The Evolution of the Civil Society - Term Paper Example

The Evolution of the “Civil Society” Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) and his book Leviathan greatly influenced political thought in the seventeenth century, by arguing for the importance of the “social contract” in achieving peace and civil unity. John Locke (1632-1704) and his work Two Treatises on Government (1690) is also a seminal work on political thought, because he stresses the precedence of civil society over the government. These political thinkers have similarities and differences in how the idea of Europe as a “Civil Society” changed over time. Their views are important for international political thought, because they influenced present international political economy theories and helped paved the debate on political ideology, particularly shaping the discourse on the concept of “civil society” and the rise of nation-states vis-à-vis “civil society.” Locke and Hobbes have diverging views on the relationship between the government and civil society, as well as the notions of slavery, sovereignty, direction of international politics, and peace, but they share somewhat similar beliefs in the role of education and the state of nature of humanity. Locke and Hobbes have diverging views on the relationship between the government and civil society. Hobbes believes that Europe has changed as a civil society through the evolution of the social contract. The Commonwealth only exists because of the Covenant between the people and the government or the state. Hobbes says in the Leviathan: “Essence of the Common-wealth; which (to define it) is ‘One Person, of whose Acts a great Multitude, by mutual Covenants one with another, have made themselves every one the Author, to the end he may use the strength and means of them all, as he shall think expedient, for their Peace and Common Defense.’” This statement shows that the main goal of the government is to ensure peace and national defense. The covenant or social contract, however, for Hobbes is absolute, where the state incorporates the wills of the individuals; the state is the body and individuals are just parts of it: “The only way to erect such a Common Power” 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” (Hobbes). This statement underscores that the social contract binds all individuals. On the one hand, it enforces plurality of wills. On the other hand, it means the precedence of the state over civil society. Locke confirms the same views as Hobbes and argues that Europe also changed because of the need for the social contract. Unlike Hobbes, Locke believes that people take part of social contracts merely to help adjudicate disputes between individuals or groups. He says: “And this is done, where-ever any number of men, in the state of nature, enter into society to make one people, one body politic, under one supreme government…to make laws for him, as the public good of the society shall require…” (Locke, Two Treatises on Government). From here, it is clear that Locke believes that it is the people or civil society that legitimizes the state; while for Hobbes, it is the government that legitimizes the existence of a peaceful civil society. My criticism of Hobbes is that he overlooks that the people make the government. The social contract binds the people, but the people can unbind some laws too in order to make the contract fit their changing needs and issues. I agree more with Locke, who reminds governments of their servitude to the civil society. It does not mean, however, that the civil society will also abuse its rights and fully void the social contract without due justifications. Locke and Hobbes diverge on the notion of sovereignty. Locke argues that civil society precedes the state. For him, it is society that provides the state its essential source of legitimacy. He contends that when the rulers fail to encourage interests, independence, and equality of individual humans, the social contract is breached and it is the responsibility of the members of society to oust that ruler. This is based on Locke’s assertion that the state of nature is based on equality and if people are equal, then the civil society is the state. The state is no greater than the society that made it: “A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another” and that “the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty” (Locke). Hobbes believes the contrary, because it is the state that creates civil society. Civil society is the product of civil society’s enforcement of the social contract, as he expresses in the Leviathan: “This is more than Consent, or Concord; it is a real Unity of them all, in one and the same Person, made by Covenant of every man with every man” (Hobbes). For Hobbes, the people authorized the government to have the authority in directing civil society. I believe that Locke and Hobbes make good points. I agree with Locke that sovereignty is not only about the autonomy of the state, but the autonomy of the people. Hobbes, however, reminds the people that they must submit too to the rational laws of the social contract. If the civil society will not respect the sovereignty of the state, then the state will also be open to chaos and destruction. Due to differences in notions of sovereignty and civil society, Hobbes and Locke diverge also in their views on the direction of international politics. Hobbes asserts that there must be a monarchy that will fairly manage the social contract: “And therefore, they that are subjects to a Monarch, cannot without his leave cast off Monarchy, and return to the confusion of a disunited Multitude.” It is the monarch that will set the nation’s course, as well as its relationships with other states. Unlike Hobbes, Locke argues that natural law ensures that everyone is equal and there is no monarchy or aristocratic bases of hierarchy. Absolute power is unnatural and only human equality is natural and visible in natural human development, and