Writing
at a time of political change, and social upheaval, this text was an
unapologetic attempt to counter the themes of the time, on both sides of the Enlightenment.
From the writings of John Milton which countenanced regicide (Tenure of Kings
and Magistrates), to the entrenched power of the church over society and government,
Hobbes sought to present a third way. In Leviathan
Hobbes sought to explain why governments are necessary, and indeed that
governments are what keep humans from the darkness of anarchy. That this
argument came at a time of turmoil between the Church and Society, and could be
seen as atheistic (use of reason rather than scripture for justifications) made
its acceptance difficult (Hobbes 1651, p. 80).
Instead
of joining the royalists and continuing this argument for a strong government to
its historic conclusion, Hobbes then laid out what why those governments
receive their legitimacy from the people, and not God (Hobbes 1651, p. 131).
While that suggests a democracy as being ideal, Hobbes seems to come back to
the idea of a unitary sovereign time and again. So I would argue he may have
been willing to accept a democratic system with a strong executive, he would
not be so sanguine about a true democracy.
As
if this third way position were not radical enough, Hobbes Seem to be skeptical
of unchanging moral views, suggesting that a state can and should change,
rather than remaining static (Hobbes 1651, p. 15). This change was to take
place in the context of the social contract between government and society and
managed by a central power. Hobbes made a strong case that survival of man is
the basis of morality under the social contract, and seeming to say survival is
the ultimate moral right.
It
struck me that Hobbes, a Enlightenment writer seemed to build upon the
works of many of his predecessors (Cicero, Plato, Descartes), using their logic
and rationales to come to new, novel conclusions, however he did so without the
optimism we associate with that time. do as many of his contemporaries did. As
he was writing during the English Civil War, that could be part of the explanation,
but I submit it was more a function of the third way Hobbes was attempting to
chart. He was not advocating for a wholesale retention of the old order, or a
radical departure, therefore he neither had the passion of a reformer, or the
defensiveness of an establishment figure.
Tim, great post. You presented a great way to conceptualize Hobbes' perspective. However, I do think it is essential to emphasize that he not only supports government over the church but also the absolute sovereignty of that government. I did not pick up any reference to a system of checks and balances nor a democratic election process for that sovereign.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by your comment that Hobbes is optimistic. My reading concluded that he presented an ideal, but man is so flawed and tangential in his desires and arrogance that the perfect government that Hobbes described might not be functional. Your last sentence seems to support this conclusion as well. Do you agree or see something else?
Oh sorry if I seemed to write that Hobbes was optimistic -- I was trying to say he wasn't at all, unlike many of his compatriots in the enlightenment
ReplyDeleteTim, you make a good point about the English Civil War being a reason why Hobbes was not as optimistic as other writers were during the Enlightenment. I also think that he didn't want a complete change of the old order nor did he want it to stay the same.
ReplyDeleteYou mentioned that Hobbes seems to accept a democratic system with an executive, however he is not willing to accept a true democracy. I agree with you that he seems to favor a democratic system, however, what I think is very confusing is the fact that he offers many advantages of monarchy over democracy and almost seems to defend monarchy. Given the fact that Hobbes wrote Leviathan during the Enlightenment, I did not expect that at all.