Modern western
political thought
V SEMESTER
CORE COURSE
BA POLITICAL SCIENCE
(2013 Admission- CCSS)
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Calicut university P.O, Malappuram Kerala, India 673 635.
253-A
AAaA
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Guidelines and tips
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
University Rankings
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Our save-the-student-ebooks!
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
by plaTO WESTERN POLITICAL THOUHT
Typology: Study notes
2016/2017
1 / 100
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
On special offer
Related documents
Partial preview of the text
Download WESTERN POLITICal thought and more Study notes Political Theory in PDF only on Docsity!
Modern western political thought
V SEMESTER
CORE COURSE
BA POLITICAL SCIENCE
(2013 Admission- CCSS)
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
Calicut university P.O, Malappuram Kerala, India 673 635.
253 - A
AAaA
UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT
SCHOOL OF DISTANCE EDUCATION
STUDY MATERIAL
Core Course BA POLITICAL SCIENCE V Semester MODERN WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT
Prepared &
Scrutinized by:
Dr. G.Sadanandan Associate Professor and Head, P.G. Department of Political Science Sree Kerala Varma,College Thrissur
Layout: Computer Section, SDE
Reserved
Core Course VIII-Modern Western Political Thought Module I : Social Contractualists: Thomas Hobbes: State of nature, social contract, nature and attributes of state. John Locke: State of nature, natural rights, nature and functions of state. J.J. Rousseau: State of nature, social contract and general will. Module II : Utilitarians : Jeremy Bentham: Pleasure pain theory J.S.Mill: Modifications of Benthams theory, on Liberty and representative government Module III : Idealists: Hegel: On Dialetics, state and freedom T.H.Green: State, freedom and rights Module IV : Socialists: Karl Marx – Materialistic Dialectics and Historical Materialism, Theory of Surplus Value, Class Struggle, Base-superstructure Relations, Critique of Capitalism V.I. Lenin – Imperialism and democratic centralism Mao-Tse-Tung – On contradiction, role of peasantry Module V – Anarchism Bakunin and Kropotkin
MODULE I: SOCIAL CONTRACTUALISTS
Thomas Hobbes (1588 - 1679) Thomas Hobbes is really the first Englishman who wrote comprehensively on political philosophy and made valuable contributions to it. He is one of the most controversial and important figures in the history of western political thought. His status as a political thinker was not fully recognised until the 19th^ century. The philosophical radicalism of the English utilitarians and the scientific rationalism of the French Encyclopaedists incorporated in a large measure Hobbes mechanical materialism, radical individualism and psychological egoism. By the mid- 20 th^ century Hobbes was acclaimed as “probably the greatest writer on political philosophy that the English speaking people have produced”. According to Micheal Oakeshott, “the Leviathan is the greatest, perhaps the sole, masterpiece of political philosophy written in the English language”. Hobbes lived at a time of great constitutional crisis in England when the theory of Divine Right of Kings was fiercely contested by the upholders of the constitutional rule based on popular consent. It is he who for the first time systematically expounded the absolute theory of sovereignty and originated the positivist theory of law. Though he was not a liberal, modern commentators believe that his political doctrine has greater affinities with the liberalism of the 20th^ century than his authoritarian theory would initially suggest. From a broad philosophical perspective, the importance of Hobbes is his bold and systematic attempt to assimilate the science of man and civil society to a thoroughly modern science corresponding to a completely mechanistic conception of nature. His psychological egoism, his ethical relativism and his political absolutism are all supposed to follow logically from the assumptions or principles underlying the physical world which primarily consists of matter and motion. Hobbes was prematurely born in 1588 in Westport near the small town of Malmesburg in England at a time when the country was threatened by the impending attack of the Spanish Armada. His father was a member of the clergy (vicar) near Malmesburg .His long life was full of momentous events. He was a witness to the great political and constitutional turmoil caused by English civil war and his life and writings bear clear imprint of it. After his education at Oxford, Hobbes joined as tutor to the son of William Cavendish, who was about the same age as Hobbes. The association of Cavendish family lasted, with some interruptions until Hobbes’ death. Through his close connection with the royal family he met eminent scholars and scientists of the day such as Bacon Descartes, Galileo etc. His first publication was translation in English of Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War in 1629. Besides just before he died, at the age of 86, he translated Homer’s Odyssey and Iliad into English. The important works of Hobbes include De Civie and the Leviathan.
