Paste your essay in here…The canon of Western political thought is composed of the most influential thinkers who continue to shape Western politics and political theory. According to Turner (The Telegraph), theses theorists are deemed as the “founding fathers” of Western civil society (Turner, 2017). Since the 1960s, the notion that the canon solely focuses on the ideologies and thoughts from deceased white men has been dominant in political academia. The voices and interests of women and minority groups are often ignored. Essentially, the canon enshrines the ideologies of those who are deemed to have the most power and authority in political thought and historically these people are rich, white men. Their ideas typically encompass the interests of men in an inherently patriarchal society and these are seen as the values that should continue to influence political thought, regardless of any discriminatory norms that may be within them.
With a focus on the liberal thought of John Locke as the ‘father of liberalism’ and social contract theory within the canon, I will examine the ideas expressed in these theories and analyse whether they convey racist, sexist or classist norms. In order to assist my critique and to get a more modern perspective of the thinkers within the Western canon, I will use the work of both Carole Pateman (The Sexual Contract) and Charles Mills (The Racial Contract).
John Locke, who is considered the ‘father of liberalism’ and a social contract theorist, is a key political thinker within the canon. One of his works, The Second Treatise of Government, is considered as one of the founding texts of liberalism. Within The Treatise, Locke claims that human beings are all born one another’s equal (Waldron, 2003, p.188). In saying this, it is implied that Locke believes that no matter the race, gender or social class of a human, everyone is equal and is entitled to the same rights and liberties within the state of nature. Despite this claim, on analysing the Lockean social contract, it is clear that his ideas are infected with sexist, racist and classist norms. However, these norms are often disregarded within both liberalism and the canon due to the acknowledgment of the historical period in which these theorists wrote.
The underpinning of Locke’s theory on equality is the notion of property ownership. Locke believes that God gave us all the world in common thus we all have equal ownership rights to it. In saying this, we initially assume that if we are all in common possession of the Earth, then there cannot be any sort of classist notions as one person does not own more of God’s Earth than another. However, as a wealthy male, who spent over three decades as an elite involved in national politics in Britain, Locke’s theory is highly likely to be filled with notions of classism without encompassing the needs of those from varying backgrounds. Class divides in the 1600s were already deep-rooted within British society and Locke’s theory neglects the need to narrow these divides.
In the Second Treatise, Locke continues that “men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of earth” through both tacit and voluntary consent. This is an immediate disregard of the idea that property ownership is equal for all. According to Locke, God gave us the Earth to be improved, thus if land-for example- is not being put to good use, someone else has the right to take it and better it. We can use the example here of the Native Americans and the land that they owned not being put to good use. Thus, there was no issue in the land being taken from them as it was with the intention to be improved, despites the removal of someone else’s property. Furthermore, due to Locke’s notion of property and improvement, he argues that inequality is inevitable in the state of nature. Therefore, there seems to be an inherent classist norm within Locke’s work regardless of the doctrine that everyone is born equal, as we grow inequality is unavoidable as those who are wealthier and have more power have the ability to own more land as they have the facilities for improvement. This is indicative of the inherent divides that are recognised by Locke between the classes within his social contract theory.
Moreover, Hunt argues that although Locke’s theory does indeed put limitations on the political rights of certain groups, this is done in order to “preserve the universal dignity of all” as opposed to infringe on these rights (Hunt, 2016). With reference to Locke’s self-ownership theory, and critiquing the work of Zuckert in 2004, Hunt argues that the universal right of self-ownership does not necessarily lead to the equal right of self-ownership (ibid.) hence the creation of a classist notion within his theory. If self-ownership is not equal amongst everyone, a class divide is inexorable based on the differences of what an individual personally owns.
Developing on Locke’s theory of property and ownership is the issue of money. Locke believes that money is an incentive for exchange and improvement which doesn’t “spoil” so you can accumulate as much money as you wish without it infringing on the interests of others. Evidently however, this is not necessarily the case as the acquisition of more and more money in exchange for labour as property creates an inequality, and will essentially establish class disparities. Therefore, if the so-called accumulation of money by the few is expected in the state of nature, Locke is essentially promoting classism in his work. We can see the clear protection of the wealthy in Lockean contract theory which supports the notion that the most influential political theorists within the canon solely protect the interests that are important and best suited to them.
