Malthe Tue Pedersen History of Ideas

Transcription

1 History of ideas exam Question 1: What is a state? Compare and discuss the different views in Hobbes, Montesquieu, Marx and Foucault. Introduction: This essay will account for the four thinker s view of the state, based on their conception of human nature, since this is critical to their belief of what the state is and its role on society. The paper will argue, that their different perceptions of human nature enables them to reach different conclusions about what the state is. I will throughout the essay compare and discuss their ideas, however I will lastly specifically have a part dedicated to their similarities and differences. In this part, I will touch upon their explanations of why we have a state. I will now start will Thomas Hobbes, as his conception of the state has laid the foundation for the conception of the state. The account of these thinker s main ideas will be based on the IBP compendium in, fall I will however include original quotes when relevant. Thomas Hobbes: The Leviathan was published in 1651, and in 1654 the treaty of Westphalia was signed. This treaty declared that each state would become the highest level of authority, and it put an end to the empires of Europe. Each sovereign should decide what religion the state should follow. These were some of the important points that Hobbes tried to put into theory in his social contract. I will start by making a brief account of his view on human nature: Human nature: Machiavelli described two major humors of the people and the nobility. The nobility wanted to rule, while the people didn t want to rule nor be oppressed by the ruler. Similar to this view of major traits in human nature, Hobbes argues that pride and fear, are the two most important traits. You would like to be respected by others, and you want to avoid dishonor and shame. And fear is the most important trait that will lead man to leave the state of nature. Furthermore, man is individualistic, and we think of ourselves first. There is no trust, no rationality. Only fear can make us escape the state of nature. What makes the state of nature possible? ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 1 of 10

2 The state of nature is not an actual historical point, rather it is a though experiment. He views man as materialistic, in the sense that there is a cause and effect. We are merely bodies in motion, which act according to desirability and dislike. So he makes this thought experiment, of what would happen if there were no constraints by the state. He argues that we distrust each other, even in a well-functioning society. He explains how we lock our doors at night, and even inside the locked house, we keep valuable assets locked away in chests etc. There is a lack of trust. State of nature: In such a condition, that is the state of nature, there is no place for industry because the fruit thereof is uncertain and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor building nor instruments of moving and removing things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth, no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society and which is worst of all continual fear and danger of violent death. (Hobbes, chapter 13, p. 62) This is one of Hobbes most famous quotes, where he describes life without a sovereign. Here there is no authority, and no human is strong enough to protect himself against all others. This is the natural state, which his attributes to the fundamental fact of human nature. It is almost like a prisoner s dilemma. You believe that your counterpart will act selfish, and then you would do the same. This results in a terrible life, where there is not wealth, no progress, and where everyone lives in constant fear of having his possessions and life taken away. Hobbes conception of the state Out of fear, people will agree to name a sovereign, which will secure peace. This is Hobbes conceoption of the state. The sovereign is artificial. He the creation of the people, the consent of the governed. The people endow the sovereign to represent them. The state is not a possession of the sovereign, he is just authorized to ensure peace and secure. The sovereign is impersonal and anonymous. Hobbes is a defender of monarchial absolutism. The power should be absolute and undivided, whether it lies with one or many people. The sovereign has the right to censor. The sovereign and only the sovereign can command law. ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 2 of 10

3 Legal positivism the reach of the sovereign: The sovereign in Hobbes sense, is fairly close to the statement of Louis the XIV of France, which said: I am the state, since there is no law above the sovereign. The sovereign is the creator of laws. The sovereign can never act unjustly, since he is the source of law. Then there is not unjust law, since the sovereign is the source of justice. The sovereign is hence the one who decides what is right, and what is not. This gives him the right to censor the media and control opinion. I will now move to the next great thinker, which is Montesquieu: Montesquieu: Montesquieu wrote the book called the spirit of laws, which had two major themes in it, the division of power and the influence of climate on morals, culture and government. I will again start out with an account of his view of human nature: Human view: Some thinkers in the enlightenment had a very deterministic view on humans, where they argued that all actions were a result of the physical world. For example Karl Marx argued that human actions were a result of who owned the means of production, so there were no strong actors. This characterized the later enlightenment thinker, while other held the view that individual actors were the main point of analysis. Montesquieu took a stand in the middle, where he tried to keep God within the understanding of human nature. He argued, that God had created intelligent people, that could make rightful or wrong decisions. Now, I will turn to the types of government that Montesquieu analyzed. Types of government: Montesquieu distinguishes between three kinds of government: republic, monarchy and despotism. He says that a republic cannot survive without virtue, a monarchy cannot survive without honor and despotism cannot survive without fear. He disliked despotism the most, since it doesn t work in accordance with the natural law, and is not legitimate, since there is no virtue or honor. There is no virtue since the despot would never sacrifice his life for the country, and his soldiers fight not for honor, but for fear. Furthermore, self-assertive people will not accept to be oppressed, so despotism is not able to live for long. Hence, despotism is not a stable form of government. So Montesquieu attacks Hobbes, by saying that a despotic sovereign will not be stable and secure citizens rights, and that virtuous men would never set up such a system. ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 3 of 10