picked up from the external world, and also indicated an awareness of one’s natural passions. He mentioned a long list of passions, but the special emphasis was on fear, in particular the fear of death, and on the universal and perfectly justified quest for power. `` Hobbes contended that life was nothing but a perpetual and relentless desire and pursuit of power, a prerequisite for felicity. He pointed out that one ought to recognise a general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire for power after power that ceased only in death. Consequently, individuals were averse to death; especially accidental death for it marked the end of attainment of all felicity. Power was sought for it represented a means of acquiring those things that made life worthwhile and contented. The fact that all individuals sought power distinguished Hobbes from Machiavelli. Hobbes observed that human beings stood nothing to gain from the company of others except pain. A permanent rivalry existed between human beings for honor, riches and authority, with life as nothing but potential warfare, a war of every one against the others. Hobbes human relationships is as those of mutual suspicion and hostility. The only rule that individuals acknowledged was that one would take if one had the power and retain as long as one could. In this “ill condition” there was no law, no justice, no notion of right and wrong. Thus according to Hobbes, the principal cause of conflict was within the nature of man. As mentioned earlier, competition, diffidence and glory were the three reasons that were quarrel and rivalry among individuals. “The first, make the men invade for Gain; the second, for safety and the third, for reputation. The first use violence, to make themselves Masters of other men’s persons…. the second to defend them; the third, for trifles………………” In a state of nature, individuals enjoyed complete liberty, including a natural right to everything, even to one another’s bodies. The natural laws were not laws or commands. Subsequently, Hobbes argued that the laws of nature were also proper laws, since they were delivered in the word of God. These laws were counsels of prudence. Natural laws in Hobbes’ theory did not mean eternal justice, perfect morality or standards to judge existing laws as the Stoics did. It is clear from above observations that what is central to Hobbes’ psychology is not hedonism but search for power and glory, riches and honor. Power is, of course, the central feature of Hobbes’ system of ideas. While recognising the importance of power in Hobbesian political ideas, Michael Oakeshott wrote thus: “Man is a complex of power; desire is the desire for power, pride is illusion about power, honour opinion about power life the unremitting exercise of power and death the absolute loss of power “ Thus Hobbes in his well known work, ‘The Leviathan’ has presented a bleak and dismal picture of the condition of men in the state of nature. However, Hobbes does not
extensively discuss the question of whether men have actually ever lived in such a state of nature. He noted that the savage people in many places of America have no government and live in the brutish and nasty manner. John Rawls thinks that Hobbes’ state of nature is the classic example of the “prisoner’s dilemma” of game – theoretic analysis. Social contract After presenting a horrible and dismal picture of the state of nature, Hobbes proceeds to discuss how man can escape from such an intolerably miserable condition. ‘In the second part of the Leviathan, Hobbes creates his commonwealth by giving new orientation to the old idea of the social contract, a contract between ruler and ruled. Hobbes thus builds his commonwealth. ‘the only way to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them ( i.e, men) from the invasion of foreigners and the injuries of one another. ….. is to confer all their power and strength upon one Man or upon one Assembly of men that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto one will the sovereign himself stands outside the covenant. He is a beneficiary of the contract, but not a party to it. Each man makes an agreement with every man in the following manner’ “I authorize and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to this assembly of man on the condition that thou give up thy right to him, and authorise all his actions in like manner. This is the generation of that great Leviathan or rather ( to speak more reverently) of that mortal god, to which we owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence.’ It is clear from the above statement that no individual can surrender his right to self-preservation. In order to secure their escape from the state of nature, individuals renounce their natural rights to all things, and institute by common consent, a third person, or body of persons, conferring all rights of him for enforcing the contract by using force and keeping them all and authorising all his action as their own. According to Hobbes, the social contract institutes an office which may be held by one man or an assembly of men but which is distinct from the natural person of the holder. By the transfer of the natural rights to each man, the recipient becomes their representative an is invested with authority to deliberate, will and act in place of the deliberation will and action of each separate man. The multitude of conflicting wills is replaced, not by a common will but a single representative will. According to William Ebenstein, Hobbesian, social contract is made between subjects and subjects and not between subjects and sovereign. The sovereign is not a party to the contract, but its creation. This contract is a unilateral contract in which the contracting individuals obligate themselves to the resultant sovereign. Then again it is an irrevocable contract owe the individuals contract themselves into a civil society, they
- Sovereign has absolute right to declare war and make peace, to levy taxes and to impose penalties.