In discussing Locke’s perspective on class, MacPherson writes that the “labouring class” are not considered as full members of society and are not entitled to a “fully rational life” (MacPherson, 1964). Based on custom during the time of writing, classism was so prevalent that it would be unusual if Locke did not write about theses divides (ibid.). However, these norms within Locke’s theory are usually overlooked because of the core of equality both within his work and liberalism in general. Furthermore, in relation to his views on property ownership, in The Treatises, Locke acknowledged how deep the disparities between the classes truly were in the 17th century, that those from the “labouring class” should have very different rights (ibid. p.230). They had a lack of property “on which they could expand their labour” and this lead Locke to believe that this was merely convention in society and was typical within the state of nature (ibid.). Essentially, Locke does not recognise the inequality that he is promoting in his work through discussing the ‘natural’ rights of those from the “labouring class” as different from the rich. It is possible, therefore, to state that there are intrinsic classist norms within Locke’s theory and this could also be linked to the fact that Locke himself did come from a wealthy background. This indicates that as a rich thinker within the canon, he does in fact solely consider his own needs and not those of other social classes hence why classist norms are carried through the canon and into our political thought of today.
Towards the end of the seventeenth century, there was a “clash between patriarchal and liberal theories” (Butler, 1978) whereby liberal theorists, including John Locke, rejected patriarchal views. Prior to the emergence of liberalism, it was believed that everyone was born subordinate to a patriarchal superior (ibid.). Although, due to the historical subordination of women, most liberal theorists initially ignored the need to protect women, thus violating the theory of human nature which underpins the ideology of liberalism (ibid.), despite the initial assumption that liberalism would be something which would encompass the needs of women as well as men.
A key belief of Locke in The Second Treatise is the equality that we all share as humans from birth. Thus, in stating this, Locke rejects the notion of a patriarchy in which older men are superior to both women and younger men- perhaps this is Locke including women within his theory. In the First Treatise, Locke does reject any form of subordination (Waldron, 2003, p.189), however he does discuss the notion of varying rationality amongst humans, thus indicating his beliefs about the natural subordination of women within the state of nature (ibid.).
Nonetheless, despite the apparent neglect of the patriarchy, in her critique of social contract theory The Sexual Contract, Carole Pateman argues that “almost all” political theorists have in fact upheld the patriarchal right in some form or another (Pateman, 1988). Even if it does seem like the patriarchy has been disregarded, it has now developed into a “fraternal pact”, making all men equal yet still excluding women (Boucher, 2003). Therefore, although we have seen a change in society, ideas within the canon are still infected with sexism. In terms of her critique of Locke’s liberal theory, Pateman discusses his dismissal of women as “individuals” due to his frequent reference of all “men” being regarded as equals in the state of nature (ibid. p.31). This is seen throughout The Treatises and according to Pateman is a clever disguise leading to the works’ success (ibid). Locke emphasises the notion of equality and succeeds in his dismissal of the patriarchy but he still fails where women are concerned. Eisenstein refers to Locke as a “patriarchal anti-patriarchalist” (Pateman, 1988, p.22). This emphasises Pateman’s argument of fraternalism in that whilst the patriarchy has been overturned, men and women do still not have equality. Regardless of the initial belief that liberal thought provides equality, Locke’s contract theory merely protects white males and particularly those from wealthier backgrounds. The sexism that was ingrained in society during the Lockean era has infected political thought within the canon and continues to be an underpinning norm in civil society.
On the contrary to Locke’s arguable intrinsic subordination of women, another significant liberal thinker within the canon is John Stuart Mill who wrote The Subjection of Women almost two hundred years after Locke’s Treatises. Whilst Mill is not the first theorist to have written about women and their rights within political thought, as a man he is the first to have enough power for his work to have influence. The theory of Mill is very significant as it is the first influential work which discusses women’s rights- showing that women were becoming less disregarded within political thought and in society in the 1800s. Mill argues that the subordination of women in society is fundamentally “wrong” (Subjection, p.1) and the reason for this subordination was in fact the patriarchy. Mill believed that if no natural inequality occurs between the two sexes then legal inequality should not exist (Bell, 2001), this should be replaced by “perfect equality” of the sexes (Subjection, p.1). Mill concludes that the inequality of the sexes is essentially “evil” (ibid. p.188). His feminist beliefs reflect his utilitarian roots in that the inferiority of women will ‘harm’ not just women but society as a whole. From this we can conclude that despite being an influential white male thinker within the canon, it does not necessary suggest that the ideas that are conveyed in his work will carry sexist norms as this is detrimental to humanity.
On the other hand, many contemporary feminist writers, such as Jennifer Ring, have noted that despite Mill’s feminist beliefs, he accepts a “conventional division” of household labour. Never does Mill consider the notion that men should be forced to consider their role in the home as well as their career- which is something that women were always forced to do (Ring, 2003). Based on custom and tradition of the era, perhaps if we continue to shape our political theory and civil society around thinkers from centuries ago, there will always be notable underlying social constructs and sexist norms infecting our political thought.
