The study of the relationship between states and citizens is a fundamental concern of political science. States seek maximum authority, while citizens desire maximum liberty. However, most people would likely refuse to submit to any authority easily. The abuse of authority can generate hatred. Consequently, a compromise must be established between the state and its citizens, ensuring that the state has reasonable power while citizens enjoy reasonable liberty.
The state and its citizens coexist in a mutually beneficial relationship. Philosophers Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau explored human nature and societal structures. They compared the state of nature with civil society to understand the role of individuals in society. The state of nature refers to the hypothetical condition before civil society and government were established according to social contract theories. These theories suggest that people willingly surrender their power to a governing body in order to preserve social order through laws.
Do these political philosophers share a common view on power and the justification of government authority over citizens? The challenge in social contract theories lies in the shift from a state of nature to a civil society, which truly establishes the relationship between governments and citizens. How will individuals willingly accept this exercise of power over them, considering that it is not only driven by fear of punishment but also their own self-interest?
How can the transition from the state of nature to civil society be accomplished? It is essentially a process that involves alterations. However, let me pose the question again: Do you find change difficult? Most probably, your answer would be yes. Change is unfamiliar and its results are uncertain. Change presents challenges and uncertainties. As famously expressed by Machiavelli, “to govern is to make people believe.” The purpose of this paper is to examine the different approaches formulated by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau for ‘making people believe’.
This paper examines the different transitions from the state of nature to civil society as observed by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau. The objective is to understand how these three political thinkers conceptualize the state of nature and portray the shift to civil society. Additionally, it explores the reasons that justify government authority over citizens and the logic behind establishing laws. The paper is divided into three sections – the first section explores Hobbes’s approach, followed by a discussion on Locke in the second section, and concludes with an examination of Rousseau’s perspective in the final section.
It is challenging to comprehend Hobbes’s transition from the State of Nature to civil society. Hobbes extensively analyzed human behaviors in order to find the ultimate solution to persuade individuals to accept governmental authority over them. The power of analysis is a potent tool in manipulating people. Hobbes presents a grim depiction of the State of Nature, describing it as a condition devoid of arts, letters, and society, with constant fear and peril of violent death. In this state, human life is solitary, impoverished, repulsive, bestial, and brief (Leviathan, Part I, Chapter 13).
In his theory of social contract, Hobbes deliberately creates a sense of confusion by linking chaos with desire. He argues that in the State of Nature, where men struggle against each other for their lives and possessions, chaos prevails and fear consumes. When a person desires something, their longing is aroused by the enjoyment or thought of that item, and they will go to great lengths to obtain it. Hobbes emphasizes the strong connection between chaos and desire.
The author argues that individuals are constantly searching for something amidst the disorder of nature: “Life itself is nothing but movement and can never exist without desire.” Additionally, the author contends that an object will continue to move indefinitely unless something prevents it from doing so (Chapter IV, first part). Hobbes fears desire because it can prompt people to take action. Desire leads to a state of war “where every man is an enemy to every man” (Leviathan, Chapter 12). Therefore, within society, individuals must suppress their desires and disregard the pleasure derived from fulfilling their own self-interests.
Hobbes argues that desire can ruin the fate of humanity. According to him, if two individuals desire the same thing that only one can obtain, they will become enemies (Leviathan, Chapter 13). The shift towards a civil society is based on confusion. Hobbes employs the “language of persuasion” to criticize the constant desire experienced by men in their natural state. He justifies the authority of governments over citizens due to the equality in terms of strength and skills among individuals. As he asserts, even the weakest person possesses enough strength to overpower the strongest through secretive schemes or aligning with others (Leviathan, p163).
This natural equality breeds distrust and competition among men. According to Hobbes, power and authority are the shared objectives for all individuals residing in the State of Nature. As a result, governments must be established to guarantee safety and organization. Fear establishes a system where the sole purpose of individuals is to safeguard their lives, known as the “Right of Nature”. Fear spawns stagnation, where societal progress and future prospects become unattainable. Consequently, every individual’s sole mission would be self-preservation without considering efforts to enhance their respective society.
According to Hobbes, humankind can find themselves caught in an endless cycle. He asserts that actions are only advantageous when transitioning from the State of Nature to civil society. Progress and movement are possible within a civil society, but living in a stagnant State of Nature inhibits this. Therefore, Hobbes argues that moving from the State of Nature to civil society hinges on the idea of motion. While individuals can take steps to fulfill their needs, they must also be willing to submit to government authority.
Otherwise, if individuals decline to acknowledge this authority, they will be prohibited from ‘moving’. Hobbes’s concept of social contract is extremely dictatorial and he possesses a profound association with power. He maintains that all power should be centralized in the hands of governing bodies. Nonetheless, Hobbes displayed great apprehension regarding preserving lawfulness and tranquility, emphasizing the necessity of laws for safeguarding his system of social contracting. In reality, laws are established to legitimize the bond between citizens and governments. Once these laws are formulated, citizens wholeheartedly embrace the dominion held by governments over them.