4 In a monarchy, you need honor, and he should show himself as the more honorable than other. He should be stronger, richer, smarter etc. Honor conflicts with virtue, since honor is about personal ambitions. Virtue is about setting aside personal ambitions. It is not egoistic. This is like Plato says, that the philosophical kings should be virtuous and work for the common good. Furthermore, monarchy can easily become despotism, so this is also a dangerous form of government. These principles are very important, even more important than the actual laws in the society: "When once the principles of government are corrupted, the very best laws become bad, and turn against the state: but when the principles are sound, even bad laws have the same effect as good; the force of the principle draws everything to it." (Montesquieu, 1748: chapter 8, page 20). In this quote, it is evident that the principles behind each type of government, is crucial for the effect of laws, and how well the state governs. The next part will focus on his conception of a state, and how to have a legitimate state. A legitimate state: Montesquieu argues that government by law is legitimate government, since its citizens will see it as legitimate. This is the same view as Aristotle, which says that a just government is a government, which rules in the favor of the many, and not the rulers. There is a chance that monarchy will be become despotism, and this is why there needs to be a strong constitution which the monarch cannot change, which includes checks and balances. The judicial power should then be separated, when legislative and the monarch controls executive power. However, any forms of government, democracy, aristocracy or monarchy could turn into despotism, if there were no checks on the powers. This is his famous theory of the separation of powers. Montesquieu favored mixed government, which was based on the rule of law, which made it legitimate. He was no democrat, but there should be checks and balances, that kept the mixed government from turning despotic. He didn t see democracy as a possibility in France, since it was simply a too big country. So you should combine principles from monarchial, aristocratic and democratic government. He showed that, theoretically, you could separate the legislative, executive and judicial branch, however, the most important thing is that you have an independent judiciary, which will secure the rule of law. ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 4 of 10

5 In his study of England, he saw that the people or the mob secured that the government didn t turn despotic. So he leaves an important role for the people. They are also actors, and able to influence government. Separation of powers would secure that no branch of government became too powerful, but the mob of England secured that each had their fair share of power. I will now turn to Karl Marx and his conception of the state. Karl Marx: Karl Marx is famous for writing his Communist Manifesto, in which he accounted for the stages of history and where he predicted that the current capitalist system would be overthrown by a socialist revolution, where the proletariat would take control of state and the means of production, and you would have a dictatorship of the proletariat. I will now present his view on human nature: Human nature: He builds on the dialectic method of Hegel. Hegel argues that ideas matters, and that a dominant idea will foster the creation of an anti-thesis. Then this will create a synthesis of the two ideas. However, Marx uses the dialectic method from an economic and material point of view. Material conditions are the starting point of analysis, since Marx has a materialistic historical view, and hence his method is called the historical dialectic method. So Marx has a deterministic view on humans, and believes that they are simply the product of historical materialism who owns the sources of production. Marx argues that each stage of development produces tensions. And the state is the most important institution, since it secures the present power structure of the society. Historical materialism: In the ancient times, it was about the modes of power, the slave owner vs. the slaves. This was abandoned by the fall of the Roman Empire and new modes of production. The feudal society it was about the landowners and the farmers. The landowners were the nobility. Production is the basis of the society. Therefore, you have those that own the means of production (nobility) that are in contradiction with the bourgeoisie. This was abandoned when capitalism rose up. In capitalism, you would have a conflict between the capitalist and the workers. The workers don t own anything anymore besides his own labor. The bourgeoisie are in contradiction to the labor force. ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 5 of 10

