Political theory has a long standing history that stretches as far back as ancient Greece and reaches right on up to the current date. This long process of development is often divided into an “older” tradition which includes the Greeks, Romans, and early Christians, as well as a modern tradition that often is identified with the Enlightenment and revolutions of more recent history. While there may be some continuity among these traditions, there is a key difference. The purpose of government, which in turn dictates the type, is now based on the understanding of a state of nature, the context within which humanity was born. This state of nature is void of any regulatory body or authority and serves to identify the basic instincts of mankind. Various modern thinkers have approached this concept in distinctly different ways, and consequently, the most practical and effective regime, rather than ideal, differs depending of the variants within this state of nature.
In his Politics, Aristotle claimed, “…that a city-state is among the things that exist by nature, [and] that a human being is by nature a political animal” (Aristotle). This belief, in turn, provides the basis of his justification for politics. Mankind is naturally drawn to life inside the polis, which consequently preexisted the development of humanity. Aristotle highlights the importance of community and government, by stressing how humanity never has and never will live without it. It is an individual’s natural inclination to seek hominoia with those around them, and government remains necessary to ensure justice and order within the soul. Aristotle, in lieu with ethical dualism, identified man as both good and evil, and thus life in the polis was critical to govern and moderate the complexities within human nature.
This ancient approach shifted radically with the dawn of the modern age of political thought. Rather than identifying the polis as preexisting mankind and believing that government, ideally, reflected the good within an ordered and moderated soul, modern political theorists tend to think otherwise. Government is now a necessary evil, forced into existence through social contracts in order to counter the chaos that exists in the state of nature, the state of being within which all humanity is born. Modern thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau are primary advocates for this distinctly un-Aristotelian state of nature, though their approaches differ significantly.
For Thomas Hobbes, this state is an existence of violent anarchy. Individuals do not seek to develop friendships or communities, but are rather bent on self-preservation alone. “in Hobbes’ words, the life of an individual in such a state is ‘solitary, nasty, brutish, and short’” (Wiser). This is based on the Hobbesian notion of what is externally good and evil. As there is no higher universal moral order in the state of nature, the good is achieved simply through survival. Evil, on the other hand, typically manifests in each individual’s fear of violent death. As a result, this state of existence is a violent one, best described as kill or be killed. Wiser quotes the Leviathan to illustrate this point. “…During a time when men live without a common power…, they are in a condition called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man” (Wiser).
This directly impacts Hobbes’s choice of regime, that is, a monarchy. Since there is no need to govern the good within each and every soul or stimulate cooperation and friendship, the Hobbesian Leviathan serves only to prevent his constituents from violently killing one another. While Hobbes does not believe that any individual has the right to rule over another, it is through the consent of the governed that the Leviathan becomes legitimate. Even though, many other freedoms are significantly restricted by this regime, this is of no consequence as long as the Leviathan safeguards his followers from their greatest fear, that of violent death. Essentially, this monarch is a necessary evil as “the alternative to such a society is the state of nature, and the disadvantages of the state of nature are so immense to make such an alternative unacceptable” (Wiser).
Jean Jacques Rousseau, another prominent thinker of the modern age, also addresses a state of nature, diverging from Aristotle’s beliefs. His state of nature is not one of violent anarchy, but rather it is a peaceful existence of solitude. There are no conventions to impede life in any way, such as family, traditions, customs, government, and habits. As there are no rules or restrictions, humans do not want to kill others as they do in the Hobbesian state, but rather exist peacefully able to act as they wish with a certain level of spontaneity. According to The Social Contract, a work by Rousseau, “‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’” (Wiser). It is the conventions of civil society that is the root of evil, not the state of nature itself. As a result, Rousseau believes that it is in the best interest of all humanity to try and return to this state; this is, however, an endeavor he claims to be impossible, and therefore, one must manipulate conventions to create a society that reflects the state of nature as best possible.
This prompts a shift from staunch individualism to a life of rigid uniformity. Rousseau supports a totalitarian democracy that essentially forces individuals to follow the general will, which is ingrained in all rational people and encompasses the spirit of the state of nature. This is different from the rule of all, which is the chaotic result of following conventions. Democracy is the best option for Rousseau as he feels that the general will needs to maintain a level of spontaneity; and yet, this regime also needs the power to force some individuals to be free lest they fall under influence of the will of all. According to Rousseau, “‘…whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be strained to do so by the whole body; which means… he shall be forced to be free’” (Wiser). Therefore, a totalitarian democracy is best as it is most successful in mirroring the state of nature within civil society.
As one can see within the modern tradition, these two thinkers differ in very significant ways. Yet, when comparing traditions, there are clear and significant differences from the thinking of Aristotle to that of Hobbes and Rousseau when considering the primal state of man and the origin and importance of politics and civil society. While there are many more components to both traditions that serve to compare and contrast the two, the modern state of nature, and its consequent effect on regime type, is one factor that distinguishes the modern tradition from that of Aristotle’s.
No comments:
Post a Comment