Throughout history, disasters have tended to bring people together and cause a feeling of community between people who normally wouldn’t say two words to each other. However, there is one kind of disaster that does the opposite and actually mimics Hobbes’ idea of a state of nature: epidemic.
In Thucydides’ History of the Peloponnesian War, a major plague strikes Athens during the war killing 1/3 of the population of Athens. Thucydides explains how the citizens began to give up hope and trust in the oracles. He also says unaffected people were afraid to visit the sick who in turn, “died with no one to look after them.” (Thucydides 154) These conditions clearly mimic Hobbes’ idea of state of nature. People abandoning all beliefs and being concerned with nothing but their own preservation is indicative of the true nature of humans. There were some people who were exceptions to this and helped out the sick with no concern for their safety, but a vast majority of the populace was merely concerned with their own health. Thucydides also comments on the chaos brought upon by the plague saying that it caused, “the beginnings of a state of unprecedented lawlessness.” (Thucydides 155) Instead of the cooperation of people, citizens were committing crimes with no fear of sentencing because of looming death and acting with no regards to the law.
In Rebecca Solnit’s “The Uses of Disaster”, she says that the interruption caused by disaster can, “provide a satisfaction so profound it transcends even disaster’s devastation.” (Solnit, 32) Generally people do not feel satisfied or a sense of community during or in the aftermath of a plague. Most of the time, people are avoiding each other in order to not get sick. During an epidemic, people become less concerned about their neighbors’ safety and more concerned with their own well-being. Solnit also talks about how large groups of people come together to help the victims of a major disaster. This is the opposite of what would happen in the event of an epidemic. The coming together of a large amount of people would most likely make the disease spread faster and to more victims. Ailing people are actually encouraged to stay away from others in order to keep the disaster to a minimum.
On campus today, it is easy to see the affects of a pandemic on society. When students are spotted with medical facemasks, others make sure to steer clear for fear of catching the H1N1 flu. We are more concerned with not getting sick ourselves than helping sick individuals. The affects of H1N1 on campus are a very small-scale example of the conditions an epidemic would cause on society. Students aren’t running around the street breaking laws and giving up their beliefs but there is a definite attitude change as to how willing they are to help others.
Most large-scale disasters cause people to join together and form communities to help others. Epidemics and plagues work in the opposite way causing people to separate from one another and revert back to a small-scale Hobessian state of nature.
Thucydides. History of the Peloponnesian War. Trans. Rex Warner. Introduction and Notes by M. I. Finley. New York: Penguin Books, 1972.
Solnit, Rebecca. “The Uses of Disaster: Notes on bad weather and good government.” Harper’s Magazine October 2005. 31-37
The interaction among people during epidemics most certainly does mirror a Hobessian state of nature because, in both instances, individuals follow their self-interest of avoiding untimely death. However, I believe this self-interest based aspect could occur at the onset of a large-scale disaster as well. At the initial upset and aftermath of a large-scale disaster, individuals tend to look out for their own or their family’s best interests first. Once that is taken care of, they help others around them. I do agree with you about how epidemics, like H1N1, contain no sense of community because the majority of healthy individuals would like to remain just like that – healthy. And that can only be achieved through isolation.
I agree completely with the point that you made when you said “At the intial upset and aftermath of a large-scale disaster, individuals tend to look out for their own or their family’s best interests first. Once that is taken care of, they help others around them.”
One main problem I have with the examples Solnit provides to construct her argument is that they do not adequately reflect the state of nature. The danger of the scenarios she presents is relatively short-lived and the community is able to reform under the pretense that society will be re-established in the near future. In this context, it is easy to see that once the immediate onset has passed and everyone is secure in their minds that both they and their families are no longer at the risk of death, they are able to assist others. However, in the case of an epidemic, there is no assurance that the end is near. There is no assurance that everyone will be safe and everything truly does devolve into a Hobbesian state of nature.
This was a really interesting post and it seems to present an argument which doesn’t have a lot of the holes I found in Solnit’s piece.
I agree, and I think your main arguments can be made even stronger in the case of a pandemic (as opposed to an epidemic). When a pandemic disease hits the world, many countries shut their borders and limit trade with the most affected areas. This definitely seems like a Hobbsian move to make, because people are focused on protecting their own lives/health instead of taking measures to help others, like sending medical aid to the sick.
This is an interesting idea that plague causes people to separate, rather than bond. But that avoidance of sick people comes from people’s knowledge that the sickness spreads through contact. But what if the population isn’t medically educated? In a population that is near to Hobbes’ state of nature because of poverty, poor living conditions, and lack of education, would there be a different reaction to the plague?
I agree with Lily, that the reason as to why people separate from each other in the event of a plague is because the illness spreads through contact. It is an act of self preservation that is necessary to survive. It isn’t that other individuals don’t want to help, it is that most people aren’t equipped to treat sick individuals anyways. To answer Lily’s question of if there would be a different reaction in a population that is near a Hobbesian state of nature, I believe there would be. Especially if the population is not well educated, I can only imagine families sticking together no matter what and no matter who got sick.
This is a very good point made here of how Hobbes’ theory is correct in some ways. I once watched a C.S.I. episode where a mother did not vaccinate her son for measles and took him out to the park where he had spread the disease to a young girl not old enough to be vaccinated yet. The young girl died (the boy did because of his stronger immune system), and charges were pressed against the mother of the little boy because she chose not to vaccinate her son which resulted in the death of another human being. This is a very tricky case and I find it to tie into the thought of this Blog because of the simple fact that the little boy’s mother was only concerned for the health of her son and was convinced that it was better for him to not have the vaccine and possibly get measles, than have the vaccine and risk the chance of autism. She was concerned only for the sake of her son, like a person during an epidemic might be. It is quite devastating to know that people can be so helpful when there is no danger involved and so useless when help is needed most and risk is connected.
I too found this blog very interesting. The way people behave in regards to epidemics does seem to suggest that we resort back to Hobbes’ state of nature. However, what about doctors and nurses who risk their lives everyday for those that are sick? A hospital is an environment in which one can easily get sick yet people stick around to help others. Also, doctors and nurses that work for the army also place themselves in a disastrous environment where it is easy to get harmed.
However, I found Allie’s comment interesting about international trade and borders. Last spring when the H1N1 flu had just been discovered, I was on a plane to Japan — with really bad allergies. After landing, I watched as two Japanese men in what looked like space suits held what looked to be a power ranger gun that took peoples temperatures. I had to fill out paper work about where I was going, why I was going, and for how long. I was terrified and also felt singled out. Yes, it did have something to do with the fact that I was thousands of miles away from home in a place completely foreign to me but it was also as if H1N1 created feeling or mod on that airplane that left me feeling not so excited and welcomed but instead very very isolated.
I forgot to mention this in my last comment — but I am also think that this is related to how cruel we have been to those with mental disorders. In some cultures, they became a taboo and we isolated ourselves from people who had them, afraid that in some way we could catch them.
It is very unique to look at Hobbes’ state of nature through the eyes of a plague epidemic. It is very true that people act this way in this chaotic time. People are avoiding others in the fear that they may be put in the same unfortunate situation as the plagued. They do this out of their own safety. On campus, we are told to avoid students with H1N1 and that they should not attend class. They are told to isolate themselves, and “ride” it out. Its funny to see the characteristics (avoiding the sick to preserve oneself) of Hobbes’ state of nature be prescribed to cure H1N1.