Locke's God and His Enablaling Violation

Quite a few people have in some way touched of the role of god in Locke's writing in their pre-blogs so I figured I would through in my 2cents. Then I will then read the state of nature as an enabling violation of European Colonialism...

I'm going to echo my comment in class that Locke's more diffuse image of god reflects his focus on the individual as at the helm of history. And that Hobbes limited god is related to his limited conception of who it is that is at the helm of history.

For Hobbes it is the monarch that is in charge of making the decisions that shape society and move history. For Hobbes it is also the Monarch who interacts with god.

For Locke it is the property owning individual that is in charge of making the decisions that shape society and history. In a Lockian world the land owning individual has much agency, he can dispose the ruler, return the state to civil society and establish property rights for himself. There for, it should not be surprising that Locke's god plays a role in a great many facets of society. In this way, Locke's g-d, a god that is more interested in the activities of the individual better fits a Lockian world in which the individual has more agency and responsibility.

I think that while we are reading these texts we should keep in our minds that capitalism has matured between the writings of Hobbes and the writings of Locke. Not only does Locke grant property owners more agency in his political writings, land owners had more agency in the early 1700s then they did in 1651.

In my pre-post I posed the question "what does in mean to be defined out of society? or what is the conceptual relationship between the advanced individual living in society and the individual living in the state of nature (as where the native Americans)?

Knowing a tad of history, I wondered if the state of nature could serve as what Spivack refers to as an "enabling violation"--a violation of rights that is seen as so egregious in the discourse of the colons that it enables the subjectation or negation of a native people. (Think sati in India or women's rights in Afghanistan)

The class discussion re-enforced my hunch.

An Acre of Land that bears here Twenty Bushels of Wheat, and another in America, which, with the same Husbandry, would do the like, are, without doubt, of the same natural, intrinsick value. But yet the Benefit Mankind receives from the one, in a Year, is worth 5 l. and from the other is possibly not worth a penny.(298)

Above Locke lays out the argument that land in America is not being used productively--the Americans do not properly put labour into it.

On the next page, Locke argues that ...Labour, in the Beginning, gave a Right of Property, where-ever any one was pleased to employ it."(299) As outlined on the previous page, in America Labour is not being properly put to use on property, so the property is still up waiting to be claimed.

In this way, the state of nature in Locke's writing serves as an enabling violation for colonialism.

Locke's Labour Theory of Value, the state of nature and European imperialism

1) Locke's Labor theory of value reflects a break with the mercantilist school, but not the phycioctats(sp?), it is very similar to what Adam Smith would write in 1776 and the labour theory of value that Ricardo would further develop (Marx is in many ways a Smithian and student of Ricardo)

2) Reading the text makes me ask the question, what are the implications of defining individuals as being a part of the state of nature?

3) How much of Lockian thought is tied to the imperial project (the state of nature exists in the Americas that Europe is civilizing)? Was such though implicitly or explicitly used to justify colonial domination?

Hobbes the constructivist

Dr. Jackson made an interesting observation in class that I would like to further explore in this blog entry

Hobbes seems to give a nod to a constructivist approach in his exploration of language. "Seeing then that truth consistith in the right ordering of names, in our affirmations, a man that seeketh precise truth, had need remember what every name he uses stand for; and to replace it accordingly; or else he will find himself entangled in words; as a bird in lime-twigs; the more he struggled the more he belimed."(page 22)

Here Hobbes both acknowledges that language is a tool for understanding the world and that different understandings of language can lead to different understandings of reality. In this way, language is the tool that constructs our reality.

As CC pointed out, 400+ years later Foucault would build on this observation (I don't know weather Foucault was influenced by Hobbes or not, but he definitely took the exploration of language much further) and traced the history of how various concepts are understood--punishment, sexuality, the academy, ect...

Hobbes, unlike Foucault, has a normative component to his exploration of language. Hobbes, instructs that those who seek precise truth be sure to learn and the correct usage language. This implies that there is a way that language ought to be understood—this contrast with Foucault’s instance on abandoning the normative.

It also reflects the broader intellectual climates in which these authors wrote. The enlightenment is generally characterized as a search for truth based on reason where as post modernity is generally associated with the contextualization of truths.

I also found it interesting, as PTJ pointed out, that Hobbes makes a distinction between the way that humans interact with each other in the state of nature and the way that governments interact with each other. Hobbes believes that, although there is no over-arching state government, states do not exist in a “state of nature,” according to Hobbes, states can engage in diplomatic relationships, contracts, with each other.

Thomas Hobbes and the Rise of Merchant Capitalism

When I read the introduction to Leviathan, I was struck by the geography and time; Paris, 1651. I realize that countless authors look at this location and date and place Hobbes’ writing within the historical context of the English Civil War. So I will not waist my time repeating them.

This geography and time, France and Brittan 1600s, is important to me for a different reason—it was at this place and time that of merchant capitalism became the dominate mode of production.

The transition from feudalism to capitalism was multi-facetted and associated with many radical changes in the way that the majority of the Western European population lived. Generally, an economy shifts from feudal to capitalist relations when surplus ceases to be extracted by lords through coercion and begins to be extracted on a contractual basis.

