Analysis of Patriarcha by Robert Filmer - Book Report/Review Example

INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THEORY - ESSAY ON "PATRIARCHA" BY ROBERT FILMER Introduction to Political Theory - Essay on “Patriarcha” by Robert Filmer 1.0. Introduction This essay will analyse the book “Patriarcha” by Robert Filmer. First, the essay will summarize the main contents of the book by selecting the most important points, then evaluate other topics in the essay and lastly, relate the book to contemporary politics. 2.0. Summary of the text/ the contents of the text Patriacha is a work compiled by Filmer. In the work, the author indicates that the need for a stable government can only be achieved in the event that the populace accepts the existing status quo as well as accept the verdict of the history of the state in question1. A notable example is that of the Bourbons that are the kings of France, as they ascended to this positon as a result of the arbitrary rule2. This fact explains the aspect that the existence of the arbitrary rule exists as a result of obedience and allegiance to the king. Filmer writes that if the kings are obeyed, it is evident that minimal cases of violence and disagreements will be witnessed in a county3. It is at this point of argument that Filmer writes that no form of political power and force can determine the successions of a particular country. This is a clear indication that Filmer advocates for a democratic approach as a form of governance in a country especially if the citizens are educated on the positives of democracy4. The right to sovereignty then defends itself and no forces can be used to determine what shapes the sovereignty will take. This line of thought also explains the aspect that Filmer advocates for the right of property to all and this right should be perpetuated by the government. Filmer is quick to indicate that no form of sovereignty can be subjected to law since sovereignty operates politically5. In addition, Filmer argues that law can only be successful and implementable only if the concerned parties enforce the same. A good example is the mandate given to the Supreme courts that can enforce laws and ensure that the government in power is subjected to this form of law6. On another viewpoint, Filmer’s work embraces the separation of powers as a key facet in the operation of states7. In line with this thought, Filmer explains that the courts needs to be given the mandate to execute their own roles, and that the supreme leader, the king, needs to be accorded the rightful respect and the right to administer duties as per their judgment. Despite Filmer advocating for democracy, the author also gives details on the disadvantages of democracy and explains that monarchical governments would be better placed to run states. In his argument, Filmer indicates that through monarchies, states can continually preserve peace and that monarchical governments are the best governments to drive states to war.8 In his argument, Filmer argues that even the democratic wars slowly turn to complete wars; thus, opts to go for the monarchical systems from the onset9. Filmer’s work also focuses on the institution of the family and the states as proper mechanisms of fulfilling the purposes of human nature. Filmer indicates that the family power greatly influences the political power10. This results from the fact that the king had the topmost power of the father over all the existing families under his control. In the thought of Filmer, political power as paternal and consensual power. Just as the children did not have the right to disobey their fathers, the subjects also had no right to resist, defy or even intimidate their king11. An analysis of these thoughts explain the natural concept of government and that power needs to trickle down automatically from the topmost hierarchy to the lowest hierarchy in the state. More so, for the women and children, they were termed as subordinate beings and had no option but to submit to their husbands and fathers. The law was said to have granted automatic power and authority on the father12. This can be validated using the example of Adam who was given the mandate to have control of his children and all his subsequent generations13. The state in this context, can be said to have originated from the structure of the first family that then spilt to create new families, and ultimately new states and new forms of ruling. 3.0. Relation of Robert Filmer’s "Patriarcha" to other topics  Filmer’s work relates to other topics such as religion, gender issues and patriarchy. 3.1. Gender issues and Robert Filmer’s "Patriarcha" As far as gender is concerned, Filmer’s work can be termed as gender insensitive one and one does not appreciate the concept of femininity. As the title of the work goes, “Patriacha”, Filmer’s work focuses on the concept of patriarchy and how the patriarchal systems in the society were the blueprint of the operation of individuals. In the first chapter, “That the first Kings were Fathers of Families” the author indicates that the fathers were given the mandate to be the leaders of the families14. These fathers were the kings and that they had the power to rule over their subjects who were the women and the children. Filmer argues that the family has a great link with the states and that they were set up to sustain human nature15. Most specifically, the author talks of the paternal power that was set to make sure that the subjects did not go against the rules set. It is important that this paternal power was set by the men, governed by the men, and determined what rules had to be set. For the women and children, they were mere subjects that had to submit to the existing rules16. In fact they were not expected to question the set rules, but follow to the letter. With this perspective in mind, it is arguable that Filmer’s work is gender insensitive and does not appreciate that women can be rulers just like the men, and even come up with rulings that can transform their nations. Filmer traces the paternal governments to the time of the Israelites that defended their society from all forms of injustices. In the work, there is no mention of women and the chance of maternal ability to ascend to power in the society. This simply means that the solution to political problems solely relies on the patriarchal systems and structures. 