Download HOBBES'S ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGN and more Summaries Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity!
Hobbes: Sovereignty
UNIT 10 HOBBES: SOVEREIGNTY
(PRESENTATION THEMES: STATE OF
NATURE, LEVIATHAN, ATOMISTIC
INDIVIDALS)
Structure
10.0 Objectives
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Hobbesian Sovereignty
10.2.1 Need for a Sovereign 10.2.2 Nature of Sovereignty 10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power
10.3 Powers and Privileges of the Sovereign
10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects 10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation 10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign
10.4 Legacy of Hobbes’ Ideas on Sovereignty
10.5 Let Us Sum Up
10.6 References
10.7 Answers to Check Your Progress Exercises
10.0 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this unit is to familiarise you with English political philosopher, Thomas Hobbes’s conceptualization of sovereignty which is a central idea in his social contract theory. After studying this unit, you should be able to:
Describe Hobbes’ views on sovereignty Explain Hobbes’ arguments in favour of an absolutist sovereign Examine Hobbes’ views on relationship between religion and state; and Evaluate the legacy of Hobbesian conception of sovereignty
⁎Dr. Abhiruchi Ojha, Assistant Professor, Department of Politics & Governance, Central
University of Kashmir
BLOCK – V HOBBES
10.1 INTRODUCTION
Sovereignty is quintessentially a modern concept whose origins can be traced back to the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli (1469 CE – 1527 CE), Jean Bodin (1530 CE – 1596 CE) and most importantly, Thomas Hobbes. A basic definition of sovereignty would be, supreme power or authority within a particular territory or state. In most modern states, there tends to be only one sovereign or supreme power. This sovereign can be the people in a democratic country like India or the king in a monarchy like Saudi Arabia. However, such a conception of sovereignty was unheard of in feudal Europe. During the feudal period, multiple power structures co-existed within a given territory. This included the king, the church and many other feudal lords. Thus, it is only in the modern era, the idea of a supreme sovereign power within a territorial space took shape. One can trace the emergence of the modern sovereign state system to the Peace of Westphalia of 1648 CE. In this context, Hobbes contributed significantly to the development of a modern theory of sovereignty. It is worth noting that Machiavelli and Bodin had also offered crucial insights about sovereignty. Machiavelli, in his most famous work, The Prince (1532 CE), had argued that the Prince should exercise absolute powers and should not tolerate any kind of factions within his state, be it religious or aristocratic. However, Machiavelli’s arguments were practical rather than theoretical. He was a diplomat rather than a philosopher and therefore, he did not provide a philosophical justification for sovereignty, but rather offered only a practical justification. For Machiavelli, the prince has to have absolute powers to maintain a stable and powerful state that can withstand the vagaries of fortune. In contrast, Bodin’s ideas on sovereignty as spelt out in his most famous work The Six Books of the Republic (1576 CE) are more systematic despite being somewhat similar to that of Machiavelli. Bodin defined sovereign power as ‘perpetual’ and ‘absolute’. Perpetuity of sovereign power means that anyone who is given sovereign power temporarily or for a limited period of time, cannot be called as a true sovereign. Only those who have sovereign power for perpetuity without any time limit or threat of removal can be called as sovereigns. The absolute nature of sovereign power means that the sovereign makes and changes laws without the need for the consent of anyone. Moreover, sovereign power is also indivisible and cannot be shared. Hence, it must be with a single person or a single group of persons. While these views on sovereignty are mostly consistent with that of Hobbes, Bodin also argued somewhat ambiguously that the sovereign is bound by the laws of God and nature. It was Hobbes who gave a more robust treatment of the concept of sovereignty in his most famous work, Leviathan. Hobbes not only defined sovereignty clearly, but also spelt out the reasons that necessitate a sovereign.
