The State of Nature

[Az]

It seems that I am not versed on the details, but it doesn't matter. I have no reason to think that given such small number of individuals, we'd have something like 3 tribes in the whole world, altogether.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Az
It seems that I am not versed on the details, but it doesn't matter. I have no reason to think that given such small number of individuals, we'd have something like 3 tribes in the whole world, altogether.

Numbers were about 8,000 to 10,000, plently for many groups of the normal size for hunter-gatherers, say around 30 per clan, and 150 in a group of related clans (which is what a tribe of hunter gatherers is).

[GePap]

Re: The State of Nature

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The questions are these:

- Is there a fundamentally different condition of man sans government? I'm leaving the definition of "condition" open-ended here.

No. Hobbes and his fellows lived in a time when they could envision the fantasy of humans living outside of a community. This is obviously wrong. Human beings naturally exist within groups, and thus there is always a social dynamic.

- If no (there is no different condition of man before government), is the concept of the "state of nature" still useful as a hypothetical construct? Hobbes considers it more theoretical, while Locke (whose State of Nature is entirely different) speaks of it as a very real state of being). Consider this, from the Leviathan:

It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before.

- Is there a real difference between government and society? That is, can there be society without government, or government without society?

Government is a political structure. Society is amorphous, at the base, it just means people living in ommunities. You can thus certainly have soceity sans government-that is what you have in small nomadic bands, such as amongst the aborigenes in Australia for tens of thousands of years. Government is only possible in large groups and the formation of distinct classes, of rulers and ruled. Government is a way to control and make possible societies that are simply too big, where the more ancient bonds of family and blood no longer have the power to enforce some sort of order.

And you can in theory have government without society, if you have a system that does succeed in making humans atomic beings, divorced of the need for community-in essence, beings dehumanized. Such beings could still be governed.

[flash9286]

But didn't nomadic hunter-gathering groups usually have an alpha male that basically controlled the activities and coordinated the acts of the group.

[GePap]

Originally posted by flash9286
But didn't nomadic hunter-gathering groups usually have an alpha male that basically controlled the activities and coordinated the acts of the group.

NO. Human beings don't have "alpha males" in that sense. Human sexual politics sort of make the "alpha male" concept moot. Also humans are smart enough to make weapons, and therefore simple physical strenght is not enough to ensure anything. Any fool, even a much weaker one, can stab you in the middle of the night with a knife.

[flash9286]

I would have to disagree, some complex hunter and gathering societies had permanent systems of social ranking, while the leaders or "alpha males" would not be able to rule with absolute strength in their groups they could lead by persuasion, example, and manipulation.

[GePap]

Originally posted by flash9286
I would have to disagree, some complex hunter and gathering societies had permanent systems of social ranking, while the leaders or "alpha males" would not be able to rule with absolute strength in their groups they could lead by persuasion, example, and manipulation.

"complex" mean "not the state of nature". You could only get a "complex" society if you reach a certain size-the very rceation of classes speaks of a certain amount of specialization. This usually denotes some sort of surplus somewhere.

[flash9286]

True most of the complex hunter and gathers were centered around fish rich coasts. Just one more point I would like to make before I go to bed is that you said "Human sexual politics sort of make the "alpha male" concept moot. Also humans are smart enough to make weapons, and therefore simple physical strength is not enough to ensure anything" and I would just like to said that it has been observed in chimpanzees that usually the strongest male isn't the alpha male, but usually the most "socially intelligent" male that can persuade other males of the group to form an alliance with it, that is the alpha male.

[GePap]

The usual point of being an alpha male is having mating priviladges not available to any other males. The Chimp behavior does not really afford such mating advantages, since the male who forms the coolitions can't really prevent the other allies from having similar mating advanatges.

BUt on to Cyclotron's point, being the nexus of an allience is not the same as governing. This most successful male does not "rule" in the sense of the word that would equate to having power seen as legitimized by something.

[Odin]

Originally posted by flash9286
But didn't nomadic hunter-gathering groups usually have an alpha male that basically controlled the activities and coordinated the acts of the group.

No, most hunter-gather societies are quite egalitarian/meritocratic.

[Kuciwalker]

BUt on to Cyclotron's point, being the nexus of an allience is not the same as governing.

Why not? If the result is, you lead and control the group, yes!

