Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » Hobbes and Locke Revisited: The Foundations of the Modern Liberal State, Part X

Hobbes and Locke Revisited: The Foundations of the Modern Liberal State, Part X

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Let’s reassess where we are in terms of the presentation, which claims have been made and which may require further substantiation, and to the extent possible, outline the general contours of the unfolding argument.

The main thesis underlying this series of essays can be stated thus:

The emergence of what we recognize today as the modern liberal state can be traced to the political writings of Thomas Hobbes, with minor emendations here and there by other theorists, most notably John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I found it convenient, after C. B. Macpherson, to dub Hobbes’s political theory as “theory of possessive individualism.”

Possessive is the operative term here, and I remain convinced it’s an apt one. It depicts to a tee the essence of present day market relationships, in which private property and limitless accumulation of wealth, including capital, serve as the cornerstone of the economic system in place. Capitalism would be inconceivable without either, if the commons were given their proper due, that is. Needless to say, it wasn’t always so. It wasn’t predominantly so even in Hobbes’s own time. It was sufficiently so, however, for Hobbes to take notice.

It may be debatable whether the object of Hobbes’s remarks was politics or economics: it’s safe to assume, however, it was the former. What is indisputable, though, is that the economic relations of his day, especially those which had argued on behalf of what was soon to become a full-blown capitalist system, served as the foundation. Thus, a political system was born alongside the economic one; the latter serving as a model. Hobbes was the first theorist of note to have merged the seemingly disparate spheres of human activity into one integral whole. It was economics and economic relations that, according to Hobbes, defined the first principles of politics, via his brand new conception of the human subject.

Hobbes was also the first in the long line of social contract theorists. This, too, followed from his reconceptualization of the human subject. Since some men were always men of property whereas others were not, it stood to reason that those who had anything to lose would form a protective agency, the state, whose main purpose would be to protect their common interests. The notion of the state, so construed, would be minimal (see Nozick, for example, Anarchy, State and Utopia), but more on that later. Suffice it to say, there were plenty enough men of good will and property to come together and join forces, to protect each and everyone from theft, pilferage or plain robbery. And it doesn’t matter one bit whether Hobbes had actually envisaged so dire a situation in terms of dog-eat-dog, more appropriate perhaps to a situation in which men might so behave in the context of some hypothesized, pre-political community, prior to the inauguration of the state. All the evidence, in fact, points in the opposite direction, namely, that he had never considered any such pre-political community in the first place; his was merely an abstraction from the existing socio-political relations, those which obtained in the present, a thought experiment in a manner of speaking, an experiment in “what if.” And so were his analysis and conclusion: men have always tended to behave as if all were a party to a social contract. The object, again. wasn’t to establish any historical relationship or necessity, only a logical one!

Needless to say, other things followed, most importantly, perhaps, our political concepts, such as rights, freedom, and obligation: each received their particular coloring from Hobbes’s reconfiguring of the human subject; and that coloring, for all intents and purposes, remains.

Take our rights, for instance. For all the gains that have been made, whether in the name of civil rights or universal franchise, the concept is bound to function, it is limited to function, only as a strictly reactive, remedial type of concept, always having to respond to, or to oppose, the state of oppression, never to eliminate it. (Likewise with the corresponding conception of freedom.) And these are some of the most positive of applications. In most commonplace, ordinary contexts, our rights come down to mere individual rights, the freedom to do as we damn please (so long we don’t trample on another person’s rights).

But that’s Hobbes’ legacy for you, the idea that freedom and rights are unconditional and (exclusively) proprietary to the individual; they’re said to constitute in fact the very essence of what it means to be an individual. No thought whatever has been given to, no allowance of any kind made for, such things as public interest or the greater good. We’re made to believe instead that no one owes anybody anything, that each and everyone has been put on Earth solely for their own benefit and pleasure, to roam it like some aimless, thoughtless nomads, to pluck it at will and reap whatever rewards we can with not an iota of concern, each man, woman and child on their own and for themselves. The fiction has been made real, and it lives amongst us.