Capitalism necessitates individualistic, acquisitive, maximizing behavior by most individuals within the economic system. Hobbes' understanding of the human nature and governance fits capitalist culture like a glove—understanding human behavior as individualistic, acquisitive and maximizing. This is evident in his comparisons between man-kind and creatures. Hobbes argues that man-kind is not like the animals because humans:

1) are “continually in competition for Honour and Dignity”

2) “…, whose consists of comparing himselfe with other men, can relish nothing but what is eminet.”

3) “Man is the most troublesome, when he is most at ease”

4) And that agreements among men can be achieved “by Covenant only, which is Artificiall: and therefore is no wonder if there be somewhat else required to make constant and lasting; which is a Common Power, to keep them in awe, and to direct their actions to the Common Benefit.”

I find his emphases on contracts, the new, dominate capitalist facilitator of surplus extraction particularly telling.

I realize that at this point some of you are probably thinking, Machiavelli wrote in Italy during an earlier time period, devoid of merchant capitalism, and came to similar conclusions about human nature so how can I justify there being any connection at all?

There are a few distinctions between Hobbes and Machiavelli that are interesting and back up my argument.

1) Hobbes focuses on contracts (associated with a capitalist mode), Machiavelli focuses on coercion (associated with a feudal mode)

2) Machiavelli focuses on maximization for the Prince(fuedal mode), Hobbes focuses on maximization for the subject(capitalist mode)

Machiavelli II

The most interesting observation of Machiavelli's, and possibly the most relevant to today, was his observation on page 10 that in order to rule a people it is most effective to not change their culture but to craft your rhetoric to be in line with their local realities.

As we discussed in class, this is similar to the use of Christianity by various United States presidents to sell their own policies. Although there are many examples of this strategy working in today's world, I question weather contemporary powerful countries could still dominate less powerful countries with such adjustment of rhetoric.

It seems that most former colonies today have a strong post-colonial identity that resists outside domination even if it comes in indigenous cloths.

I am reminded of Sarte

"Here, the mother country is satisfied to keep some feudal rulers in her pay; there, dividing and ruling she has created a native bourgeoisie, sham from beginning to end...Fanon hides nothing: in order to fight against us the former colony must fight against itself: or, rather, the two struggles form part of a whole. In the heat of battle, all internal barriers break down; the puppet bourgeoisie of businessmen and shopkeepers, the urban proletariat"

We live in a post-Fanonian world, much of the formally colonial world has gone through both anti-colonial struggles and have tried, through land reform or other means, to limit the puppet bourgeoisie. Fanon's project has been completed to the point that even the most obvious cases of remaining remnants of the puppet bourgeoisie, now the national elites, must have "liberation credentials" and play up their anti-imperial rhetoric. For this reason, I question whether Machiavelli's observation, that one can successfully set up a colony by not interfering with culture and ruling through puppet bourgeoisie, hold true today.

Machiavelli I

My first reaction to reading Machiavelli's Prince was frustration with the stead fastness of his rules. The text leaves no room for historical projects that would causes people to react different to the same form of governmental organization. He simply states what he believes are universities then moves on to the next universality. I had to remind myself that the text was written in the early 1500s, before the insights of Hegal ect...

Machiavelli es hard lean toward the Political Science end of the spectrum is defiantly evident throughout the text.

Reflections on Thucydides

I thought the most interesting point of our discussion was the point about the contestability of Athen's success in the Melian dialogue. It is notable that during the dialogue, the Athenians are not able to convince the Melians to surrender. This is particularly damaging to the Athenians because the backbone of their argument is that they have stumbled upon a universal law that governs the behavior of man kind, " to rule whatever one can."(404) The Athenians further extend this rule arguing that:

"...when you are allowed to choose between war and safety, you will not be so insensitively arrogant as to make the wrong choice. This is the safe rule - to stand up to one's equals, to behave with defence towards one's superiors, and to treat one's inferiors with moderation."(407)

But the actions of the Melians do not comply with the Athenians rule. The Melians choose the integrity of their identity over their security. The Melians do not "behave with deference towards one's superiors" they stand their ground and fight to the bloody end.
Though the dialogue is often cited by Realists, the text does not give a clear victory to the "Realist" Athenians. The Melians do not behave in the 'rational' way that would be predicted by the realist school. Instead they stay and fight against impossible odds--motivated by the virtues of their ideals.

Further, when the dialogue understood within the context of the book it is, arguably, a turning point at which the Athenians adopt the Hubris of "Realism" and which begins the path to their demise.

In this light, it is odd that many within the Realist school have chosen to privilege History of the Peloponnesian War and particularly the Melian Dialog.

Thucydides

In the first few pages of book one of the History of the Peloponnesian War was struck by Thucydides construct of history as a linear progression based on material acquisition. In Thucydides construction of history, individuals who always carry weapons and live in a world of robbery progress into a people who do not carry weapons and live "more relaxed and more luxurious" life styles. The first people to under go this evolution were, of course, the Athenians.

It is interesting that his evidence for the existence of the this progression is present in "the fact that the people that I have mentioned [those who do not live with in Hellenes] still live in this way.(38)" In this quote Thucydides makes a clear distinction between the advanced Greeks and the backward others who still live in a world of robbery that has yet to advance in the linear path of history.

This understanding is similar to that of the Regan Administration which spoke about the United States as a "city on a hill" more historically advanced, less barbaric then the others. It is also similar to enlightenment thinkers treatment of the Orient.

In fact, this belief in linear progressions and representing the "other" as less advanced threads its way through modern western scholarship until the 1970s when "post-modernist" begin to deconstruct it.