Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hobbes Is Dead (or at least on life support) . . . and I Feel Fine
It has been said that the election of Barack Obama as the next President may serve to redress the four-century-old stain of racism in America. While the symbolic poignancy of his ascent no doubt will dispel some demons and open new vistas of opportunity for many, there is another deep-seated ideology of nearly the same historical age that Obama's election may confront, one that perhaps even underlies the overt machinations of race and caste: to wit, fear itself.
In his foundational tome Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes famously asserted that the natural disposition of humankind was aggression, brutality, and a "war of all against all." He argued that the creation of a modern State was necessary in order to bind us under a social contract, to impose by coercion the rule of law, and in essence to protect us from ourselves. Hobbes was primarily motivated by fear in his moral and political philosophizing: fear of the other, fear of nature, fear of death, fear of losing his property and privilege, even fear of his creator.
While the modern nation-state employs many methods to maintain the patterns of social control that Hobbes envisioned - including the hardware of weaponry, imprisonment, and surveillance - it is at root the ideological software of Leviathan that is the glue holding the system together. Unsurprisingly, modern-day Hobbesians seek to create and accentuate fear among the masses as a means of preserving their positions of power. The outgoing Bush Administration in particular built its entire platform on this, tapping into the well of 9-11 over and over again as a justification for everything from preemptive war to offshore drilling to high-tech voyeurism.
This last election cycle was notable for the contrasts it presented. One the one hand, John McCain sought to tap into the same fear-based rhetoric that served the current administration so well, running almost exclusively against an opponent characterized variously as a terrorist, a socialist, anti-American, and someone who would take away your guns and religion. While race was a veiled part of this fear-mongering strategy, it surprisingly did not take center stage in this campaign (much to the chagrin of Atwater-influenced politicos, no doubt). Indeed, this may well have been an acknowledgment that at the end of the day, the Hobbesian fears are the bedrock ones upon which constructs of race, class, gender, and all of the sundry -isms are built.
For its part, the Obama campaign sought to contrast itself to the politics of fear by maintaining a sense of optimism and hopefulness in most of its politicking. Of course there was some negative advertising (is this a redundancy?) here as well, but by and large the central message was one of change and possibility. Despite the tried-and-true method of scaring the crap out of people as a means of getting them to fall in line and support the iron fist instead of the open hand, and despite throwing every inflammatory label at him, Obama seemed to refuse to take the bait and instead kept to his message of contrast and change.
This isn't meant as a glorification of Obama and the Democrats or a condemnation of McCain and the Republicans. Many liberals have relied on the fear card in challenging the Bush Administration's policies and practices, and McCain was sometimes described by left-leaning pundits as scary, erratic, and a warmonger. But there was a virulence lacking in these moments that seems to come easier to the other side. For instance, I attended the election eve "victory rally" held by John McCain here in Prescott, Arizona. A number of us turned out to demonstrate with messages about spreading the wealth, health, and opportunity around not only the U.S. but the world. For this, we were excoriated by many McCain supporters in quite vicious terms. And at the end of the day, CNN showed images of a woman with an Obama sign that had "666" scrawled across it while failing to mention any of the positive messages that we tried to display.
This is America, after all, and fear sells. The whole advertising industry is built on the notion that without this [insert product name here] you will be unpopular, uncool, unkempt, unloved, unwelcome, unattractive, persona non grata. "Keeping up with the Joneses" is an expression of fear that we will stand out in a manner that makes us shameful, lesser, and pitiful. Conspicuous consumption becomes a way of ostentatiously flaunting our worthiness while simultaneously flouting our fear of impoverishment. Not surprisingly, once we've invested in a conception of identity based on the power of possession and the fear-flouting virtues of being flush, it becomes incumbent to take any measures necessary (and even some that are not) to protect our domains of privilege and power. In the end, consumer capitalism turns us into fear-driven actors, and in this we are enacting a new mantra that essentially boils down to "keeping up with the Hobbeses."
Fifty years ago, Kenneth Boulding wrote that "the national image is basically a lie . . . which perhaps accounts for the ease with which it can be perverted to justify monstrous cruelties." We know that behind those new sneakers and computers there are workers toiling in misery and deprivation. We sense that within every Styrofoam package or genetically-modified meal lurks a potential impact on the biosphere. We recognize that our automobiles run on the blood of Iraqis, Nigerians, and others around the world with the misfortune of living in places with resources that we desire. We see the self-perpetuating nature of poverty and despair even as we blithely punish the individual transgressor rather than address the root causes. We know we're living a lie in many of these contexts, but because our self-image depends on the lie it is so easily ignored.
