Thomas Hobbes of humble origins, graduated from the halls of Oxford in 1608. Having a flair for languages in particular Latin he was well placed for the position that was to be his main source of income. Secretary and tutor to the young Earl of Devonshire, one of the wealthiest men in England, a Royalist. This association introduced him to Europe's finest philosophers, and eventually lead to him tutoring the exiled Prince of Wales in Paris, (1646). Three years later, (1649) Charles I was accused of misrepresenting the people, and was duly executed. This followed a bloody period in English history, a Civil War that had raged between Republicans and Royalist since early in 1642. (Tuck. R., 1992: xxxviii, xxxix) It is debatable, although likely that Leviathan was a response to the Kings execution, that Hobbes sought to defend the absolute power of the Sovereign, establishing its legitimacy not as a consequence of Divine Right, but as the legitimate representation of the individual, for who's protection it was created.
Leviathan is an aetiological analysis of civil society, tracing retrospectively the nature of its being, its relationship to both the state and the individual. Hobbes's laws establish a link between the selfish individual in a fictitious state of nature and man as a social being, his passions tempered by a socially constructed arbiter, the state. His laws represent a rationalised view of the consequences of life with or without, the supreme authority of the state. The summation of which is the mutual acceptance of its existence, and the necessity to relinquish individual power to its control.
Hobbes's first fundamental law of nature is that man seeks peace. The second is -
"That a man be willing, when others are so too, as farre-forth, as for peace, and defence of himselfe he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be content with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfe" (Tuck. R., 1992: 92)
It would be an injustice to imply an understanding of Hobbes from an isolated law, which simply affirms the relationship of interconnected elements. An understanding of the determining elements, Hobbes went to extreme lengths to isolate, is necessary to appreciate the complexity of his insight. He continues the Platonic tradition, "he adopts the macro-anthropological principle, - he assumes that before we can arrive at an adequate understanding of society, we must first enquire into the nature of man". (Germino. D, 1979: 95) His 'Lex Naturalis', Law of Nature may appear extreme generalisations if taken at face value, however as a whole they are uncomfortably relevant as explanations of mans goal oriented nature. They remain as relevant to contemporary society as they were to seventeenth century Europe. They focus on the balance between state and society, liberty and authority.
In his third law, Hobbes underlines the legitimacy of the relationship between authority and obligation, stating:
"that men perform their covenants made". (Tuck. R., 1992: 100)
The covenant creates a supreme power, and the promise of obligation, "in other words, where there is effective power to command there is consent to that power, and therefore a duty of obedience and right of command". (Plamenatz. J, 1981: 125)
Hobbes must be understood in the context of the era in which he lived. Hobbes embraced the scientific spirit of his era, inspired by his friend Galileo he denounced Aristotle's theory of motion. Hobbes is rarely given credit for this early critique, which paves the way for Newton, who finally brings down Aristotle�s ancient theory of motion. Motion from this point in history forward is no longer to be perceived as a means to an end, but as perpetual. Hobbes wrote -
"When a thing lies still, unlesse somewhat els stirre it, it will lye still for ever, is a truth that no man doubts of. But when a thing is in motion, it will eternally be in motion, unless somewhat els stay it, though the reason be the same, (namely, that nothing can change it selfe,) ". - "All Fancies are Motions whithin us, reliques of those made in the Sense.� (Tuck. R., 1992: 15, 20)
Hobbes applied this theory of 'perpetual motion', to not only inanimate objects such as canon balls, but to every sphere of life. He synthesized the theories of Galileo and Rene Descartes to develop his mechanistic philosophy of man. He viewed man the individual as one of natures machines, his parts propelled by the perpetual motion of laws, he viewed the state as an artificial man, the Great Leviathan, created by men, for men;-
"though of greater stature and strength than the Naturall, for whose protection and defence it was intended; and in which, the Soveraignty is an Artificiall Soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body; the Magistrates...., artificial joints..., Reward and Punishment...., the Nerves�. (Tuck. R., 1992: 9)
Hobbes political philosophy is fundamentally deductive; the 'body politic' is reduced like the face of a clock may be to the motion of its pendulum. This similarly is a response to the displacement of cogs relative to one another. "Or, as Hobbes preferred to think of it, it begins with the simplest motion of bodies - mere changes of place - and goes on to more complex cases, which seem on their face not to be motions but which can be built up from this simple beginning". (Sabine, G. & Thorson, T., 1973: 424)
He reduces nature to a fundamental law or truth. Politics is the practical application of this law in relation to its social context. Hobbes's laws of nature originate from mans desire for felicity, "the happiness that comes to man when he gains or sees the possibility of gaining the objects of his many and varied desires". (Germino. D, 1979: 97)
Hobbes reduces all desires to the single desire for power - �
"a continuall progresse of the desire, from one object to another; the attaining of the former, being still but the way to the later,... So that in the first place, I put for a generall inclination of all mankind, a perpetuall and restless desire of Power after power , that ceaseth only in Death.� (Tuck. R., 1992: 70)
Man as drawn by Hobbes is a perpetual competitor who experiences life through his observations of his fellow man. Hobbesian man evaluates his life chances through reasoning; the summation of consequences that are the evaluation of the dialectic implications of mans objective desires, his 'Passions'-
"�When a man..., does nothing else but conceive a summe totall, from 'Addition' of parcels; or conceive a remainder, from 'Subtraction' of one summe from another: which is conceiving of a consequence". - "Appetites, Desire, Love, Aversion, Hate, Joy, Greif..., diversely called from the opinion men have of the likelihood of attaining what they desire...., love or hate..., from the concideration of many of them together..., from the alteration or succession it selfe�. (Tuck. R., 1992: 31, 41)
The competitive nature of man as an individual in the 'State of Nature' knows no bounds he pursues the objects of his desires, based only on the consequences relative to him personally.