- Sovereign is the ultimate source of all administrative, legislative and judicial authority. According to Hobbes, law is the command of the sovereign.
- The sovereign has the right to allow or takes away freedom of speech and opinion.
- The sovereign has to protect the people externally and internally for peace and preservation were basis of the creation of the sovereign or Leviathan. Thus Hobbesian sovereign represents the ultimate, supreme and single authority in the state and there is no right of resistance against him except in case of self defense. According to Hobbes, any act of disobedience of a subject is unjust because it is against the covenant. Covenants without swords are but mere words. Division or limitation of sovereignty means destruction of sovereignty which means that men are returning to the old state of nature where life will be intolerably miserable. By granting absolute power to the sovereign, some critics went to the extent of criticising Hobbes as the ‘spiritual father of totalitarian fascism or communism’ However, William Ebenstein in his well known work ‘ Great Political Thinkers’ has opposed this charge on following grounds. First, government is set up according to Hobbes, by a covenant that transfers all power. This contractual foundation of government is anathema to the modern totalitarians second; Hobbes assigns to the state a prosaic business; to maintain order and security for the benefit of the citizens. By contrast, the aim of the modern totalitarian state is anti-individualistic and anti hedonistic. Third, Hobbesian state is authoritarian, not totalitarian. Hobbes’ authoritaritarianism lacks one of the most characteristic features of the modern totalitarian state: inequality before the law, and the resultant sense of personal insecurity. Fourth, Hobbes holds that the sovereign may be one man or an assembly of men, whereas modern totalitarianism is addicted to the leadership principle. The Hobbesian sovereign is a supreme administrator and law giver but not a top rabble rouser, spellbinder, propagandist, or showman. Fifth, Hobbes recognises that war is one of the two main forces that drive men to set up a state. But whenever he speaks of war, it is defensive war, and there is no glorification of war in the Leviathan. By contrast, totalitarians look on war as something lightly desirable and imperialist war as the highest form of national life. Thus it is clear from the above observations that Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is the first systematic and consistent statement of complete sovereignty in the history of
political thought. His sovereign enjoys an absolute authority over his subjects and his powers can neither be divided nor limited either by the law of nature or by the law of God. Hobbes’ Leviathan is not only a forceful enunciation of the theory of sovereignty but also a powerful statement of individualism. As Prof. Sabine has rightly pointed out; in Hobbesian political philosophy both individualism and absolutism go hand in hand. Granting absolute and unlimited power to the state is, in essence, an attempt to provide a happy and tension free life to the individuals. CONCLUSION The Leviathan of Hobbes has been regarded as one of the masterpieces of political theory known for its style, clarity and lucid exposition. He has laid down a systematic theory of sovereignty, human nature, political obligation etc. Hobbes saw the state as a conciliator of interests, a point of view that the Utilitarian’s developed in great detail. Hobbes created an all powerful state but it was not totalitarian monster. Hobbes is considered as the father of political science: His method was deductive and geometrical rather than empirical and experimental. His theory of sovereignty is indivisible, inalienable and perpetual. Sovereign is the sole source and interpreter of laws. Before and after Hobbes, political absolutism has been defended by different scholars on various grounds. Hobbes was perhaps the first political thinker to defend political absolutism on scientific grounds. JOHN LOCKE John Locke’s first works were written at Oxford, namely the Two Tracts on Government in 1660-1662, and the Essays on the Law of Nature in Latin in 1664. In both these writings he argued against religious toleration and denied consent as the basis of legitimate government. Locke published his Two Treatises of Government in 1690. The same year saw the publication of his famous philosophical work The Essay Concerning Human understanding. Locke’s other important writings were the Letters Concerning Toleration and Some Thought Concerning Education. The Two Treatises of Government consists of two parts- the first is the refutation of Filmer and the second, the more important of the two, is an inquiry into the ‘true original, extent and end of civil government’. The work was ostensibly written to justify the glorious revolution of 1688. According to William Ebenstein, Locke’s two treatises of government is often dismissed as a mere apology for the victorious Whigs in the revolution of 1688. The two treatises exposed and defended freedom, consent and property as coordinal
