoverninginstitutionpromptshimtobethejudgeforhisowncase.Inbeingajudgein acaseinvolvingonesself,thereisalwaysatendencyforapersontobebiasedinhis favor. Now,evenassumingthataperson,inspiteofbeingajudgeforhisowncase, remainsunbiasedandisabletoexamineaparticularissuebasedsimplyonthemeritsof thecase,hemaybeunabletoexecutetheappropriateunbiasedandappropriate judgment.Thisisparticularlytrueiftheotherpartyisstrongerthanhimself.Thisisthe thirdreasonwhymeneventuallycometorealizetheneedtohaveaninstitutionthatis abletoimplementdecisions. ButLockepointedoutthatevenwhilemenmayopttoestablishagovernment, whichservesasanunbiasedarbiterofconflictamongpeople,theirsurrenderingof sovereigntyisnotabsolute.Rather,itislimitedinthesensethattheystillretaintheir righttodissolvethegovernmentandestablishanewoneifitfailstoservetheirinterest. Menthereforemerelylendtheirsovereigntytothegovernmentanditstayswiththe governmentforaslongasitactsintheinterestofthepeople.Otherwise,itcouldbe takenawayfromthegovernmentandrevertedbacktothepeople. Thisismadepossiblebecause,asLockeargued,theestablishmentandexistence ofthegovernmentoperatesnotthroughthesocialcontractbutthroughafiduciary trustsystem.Themechanicsofathrustsystemmeansthattherearethreeactors involved:thebenefactor,thetrustee,andthebeneficiary.Whenthetrusteefailstoservethe interestofthebeneficiary,thebenefactorhastherighttotakeawayfromthetrustee whateverhehasentrustedtohim.

4
Inthecaseofthepeopleandgovernment,thepeopleareboththebenefactorand thebeneficiary.Thus,ifthegovernmentbeingthetrusteefailstoservetheinterestofthe beneficiary,thepeoplebeingthebenefactorthemselveshavetherighttotakeawayfrom thegovernment,whatevertheyhaveinitiallyentrustedtothegovernment.This principleisactuallythebedrockofmoderndemocracy. Lockearguedthatitispossibleforthegovernmenttobetemporarilydissolved withoutmenautomaticallybeingrevertedbacktothestateofnature.Thisissobecause societyisnotsimplyafunctionofagovernmentbutofsomeotherfactorssuchas culture,history,amongothers.Yisnotsimplyafunctionofxbutofw,zand othervariablesaswell. WhileRousseausharedwithHobbesandLocketheviewthatmenareborn equal,hehadamoreoptimisticperspectiveofwhatmanandhislifeisinthestateof natureandamorecriticalviewofsociety,atleastinhisearlierpoliticalwritings.Iffor Hobbes,maninthestateofnatureisautomaticallyinastateofwarandforLocke,man inthestateofnaturewouldnotbeinconflictifheuseshisreason,forRousseau,manin thestateofnatureisbasicallycharacterizedbyafeelingofcompassion.Hepointedout thatwhatHobbesandLockeactuallydescribeintheirdiscussionofthestateofnatureis actuallyadescriptionofcivilsociety. Infact,Rousseauinhisearlypoliticalwritingsarguedthatmanisbetteroffin thestateofnaturethanincivilsociety.Society,accordingtoRousseau,resultswhena fewindividualsareabletoencloseapieceoflandandconvinceothersthattheyindeed ownthatland.Thus,theequalityandcompassionthatcharacterizedmaninthestateof nature,iseventuallylostassocietyisestablished.Thispromptedhimtothinkthatman isindeedbetteroffinthestateofnature. Nonetheless,Rousseauinhislatterpoliticalwritings,particularlyinhisfamous pieceTheSocialContracteventuallycametoshareHobbesviewsregardingthe difficultiesoflivinginthestateofnatureandthereforetheneedtoestablishcivilsociety. AndwhatmakesRousseauscontributioninterestingisthefactthatinspiteofhis criticismsofcivilsociety,heneverarguedforitsabolition.Rather,hesuggestedthrough hisnowfamousTheSocialContracthowsocietycouldinsteadbereconstructedsothat mancouldbothenjoythefreedomthatheenjoyedinthestateofnatureandthesecurity thatcomeswiththeestablishmentofcivilsociety. Howisthispossible?Thisisbyensuringthatthepeopleconstitutedasapolitical communityremaintobeultimatedecisionmakersonfundamentalissues.Bymaking thepeopledecideonsubstantiveissuesaffectingthem,theywillremaintobesovereign andfreewhileatthesametimeenjoyingthesecuritythatresultsfrombelongingtoa community.Inhisview,whenpeoplemaketherules,thentheywillmorenaturally obeytheseruleswhichtheythemselveshavemade.Whenthishappens,theywillenjoy

