hobbes and the pitfalls of realism.
few english philosophers stand out like Thomas hobbes (1588-1679). alongside nikolai macchiavelli’s prince and thucydides’melian dialogue, leviathan(1651) is cited as enunciating the realist or statist theory in political science. his interest in politics was stimulated by the English civil war 1640s. his secular theory of civil government put him at odds with royalists both English and French in paris where he had taken refuge . in addition, the secular nature of his politics put him at odds with the church. he took a huge risk in publishing his philosophy. his books were banned. he was no armchair philosopher. his life was on the line.
the doctrine he expressed goes like this: states and legitimate governments are founded on a social contract requiring cooperation from citizens in exchange for security.. the state of nature is anarchy. .. conflict.. (and the dibble take the hindmost)….bellum omnium contra omnes …(unlike Heraclitus, hobbes wrote in latin) … sovereign authority is given to the state to avoid unending war/chaos... abuse of power by the king is to be accepted as the price of peace. morality is subordinated to power. .. it sounds pretty tame today but wasn’t in the mid 17th century. the idea of individuals granting the king the right to rule was a touchy subject in the middle of the interesting times of the civil war.
social contract theory was not new in hobbes time. the concept of popular sovereignty and natural rights had certainly surfaced in the face of princes who had taken their divine right a bit seriously. the popularity of the idea was symptomatic of the beginning of a more enlightened period and a rise in consciousness. the idea that all tyrants find objectionable is that individuals have inalienable rights. social contract is the basis of civil rights. and while the realist tradition claims hobbes, he maybe seen as much as a liberal in the face of tyrrany.
anarchy is the natural state of woman avoided by hierarchical order. these two extremes are the underlying concepts …. another realist assumption is that the natural state cannot be changed.
states behave as individuals.. anarchically. and a balance of power is maintained. (for example the usa and the ussr .. implacable enemies balanced against Nazism.) its certainly one way of looking at it.
power is control over outcomes, one would have to agree yet … the prisoners dilemma and mistrust ..hobbsian fears sparking arms races and terrorist hyper-countermeasures… security paranoia. race to the bottom.. do unto fred before fred does unto you….. are among the pitfalls of realism--- its practical consequence.
the major criticism of the theory is that it assumes too much about the interests and intentions of states and also its inability to deal with change and unknown variables. yeah.. but who does any better?
the world has spun a bit since hobbes but is essentially the same place.
it is thanks to people like him that one day there will be a global bill of rights of the individual and an international court to which all government officers are amenable. governments will one day act morally. the u.n. and the world court is a laughing stock atm but the idea of it is essentially sound. very sound.
hobbes expressed a realist political theory . no one has illustrated it better so far.
Posts