other words, in the Lockean state of nature there are some short comings and inconveniences. Absence of a law making body law enforcing agency and an impartial judicial organ in the state of nature where the serious short comings in the state of nature. Thus we find that the state of nature, while it is not a state of war is also not an idyllic condition, and, therefore, it has to be superseded sooner or later. Conflict and uncertainties are bound to arise on account of the selfish tendencies in human nature. The state of nature is always in danger of being transformed into a state or war. Where everyone is the judge in his own case and has the sole authority to punish peace is bound to be threatened. Natural Rights and Private Property The conception of Natural rights and the theory of property was one of the important themes in Locke’s political philosophy. According to Locke, men in the state of nature possessed natural rights. These rights are: Right to life liberty and property. Liberty means an exemption from all rules save the law of nature which is a means to the realisation of man’s freedom. Locke spoke of individuals in the state of nature having perfect freedom to dispose of their possessions, and persons, as they thought fit. He emphatically clarified that since property was a natural right derived from natural law, it was therefore prior to the government. He emphasised that individuals had rights to do as they pleased within the bounds of the laws of nature. Rights were limited to the extent that they did not harm themselves or others. According to Locke, human beings are rational creatures, and “Reason tells us that Men, being once born have a right to their preservation, and such other things as nature affords for their subsistence”. Rational people must concede that every human being has a right to life, and therefore to those things necessary to preserve life. This right to life and those things necessary to preserve it, Locke calls it property. The right to life, he argues, means that every man has property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but himself “Logically, the right to property in person means that all human beings have a right to property in those goods and possessions acquired through labour that are necessary to preserve their person. Locke argues that the “Labour of his body, and the work of his Hands are properly his. What so ever then he removes out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it something that is his won and thereby makes it his property”. Since human beings have property in their persons and
hence a right to life, it follows that they have property in those possessions that they have legitimately laboured to obtain. In other words, property in both person and possessions is a right that belongs to every human being as human being. It is a right all people possess whether they be in a state of nature or in political society. Locke thus says that the great and chief end of men’s uniting into commonwealths, and cutting themselves under government is the preservation of their property”. Consequently, Government has no other end but the preservation of people ‘Lives, liberties, and Estates” Liberty is a property right for Locke because to have property in one’s person implies the right to think, speak and act freely. Locke has argued that in the state of nature property is held in common until people mix their labour with it at which point it becomes their private property. A person has right to appropriate as much common property as desired so long as “there is enough and as good left in common for others” It was the social character of property that enabled Locke to defend a minimal state with limited government and individual rights, and reject out right the hereditary principle of government. Locke also wanted to emphasise that no government could deprive an individual of his material possessions without the latter’s consent. It was the duty of the political power to protect entitlements that individuals enjoyed by virtue of the fact that these had been given by God. In short, Locke’s claim that the legitimate function of the government is the preservation of property means not just that government must protect people’s lives and possessions, but that it must ensure the right of unlimited accumulation of private property. Some scholars have argued that Locke’s second treatise provides not only a theory of limited government but a justification for an emerging capitalist system as well. Macpherson argued that Locke’s views on property made him a bourgeois apologist, a defender of the privileges of the possessing classes. As Prof. William Ebenstien has rightly pointed out, Lockean theory of property was later used in defense of capitalism, but in the hands of pre-Marxian socialists it became a powerful weapon of attacking capitalism. Limited Government In order to explain the origin of political power, Locke began with a description of the state of nature which for him was one of perfect equality and freedom regulated by the laws of nature. Locke’s description of state of nature was not as gloomy and pessimistic as Hobbe’s. The individual in the Lockean state of nature was naturally free and become a political subject out of free choice. The state of nature was not one of license, for though the individual was free from any superior power, he was subject to the laws of nature. From the laws of nature, individuals derived the natural rights to life, liberty and property