[Dracon II]

I think you have to see the concept of a "state of nature" as merely a rhetorical device. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau each tried to justify a particular form of Government on the basis of a carefully constructed idea of human nature. They certainly had little anthropological knowledge to back their claims... to classify the state of the native american tribes as a 'state of war' in the Hobbesian sense is certain to be based on ignorance... or simply employing existing prejudices in Europe to justify strong Government as an a priori condition for a peaceful and well ordered society. In much the same way Rousseau used the equally fantastic idea of the hermit-like "noble savage" to argue that Government essentially corrupted men.
What is common to them is a false dichotomy between "natural" and "artificial", (or in Rousseau's sense "corrupted") forms of society. Humans have always been adaptive and innovative, so it seems silly to me to argue that there is a universally "natural" form of society.
So it is essentially a rhetorical device. Hobbes requires you to believe that the "state of war" is natural to men before you can stomach his idea of the sovereign and the leviathan state. Rousseau requires you to believe in the natural goodness of men in order to convince you that the current state of man is corrupt and unnatural.
In my opinion humans have always responded to shifting exigencies by changing the way they relate to each other. It makes no sense to talk of a natural state of man.

[Cyclotron]

Thanks for joining in


It would seem that much of the discussion centers on the idea of society without government - it's a shame I put that one last, as it seems to be the foundation of the matter.

The state of "Warre" as described by Hobbes assumes that, in the absence of a government by social contract, the only control exerted is with force. Some people are stronger than others, some smarter, and thus in the absence of a contract government people tend to rule over one another arbitrarily in order to achieve their own ends. This seems to be the manner in which flash describes ancient hunter-gatherer societies, which have an "alpha male" or other kind of strongman that leads the tribe my fiat. To lead people through personal strength alone, however, cannot be government because it has no form of legitimacy. There is no contract, only coercion. If government is defined as merely any control whatsoever, I believe it uses much of its usefulness. Of course, you could potentially make a counter-argument to this by demonstrating the invalidity of contract theory, but you might come out with the same answer anyways.

If we accept the above, the question becomes at what point does coercion become government? As Odin states,

Even back when there was no government (hunter-gather groups and early neolithic farmers), there were still customs and traditions. All societies have rules, where the rules come from is what differs between primitive societies and modern ones.

Indeed, if we look at prehistorical evidence, some kind of ritual associated with leadership or social preeminence goes back to at least the Chalcolithic, perhaps the Neolithic. It might be that rule by fiat grew quite quickly into ritual rule, where the "big man" or "alpha male" attempts to legitimate himself by establishing reasons why he should lead, not just by demonstrating that he can lead through coercion. I would argue, however, that one had to come before the other, so in any case there must have been societies before government in which illegitimate rule by force - which I claim is not government - was the norm.

There may even be modern examples of this. A 20th century dictator certainly may attempt to legitimate his rule in the eyes of his subjects, but if it is accepted that his rule is primarily through the force he exerts, his rule is no better than that of the alpha male - there is no social contract, and thus no government. This clashes with some of our definitions - we still claim that Despotism in Civilization is a 'government'- but I seriously wonder whether there is any difference in the nature of rulership between dictatorship and pre-societal rule.

If you believe my argument so far - which you may not - you must then reject this:

The state of nature only exists when people don't interact with each other.

The reasons for doing so I feel are adequately outlined above. Even animals might be said to "interact," yet I think I can safely call it undeniable that animals do not have government. The leader of the pack has no concern for or pretences to legitimacy.

So from here, we move on to our other questions. The first was answered by GePap this way:

No. Hobbes and his fellows lived in a time when they could envision the fantasy of humans living outside of a community. This is obviously wrong. Human beings naturally exist within groups, and thus there is always a social dynamic.

This brings up the fact that I have failed so far to answer my own first question: Is there a fundamentally different condition of man sans government? While I have tried to argue that man exists without government, I have not addressed whether there man exists in a different condition when without government.

I don't mean to say that people are necessarily non-social without government; my question is whether people can be conceived of as acting or existing in a fundamentally different way when in a pre-governmental (or, perhaps post-governmental) state of nature. Hobbes believed that government exerts a pressure on us to behave a certain way simply by its presence; the existance of the social contract and my compliance with it necessitate that I behave differently; Hobbes would say that I had given up my sovereignty - or perhaps, "loaned" it to the sovereign - and thus my actions in governed society cannot (or really should not) be the same as those without. If my roomate uses my towel, I cannot simply beat him to within an inch of his life; I have relinquished my authority to deal with other human beings however I see fit.