6 According to Marx, this would cause a new revolution, where you would have socialism. There will be no private property and workers than works for each other The state: The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie (Marx, Karl, 1848, p. 10 in Selections of Marx and Engels ) The history of mankind is the history of class struggle, and the state is dominated by the ruling class, hence it plays a crucial role. In the present system, the state ensures that the proletariat is exploited and suppressed by the bourgeoisie and the capitalists, which are the ruling class. So the state is controlled by the ruling class, and the only way you can end the class struggle, is if the proletariat takes control of the state, and everyone becomes a part of the proletariat class. Then there will no longer be a need for the state, and the state will simply fade away, since it will have no purpose. Foucault: Foucault was a Marxist and was inspired by critical theory (materialistic historical view), however he is critical of the idea, that we always move forward in history. He has a more circular world view, which is in contradiction to Marx. He didn t want to developed grand theories that could be applied universally; he would rather focus on limited empirical fields. I will now turn to Foucault s view on human nature. Human view: Foucault views man as something invented, which could be abandoned in the future. This is a parallel to Nietzsche and his famous statement that God is dead. So he didn t believe in some specific meaning of man, but that we were mainly just a reflection of the system. So he is to some degree a structuralist, but not entirely, since we have constructed a conception of man, so there is no embedded meaning with man. To understand Foucault s conception of the state, we must first uncover his thoughts relation to discourse and his method of study called archeology. This is crucial for understanding how he views what a state is. Discourse and archeology: Foucault uses a method which he calls archeology to understand statements. This method takes into account the history, contexts, social rules and norms, and looks at the statement, with these constraints in mind. All of these elements regulate the prevailing discourse how we talk and. So it is a positivistic view that the world operates through certain rules and regulations. The physical world operates through some laws, and the same ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 6 of 10

7 is the case for society. So man is an object in this world, and is studied as objects, and he is a subject to history and society. The discourse of society is institutionalized, we have historically and culturally determined rules that regulate the form and content of the order of talk. So our language is tied up in a broader social and historical context. So we construct a governable world through language. The state: At one point there was no idea about society. There were no limits to sovereign power as Hobbes describes it. This changed when the liberal ideas and bourgeoisie revolutions changed the idea of the state. There were some rights that could not be limited by the sovereign and this created a vacuum, and hence the civil society emerged. The civil society is self-governing. The free market was a part of this civil society. Now, to govern this society, which has come out of the hands of the rulers, one must make it governable. The state does this through statistics, match, science and so on. We try to govern by getting knowledge of people and the society. To govern something, you need to turn it into an object. You turn criminals and crimes into objects to govern about it. Objects become subjects to governance. We cannot govern anything, without knowing what it is. There is nothing given. The economy is not given; it is constructed in some way. So we produce numbers and knowledge about the economy and construct and economy, which we can govern. I mean that the state is essentially and above all the regulatory idea of that form of thought, that form of reflection, of that form of calculation, and that form of intervention called politics (Strandsberg, Jeppe, Lecture 12, slide 5) Here is is clear that the state is an idea. We are thinking about the state, and understand the world in terms of statehood. It is also a strategic objective, we aspire to it. It's a regulatory idea that regulates human affairs. It doesn t exist in a real way. Is it the army, the parliament, the monarch? It is not something you can touch or point at. Nevertheless, we have constructed it, and it is now very important. The essential story he is telling, is that discourse and language is used to construct objects. Language and discourse influences in society. Comparison and discussion: Hobbes sees man in a materialistic way, since there is a cause and effect. This is similar to the view of Marx, which has a deterministic view, and disregards people s actions. This makes Hobbes be in favor of a totalitarian state, where the sovereign has all the power, and all others are subjected to it. Similarly, Marx argues that the state only serves the selfish interests of the dominant class. They are not altruistic in any sense; they merely ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 7 of 10