foreign policy, and knows that its formulation, execution and control presents a very special kind of problem to constitutional states. Characteristics of Lockean state The first and foremost feature of Lockean state is that it exists for the people who form it, they do not exist for it. Repeatedly he insists that ‘the end of government is the good of the community’. As C.L. Wayper has rightly pointed out the Lockean ‘ state is a machine which we create for our good and run for our purposes, and it is both dangerous and unnecessary to speak of some supposed mystical good of state or country independent of the lives of individual citizens. Locke further insists that all true states must be founded on consent. Further, the true state must be a constitutional state in which men acknowledge the rule of law. For there can be no political liberty if a man is subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of other man. Government must therefore be established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people, and not by extemporary decrees. The most important characteristic of Locke’s true state is that it is limited, not absolute. It is limited because it derives power from the people, and because it holds power in trust for the people. As only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends, its authority is confined to securing those ends. It is limited moreover, by Natural law in particular. The state should exist for the good of the people, should depend on their consent, should be constitutional and limited in its authority,. Besides, Lockean state is a tolerant state which will respect differences of opinion. It is a negative state which does not seek to improve the character of its citizens nor to manage their lives. Again, Lockean state is also a transformer state, transforming selfish interest into public good. Limitations of Government John Locke advocated a limited sovereign state, for reason and experience taught him that political absolutism was untenable. Describing the characteristics of a good state Locke said it existed for the people who formed it and not the vice- versa. It had to be based on the consent of the people subject to the constitution and the rule of law. It is limited since its powers were derived from the people and were held in trust. Locke does not build up a conception of legal sovereignty. He abolishes the legal sovereignty in favour of popular sovereignty. He has no idea of absolute and indivisible sovereignty as presented by Thomas Hobbes. Locke is for a government based on
division of power and subject to a number of limitations. His limited government cannot command anything against public interests. It cannot violate the innate natural rights of the individuals. It cannot govern arbitrarily and tax the subjects without their consent. Its laws must conform to the laws of Nature and of god. It is not the government which is sovereign but law which is rooted in common consent. Its laws must conform to the laws of Nature and of God. It is not the government which is sovereign but law which is rooted in common consent. A government which violates its limitations is not worthy of obedience. Most important in terms of limiting the power of government is the democratic principal itself. The legislature is to be periodically elected by the people. It could be no other way, in fact, since legitimate government must be based upon the consent of the governed according to Locke, and direct election of representatives to the legislature makes consent a reality. And since elected representatives depend of popular support for their tenure in office, they have every interest in staying within legal bounds. A further limitation upon the legislative power recommended by Locke is limiting of the duration of legislative sessions because, he argues constant frequent meetings of the legislative could not but be burdensome to the people”. In Locke’s mind, the less frequent the meetings of the legislature the fewer the laws passed and consequently, the less chance that mischief will be done. Another crucially important structural principle in limiting the power of government is the separation of powers. Between the legislative and executive, the logic behind this principle, according to Locke, is that “It may be too great a temptation to human frailty apt to grasp at power of the same persons who have the power of making laws, to have also in their hands the power to execute them. .” Locke, however, does not go so far as to make the separation of powers an absolute condition for limited government. Civil Society According to Locke what drives men into society is that God put them “under strong Obligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination”. And men being by nature all free, equal and independent , no one can be put out of this estate ( State of nature) and subjected to political power of another without his own consent. Therefore, the problem is to form civil society by common consent of all men and transfers their right of punishing the violators of natural law to an independent and impartial authority. For all practical purposes, after the formation of civil society this common consent becomes the consent of the majority; all parties must submit to the determination of the majority which carries the