Hobbes knew this as well. His civilization-founding political theory was based on the most specious of evidence, namely that people living in Hobbes's time would lock their doors at night or travel armed as an expression of the obvious distrust they felt for the brutish other. But the people of Hobbes's era already lived in a nation-state that had laws and a social contract, so all that he really confirmed was that "civilized" people acted aggressively and in the spirit of self-interest. To this he attempted to contrast the purportedly aggressive tendencies of indigenous Americans, but neglected to mention any of the brutal behaviors of those who had ostensibly come to "civilize the savages." And obviously, civilization has not staved off the ravages of war.
What Hobbes thus created - the big lie upon which our national image is based - is essentially a self-fulfilling prophecy. In the name of overcoming our fear of the worst traits in humankind, we have institutionalized those tendencies and cleaned them up to seem somehow more palatable. Out of mistrust of ourselves and each other, we have created social structures and institutions that render us even more untrustworthy by making self-interest a virtue. In the name of maintaining our privilege and power, we have turned the reins of control over to others and made ourselves almost wholly dependent upon their judgment and policymaking. From our terror and grief we have inflicted the same on multitudes of others. In his book Nonviolence, Mark Kurlansky writes that "people motivated by fear do not act well," and in this may we find a reflection of ourselves.
At the end of the day, an Obama presidency likely won't surmount all of this historical baggage. Yet for a brief moment in time, perhaps we can idealistically linger over the defeat of fear by hope, just as we allow ourselves to glimpse the end of racism in our midst. Of course, neither fear nor racism will magically perish from the earth simply due to a tally of the Electoral College. But if it can happen for even a moment, perhaps that is the impetus we need to transcend the Hobbesian legacy and begin the task of writing a new shared narrative of hopefulness. If fear can become self-fulfilling, then over time so too can become the virtues of optimism and peace.
- Posted in
24 Comments so far
Show AllIn his foundational tome Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes famously asserted that the natural disposition of humankind was aggression, brutality, and a "war of all against all." He argued that the creation of a modern State was necessary in order to bind us under a social contract, to impose by coercion the rule of law, and in essence to protect us from ourselves. Hobbes was primarily motivated by fear in his moral and political philosophizing: fear of the other, fear of nature, fear of death, fear of losing his property and privilege, even fear of his creator.
"Hell is other people", Jean-Paul Sartre once said. And the most important "other people" who brought hell to the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan and gave the world yet again another declaration of the war of all against all is George Wanker Bush. Fear is indeed the prevalent human emotion and Bush was and is the embodiment of fear by way of his aggressive stupidity which has cut down countless Iraqis, Afghanis and Americans and destroyed our economy. In the war of all against all, Bush has been Julius Caesar and the Marx Brothers rolled into one utterly absurd and chaotic mass murderer. His regime ends in disgrace and humiliation but that won't resurrect the dead, heal the wounded or make restitution of all the taxpayers' money stolen and wasted these last eight years. But don't worry about it . . . German asparagus is fabulous.
Throughout the uncoming Obama administration, I will continue to pay my tax bills, for fear of imprisonment. I will continue to pay my insurance premiums on time and in full, for fear of impoverishment. My children will perform "voluntary" community service, for fear that an accredited college will not punch their tickets to the middle class if they do not. My wife and I will continue to work two jobs each, for fear of being trapped in an unwholesome neighborhood. No amount of "hope" will "change" the facts. Perhaps Hobbes was correct.
Perhaps Hobbes was correct.
Hobbes is not the villain some people make him out to be. The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts of this world don't like him but they don't like anyone who tells the nasty truth about so much of humanity.
Many of your Hobbsian perspectives are also largely unique to the USA.
I just got off a phone call from my brother who emigrated to Toronto, he described how a blue-collar co-worker took off to the Caribbean for a month. People think nothing about telling their bosses they're quitting and then taking time to find the job they really like. It is an entirely different, fear-free work ethic up there, and my brother is still having a hard time adjusting to it.
The key, universal access to health care, even if you are unemployed, is the biggest factor. Also, a more generous overall social wage.
Hobbes seems to have been focusing on narrow patterns of human behavior evolution in societies with which he was familiar and not on the general pattern that the narrow patterns flowed from. In human nature, as in physics, force follows the path of least resistance. If it is easier to find health and happiness by stealing, then people will steal. If it is easier by murdering millions of others, then people will murder millions of others. The basic and public purpose of socialization processes (including the imposition of moral codes in the minds of the populace) and social rules, and especially those enforced by a government with criminal penalties, is generally to make it more difficult for individuals to choose to try to achieve success by methods inconsistent with the general welfare (though elites typically heavily influence such rules to improve their own positions and increase their security in those positions, while cloaking the rules in utilitarian language to maximize acceptance and willing participation by non-elites). And the success of those socialization processes and social rules in achieving the purported purposes depends in large measure on the extent to which individuals are successfully convinced to broaden their self-interest to the point it becomes consistent with the community interest.