Locke says: “And if anyone in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another…” Locke and Hobbes also differ in notions of peace. Hobbes thinks that peace is hard to achieve, when the state of nature is “war of every man against every man.” Locke disagrees with Hobbes and underscores that peace is the norm and should be the norm. He believes that human senses are predisposed to the “purchase of Justice, Peace, and true Religion.” My understanding is that Hobbes has a realist (realism) ideology of IPE, because his notions indicate that national interests precede international affairs. His views on the nature of war also depict realism. Locke, with his egalitarian views, seems to focus more on democratic ideals. He proposes the influence of liberal democracy in directing international politics. Locke and Hobbes share somewhat similar beliefs in the role of education and they also think that education is “natural” to the strengths of the people and critical to the formation of civil society. Locke believes that all people deserve education. Like Hobbes, he shares the belief in the natural aspects of education, such as the parents are mainly in charge of the education of their children, but the state is also responsible for the general education of the society: “This government over him only prepared him the better and sooner for it.” Hobbes also believes that there will be natural differences in educational levels, because of differences in passions and intelligences, as mentioned in the Leviathan: “The causes of this difference of wits are in the passions, and the difference of passions proceedeth partly from the different constitution of the body, and partly from different education.” Indeed, I agree with Hobbes and Locke that education is natural, in the sense that people of different intelligences and passions will have different intellectual abilities. Their intellect, in turn, will, sometimes, if not all the time, shape their social statuses. Education is critical to the formation of civil society, because it remarks on the intelligence needed by the society to make rational decisions, such as in choosing their leaders. Locke and Hobbes also agree on the natural laws that bind the state of nature of humanity. Hobbes believes that human beings can rationally live together, but reason is not enough to sustain an orderly and effective society and only a social contract, which consisted of rules and laws, can bind individuals peacefully. There is tension in Hobbes’ idea, however, since individuals tend to be selfish. Hobbes argues that man is naturally violent and they tend to have lives that are: “…solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” and he adds: “And because the condition of Man, (as hath been declared in the precedent Chapter) is a condition of Warre [sic] of every one against every one; in which case everyone is governed by his own Reason.” Furthermore, Hobbes does not directly support slavery, but he does say that the relationship between a slave and his/her master is also bound by the “covenant” between them. He then believes in the natural bonds between slaves and masters. Locke emphasizes that everyone is equal by nature. Even so called savages are also noble in their own right and have equal rights to live in this world. Hobbes differs with Locke, because he asserts that it is the state that defines civil rights. According to Buck-Morss, however, Locke never discusses concrete slavery, and that he provides an ambiguous stand on this topic. Buck-Morss says that “by stipulating consent as a requirement for the establishment of a social contract, Locke excludes those allegedly deprived of reason from engaging in the latter” (qtd. in Alvares 120). These natural laws have implications for international political thought, because they affect how the state should respond to the civil society. If the civil society is naturally good and peaceful, as well as rational, then they can be greater morally and politically superior to the state. For me, that is the point of Locke. However, if Hobbes is right, if people are “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short,” then it is better for them to be controlled by the state. I am going to take an integrated stand on the state of nature. For me, people can choose to be peaceful or brutish, given that they are rational beings. It will help to have a social contract that will mandate laws that will lead to peace and unity. However, in any case that the state abuses its authority, it will lose its legitimacy and should be ousted by the people. Locke and Hobbes have different views on the relationship between the government and civil society, as well as the notions of slavery, sovereignty, direction of international politics, and peace, but they share somewhat comparable beliefs in the role of education and the state of nature of humanity. They both believe that there are natural laws that guide human behavior and educational aspirations and outcomes. Locke believes, however, people take part of social contracts merely to help adjudicate disputes between individuals or groups. Hobbes places great importance in the social contract as the supreme source of power of the state. Locke and Hobbes truly contributed to international political thought, because they influenced present international political economy theories and helped paved the debate on political ideology, principally shaping the discourse on the concept of “civil society” and the rise of nation-states vis-à-vis “civil society.” They help us re-evaluate the meaning of civil society and human nature, and the role that the government and society should play in relation to each other and to the international political economy. Works Cited Alvares, Claudia. Humanism after Colonialism. Switzerland: Peter Lang, 2006. Print. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Web. 23 June 2011 . Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government. Web. 23 June 2011 . Read More