The State of Nature

[MrFun]

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

As Cyclo already pointed out, so this means that all wild animals such as ants, lions, geese, and dolphins never interact with one another.

[Kuciwalker]

This only has any meaning when applied to primate or even just human societies. And arguably other primates do have a rudimentary government.

[Kuciwalker]

I'd contend that almost all relationships between people are not based on physical strength or even strenght + intelligence in terms of fighting others. Rather, it is based on pursuasion and being the "nexus of alliances".

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I'd contend that almost all relationships between people are not based on physical strength or even strenght + intelligence in terms of fighting others. Rather, it is based on pursuasion and being the "nexus of alliances".

Well, I will have to come back to this thread and reread the posts, and any new ones later. This sounds like an interesting discussion.

[Cyclotron]

As usual, I seem motivated to start at the end:

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.

This seems a good segue into what I probably should have prefaced this thread with; my training in psychology is nonexistant. It's the type of thread I always avoid here in the OT. While I'm open to criticism regarding my complete lack of training in the area, I must admit that my approach in this thread was strictly from a poly sci point of view. I will, however, do my best as regards to your points - which I hope to get to, though perhaps in a roundabout fashion.

The Leviathan was written at the end of the English Civil War and only 3 years after the end of the 30 Years War. The book seems, to me, largely a reaction to civil war and religious strife - he proposes that religion should be subsumed under the authority of the Sovereign, and that total subjection to the Sovereign is the only alternative to warfare and strife, which had been consuming Europe for decades. The book, in my view, is a compromise between Hobbes' anxiety about anarchy and civil war, and a sincere desire to not be branded a heretic (which he quite nearly was).

Thus, I am not sure I accept the idea that Hobbes is conflating self-control with governance; I think Hobbes' view of the state of nature is due to his perception of Europe at War, not a preoccupation with human psychology. In the Leviathan, Hobbes is quite pessimistic about people even in an ideally governed society; he notes that they may be prone to reverting into the state of war even when under total and competent leadership. In the government of Hobbes, self-government or self-control is not neccessarily a virtue of governed man; governed man remains much the same as he was, only living in civil society because, despite his base nature, he has come to the conclusion that civil society is more likely to preserve his life and allow him freedom from the constant anxiety of 'natural life.'

This is why Hobbes admits so readily that the state of war may be, and probably is, entirely theoretical (save for the American savages, which are not nearly as central to his argument as they are to Locke). Even in the midst of Civil War it is evident that some civil society exists; it was not mass seething anarchy with neighbors conniving against each other. But Hobbes sees that in the absence of strong government, men are violent and selfish.

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?

The 'condition' of War or Society is not a psychological one; people do not magically become ethical, rational, civilized beings when placed in government. So, as you say, the nature of people doesn't have much to do with government - Hobbes himself argues this. Government, rather, is supposed to stem the violent and selfish urges of man, not change man into a new creature.

I am therefore inclined to disagree with your analysis of the motives of Hobbes and his justification for absolute government, but you have brought up some very interesting points.

And Dracon, I'm still working on it.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


The 'condition' of War or Society is not a psychological one; people do not magically become ethical, rational, civilized beings when placed in government. So, as you say, the nature of people doesn't have much to do with government - Hobbes himself argues this. Government, rather, is supposed to stem the violent and selfish urges of man, not change man into a new creature.

excellent thought

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This only has any meaning when applied to primate or even just human societies. And arguably other primates do have a rudimentary government.

I don't believe that primates have a concept of legitimacy, however - at best there is an instinct to defer to the "leader" primate. If you buy my argument earlier in the thread, this means that they do not have government.

[Cyclotron]

Alright, Dracon -

First of all, I would be hesitant to put so much emphasis on the equivalency of "the state of nature" with the American Indians. It's true that various authors used this comparison, but with Hobbes especially, it almost seems tacked on for the benefit of people who have difficulty with dealing with a theoretical state of nature.

Secondly, I try to stay away from semantics, but I think it's important here to realize that "the state of nature" equals "the state of war" only for Hobbes - in Locke's work, they are seperate things, though one (war) is more likely to occur during another (nature).

With that said, however, I think much of what you said is quite true - the equasion of Native Americans with anarchic, greedy, violent people is based off of ignorance - but I don't think it's particularly important. It's also not necessarily applicable to Locke - his perception of the state of nature could conceivably apply to native Americans, especially considering the conception of those native peoples as much less understanding of "property" and rights resulting from property that the Europeans operated by (though I am not an Anthropologist, and I'm not exactly sure how correct that characterization is). Your criticism probably best applies to Rousseau, though as a side note I do not believe he ever uses the term "noble savage"- his natural man is more animal-like, even if still idealized.