For just the briefest of moments, I thought they were referring to Calvin's pet tiger by the same name and was really worried!
As for the "other Hobbs", while human history lends some support to such a gloomy assesment overall, all individual people have free moral agency and can choose which paths they follow--we do not have to have be a part of the "herd mentality" unless we choose to do so.
Poet
"...all individual people have free moral agency and can choose which paths they follow..."
I agree, for the most part.
Sometimes I wonder what it would take to change the minds of the Hobbesian majority in this world. Then, I read some of their thoughts, and I realize that nothing would change their minds.
As Hobbes' pal, Calvin, once quipped: "Grownups just like to act like they know what they're doing."
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Courage has been defined as - not the elimination of fear - but rather accepting that fear is natural, then doing the right thing in spite of it.
That's where FDR was mistaken, see. "There's nothing to fear but fear itself" causes people to fear that their fears are somehow "wrong," which makes them feel there must be something "wrong" with them, which makes them even more afraid.
The truth is, there's plenty to fear, and fear can be a helluva survival tool - the key is to embrace your fears, understand them, and then move forward despite them.
"The truth is, there's plenty to fear, and fear can be a helluva survival tool - the key is to embrace your fears, understand them, and then move forward despite them."
Very well put.
I would just quibble and add that we shouldn't allow others to define our fear. Which they do.
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
Well, personally I think the Marquis de Sade got a bum rap.
Society was founded upon unwritten contracts of assistance from the individual for the group. The demands of the contract were sporadic, anecdotal, and could be repudiated by the individual willing to meet the challenge. The victims of the terms of the contract were largely outside the group: animals and other tribespeople.
When groups began permanent associations among each other, the social contract took a new turn because the terms were fixed, unrelenting, and the challenges of resistance became enormous. Victimization was no longer confined beyond the group and the caste social order was born. To provide the fear element to protect the terms, government was created; to provide the illusion of justification for the social order, individual spiritualism was stunted into the form of religion.
This is civilization today: a social order to protect the beneficiaries of contracts from their victims by means of fear and delusion. Any desire of contribution will wander the wilderness unless it enters into the contract system.
"The creation of a modern State was necessary in order to bind us under a social contract, to impose by coercion the rule of law, and in essence to protect us from ourselves.."
Bush tore up the contract, broke the laws, and took away everyones protections. He envisioned a "dog eat dog" society, where the big dogs feed and the weak dogs slink away to die in the underbrush. As a child of privilege he confused his inherited place in the pack with actually being able to piss with the big dogs.
Luckily, the rest of the pack wised up and turned on him.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
I wish you were right but I think we will all find out soon that we are the ones being pissed on.
Until we get corporate money out of the hands of our elected representatives we will never have representative Government.
I would love to get corporate money out of politics, but it isn't going to happen as long as corporations have the power that they've amassed. Corporations need to be put back on a very short and tenuous leash, the way they started out...
...then they should be shot!
"All Nature's difference keeps all Nature's peace." Alexander Pope
As someone for whom Thomas Hobbes was a central figure in my dissertation over 3 decades ago, I read Dr. Amster's essay with great interest and found myself agreeing with much of what he says about the role of fear in society and politics. Unfortunately, his statement that Hobbes' "civilization-founding political theory was based on the most specious of evidence," that "...the people of Hobbes's era already lived in a nation-state that had laws and a social contract..." is historically inaccurate--and therefore undermines his argument.
The Leviathan was published in 1651, at the end of the decade-long English Civil war, which included the murder of Charles I, and led to almost a decade of rule by Cromwell and his republicans. The entire political structure of the English state, not to mention the social contract between king and subjects, had been destroyed; there was chaos and fear everywhere. The Leviathan was Hobbes' effort to apply his moral and political philosophy to political reality and to argue for the restoration of a social contract between ruler and ruled that would once again bring order, stability, and a dimunition of fear. This would not happen until the Restoration, when Charles II assumed the English throne, in 1660.
To repeat a posting that was apparently deleted:
Why do we need a ruler, much less a "social contract" with said ruler, at all?
Give me Rousseau any day.
Times have changed. While racism is the most-discussed area of discrimination, the greatest discrimination today is based on class. The poor are today's non-people, unofficially and otherwise (yes, the poor are subject to a separate, harsher body of laws). We do talk about "the working poor", but once you fall below that level, you don't exist. Your legitimacy as a human is determined by your ability to contribute to society (a philosophy eerily similar to that of Nazi Germany). If you can't work, for whatever reason, you deserve to suffer or (as many do) die.