10.2 HOBESSIAN SOVEREIGNTY
Having carefully constructed his social contract from the beginnings of an anarchic, violent state of nature, Hobbes goes on to propose the need for a
BLOCK – V HOBBES
Assembly of men, to bear their Person; and every one to own, and acknowledge himself to be Author of whatsoever he that so bear their Person, shall Act, or cause to be Acted, in those things which concern the Common Peace and Safety; and therein to submit their Wills, every one to his Will, and their Judgements, to his Judgment” (Leviathan, Chapter XVII) For Hobbes, sovereign power is perpetual, inalienable, undivided and absolute. Since the sovereign stands outside the contract, he is not in any way bound by the contract. Hobbes argues that if the sovereign is bound by anything, then by definition, he cannot be the sovereign. A sovereign has to have, thus, unlimited powers. Once established, the citizens have a binding political obligation to obey the sovereign in all that he commands. Hobbesian sovereign holds his absolute powers perpetually, i.e. sovereignty cannot be taken away by anyone from the sovereign. Sovereign power also cannot be shared. The sovereign can appoint people to help him in governance for convenience, but it can never be shared. There cannot be more than one sovereign for a commonwealth as that will lead to anarchy because of competition between them. Hobbes wants to establish the sovereign as the supreme power within the commonwealth which is able to quash any other power structures within the state. Hobbes also gives unlimited powers to the sovereign, because there is no way to know in advance how much power will be required to achieve total domination of the commonwealth. Any restriction on sovereign power, thus, is a threat to the stability of the state which might allow rival power structures to emerge in the state which is a recipe for anarchy and a return to the violent state of nature. Hence, the Hobbesian sovereign is neither constrained by the contract nor by any other external force. Even though, in a general sense the sovereign is obligated to follow natural law but for Hobbes, it is the sovereign who decides what natural law entails. He is, thus, the ultimate interpreter of natural law. His word is justice and any disobedience on the part of citizens is unjust. He enacts the law, but is above law. He can punish any of his subjects at will. The sovereign in essence retains all the rights entailed in the state of nature to preserve himself because preserving himself would mean the preservation of the commonwealth which is of paramount importance to Hobbes. This is so because, for Hobbes, any state, even one considered as held together by force or cruelty, is preferable to the violent anarchy of state of nature. It is also worth noting that Hobbes talks about two ways in which a sovereign power might be established. The first is through a contract where people come together to make a covenant which establishes the sovereign. Consent is the basis of this sovereignty which Hobbes calls as sovereignty by institution. However, Hobbes also notes that many a times, a sovereign might forcefully conquer a people and establish his sovereignty over them. This he deems as sovereignty by acquisition or force. What is revealing is that Hobbes argues that even such forceful establishment of sovereignty is legitimate. This is so because the subjects, driven by the fear of the sovereign, enter into an implicit contract with him whereby they promise obedience in exchange for security. Fear forms the
basis of this sovereignty and for Hobbes, it is equally valid as consent. Hobbes Hobbes: Sovereignty points out that even the consent of sovereignty by institution is driven by fear faced by the subjects of each other in the state of nature.
“And this kind of Dominion, or Sovereignty, differs from Sovereignty by Institution, only in this, That men who choose their Sovereign, do it for fear of one another, and not of him whom they Institute: But in this case, they subject themselves, to him they are afraid of. In both cases they do it for fear” (Leviathan, Chapter XX).
This reveals the core idea of Hobbesian conception of sovereignty with much clarity. For Hobbes, more than consent, it is the awesome power exercised by the sovereign which grants it legitimacy. If a person is able to subordinate all other competing powers within a commonwealth through force, then he in effect is the legitimate sovereign. This is so because for Hobbes even sovereignty by institution is made possible firstly by fear of the state of nature and is later made workable only because of the fear of the power held by the sovereign. Fear is, thus, a legitimate force in sovereignty by institution and hence, its legitimacy cannot be logically denied in sovereignty by acquisition. Moreover, fear is necessary for any commonwealth and thus he writes, “And Covenants, without the Sword, are but Words, and of no strength to secure a man at all” (Leviathan, Chapter XVII). A sovereign established by institution is useless, if he does not have the power to instil fear and thereby, obedience in his subjects. Ultimately, it is the fear of the power of the sovereign that holds the commonwealth together.
