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.