Hobbes argues that laws cannot be enforced unless there is a “terror of some power, to cause them to be observed” (Leviathan, Part I, Chap. 1). Therefore, everyone must follow a contract that includes important laws and regulations. The fear individuals have will be replaced by a new fear of the government and its laws. Hobbes used confusion as a strategy to manipulate people and make it easier for them to accept governmental authority. Some may argue that there is a Machiavellian element in Hobbes’s concepts.
Both Hobbes and Locke share similar perspectives on human nature. Hobbes aligns with Machiavelli’s viewpoint, supporting a radical shift from the State of Nature to civil society that is irreversible. Likewise, Locke envisions an initial State of Nature where individuals depend on their own abilities but hold a favorable opinion of it. Both philosophers propose a social contract as a way to transcend this primitive state, wherein the state offers protection to its citizens.
The Second Treatise states that in the State of Nature, men have unrestricted freedom to govern their actions and possessions in accordance with the law of nature. However, this freedom is influenced by human reason, which arises from our status as subjects of God and living under His watchful eye. By recognizing and honoring God’s authority, each individual develops a natural moral code.
Locke debates the concept of individual freedom and morality, asserting that individuals have the right to choose their actions as long as they align with moral standards. He emphasizes that without government interference, individuals possess the capability to establish self-restraint. Yet, in his ‘Letter Concerning Toleration’, Locke delves into the political implications of comprehending moral principles, particularly in relation to the separation of church and State. In this context, Locke highlights the crucial role of completely separating power between these entities in his transition from a state of nature to a civil society. Additionally, Locke contends that the church greatly influences citizens’ moralities and values.
In his work “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” Locke criticizes the practice of manipulating people’s thoughts, stating that the government’s power lies solely in physical force, whereas true religion is based on the internal persuasion of the mind. He differs from Hobbes, who views social contract theory through a lens of motion. According to Locke, absolute freedom is not contingent upon physical actions; rather, moral and mental autonomy should remain unimpeded.
Locke argues that perfect freedom means that no one has the power to manipulate someone’s thoughts. He justifies the legitimacy of governments by stating that their purpose is not to impose moral standards or control thoughts, but rather to protect people’s rights from being violated by others. In his work “A Letter Concerning Toleration,” Locke states, “Greediness, lack of charity, laziness, and many other things are considered sins based on societal agreement; however, no one has ever suggested that these should be punished by the government… The role of laws is not to determine the truthfulness of opinions but rather to ensure the well-being and security of society as well as each individual’s possessions and physical health.”
Based on moral principles, individuals have the autonomy to make their own choices without authority influence. The ability to make judgments is a shared characteristic among people. Hobbes’ social contract theory expresses apprehension regarding desire and its impact on actions. Likewise, Locke is concerned about individuals exerting judgment as they might act as their own arbiters, potentially harming others and infringing upon the essential right to life – a crucial natural right. Locke maintains a restricted association with power.
While individuals have the freedom to accept or reject authority, there tends to be a common inclination towards yielding to the state. It is notable that Locke and Hobbes hold different perspectives on the social contract. According to Hobbes, individuals must give up their autonomy to governmental authority. Conversely, Locke’s theory argues that government exists primarily to protect individuals from causing harm to each other. Additionally, Locke emphasizes the preservation of property rights as the second most fundamental natural right. Unlike in Hobbes’s theory, laws in Locke’s framework do not seek to safeguard governments from returning to a state of nature.
In his work Second Treatise, Chapter 11, Locke argues that laws serve the purpose of safeguarding natural rights and that a person’s possessions are not secure if those in power can seize them and use them as they please. He believes that the primary goal of government is to defend individuals’ rights and property by protecting them from harm or aggression, as discussed in Two Treatises of Government, Chapter 9.
Locke justifies government authority as necessary for protecting natural rights, contrasting with Hobbes and Rousseau who have different social contract theories. While Hobbes uses persuasive language and Locke divides entities, Rousseau takes a more simplistic approach in analyzing human nature. Unlike Hobbes and Locke, he does not initially critique the state of nature but instead argues that civil society has corrupted humanity.
According to Rousseau, individuals in the state of nature would behave similarly to animals as they seek to fulfill their basic needs such as eating, having sex, and sleeping. According to Rousseau, men living in the state of nature are inherently good and naive. This naivety is defined as expressing a simple and unaffected nature without artificiality. Rousseau characterizes men living in the state of nature as being motivated by pity, which he describes as an innate reluctance towards witnessing the suffering of fellow creatures (Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, page 73). This natural pity serves as strong motivation for individuals to avoid causing harm to one another.