Despite claims of equality for all, there seems to be some form of conflict within the work of Locke in relation to racist attitudes. Locke had a critical role in shaping the slave trade in the United States due to his large involvement in the writing of The Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas in 1669. Article 110 states “Every freeman of Caroline shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves…”. Whilst Locke was writing in a period of history when black people were not regarded as humans and racism was deep-rooted in society, according to Glausser, it can be argued that this creates a contradiction to his most fundamental beliefs (Glausser, 1990, p199). However, due to the period in which Locke was writing, he has not been accused of “blatant hypocrisy”, but merely an “insignificant lapse” (ibid. p205) in his ideas. It can be assumed that due to the influence of his theory today, his involvement in the slave trade can be ignored. This supports the concept that the canon is so dominated by white men that any norms that seem racist can be deemed as negligible due to the importance of the theories that are conveyed and their significance on civilisation. Whilst Locke is an advocate of equality, his ideas are irredeemably racist and there is no mention of those of colour in his work. Liberalism as an ideology is “globally triumphant” (Mills, 2008) thus the intrinsic racist norms are overlooked.
Developing on the ideas Charles. W. Mills, author of The Racial Contract (1997), it is expressed that throughout the Western canon in general, people of colour are not mentioned within major political thought (Gordon, 1998) and non-whites are not deemed as fully human. In Racial Liberalism (2008), it is argued that some of the fundamental principles of liberalism are limited according to race (Mills, 2008, p.1382). Mills states that even Locke restricts property rights in relation to ethnicity (ibid.). Due to Locke’s investment in the African slave trade and his contribution to the Carolina constitution, Mills believes that the “inferior treatment of people of colour” and the ideological support of liberalism are not necessarily mutually exclusive (ibid.). It is possible for one to class oneself a liberal but also to unknowingly benefit from racism. However, what we can argue is that the liberalism that we have known to dominate the canon since the beginning of the modern era can be known as “white liberalism” or “racial liberalism” as non-whites tend be classed as “sub persons” (ibid.). Based on the arguments put forward by Mills, it is clear that the ideas of wealthy, white men are not universal.
Continuing from this, in Racial Liberalism, Mills discusses the “whiteness of political philosophy”. Mills recognises the lack of political thinkers of colour and indicates that this an inherent problem into why there are racist norms within the canon. According to Mills, one “chooses” to do either race or theory (ibid. p.1383) and this implies that they are incongruous in terms of the canon. Essentially Mills is arguing that the thinkers with the canon cover theory so it is not possible for them to also include the needs of those of colour. This critique of Western political thought leads to the assumption that racism is the most ingrained discriminatory norm within the canon as it is not at all considered by the dominant white, rich male thinkers.
To conclude, I would argue that the ideas in the Western canon of political thought are indeed irreversibly infected with racist, classist and sexist norms. It can be disputed that based merely on the work of one influential thinker within the Western canon, the ideas that are conveyed in the theories are inherently discriminatory. Whilst we are able to raise the argument of the period in history in which many of these influential works were developed, we cannot disregard the fact that these discriminatory ideas have irredeemably infected Western political thought and still underpin society in more modern times. The inherent classist ideas within the canon are clearly based on historical conventions whereby those of a lower class were regarded as having different rights to the elites in society. Despite this, classism has made its way into more modern thought through the dominant thinkers as we still recognise the existence of inequality and class divides.
It is fair to say that there are political thinkers- such as Mill- who have attempted to rid the canon of these ideas, although it is questionable whether they have been successful or not. Despite Mill’s The Subjection of Women, he does not actually consider the true inequality of women in society. His conventional discussion of women’s household responsibilities is a true indication of how ingrained certain sexist norms are within the canon and still in modern society. Whilst progression has been made since the Lockean era, women still face unequal treatment to men.
Where racism is concerned, as Mills states, race is not an issue tackled within political thought, particularly in regards to the canon due to its domination by rich, white men. These thinkers have ingrained racist norms into their work but are often overlooked for this due to their significance in political theory and Western thinking.
Perhaps it is necessary that we develop a focus on more modern thinkers, such as women and those of colour as the 21st century tends to carry more accepting and inclusive norms whereby the demands of minorities are encompassed in political thought. Whilst it is difficult to assess the progression of such discriminations, if we continue to rely on these deceased, white men to underpin society, we will struggle to move past these disparities.