3.2. Religion, Patriarchy and Robert Filmer’s "Patriarcha" In the work of Sommerville, he argues that religion plays a critical part in the politics of a nation17. This thought is on the critique of Filmer’s patriarchy that works on the postulation that religion is the basis of power that has been bestowed on man. In the argument of Sommerville God was the first ordained of the family, and He gave the fathers the power to punish their off springs even to an extent of death penalty if it was necessary18. This is to mean that portray began with God, and that political power and ruling cannot delink itself from the religious perspective. The religious aspect of politics as Sommerville puts it originates form the aspect that humans are not free and must be subjected to a form of power that has some religious and political connotation19. This explains why the first fathers as per the religious perspective were kings and the kings will continue ruling as per the original religious writings. 3.2.1. Filmer’s life in regard to patriarchy and power being religious Filmer says that he studied in Trinity College and his friends were from the High Church ministers. Filmer is also indicated to be a great adherent of Archbishop William Laud20. Additionally, being a first born in his family Filmer has lots of responsibility to his siblings. From these perspectives, it is evident that Filmer already had great passion for religion as well the power of responsibility and rule over others. This would explains why Filmer is passionate about the patriarchal structures and why the men should be placed at the topmost level of the hierarchy and control the women. His thought also has a religious perspective that explains that power of the men was actually set by God and that the men had all the right to rule21. It is these validations that would also justify why Filmer passionately writes about Adam and how power has its roots on fathers who have been given the consent to rile over families children and even their grandchildren.  Sommerville shares the same sentiments by Filmer by arguing that men lived for ages and that the fathers had the full paternal right and power to exercise their sovereign right22. Just as Filmer writes, Sommerville argues that royal power had to be linked with patriarchal power and succession also had to be on the basis if patriarchal lines as supreme power originated from the men. 23Lastly, it is also imperative to highlight that Sommerville also admits to power and authority of the men being divine and that the kings and Gods were also termed as Gods, as far as authority, power, honour and ability was concerned. 4.0. Relation of Robert Filmer’s "Patriarcha" to contemporary politics In the contemporary world, Filmer work can be termed as relevant in some numerous aspects. First, Filmer believed in absolute monarchy and the divine right of the rulers who were the kings24. In present day world, the presidents can be equated to the kings of the Filmer’s times. The presidents operate like the kings are given the power to rule over their subjects. In turn, the subjects are expected to comply with the rules set and violations of the same credits punishment on the part of the offender. An interesting aspect in contemporary politics relates to the supremacy of the president who has the final consent to the rules set. A good example is that of the United States where the last word always comes from the president. This explains that the work of Filmer is relevant and is fit in the politics of today’s century. On another note the divinity of the kings as proposed by Filmer is explained on the manner in which the president is accorded respect by his subjects despite the subjects’ affiliations such as gender, class or wealth status. This concurs with Filmer’s thoughts that explained that the kings were greatly respected as they had the final word to issues that affected their society in general25. From this perspective, therefore, it is warranted to argue that though there were lots of contrary opinions on Filmer’s works, his arguments are relevant in our society. Secondly, an assessment of Filmer’s work on the power of the kings as a product of natural power of parents and that Adam was the initial ruler of the human race is relevant today26. It is apparent that a huge percentage of the rulers/ presidents/ heads of states in the society today are men. The society still perpetuates the existence of the patriarchal systems from the argument of Filmer who argued that men had the natural power to be the rulers and the omen their subjects. Though there are countable numbers of women who are presidents, the society can still be described as patriarchal and one that guarantees the men the automatic position to rule. The men as Filmer argues that the men have the political obligation and the consent to be the rulers as opposed to the women27. This explains why Adam was given the mandate to rule over Eve and even make decisions regarding the life of his subjects. The contemporary rulers can then be said to be the heirs of Adam and as mere followers of what Adam had begun. Just as the women’s history and the family based the work of Filmer, contemporary political works also focus on the women and the concept of the family. In the thought of Filmer, political rule began from the family level and the rule transited to the national level28. In the society today, the family can be described to be the smallest political unit. The father is automatically given the role of the head of the family and is charged with the overall authority of solving all the disputes in the family and well set the rules that need to be adhered in the family. It is this father that then transcends to the king, who is then given the mandate to rule over the existing families. 4.0. Conclusion The basic tenets of government discussed by Filmer are evident in our society today. Beginning from the family level, Filmer explains the existence of a government and this government requires subjection from its members29. The father is the sovereign even in most cases today while the mother and children are the subjects. In my opinion, this is a reasonable form of government and ruling that explains the origins of power and how power was applied in different settings. One would even argue that every single person is expected to be a subject of a particular for of ruling, and this kind of ruling must have its lowest roots, that is the family then to the political setting. I, however, do not agree that all human can submit to the rules of nature as Filmer writes. Nonetheless, the book is indeed a good read and I would recommend it other people interested in political science. Bibliography Sir Filmer, Robert. Patriarcha; of the Natural Power of Kings. London: Richard Chiswell, 1680. Sommerville, Johann. Royalists and Patriots: Politics and Ideology in England, 1603-1640. London: Routledge, 2014. Read More