I’m not against the idea of individual sovereignty as such, for sovereignty, properly speaking, is a kind of quality which can be attributed only to persons: all other forms derive their meaning only by extension, representation or delegation being the usual devices. And our Hobbesian subject here is no exception, for he, too, had bequeathed his sovereignty, inalienable rights and all, for a price. What I object to, however, is the concept unconditional sovereignty, just as I object to the concept of unconditional right, unconditional freedom, and unconditional power; because unconditional sovereignty, let’s face it, translates to unconditional and arbitrary power: not only is this a hopelessly unrealistic position, untrue to facts (unless we imagine ourselves gods); it’s also a dangerous one, for it makes us think and act as though we were omnipotent. Once more, fiction is represented as a fact.

I’ll tend to this “atomistic” picture of the Hobbesian individual at the end of this presentation. I’ll be relying here on the maxim that the success or failure of any social or political theory must rise or fall with, that its validity is entirely dependent upon the philosophy of the subject. Make that subject fictitious, untrue to life, and for all intents and purposes, you’ve dismantled the theory. (Of course, it’s not just the one-dimensional subject which makes for the weakest link in any political or social theory but the underlying concepts which, too, end up untrue to life, truncated and one-dimensional.) This shall remain my strategy, a strategy aimed at neutralizing Hobbes. Meanwhile, there are other concerns.

For one thing, I also asserted that Hobbes’s picture translated to modern day liberalism; secondly, that it translated to statism. The first of the two claims is the more straightforward of the two, if by liberalism we simply mean a political philosophy whereby individual rights serve as the cornerstone, the primary postulate. And for all the nuance or fine tuning one could possibly affix to liberalism as a political philosophy, or to the modern day liberal state (if only as a historical form here and now), I remain convinced the definition captures the essence. What about the connection to statism, though, surely an unexpected turn of events if we’re to take Hobbes’s pronouncements and postulates at face value? Well, this requires argumentation.

For one thing, one might start here by saying that since the liberal solution consists by and large of positing the sovereign as having the ultimate say in all matters appertaining to conflict between private and public interests, it’s been a natural progression on the part of statehood to assume that role and, in so doing, to gravitate towards statism. And here, we’d have to trace this progression through its many historical forms, from its originally benign conception as the minimal protection agency, operating as it were in a purely laissez faire fashion, in a political, social and economic environment, to eventually culminate in a full-fledged welfare state; the epitome of statism.

One must preface these remarks by saying this isn’t just a theoretical failure; it’s a practical failure as well. One could imagine, I suppose, the idea of sovereign under the most ideal of conditions, unencumbered by any concern other than that tending to the idea of justice. That form of statism I could well understand. We know, however, that’s not the case, that as a matter of practical necessity, foreign relations and competition on the international scene are the first things that come to mind here, sovereigns tend to behave no differently than individuals, lucid at times but on other occasions, quite irrational and given to bullying. It’s this ever present irrationality of the state, grounded in necessity, to be sure, but always liable to erupt when push comes to shove, that makes the modern sovereign fall short of the ideal and, whenever circumstances seem to demand it, turn on its own citizens as well, if and when need be. Surely, that wasn’t part of the original (classical?) conception, the conception of statehood and sovereignty as an all-comprehensive and all-encompassing concept, the be all and end all political entity perfect in every way, the idea that no sovereign ever would be, could be, subject to any external influences or pressures, or it wouldn’t be a sovereign. One can only dream Alexander’s dream here; meanwhile, the theory has been invalidated by practice.

Couple this now with the fact that the very conflict between private and public interests which the liberal theory posits, and which catapults the state as though the ultimate arbiter of all such conflicts, again, not as part of the original conception but as one which has been annexed to it by virtue of unanticipated consequences and developments, and we’re beginning to see the many respects in which the liberal theory was destined to fail. It’s always been patchwork since Hobbes.

