Jeff Goldstein
Hobbes in the Present Day
Thomas Hobbes’s book Leviathan outlines the basic format of the social contract theory in political thinking. Hobbes’s work has been the foundation on which other political thinkers have elaborated social contract theories. His work is still the basis of political theories e now used worldwide in democratic countries, although in somewhat different forms
Analyzing Leviathan demonstrates that Hobbes introduced a new, significant idea in political thought and that his ideas have common broad themes with other social contract theories even today. However, his theory has certain aspects that make it incompatible with modern day democracies.
Hobbes’s Leviathan was written during a time of war, particularly a civil war in England (Wootton, page 117). His initial premise is that all people are in a state of nature. Within this state of nature people are selfish and competitive, leading them to seek more power constantly, saying this desire “ceaseth only in death.” (Wootton, pages 148-149). Further, in the natural state, people try to preserve their own situation and are fearful of death by others.
Hobbes states that during this state of nature there is also a law of nature. The law states that, as a natural occurrence, people try to achieve peace and seek justice, which leads to political arrangements of mutual advantage when everyone is in agreement (Wootton, page 160). According to him, people will give up their personal freedom and make a social contract with others of like minds because more than anything people want to avoid an untimely death (Wootton, page 160). By taking away individual power, the social contract creates a commonwealth that puts everyone on an equal playing field of power and ensures fellow citizens will not act of out selfish desire in their state of nature. (Wootton, page 170).
To uphold the social contract, a sovereign is given or acquires the collective power of the commonwealth and in turn protects the citizens (Wootton, page 175). Whatever the sovereign does is perceived as legitimate since the people authorized or accepted its rule in order to stay out of the state of nature. In Hobbes’s model direct authorization of the sovereign by the people is not essential. If the sovereign has the ability to control a population out of fear then it can also protect it. While the sovereign has the power to act, the citizens do not have the same autonomy, as he notes, “nothing can be done without his (the sovereign) permission” (Wootton, page 176.) The sovereign has absolute rule and cannot be questioned unless it fails to protect a citizen. All freedom aside from the right to self-defend is taken from a citizen. Any political liberty a citizen might want is not legitimate (Wootton, pages 188-189). In order to ensure a state other than one of nature the sovereign must have this complete control.
In contrast people in democracies give up certain individual rights in order to preserve stability and give authority to a collective whole. What Hobbes wrote of a sovereign ruler, one could see that today, in a democracy, the government has a similar function to perform for its citizens. There are similarities between broad components of Hobbes’ theory and the arrangements in contemporary democracies but specifics of many current social contract theories differ. The first main difference in theory today is with whom the contract is made.
In Leviathan the contract is only between the citizens themselves with no inclusion of the governing body or sovereign. In contrast, modern social contracts are often the basis for democracies because a democracy gives citizens a certain order in their lives while still allowing them to pursue aspects of their individual desire. The idea is to have a balance, so that a political body is strong enough to govern but not so strong that it impedes people’s freedom and cannot ever be changed.
Today democratic governments function in a relationship with their citizens. By making the contract with the governing body as well as each other, the contract is not just an arrangement between people. Rather, it becomes a three-part contract, under which the people explicitly agree to a central government that is both protective and accountable as well as an agreement between each other.
The second difference from Hobbes is that in a democracy people must directly authorize the power of a government, which is done through voting. Furthermore, political liberties, which are not provided to citizens in Leviathan, are a key component in modern compacts under which the governing body reflects the will of its constituents. Citizens can question and even change the holder of the political power, and those in political power have no absolute reign. They are continually reviewed and can lose their position of power. In these modern times, it is believed that people have inalienable rights that should not be threatened or diminished by government. A sovereign who is not accountable to the people is more likely to abuse power and infringe on freedom.
Hobbes would likely say that the division of power in democracies would lead to a state of nature between these governing powers. However, by placing checks that each can perform on the other, the division of power negates any possibility of one branch dominating another. Having the power in one set of hands in modern times has resulted in abuse of power. In North Korea the government provides protection in some sense to its citizens but one man rules and isolates the nation while starving its citizens. Citizens questioning now have no rights or freedoms within North Korea even though they did not specifically authorize the current government. North Korea stands as an example of a government that more resembles Hobbes’s model presently then does a democracy.
Thomas Hobbes is a significant contributor to western political thought whose footprints can presently be seen in the United States and other democracies around the world. Over time democracies have taken his theories of compliance and contract between citizens or between citizens and governing body and adjusted them to regulate ruling power in more effective ways.
Nicholas Hanni section 013
A good review of Hobbes’s ideals, but why should we care? Why did his works become so prevalent in today’s society, despite the fact that his ideas are not compatible with the majority of modern day governments. It can be argued that Hobbes touches on the pessimist within each of us, that he has taken the idea of people being naturally nasty to an extreme, and this extreme coincides with the worse in each of us, making us agree with him out of spite for the Human race. But his concepts of human nature does not allow for common kindness, or inherent goodness which is found in a majority of the population. So yes, he has influenced our modern day society, he has shaped what we think, but he has done so only because one wants to prove him wrong. Our democracies are direct counter-arguments to his ideas, and that gives the people hope for the future. If Hobbes truly was right about human nature, life would be much more violent, nasty brutish and short than it is now. So i say yes he has influenced us, but by doing so we have proved him wrong on almost every level.
Due to the fact that I am someone that HATES confrontation and always (and sometimes stupidly) attempts to see the good in everyone, I have always strongly disliked Hobbes.
However, your blog made me think of his writing in a new way and made me re-examine my paradigms. You wrote that Hobbes’ Leviathan was written during a time of war, which explains why he thought that people are normally evil and and that life is short and brutish. This made me realize how far we have come in regards to conflict. We created things like the united nations and we practice diplomacy. I am not even sure that i can fully understand all of Hobbes’ ideas because our state of nature is so different.
When you discussed that the law states that “as a natural occurrence people try to achieve peace and seek justice, which leads to political arrangements of mutual advantage when everyone is in agreement,” I immediately thought of colonization. Were those people that were colonized out of the state of nature because they had a government? Or were they not really because they did not have a “mutual advantage?” (at least not in my opinion) I almost feel that those colonized were left in some crazy limbo!
In response to Nicholas, I think it I think it is important that we care because some people are still living in the state of nature described by Hobbes– in a state of war. Yes, we have proved Hobbes wrong on some levels, and it is easy for us to see this as we write from our mac books in Starbucks. I feel as though some people are constantly being shuffled as corrupted regimes rule and then fall, rule and fall. They have experienced this state of nature–a state of war-in between governments. There are third world countries whose lives are full of violence in the state of nature, even when corrupted governments have just fallen. I also think that I sometimes take the protection of my government for granted because with the freedoms granted and justice preserved life is fun and carefree compared to others and perhaps, without a stable government, without the protection of our army and the preservation of our borders, perhaps paradigms aside, life would (maybe) be brutish and short.