Furthermore, Rousseau presents the concept of the ‘animal man’ as a solitary being capable of self-sufficiency. The shift from the state of nature to civil society hinges on a non-materialistic perspective of human existence. In the state of nature, individuals only require fulfillment of their basic necessities and lavishness holds no significance. Contrarily, Hobbes maintained that progress and development can solely be achieved within a civil society, otherwise condemning people to remain stagnant in the state of nature. Rousseau, however, held an opposing viewpoint.
In his writings, Rousseau contends that progress has led to misfortune for humanity and that returning to a prior state is impossible. He claims, “God makes all things good; man meddles with them and they become evil” (Emile, introduction). Additionally, Rousseau argues that the formation of associations among individuals diminishes their “usual ferocity and sturdiness” (On the Inequality among Mankind, second part), resulting in jealousy and inequalities. According to Rousseau, progress is the cause of inequalities among people. In a natural state, there are no laws, rights, or moralities.
Locke and Rousseau had contrasting views on the sources of morality. According to Locke’s theory of social contract, morality is influenced by the Church. In contrast, Rousseau believed that men’s ability to feel pain is what prevents them from harming each other. He emphasized the corruption of goodness and placed a significant emphasis on human emotions. In the state of nature, Rousseau portrayed men as animals, yet equal beings. This decline in morality served as a cautionary reminder against transitioning from the state of nature to civil society. Rousseau justified the authority of governments over citizens as a means to establish unity and equality.
Unity is the act of sharing one’s person and power collectively, guided by the general will. It involves acknowledging every member as an integral part of the whole. Governments must prioritize serving all citizens rather than solely benefitting the most influential social class. They should govern according to the general will, thereby promoting equality. This requires the government to exert a universal and authoritative force to benefit the entirety and make decisions that are advantageous for the collective well-being.
Rousseau has a strong belief in the relation between power and government. He argues that governments should monitor the population to prevent inequality among individuals and protect the unity of society. Unlike Locke, who justifies government authority to protect the right to property, Rousseau opposes private property and claims that it leads to inequality. According to Rousseau, property and civil society have corrupted humanity. However, through the formation of laws by the whole population for the whole population, unity can be maintained without division. Rousseau refers to this act as a law, which helps preserve unity among individuals. Living in a society characterized by inequalities contradicts the purpose of laws and increases disparities among people.
Laws can only be violated when there are inequalities among people. In summary, this paper aims to examine the various shifts from the state of nature to civil society as described by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. We explore these transitions through three subcategories: the nature of these transitions, the legitimacy of governments to exercise authority over citizens, and the purpose of establishing laws. Though these political philosophers shared a similar approach, their mechanisms differed. As demonstrated in the initial section, Hobbes’s transition is founded on confusion.
Locke justifies the authority of governments over citizens by acknowledging that individuals experience fear. In the subsequent section, Locke uses the transition to civil society as a method to prevent interference between moral entities and minds. Locke emphasizes that no one has the privilege to govern people’s thoughts. The reason for government authority is rooted in the idea that the state’s purpose is not to impose moral standards but rather safeguard individuals’ rights from infringement by others. Governments have a duty to protect people’s inherent rights. Lastly, the final segment introduces a completely different concept known as the social contract.
The loss of goodness within men is a defining feature of the transition from the state of nature to civil society, according to Rousseau. He argues that governments have legitimate authority over citizens in order to create unity and equality. Rousseau claims that laws are written with the purpose of protecting unity among people. The theories of social contract by Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau highlight the various approaches to power, exhibiting the magic and diversity of this concept. These philosophers made significant efforts to incorporate everything into their frameworks. The question remains: will men be able to handle these numerous changes?
Despite the uncertainty and difficulty that often comes with changes, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau courageously challenged history by advocating for radical change. This raises the question of whether such radical change could be seen as a limitation of social contract theory. Is it feasible for individuals in contemporary society to willingly provide their consent? The reality is that most citizens have limited options but to agree with social contract theory. It is challenging for many people to exist outside their own country, and discovering a place where anarchy prevails is almost unattainable.
References
Hobbes, Thomas, 1588-1679., (1996). Leviathan / Thomas Hobbes ; edited with an introduction by J.C.A. Gaskin.. 1st ed. Oxford: Oxford ; New York : Oxford University Press, 1996.. Locke, John, 1632-1704., (1988). Two treatises of government / John Locke.. 1st ed. : Whitefish, Mont.] : Kessinger Publishing, [between 1988 and 2005]..
Locke, John, 1632-1704. (1993). Of civil government: second treatise / John Locke; introd. By Russell Kirk. 1st ed. e.g. England: e.g. Houghton Mifflin.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1712-1778., (1992). Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men / Rousseau ; commentary by Eric Zernik.. 1st ed. Paris: Hatier.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, 1712-1778., (1997). The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings / Rousseau ; edited and translated by Victor Gourevitch.. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