10.2.3 Types of Sovereign Power
Hobbes also talks about three types of sovereign authority that can be instituted through a contract. Firstly, the sovereign can be a monarch, wherein sovereign power is given to a single person. The sovereign authority can also be an aristocracy, wherein sovereign power is given to a small group of people. Lastly, there is democracy, wherein sovereign power rests with the people. Hobbes argues that among these three, monarchy is the best possible form of sovereign power. Hobbes gives many reasons for this contention. He argues that a monarch will receive better counsel because he can obtain it in private where people speak without apprehensions unlike in an aristocratic or democratic assembly. Similarly, a monarchical sovereign will be more consistent because it is just one person taking decisions unlike an aristocracy or democracy where multiple people are involved. Hobbes is also fearful that in an aristocracy or democracy, there can be factionalism leading to power struggles between different groups which can result in civil wars. The important question of succession is also complex and can become contested in aristocracy and democracy. On the other hand, in a monarchy, the king will simply choose the method of succession or who his successor would be. Thus, for such reasons, Hobbes argues that monarchy is the best type of sovereign power. However, it has to be noted that while Hobbes indicates a strong preference for a sovereign monarch in his writings, his theory of sovereignty can be applied for an aristocratic or democratic sovereign as well without much complications. The absolutist powers
As a matter of fact, the sovereign is the ultimate adjudicator in even scientific and Hobbes: Sovereignty philosophical debates as he, either directly or through a committee of experts chosen by him, determines which philosophical and scientific principles are right and acceptable. Thus, the sovereign is the source of all valid and legitimate knowledge. This flows from the argument discussed in the last unit regarding Hobbes’ contention that for knowledge to be possible, a central authority is needed to authoritatively determine the firm meaning of words, language and first principles of knowledge. The sovereign power is that authority and therefore, stable and universally accepted knowledge is not possible without such a sovereign adjudicator. The sovereign can restrict any behaviour of his subjects and can also censor any doctrine. He can reward those he wishes and punish others. He can appoint whomever he wishes to any position in the government and military. The sovereign is supreme not only in internal affairs, but also in external affairs. He has the sole authority to declare war with other states or to make peace with them. It is, thus, clear that the powers and privileges of the sovereign are absolute in almost every sphere of society. Hobbes does not want any check on the powers of the sovereign.
10.3.1 Liberty of the Subjects
Hobbes anticipates that his critics might pose questions about the lack of liberty of the subjects of his absolutist sovereign. He proceeds to discuss the same in some detail. Hobbes defines liberty as the ability to act in accordance with one’s will without being hindered physically. Hobbes describes physical hindrance in a very materialist manner, like literal chains or being behind literal bars in the case of imprisonment. Since the sovereign does not physically hinder his subjects, Hobbes argues that subjects enjoy absolute liberty. Hobbes does concede that the social contract and all the laws imposed by the sovereign are ‘artificial chains’ which restrict the actions of subjects. However, since the subjects either explicitly or implicitly consented to a sovereign power, Hobbes argues that they themselves agreed to those chains and hence, therefore, cannot claim that they infringe on their freedom. Citizens might have consented to the social contract due to necessity arising out of fear of the state of nature in the case of sovereignty by institution, or fear of the sovereign himself in the case of sovereignty by acquisition. Fear and necessity are not constraints on the liberty of individuals for Hobbes as they are not physical hindrances.