Even the progressive media rarely mentions (US) poverty, much less aiding the poor (ignoring the fact that our "failed" welfare policies actually provided the economic stability and, when needed, the health care, education or skills training that made it possible for some 80% of welfare recipients to return to work in under 5 years, repaying the aid they had received via their own tax payments. Indeed, the solid welfare programs we briefly had in the '70's, which only used some 6% of the fed. budget, reduced US economic disparities to historic lows, which was reversed by welfare "reform"). Even the progressive media has failed to address the consequences of welfare "reform" policies (soaring infant mortality rate, plunging life expectancy among our poor, or the impact on all working class people of this sudden creation of a massive no-rights, bottom-wage workforce).
The poor don't exist in our media, in our public discussion. By policy, US treatment of the poor is in direct violation of the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, yet we still think we are leaders in protecting human rights...precisely because we don't consider human rights to apply to the poor. Our views (and our treatment) of the poor are often grotesquely discriminatory, but this type of discrimination is so deeply rooted in contemporary society that we rarely even recognize it.
Nice job... thanks!!
Props to a Prescott College professor for posting articles on commondreams.
but if someone doesn't agree with your article are you going to contact them(the website) like you did on indymedia.org and ask them to take down the person's opinion.
DHFabian has it right. The poor do not exist in what passes for our collective Media discussion. For the poor whether working or not the Social Conract was ripped apart finally by President Clinton. ("The Era of Big Government is Over." Ha Ha.) What he was really saying is that the Era of the Social Safety Net was over. Kiss the Common Weal goodbye.
Obama talks a good game and speaks of inclusiveness but we shall see.
-30-
I dont agree with this article-it leads down the road of human arrogance and self-adulation. One can argue quite strongly that humans need codes of conduct unlike other species because we lack the instinct for common sense that other species seem to have.
What more evidence do we need? Iraq. Congo? East LA? Wall Street?
Hand me today's newspaper and I can show a few examples. Anyone see the story about the 8 year old who shot his father(who taught him to shoot prairie dogs)?
It may be a few bad apples but they have a way of upsetting everyone else.
I hate quoting a research study but they once did an experiment where they stuck an infant human and a kitten on a ledge and had the mothers on the other side. The human infant was willing to fall into the hole to get to the mother, the kitten was not. Instinct kicked in.
I dont think it is good to just say: human nature is essentially good, because it ignores a problem and therefore doesnt take seriously the need to remedy it.
Its already bad that humans equate the word "humane" with goodness, and the word inhumane with evil, when it is humans who do things like: raping 3 month old babies, injecting their son with aids to get out of alimony, sticking a dog in an oven as a joke before leaving an apartment they rob, forcing a mother and son to have sex, creating stadiums where other humans can watch humans and non humans being tortured and killed.
As Mark Twain said, humanity is the only animal that blushes, or needs to.
However, since humans are flawed the rules they come up with are flawed too, or they cant police them.
People mock religion but the "fall of Man" myth has some basis in truth. Humans are detached form Nature in some fashion and its often a source of their problems. The new agey techno-geeks who think progress and secular materialism will lead to salvation arent any better than their fanatical theist cousins.
Sioux Rose
WEBBER: For a long time debates have raged between nature (the givens of instinc & genetics) and nurture (how we are raised). You completely avoid the FACT that human beings have been socialized to fit into general warring/competing tribes. There is evidence of other types of social arrangements that do not give rise to the examples you mention. That America is listed with some of the world's most brutal regimes for its insistence on atrocities like capital punishment, its media AWASH in vile/violent imagery, its jingoistic championing of the military as "heros," and other macho/mars rules programming... THESE daily infusions play a huge role in the behaviors that arise. The vast majority may be able to swim in a sea of such sewage without killing their neighbors, but the loose screws (who exist in any society, that's the "luck of the draw") WILL act out what Jung calls "the shadow."
The point of my posting is that we should not be arguing for the entire scope of human nature when using the dietary analogy, it's been fed a diet of shit for so damned long! And the ism divisions--cutting out the voice of the (Divine) feminine (and I don't mean WOMEN long conditoned by Mars-rules macho/patriarchal standards and institutions), various races, the Indigenous, etc. ONE major perspective has driven us to where we are, and it's the martial white male of privilege and whatever crumbs he allots to others on the basis of HIS determinations, this idiocy being passed off as God's will in the same disgusting manner Bush tried to say the Middle East war was also sanctified by his god. As if Jesus would ever...
Hi there Webber. The question is to what extent does growing-up in this world cause people to become horrible?
If a child is born into a world where they are scared from day one(as this artical suggests), and then also induced to desire things they often cannot have, what is the result? I do not agree that people are naturally bad, some maybe, others are not, but even if some are born bad(I don't see it, but it could happen I suppose) they can choose not to be, when they are old enought to.
Say what you want about theist, they will always have a moral superiority over other forms of thinking. WHY? Because every faith has a foundationary belief, in human dignaty; Hypocrites, do however taint the pot, often that's there job.
I wish you well.