constitutes the basic source of Rousseau’s social and political thought, although he wrote several other minor political works, such as the Government of Poland. In addition, Rousseau wrote several novels and numerous essays, and he produced three autobiographical works, the most important of which is the Confessions. In 1761 Rousseau published Emile perhaps the most famous work on education every written. STATE OF NATURE Rousseau built his political theory on the conception of pre-political state of nature. The reason is that he grew up in the rigorously Calvinist atmosphere of the small city of Geneva. Throughout his life, in spite of his conversion to Catholicism and a great humiliation which he suffered in Geneva, his love for his home strongly shaped his political thought. As he was restless man by nature he was never completely at home in any profession. He could never tolerate external restraint. In the Discourse on Inequality published in 1754, Rousseau started with the analysis of human nature. He considered the natural man, living in natural surroundings or in the state of nature as a noble savage. Man, as a natural animal lived the happy and care free life of the brute, without fixed abode without articulate speech, with no needs or desires that cannot be satisfied through the mere instinct. According to him, men in the state of nature were equal, self sufficient and self controlled. Their conduct was based not on reason, but on emotions of self interest and pity. Man’s first feeling was that of his own existence, and his first care that of self preservation. Hunger and other appetites made him at various times experience various modes of existence. According to Rousseau, men in the state of nature lived in isolation and had a few elementary, easily appeased needs. It was neither a condition of plenty or scarcity, neither there was neither conflict nor cooperative living. There was no language or knowledge of any science or art. In such a situation man was neither happy nor unhappy, had no conception of just and unjust virtue or vice. The noble savage was guided by two instincts- self love or the instinct of self preservation and sympathy or the gregarious instinct. As these instincts are always beneficial, man is by nature good. But self love and sympathy often come in to clash with each other hence, according to Rousseau , man takes the help of a sentiment to resolve the clash, which men can conscience. But since conscience is only a blind sentiment, it will not teach men what is in fact right. Conscience, therefore, requires a guide and that guide is reason which develops in man as alternate courses of action present themselves before him. Rousseau’s taught that reason was the outgrowth of a artificial life a man in organized society and that the results of its development were calamities. The noble savage was Rousseau’s ideal man.
State of nature did not last forever. In course of time the noble savage who lived in isolation discovered the utility and usefulness of labor which gave rise to the idea of property. Property led to the domination of one man over other. SOCIAL CONTRACT Though Rousseau criticised civil society, he did not suggest man to choose the savage existence, as some of his contemporaries mistook him. The main concern of the social contract is the central issue of all political speculation: Political obligation. ‘The Problem’ Rousseau says’ “is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each while uniting himself with all may still obey himself along, and remain as free as before”. Like his predecessors, Rousseau uses the conceptions of the state of nature and the social contract that puts to end to it. Rousseau’s conception of man’s life in the state of nature is not quite so gloomy as that of Hobbes’ nor as optimistic as that of Locke. Each man pursues his self- interest in the state of nature until he discovers that his power to preserve himself individually against the threats and hindrances of others is not strong enough Rousseau’s social contract opens thus: ‘ Man is born free and he is everywhere in chains’ His purpose is how to make the chains legitimate in place of the illegitimate chains of the contemporary society. The purpose of the social contract is thus to combine security which comes from collective association, with liberty which the individual had before the making of the contract. But the social contract consists in the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community.’ Each man gives himself to all, he gives himself to nobody in particular. In Rousseau’s social contract man does not surrender completely to a sovereign ruler, but each man gives himself to all, and therefore gives himself to nobody in particular. Rousseau shows in the social contract a much greater appreciation of civil society as compared with the state of nature than he showed in his earlier writings. As a result of the contract, private person ceases to exist for the contract produces a moral and collective Body, which receives from the same act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person formed from the union of all particular individuals is the state when it is passive,; the sovereign when it is active, a power when compared with similar institutions.