“Fear and Liberty are consistent; as when a man throwshis goods into the Sea for Fear the ship should sink, he does it nevertheless very willingly, and may refuse to do it if he will: It is therefore the action, of one that was Free; so a man sometimes pays his debt, only for Fear of Imprisonment, which because nobody hindered him from detaining, was the action of a man at Liberty” (Leviathan, Chapter XXI)
Moreover, Hobbes makes a comparative analysis of the freedom enjoyed by people under a sovereign and in the state of nature to show that fear does play a critical role even in the state of nature. Fear of violent death and of more powerful others restricted actions in the state of nature when human beings were
BLOCK – V HOBBES
at complete liberty to do anything they wished. People had neither consented to nor had any control over the fear they felt in the state of nature. In contrast, the fear of the sovereign is based on consent and hence, Hobbes argues that true freedom only exists in a civil society with a sovereign. Under such a system, the subjects are at least completely free to pursue things which the sovereign has permitted or has not disallowed. Wherever there is silence of law or sovereign command, there is more practical freedom for the subjects. Hobbes acknowledges that this free space might vary from commonwealth to commonwealth. Yet, the liberty enjoyed is still better from the fear and utter unproductivity of the state of nature. Hence, in a comparative sense, the subjects of an absolutist sovereign enjoy more freedom than people in the state of nature.
10.3.2 Right to Self-Preservation
Hobbes gives unlimited powers to the sovereign and does not grant a right to dissent or rebel to citizens. However, he is mindful of the fact that people agree to institute a sovereign, either explicitly or implicitly, only to preserve their life. As noted earlier, the one right which is not surrendered to the sovereign is the right to self-preservation. Hence, a person is not under any obligation to obey a sovereign if the latter asks him to kill or injure himself. So, even if a sovereign deems an individual as a threat to the peace of the commonwealth and wants him or her to be killed, that person has the right to defend himself or herself. He or she is under no obligation to obey the sovereign against his or her right to self- preservation. The sovereign thus, has, to use force to get it done for the benefit of the commonwealth. Similarly, if a sovereign is not adequately competent to protect the right to life of his subjects, then also they are under no obligation to him. For example, if the sovereign is unable to put down a violent rebellion which endangers the lives of citizens, then he is no longer the sovereign or supreme power within the commonwealth, which is indicative of the collapse of the commonwealth. The situation then is akin to the state of nature and each person is at liberty to protect themselves through whatever means necessary.
10.3.3 Religion and the Sovereign
Hobbes discusses the relationship between religious authority and sovereign power in detail in Leviathan as it was one of the pressing questions of his time. He argues that those beliefs which are in the realm of the private conscience of the individual cannot be anyway compelled by the sovereign. People are free to have them. However, he insists that those aspects of religion which are publicly exercised should be under the control of the sovereign. He is critical of any religion that seeks to compete with the sovereign in exercising control over the public lives of citizens. This criticism was especially directed against the Roman Catholic Church of his time which claimed dominion over its followers irrespective of the state they lived in. This was unacceptable and destabilizing in the view of Hobbes because a leviathan cannot have two heads. In short, citizens are bound to follow the lead of the sovereign in religious affairs as well, especially in public exercise of faith even though Hobbes permits people to hold on to their individual beliefs in private. The sovereign is to be the undisputed
BLOCK – V HOBBES
law because the sovereign is supposed to interpret natural law to forge civil law.Hence, Warrender argues that the political obligation propounded by Hobbes is predominantly based on morality. It is worth noting that Hobbes does expect his sovereign to rule in the interests of the subjects. He wants the sovereign to not interfere in private affairs, be it economic or otherwise and allow citizens to operate independently as much as possible. Hobbes is not propagating a wilfully cruel sovereign but still, he does consider even a cruel sovereign better than the anarchy of the state of nature. Oakeshott (1975) tries to stake out a middle path by arguing that the political obligation generated by the Hobbesian sovereign is a combination of physical, rational and moral obligations. Physical obligation arises out of the element of force involved, whereas the rational aspect is emphasised by self-interest and the desire to seek peace.Moreover, for Oakeshott, moral obligation is also part of it because the sovereign is established by consent. Even though Hobbes proposes an absolutist sovereign power with a stated preference for monarchy, he did differ from the other royalists of his time. Most of them were arguing in favour of the king using chiefly the medieval divine right theory, whereas Hobbes’ theory of sovereignty is based on a covenant of consent. Hence, Hobbes was one of the earliest thinkers to delink sovereignty from its mystical origins by giving it a firm rational foundation. Thus, scholars like Sabine (1973) have noted that despite his proposal of an absolutist sovereign, Hobbes is also a great individualist which makes him a distinctively modern thinker.Each individual gives consent to the social contract based on his or her self-interest and is under no obligation to kill or injure himself or herself even if commanded by the sovereign because of his or her inalienable right to self- preservation. Hobbesian citizens are holders of rights in their self. They are also rational, equal and self-interested. This atomistic conception of individuals, first propounded by Hobbes, would later come to dominate liberal political theory. It is worth nothing thatsuch a construction of individuals has been criticized by many as being asocial and mechanistic.