I have trouble with his view, however, because it seems like it denies the concept we call humanity. I would like to think that, even in the absence of government, I wouldn't be so base as to make the lives of my fellow men "nasty, brutish, and short." The question, then, is exactly how much of the character we ascribe to being human and civilized is from government, and how much is a natural instinct on our part. What are the ethics of a pre-government society? Hobbes argues that ethics do not exist without government, which inconveniently torpedoes the idea of natural human rights that so many of us ascribe to.

I found this very interesting:

And you can in theory have government without society, if you have a system that does succeed in making humans atomic beings, divorced of the need for community-in essence, beings dehumanized. Such beings could still be governed.

I'm not sure how government would be able to have legitimacy, and thus be a government, without community. Certainly a social contractarian would reject this as impossible; if I am not in a society with other humans, I cannot really take part in a real or implied contract giving rise to legitimate government.

I'd like to finish this rather rambing post by addressing Dracon's excellent points, but I'm afraid I'm still digesting them - If he'll forgive me, those are a few paragraphs I'm going to have to ponder a bit more.

[smacksim]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
This brings up the fact that I have failed so far to answer my own first question: Is there a fundamentally different condition of man sans government? While I have tried to argue that man exists without government, I have not addressed whether there man exists in a different condition when without government.

I don't mean to say that people are necessarily non-social without government; my question is whether people can be conceived of as acting or existing in a fundamentally different way when in a pre-governmental (or, perhaps post-governmental) state of nature. Hobbes believed that government exerts a pressure on us to behave a certain way simply by its presence; the existance of the social contract and my compliance with it necessitate that I behave differently; Hobbes would say that I had given up my sovereignty - or perhaps, "loaned" it to the sovereign - and thus my actions in governed society cannot (or really should not) be the same as those without. If my roomate uses my towel, I cannot simply beat him to within an inch of his life; I have relinquished my authority to deal with other human beings however I see fit.

List of points since I can't be bothered to write properly:

Listen to Dracon II. Either these chumps are speaking rhetorically or are stupid. A little of both I'd say.

Early writing often defines self-control as self-governance. The muddying of the difference was perfectly normal in past writings, and gives a clue about the essentially conceptual and semantic problem here.

Even in total isolation a human being will formulate rules for his/her own behavior based on a mythology of the way the world works...a story he tells himself (yeah, a post-modernist concept, but here it works well).

Government merely replaces the internalized mythological story of the king and queen with real ones. Government works b/c people are predisposed to this conceptualization of external super-authorities, etc.. (yawn).

Hobbes et al confuse self-governance (aka self-control) with government quite splendidly. If you call every behavior that does not fit the social contract: 'A lack of self-governance' its easy to see why this is so. But self control is much more tied to world-conception and the social contract than government. And government is often merely a reflection of the social contract, or is meant to be and operates so in the mind.

Are people bastards and rule-breakers, corrupt, and doomed to live a life that is nasty, brutish and short in any particular system? Well sure. But what does this have to do with whether they have a government or not?

To blow away the wispy and lame arguments about government being the only defense against our brutish natures one only needs conceive a government that is more nasty and brutish-inducing than a natural state of affairs. Done.

Its quite easy to argue that people are generally worse-off in this regard (predisposition to nasty/brutish behavior) under any system of government than they would be in a 'natural' state. Small human groups have group beliefs and a cohesion of choice and group mythology that a government will never (yet) be able to induce in all the people. IE, there are always people that are not going to replace their internal myth with the king and queen of reality, buts its quite simply impossible to replace the psychological heirarchy with an external one when one doesn't exist.

If you want to 'get over' Hobbes, read psychology, not philosophy, IMO. While the modern philosophers have created better and worse world views than Hobbes in their time, psychology (or sociology, or anthropology, or cultural ecology, or ..........) has pretty much denounced Hobbes thinking as 'nasty, brutish, and stupid' wholesale. People are not vile humours bottled in a bag of skin waiting to unleash hell if not for the check of government. Its just a misconception on Hobbes part to associate his lustful urges with a lack of self-governance and then to project that onto real government.

Just an opinion.

[flash9286]

Originally posted by Odin


No, most hunter-gather societies are quite egalitarian/meritocratic.

Yes, most hunter-gather societies were egalitarian, but that doesn't mean that they didn't have a leader, most hunter-gather groups were families( if I remember correctly from my history class) so maybe the father had some control.