Hobbes's egoistic version of man is widely considered extreme and overly pessimistic, inaccurate in its denial of compassion as a virtue natural to both man and beast. (Rousseau. J, 1993: 73) whether compassion and other seemingly self-less acts are genuine or self-fulfilling is debateable. That which is less debateable is the observable and accepted reality that personal consequences will override values and ideals. It is difficult to deny that this is a presumption that guides policy in contemporary politics. Recent events in the Balkan states provide a relevant example. NATO's air campaign strategy rested on the assumption that, Slobodan Milosevic would reason that the consequences of his actions in Kosova would far out way any political gain. Logically he was to perceive that ultimately he risked losing power not increasing it.
In Hobbes's, 'State of Nature' an individual utilises his full power potential, whilst living in constant fear of his fellow man doing like wise. The Balkan states like South Africa or any other multi racial society cannot maintain stability whilst one ethnic group has the power to kill another. There exists in this situation a lethal combination of power and fear that promote civil unrest-
"Hereby it is manifest, that during the time when men live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called Warre..., every man, against every man.� (Tuck. R., 1992: 88)
Hobbesian man has a natural aversion to pain and misery; therefore he naturally desires the peaceful conditions conducive to the preservation and felicity of life. An equal power potential among men within the 'State of Nature' leads to an equality of rights to all things, which translates into absolute personal liberty. The nature of this situation the nature of a condition called �warre� means there can never be, authority, justice, right the corresponding negatives and ultimately on the grounds of these omissions no binding contract. The only rational conclusion is that in order to achieve felicity each man must relinquish his absolute liberty by transferring his power to a third party. This act at once creates a coercive power with the vested authority to bind all men to a covenant of peace. This amalgamation of individual powers, gives birth to the state, who in turn gives birth to a just society, the price is total obligation to a supreme authority, the manifestation of which is negative freedom -
"�as men,... have made an Artificial Man,... so also have they made Artificial Chains, called Civil Lawes, which they themselves, by mutual covenant, have fastened at one end, to the lips of that Man, or Assembly, to whom they have given Sovereign Power; and at the other end to their own Ears�". (Tuck. R., 1992: 147)
For Hobbes the state is a prerequisite of society, men make covenants, a unilateral vow that pledges obedience to an absolute power in exchange for justice and protection. The motion of its creation propels the leviathan, as an artificial man. The immense power of the leviathan ensures its continual existence. Once men benefit from the protection of the state, they are locked by the terms of contract to obey, for as long as the act of protection is performed.
A working example of Hobbes's unilateral covenant would be the 'Good Friday Peace Agreement�, which employed his rationalised view of 'negative freedom' as a necessary prerequisite of liberty. Talks bore the tone of compromise and consent, the term de-commissioning with its tones of surrender were replaced with, "putting weapons beyond use" in an "act of National Reconciliation". For many years in Northern Ireland like the 'state of nature', there has been a Hobbesian condition of �Warre'. A condition where, "men are profoundly distrustful of one another, and for that reason reluctant to make concessions... Every man knows that the fears and miseries which are his lot are also the lot of others, and that the others must be as eager as he is to put an end to them". (Plamenatz. J, 1981: 133) It is hoped that all parties involved will '�perform their covenants made', through a devolution of powers which will create a greater power, a new Northern Ireland Government representative of, and providing justice for, all parties.
Hobbes could not possibly have imagined the extent to which the modern world would be a smaller world, but if he had, he would perhaps have advocated a 'Global Leviathan', as the artificial creation of global citizens. This century has seen intense globalisation and national decline. Today�s political analysis of Nation States could be reduced to the molecular level of Hobbes's, society-less man. An analysis of world politics, like an analysis of the relationship between men, shows every nation against every nation. Our logical realisation of this condition in the post war era has set the international agenda. Each war and each peace treaty has inched us closer to a unified world federation, a social contract of global proportions. In July 1998, 160 countries and non-government groups such as Amnesty International and the World Federalist Movement agreed to erect an International Criminal Court. The Times in India reported.
"Not since the establishment of the UN itself have so many countries voluntarily yielded ground on such a fundamental aspect of state sovereignty". (The Observer)
As we enter a new millennium concern is for world peace and international justice, the emphasis is shifting away from the liberty of individuals in favour of a new concern for the liberty of sovereign nations. We are lead to believe that this will be an almost utopian era of 'human rights'. The question raising its head is, how will this new 'Super Gran' decide what is in our universal best interest? How much liberty will this global leviathan require us to promise away for the privilege of her protection, and moral wisdom?
� 2000 [email protected]