5
whathecallsmorallibertybeyondthecivilliberty,whichcomesfromobeyingrules madeforthembyauthoritiesentrustedwithmakingrules. ForRousseau,sovereigntythereforeremainswiththepeopleatalltimes.Itis somethingthatisinalienableandindivisible,incontrasttoLockesviewthatthepeople couldlendtheirsovereigntytothegovernmentwhereitiseventuallydividedamong thelegislative,executiveandjudicialbranches.GovernmentforRousseauisnothingbut amanagerofthedailyaffairsofthepoliticalcommunitywhilesubstantivedecision makingpowersremainwiththepeople. Andinorderforpoliciestobenefitthesocietyasawholeandnotthe particularisticinterestsofcertainmembersofsociety,lawsandrulesoughttobebased onwhatRousseaucallsasthegeneralwill.Thegeneralwill,accordingtoRousseau,is thewillofthepeopleconstitutedasapoliticalcommunity.Whileitmustcomefromall andmustapplytoall,itisnotsimplyasummationoftheindividualwillsofthe membersofthecommunity. Asananalogy,theintelligenceofagroupmaybetheresultofsummingupthe intelligenceofeachindividualmembertoarriveattheaverageintellectualcapacityof thegroup.Inthecaseofintelligence,thegroupsintelligenceisdirectlyaresultofthe individualintelligenceofthemembers.Thegeneralwillismorecomparabletoa characteristicofagroupthatissolelythatofthegroupandsomethingwhichcouldnot bereducedtoindividualcharacteristics,sayforexample,cohesion.Cohesionis somethingthatissolelyofthegroupandnotofindividualmembersbecausethereisno suchthingasacohesiveindividual. Thegeneralwill,therefore,isthewillofthecommunityasacommunity.Each memberofacommunitymayhavehisownpersonalinterest.Buthealsohasaninterest whichheshareswiththerestofthecommunitybyvirtueofhisbeingamemberofthe community.Itisthisinterestthatconstitutesthegeneralwill.Unfortunately,Rousseau neverleftaspecificformulaforarrivingatwhatexactlyisthegeneralwill.Infact,in somepartsofTheSocialContract,hegivestheimpressionthegeneralwillcouldbe arrivedatthroughasystemofvoting.Yet,amorecarefulreadingofRousseauwould revealthatthegeneralwillcouldnotbedeterminedsimplybyaskingindividual membersofwhattheypreferandlettingthemvoteonsuchpreferences.Inhis Rousseauswords,thegeneralwillcouldnotsimplybearrivedatthroughvoting.

6
ForFurtherReading: Ebenstein,WilliamandEbenstein,Alan.GreatPoliticalThinkers:FromPlatotoPresent. Singapore:ThomsonLearningAsia,2000.Pages355379(Hobbes),380407(Locke),and 442472(Rousseau). Sabine,George.AHistoryofPoliticalTheory.Dryden Press; 4th edition (October 1993). Strauss,LeoandCropsey,Joseph(editors).HistoryofPhilosophy.Chicago,Illinois: ChicagoUniversityPress,1987.Pages396420(Hobbes),476512(Locke),and559580 (Rousseau). Stumpf,SamuelEnoch.SocratestoSartre:AHistoryofPhilosophy.Boston,Massachusetts: McGrawHill,1999.Pages210219(Hobbes),247256(Locke),and271278(Rousseau). TheConfessionsofJeanJacquesRousseau.TranslatedbyJ.M.Cohen.England:Clays Limited,1953.