Compare and contrast the views of freedom put forward by Hobbes in the state of nature and in civil society
Hobbes has often been called the theorist of authoritarianism. Given the preoccupation of his theory with minimal security and survival, is there any place in his vision of politics for a meaningful concept of freedom? Hobbes theory encompasses a pre-political stage, called the state of nature, and a stage in which politics is firmly established, often called civil society. Describing the fundamental differences between both stages should go a long way towards explaining the divergent concepts of freedom that prevail in either. But first we need to gain a clearer picture of what Hobbes’s general understanding of freedom was.
Hobbes’s picture of human nature is gloomy and pessimistic. He holds man to be deeply self-interested and motivated by personal gain only. Freedom, for Hobbes, is mainly determined by the external impediments which are temporarily or permanently placed upon people. Freedom in his view was then the lack of any obstacles in the way of executing a given plan of action for an individual. In the literature this is often called negative freedom and philosophers point out that Hobbes never expanded this negative version of freedom to acknowledge other notions of personal liberty. The problem with subscribing to a negative view of freedom is that it only takes you so far. The concept as defined by Hobbes fails to capture certain other impediments placed on individuals in modern society that may have a similarly or even more restrictive effect than simple negative liberty. These additional aspects of individual liberty are often summarised in the concept of positive liberty, the freedom to something, as opposed to the freedom from something which sustains the notion of negative freedom.
Let us now briefly characterise the state of nature and civil society and ascertain which role freedom played there. According to Hobbes the state of nature is marked by the pursuit of personal gain and security. Since only natural laws prevail in such a state, everybody can and does pursue her self-interests with all possible means. The consequence is that neither life nor property is safe from others. Individual freedom thus depends on only one element: how successful any individual is in accumulating a maximum of personal power to safeguard her life and well-being. Powers however can be deceptive. Mere physical powers by no means secure anybody’s life as such. Through cunning, people are able to effectively counter physical dominance and so a constant struggle for survival ensues whose outcome is by no means predictable. Freedom in such a world does exist, but it is the temporary and fragile state of personal safety that is backed up by overbearing physical force. It is volatile insofar as it can be successfully challenged by anyone at any time. More importantly, because the state of nature does not guarantee justice and the implementation of individual rights, freedom is a privilege granted without justification. It is realised on the basis of might not right. However, there is one aspect of freedom that Hobbes accords to individuals in the state of nature as well as in the state of civil society. Everybody, he maintains, has the right to defend herself and to act according to the laws of nature. In fact it is a right that no one is free to renounce but only free to enact.
Freedom in civil society has rather different foundations. As people leave the state of nature, guided by their reason and their understanding that this state of mutual suspicion and fear is unbearable, they look for a guarantee to individual liberties that transcends the situation characterising the state of nature. The laws of nature, that is the pursuit of self-interests and the right to defend your life, cannot not be suspended by any agreement. Yet the contract which people freely enter into provides them with individual liberties resting on a radically different basis. From now on, people do not exercise their right to retaliate and transfer the commensurate right to the Leviathan who determines justice and adjudicates on conflicting claims that may arise between citizens.
Thus transforming the state of nature to a civil society freedom has now undergone a dramatic change. First of all, personal liberties receive a guarantee as long as individual actions accord with the law of the land which is set by a single authority, the Leviathan. Secondly, the only existing threat to individuals is that of the Leviathan whose task it is to punish those who do not adhere to the rules of engagement set out by the Leviathan itself. With the threat from other individuals removed, people are now free to pursue their own projects as they like, provided they do not violate any of the rules laid down by the Leviathan. In short, individuals now are able to enjoy freedom. Thirdly, and more controversially, some philosophers claim that Hobbes’s theory of civil association reveals the real connection between authority and liberty. While many liberals at a first glance perceive an inexorable tension between power and freedom, Hobbes theory of civil society, brought about by the mutual compact, realises freedom and defines all that that is not subject to legal regulation by the Leviathan as a sphere of free enterprise. Hobbes therefore may be seen as the founding father of political liberalism, an epithet that sharply contradicts his reputation as the advocate of authoritarianism.
Bibliography
- Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. Revised Student Edition. Cambridge: CUP 1996
- Michael Oakeshott. Hobbes on Civil Association. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. 2000