Humans have always been adaptive and innovative, so it seems silly to me to argue that there is a universally "natural" form of society.

Wouldn't the "natural" form of society be society without government? I can picture that as a universal form of society.

I suppose that's the kernel of my difficulty with what you said - I'm not sure I grasp the logic that:

- Humans are adaptive and innovative, and constantly change the way they relate to each other
- Therefore, there is no universally natural form of society.

I think I need another step of reasoning to make this work for me. Care to expound a little more on this?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
This only has any meaning when applied to primate or even just human societies. And arguably other primates do have a rudimentary government.

Leading is not the same as governing. A herder might lead sheep, but he does not govern them.

Governing, government in the sense Hobbes uses and in the sense we are discussing means ruling, having authority. Those terms would be hard pressed to ever include informal groupings such as a band of primates, or even informal bands of humans, such as a gang of friends.

[GePap]

Originally posted by flash9286


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.

Or the mother. BUt control, or evenb leadership is not equal to governance.

[GePap]

On the question of when government gains legitimacy, or whether cohersion becomes legitimized somehow:

I don't think primitive groups are ever controlled solely through cohersion, given the basic socio-economic reality than cooperation of the total group is vital for the basic susbtenance of everyone. IN such a situation, any cohersive individual could easily be gotten rid of simply by the allience of the mayority. For cohersion to work you need individuals who can actively coherce without the need to meet their own substinance needs. IN short, you need a surplus in order to create specialists who can do stuff other than directly work to feed themselves.

Therefore governing can only come into being in a system in whcih a group of people can use their energies towards something other than gathering their own food. THey can therefore do other things for the group, things seen as valuable and thus worthy of those individuals being maintained. This creates different classes of individuals, of different worth, and thus, of different standing and power.

As for your question about Despots, specially modern ones: that is certainly still governing. You get a despot when an individual is able to come into control of the cohersive tools of the state. That still implies a state, or at least cohersive tools, like an army, and that speaks of specialization within the population. You have a group of armed men whose jobs is to kill. Someone feeds them. Whoever controls them governs. If just one individual, doing it for their own self without any means of ligitimacy other than the fact they have the monopoly in the use of force, then its a despotism.

I would further posit that I agree with DRaco that the creation of a theoretical "sttae of nature" was done by these writers for theoretical reasons. I would go further by saying that you NEED the notion of a state of nature to justify a contractual view of legitimacy, for a contract is only valid if entered voluntarilly by rational individuals. If human beings exist in groups period, then its questionable how voluntary such a contract can be, since not entering into it is to forsake the community, and hence, one's humanity.

As for my government sans society- removing from individuals their need for soceity would not invalidate mnodern economic relations, such as employee, employer. The complicated web of economic interconnections would still need an oversear, and it legitimacy would come simply from that, the fact someone has to do it.

[Dracon II]

In many ways Hobbes could really only be justified because, and not despite, the fact that we have developed from a primitive state. It is only because we have developed for thousands of years under alienated rule and authority that it might be seen of as dangerous to remove Government, as we have adapted to that system over time. So, Hobbes' state of nature probably isn't a state of nature at all... but rather a state of exception.

The Leviathan was written at the end of the English Civil War and only 3 years after the end of the 30 Years War. The book seems, to me, largely a reaction to civil war and religious strife

And therein lies the problem. He is being rhetorical, in that he seems to be identifying the state of war that occurred in this period with some sort of state of nature. Its interesting to note that both Locke and Hobbes seem to be giving different interpretations of the same event. Hobbes saw the Civil War as evidence that even under strong Government people are in danger of reverting to a state of war; which he conflates with that of nature, and therefore prescribes a strong state. Locke saw the civil war as evidence that the arbitrary and unassailable rule of the sovereign is not the correct state of affairs, and thus his conception of the state of nature fell on the side of Parliament, by using it to justify the idea that Government is only legitimate in protecting pre-existing rights to life, liberty and property. Thus Locke and Hobbes can be seen to be using particular ideas about pre-governmental man to respond to an issue that has come about plainly and simply due to the existence of Government; and was a debate between two differing systems of Government. But if Hobbes' state of war is a universal condition of man, how come his inspiration (the civil war) is largely viewed of as an exception in English history? And if Locke's view of the state of nature is correct, why is the civil war an exception? Why did the people not revolt against the sovereign earlier and more often? The state of nature can thus be seen as an attempt to justify a priori an exceptional state of affairs that developed out of the historical development of Government and Society in Britain. In this sense Britain could be seen as developing into a state of affairs in which the sovereign, or aristocracy could not monopolize power. This did not pre-exist the state of affairs.