8 want to keep their power. It might be fear for the proletariat that makes the bourgeoisie want to uphold the state, just like Hobbes argues that it is fear that makes people agree to the social contract. The fear dishonor, shame, death, loss of possessions. The bourgeoisie are very right to fear that they will lose their possessions in another power structure, so according to Hobbes, to hold on to the present system is a result of a natural human trait. The main difference is their view of human nature, is that Marx believes that class loyalty is most important, while Hobbes believes that individuality and selfishness is the driving force. Marx would argue, that the state only exists to serve the dominant class. Hobbes would argue, that we only have the state, to escape the state of nature. Montesquieu is less deterministic and believes that humans have the ability to distinguish between right and wrong, since God made humans this way. This opens up for a state that not only serves particular class interests, or where people are oppressed by the sovereign and not able to distinguish between right and wrong, since only the sovereign is the source of morality. This state has the ability to rule by law, since power is separated. The judicial branch is independent, and there are informal checks and balances. The people are able to judge for themselves, when one branch has overstepped its boundaries. This leads to a mixed government, where there is a monarch, but he is not absolute in the sense that Hobbes believes a sovereign should act. He has to listen to the people. In conclusion, Montesquieu would say that we have a state that is based on certain principles, which leads it to produce just laws and rule rightfully. Foucault takes another stand, and disregards the idea of a basic human nature and human desires, like Montesquieu and Hobbes describes. He says man is an invention that can easily be erased. Hence, when man is created by invention, the governable part of society to govern man is also an invention. It is a result of language and discourses, that we have created a world of states. It is not a natural law, that this is the outcome. This is in contradiction to Hobbes idea, since Hobbes believes that men will inevitable be drawn to point out a sovereign and create a state, out of fear. In addition, it is in contrast to the idea of Marx, that history is on a certain track, and that it will end in communism, when the proletariat takes control of the state. Foucault disagrees with the notion that history only moves in one direction. In this sense, he is closer to the historical view of Morgenthau. So Foucault views the state as something we have invented that helps shape human beings, to become governable. We do this through knowledge and discourses, and then we mold humans. So man is not an actor, he is a product of society. Hobbes would argue, that man has certain traits and desires that we are born with, and Montesquieu would argue that God has created intelligent human beings, which can judge what is morally right. Marx would argue that there is an inherent class struggle, which is fuelled by who owns the modes of production. He would say that language and discourse is not the most important focus, rather ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 8 of 10

9 material inequalities. So Foucault would argue that the state exists to mold people and objectify civil society, so that the state can govern it. It is a result of language and discourse, and it is not naturally given that we need to understand the world in terms of statehood. Conclusion part 1: This paper has sought to describe and define the view of the state, by Hobbes, Montesquieu, Marx and Foucault. The point of departure has been their view on human nature, which lays the foundation for their perception of the state. I have argued that their view on human nature is the most important distinction, which allows them to reach very different conclusions about what the state is, and what is should be. Hobbes believes in a rational egoistic human nature, that makes a despotic leader legitimate, since he and on he can secure a peaceful society, an allow people to escape the state of nature, which he describes as horrible. Montesquieu is neither deterministic nor only view actors as the creators of history, so he has taken a middle way. When humans can judge right from wrong, it enables them to play a role in the governing of society. Hence, people should make sure that no branch becomes too powerful and then despotic. So Montesquieu disagrees with Hobbes than man should give all power to the sovereign, and accept every decision from him. Marx sees man as a part of a class and has loyalty to this class. The struggle between classes drives history; hence the course of history is predetermined. Since, the state is merely a reflection of the wishes of the dominant class, the state should be overthrown by the proletariat. So he disagrees with Hobbes, that man should accept the sovereign. Rather, the working class should seek to gain power of the state, and should not accept oppression. In addition, checks and balances, and a mixed government as Montesquieu believes in, will not change the most important fact that the ruling class owns the state. Hence, a mixed government ruled by law, is not the ideal. There should be a dictatorship of the proletariat, and will eliminate classes. Lastly, Foucault does not agree with Hobbes and Montesquieu, that man is self-aware and has built in desires and conceptions of right and wrong. Man is simply an invention, created by language and discourse. In addition, the state is created as a concept, which objectifies the ungovernable to become governable. Man is molded by the state. But there is no predetermined way history like Marx argues, since the state is just a discourse, it is not by nature or some natural law the center of class struggle. Conclusion part 2:I have accounted for the four thinker s different conceptions of the state and its functions, based on the different views on human nature. I have argued that this is what makes them reach different conclusions. Furthermore, I have compared their thought on the state, and discussed their views. I have found ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 9 of 10

10 several similarities, but also major disagreements. I have touched upon whose interests the state serves, and why they believe we need and have a state today. Bibliography: Compendium,, Fall 2014, BSc (IBP), 3. Semester, Academic books. Foucault, Michel, ( ), Security, territory, population Lectures at the college of France. Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from: Hobbes, Thomas, 1665, Leviathan. Marx, Karl (1848) The Communist Manifesto, translated to English in Montesquieu, 1748, The spirit of laws. ComputerName: AS4B-007 Page 10 of 10