Granted, Hobbes’s initial propositions may still stand, individual rights, except for those which have been bequeathed to the sovereign, being the most important, but surely, the very admission of public interests as possibly countervailing private interests must run counter to the very spirit of Hobbes: it runs counter to the very spirit of the liberal theory as originally conceived. If anything, it’s an admission of the theory’s abject failure.

One may only speculate here as to the reasons; and I suspect that winning universal franchise played no small part in this (since it had brought all those who were initially disenfranchised into the political fray and, of necessity, expanded the scope of political dialogue to include heretofore unheard of horizons and vistas). But however that came about, the idea of public interest and public good has eventually come of age to become a permanent feature of the modern day liberal state: the state was obligated to respond by showing a more democratic face. None of this, however, should dissuade us from the fact that liberal theory has been patchwork from day one. (Which accounts for its uncanny longevity and staying power; it’s only by being able to adapt to new circumstances and developments that it remained the dominant political ideology of the day. And this makes it all the more dangerous for the fact, not less so.)

Let’s face it. Liberalism is an attractive ideology insofar as it promises progress on both economic and political fronts; and its influence, far from showing any signs of dissipating, appears to be spreading. Now that it has shown its true colors in the once affluent West, about to bring that part of the globe to its knees, it’s quickly gaining foothold in China, once a bastion of anti-imperialist thinking, not to mention the developing countries of the Third World (all, if not most, run by self-proclaimed dictators in case you haven’t noticed), from Arabia to Africa; in the name of democracy, human rights, and economic development. Never mind it’s a pretext, an exercise in grand illusion. The important thing is, liberalism is on the march and it’s got to be stopped for it perpetuates a lie.

There’s nothing about liberalism which promotes true democracy; in fact, everything about it hinders it. Liberalism is based in and thrives on conflict, mitigated by such notions as pluralism and tolerance; democracy requires direct participation, mutual aid, and cooperation. Liberalism is an all-encompassing, global, and totalitarian system, no less totalitarian or imperialistic than socialism or fascism used to be; democracy is first and foremost local, and only then spreading concentrically. Liberalism offers the illusion of freedom; democracy, true freedom.

Whatever the alleged association between the two, between liberalism and democracy, that is, it has always been feigned and contrived, more on the order of make-believe than the facts of the case. The connection between the two is neither conceptual nor empirical: it’s but an attempt at facsimile, a cheap facsimile, a play of the metaphor. Whatever semblance of democracy there may be to liberalism, it’s been smuggled in by the back door, as it were, via annexation. It’s not a part of the liberal theory proper, which, once again, confirms the liberal theory to be nothing other than patchwork

If this doesn’t amount to incoherence, I don’t know what will. But then again, liberalism isn’t a theory in a manner of speaking. It’s a state of mind, a program by the feebleminded, all those who have given up on hard thinking, an opiate. If I can puncture holes in it and show it to be inconsistent and delusional, so much the better; and this series of essays will not have been in vain.

Powered by

About Roger Nowosielski

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Liberalism is an all-encompassing, global, and totalitarian system, no less totalitarian or imperialistic than socialism or fascism used to be.

    That is the purest application of doublespeak that I’ve yet seen on BC. I’m sure that the citizens of the rest of the first-world democracies would have something to say about their level of personal freedom when you’re putting them on the same level as fascists.

    Roger, you should know better, since the hammer of fascism fell hardest of all on Poland (according to William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich which is the book I’m reading now). I think you’d be hard-pressed to find ANY of your fellow Poles in the old country who survived life under fascism who would agree that the socialized nations of today’s world can be compared to fascism! Your comparison of liberalism and socialism to fascism is a clear violation of Godwin’s Law, and clearly shows that you’re not writing out of objective thought, but that you’re allowing your emotional prejudices warp the logic in your writing.

    Roger, you’re every bit as confused as were Karl Marx and Ayn Rand were when they penned their personal prejudices, groomed them in the green room of academic vernacular, and presented them on the world stage disguised as grand political paradigms.