Human society could conceivably be seen at the most basic moments of its development to be characterized fundamentally by its desire to preserve itself, its members their mode and means of subsistence. If humans can be conceived in this way, then it is far more logical to assume that the state of war is an exception, for in basic human societies the numbers of men were so small and their capacities much more equal... that a prolonged state of war would have quickly diminished in utility to the point of counterproductivity. I would say that in such societies, much like in societies of animals... disputes between members of the same species would have more likely been resolved symbolically than with direct force. It is only as men increased in number and as alienated Governments formed that the state of war came to occupy its contemporary meaning. And even then I would doubt that the Hobbesian idea of the war of all against all ever existed. If, as Hobbes asserts, man's most basic desire is that of self-preservation, then it would be clear that such a state would be utterly superfluous and damaging to the satisfaction of such desire. The imperative of self-preservation would demand the making of peace and the forming of social bonds with a number greater than the individual. I would argue that society developed precisely out of such "selfishness", and not despite it. Hobbes' implication that peaceful society must be imposed from above ignores that societies existed relatively peacefully long before the development of such Governments. Furthermore, I would argue that Government is as much developed from the prerogatives of war than that of preserving peace. For in its capacity of the mobilize manpower and command resources on a scale not possible in pre-governmental society, Government is far more amenable to the pursuit of the state of war than any other form of political and social organization.

But Hobbes sees that in the absence of strong government, men are violent and selfish.

Mill's words in the opening paragraphs of chapter 3 in "Representative Government" provide a good rebuttal to this notion. Mill argues against the notion that an enlightened despotism is a more desirable form of Government to democracy or republic precisely because it makes men selfish and stunted in their moral capacities. For in relieving men of responsibility for the affairs of society, they are more likely to see society as something alien to them, and to turn increasingly inwards and focus more on their own individual affairs, as this is all that is necessary. If man need do any more, then he will simply be ordered to do so. He need take no initiative of his own. If such a Government were to disappear, then perhaps such selfishness and parochiality would persist and lead to social disruption of the sort Hobbes was worried about, but it would only be due to the pernicious influence that despotism had on the faculties of men. Hobbes places the cart before the horse in this respect...

Wouldn't the "natural" form of society be society without government? I can picture that as a universal form of society.

Why? What is it about our current state that isn't natural? And yet, we could not conceive of a society without government in our current state. All that we have created, set above us, below us, around us, and all the different ways we relate to our fellows stem from our nature. The fact that we are able to adapt and innovate to suit changing conditions suggests to me that what is most universal in man is his particularity. Society without Government is not universal simply because by and large it no longer exists... it is demonstrably particular. Otherwise you would be suggesting that the development of Government is somehow alien to or outside our nature, which is by definition false. We cannot act other than the way we are.

- Humans are adaptive and innovative, and constantly change the way they relate to each other
- Therefore, there is no universally natural form of society.

Seems fairly obvious to me. Humans, more than any other creature, recognize that different experiences require different responses. The history of humanity is the history of its development of different forms of society, economy and polity... either through adaptation, innovation or imposition. I suppose that the family could possibly be seen as a universal in human society... but the form a family takes differs between different societies. Of course, at the basic level we all have the same needs and the same prerogatives which in some way impose a universal constraint on the possible forms a successful society would take. But even these desires require differing strategies in different contexts.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Leading is not the same as governing. A herder might lead sheep, but he does not govern them.

Governing, government in the sense Hobbes uses and in the sense we are discussing means ruling, having authority. Those terms would be hard pressed to ever include informal groupings such as a band of primates, or even informal bands of humans, such as a gang of friends.

I would argue that that constitutes government, especially since it is my belief that even in a basic human society the leader derives power NOT through direct threat of force but through the allegiance of a group.

[Dracon II]

I think I need another step of reasoning to make this work for me. Care to expound a little more on this?

If you were to determine how a human society could not be... then perhaps one might be able to come up with a universal model for human society.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


I would argue that that constitutes government, especially since it is my belief that even in a basic human society the leader derives power NOT through direct threat of force but through the allegiance of a group.

Yes, but there is no underlying reason for that agreement-there is no structure. The power can be denied and withdrawn at any time. And that leader can point out actions, but can't mandate rules without general agreement.

Therefore, they do NOT govern. They lead, but they have no rightful claim to leadership, no claim to being a higher authority with the right to make rules.

Government is based on the assumption that the ones who govern have the right to govern and set down rules-it is structured. This is why spaeaking of government for a gang, or a band of apes makes no sense. The structure simply does not exist.