10.5 LET US SUM UP
Hobbes, true to his pessimistic view of human nature, argues that reason demands that an independent sovereign power be established to enforce the social contract. This is necessary to subdue both internal and external threats to the commonwealth. Internally, the sovereign will use rewards and punishments to make sure that citizens follow the contract. Externally, the sovereign will defend the commonwealth from rival states. The sovereign is established by the contract, but is not part of the contract and hence, he is not bound by it. Sovereign power for Hobbes is perpetual, indivisible, inalienable and absolute. The sovereign is the sole author of laws and also functions as the highest judicial authority in the commonwealth. He also determines what constitutes as legitimate knowledge and thereby, is the source of scientific and philosophical progress. He defines justice for the commonwealth and decides which opinions are to be permitted and which ones are to be banned. Religious authorities also ought to be subservient to the sovereign as the Leviathan cannot have competing heads. Hobbes notes that three
types of sovereign power can be instituted. They being monarchy, aristocracy and Hobbes: Sovereignty democracy. Among them, Hobbes argues that monarchy offers the most coherent and efficient exercise of sovereign power. Hobbes contends that the citizens of his commonwealth are at liberty because they are not physically hindered by the sovereign. They have given their voluntary consent for his rule and therefore, have chosen it out of liberty, even if their choice was necessitated by fear or necessity. In his view, fear and necessity are not hindrances to liberty. This argument is further underlined by the fact that Hobbes does allow the citizens to disobey the sovereign if their right to self-preservation is threatened as that is one right they have not surrendered to him.
Hobbes put the individual at the centre of his theorizing of the social contract and bestowsthe individual with an inalienable right to self-preservation against the society and even the sovereign.This paved the way for later liberal theorists like John Locke to expand the list of inalienable rights held by individuals against the society and the sovereign while preserving the same atomistic individualist framework of Hobbes. His theory of sovereignty greatly inspired subsequent highly influential theories of sovereignty proposed by scholars like John Austin and Jeremy Bentham.
10.6 REFERENCES
Baumgold, D. (2009). Hobbes in Boucher, D. & Kelly, P. ed. Political Thinkers: From Socrates to the Present. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Duncan, S. (2019). Thomas Hobbes. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes/
Hampsher-Monk, I. (2001). A History of Modern Political Thought: Major Political Thinkers from Hobbes to Marx. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan. Available Online at Project Gutenberg. URL: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3207/3207-h/3207-h.htm
Lloyd, S. & Sreedhar, S. (2019). Hobbes’s Moral and Political Philosophy. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. URL: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/
Macpherson, C. (1962). The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Ontario: Oxford University Press.
Martinich, A.P. (2005). Hobbes. New York: Routledge.
Oakeshott, M. (1975). Hobbes on Civil Association. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pettit, P. (2008). Made with Words: Hobbes on Language, Mind, and Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sabine, G. (1973). A History of Political Theory. San Diego: Dryden Press.
- Your answer should highlight the following points: Hobbes: Sovereignty
Religious authorities are to be subservient to the sovereign because there can only be one head to the leviathan The sovereign is the head of any public exercise of religion while individuals can have private beliefs of their own
BLOCK – V HOBBES