    But on a less rhetorical note, I really wish you could come over here and spend a year or two in the Philippines, that you might learn something about real tolerance. Not the PC application of it that American politicians claim, but the real application of it on a day-to-day basis. On a social level, there’s nothing like it in all of America, not even in the most liberal corner of Greenwich Village…and this is despite the fact that this is a very socially conservative nation. The difference is that tolerance here is a cultural given, an indelible social state of mind without need of political protection.

  • roger nowosielski

    For one thing, Glenn, to characterize Karl Marx as confused is ludicrous. He was every much of a genius as was Freud or Einstein. You should really abstain from making such statements.

    I do agree, however, that mine was an exercise in rhetoric, to stir people into thinking. By “totalitarian” I didn’t (necessarily) mean oppressive in the conventional sense, like fascism or socialism, although we’re getting there. The intended meaning was — “all-comprehensive.” In that sense at least, liberalism is a totalitarian system.

    As to rights, tolerance and pluralism, I’ve already expressed my reservations concerning these so-called values. They’re the best we can possibly afford under the circumstances, given we’re operating under a failed paradigm. If you read my article closely, you would have gotten the point.

    Not to say anything against tolerance whether in our personal relations or as part of the political system in place. But the point rather is that the political system in place takes the condition of conflict as axiomatic, an ideology which derives from espousing unconditional freedom and unconditional rights. Since humans are encourage to believe that their rights and freedoms are unconditional, conflict is the order of the day and tolerance only a remedial, secondary value — the best we can do under the circumstances. The idea is to change the world, not to wallow in it.

    Thanks, btw, for stumbling through this, what some might think, impenetrable essays.

    As to your comment about the Filipinos, and most decent people in fact, I have no doubt at all. But that’s not tolerance in my estimate but downright humility Most Yanks have no concept of it; they’re arrogant to the core.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    I stand by my comment on Marx, for it is as I’ve often said – “true” communism is every bit as incompatible with human nature on the macro level as is Rand’s libertarian paradise. One will find certainly small examples of communistic principles at work – at, say, in a kibbutz – but on the macro (multicultural/multiethnic) level? No. Marx was brilliant and make no mistake…but ‘brilliant’ and ‘right’ are not the same thing.

    As to the difference between tolerance and humility, no sir, you don’t know the people here. They are very prideful, as any Filipino will tell you – Thou Shalt Not question thy elders or superiors, and so forth. By referring to the Filipinos as ‘humble’, you’re showing yourself to be under the very same misconception that most pre-WWII Americans had of the oh-so-humble Japanese.

    No, the Filipino is very prideful – if you ask them, they themselves will tell you they’re more prideful than most Americans! But it is pride thankfully tempered with very real tolerance, something you won’t find in many other nations.

    As far as the arrogance of Americans go, I’ll agree with you – most of us are too arrogant by half, and all due to our cultural ignorance of the rest of the world, and our assumption that America’s better than any other nation. Why do you think I refuse to live Down South anymore, despite the fact that I still love the countryside and the food down there? But when it comes to Americans, Roger, do not mistake arrogance for pride – there’s a marked difference between the two.

  • troll

    …”true” communism in the Marxian sense is nothing more than a group of people working together to produce a surplus and then deciding as a group how to dispose of it

    how does this conflict with so-called human nature?

  • roger nowosielski

    I like Anarcissie’s little quip to the effect that we’re communists in most every walk of our ordinary lives, as when, for example, we give a cup of sugar to a neighbor without thought of recompense, or help a friend or a stranger in need, give someone a jump-start without asking for a buck or two, help a blind person across the street, talk to the little children with joy in out hearts.

    Feel free to provide your own examples.

  • troll

    I like her view as well though it goes beyond Marx’s analysis

  • Glenn Contrarian

    troll –

    a group of people working together to produce a surplus and then deciding as a group how to dispose of it

    Ever hear of a “committee”?

  • troll

    yes I’ve heard of a “committee” – so what’s your point?

  • PeeWee Contrarian

    Hmph.

    :)