Hobbes – A Bourgeois Model of Society?
Hobbes - A Bourgeois Model of Society?
An evaluation of C.B.MacPherson's criticism of Hobbes
Hobbes nevertheless ... built his whole system on deductions from a model of man and a model of society which were, ... models of bourgeois man and capitalist society."1
C.B. Macpherson was a Canadian political philosopher who searched for a better model of society than that which he believed existed in the liberal democracies of the world. These democracies, he suggested, had become removed from true democratic principles by the cogency of the temptations provided by capitalism to the individual. "Almost everything he said was in relation to possessive individualism"2 - and his introduction to Hobbes Leviathan was clearly given over to this perspective.
The purpose of this essay is briefly to give account of Hobbes' view of the political and social nature of man, and then to evaluate the analysis of this view provided by C. B. MacPherson. In particular, one of MacPherson's conclusions: that although Hobbes' model of society could only be defined as a capitalist model, the bourgeoisie were not willing to embrace Hobbes and accept his theories, will be examined.
Hobbes could, perhaps, be described as a 'child of his time'. He lived through the social chaos of the English civil war, which gave him much opportunity to observe the conflictual side of man's nature. His prescription for society, contained within Leviathan, was based on what he believed makes man a conflictual animal. This prescription was directed towards creating a society that allowed for this basic conflictual nature of man and yet would permit people to live in relative peace and security.
Hobbes considered himself a scientific man3, and borrowed methods of reasoning from Galileo.4 He believed that the principle of perpetual motion (another of Galileo's influences) could be used as a basis for explaining how and why men acted as they did.5 Hobbes' method consisted of breaking down the actions of men to the 'simple' movements of the body and then postulating what he believed to be self-evident truths - such as an innate need to continue life. When his postulates were added to his basic observations a process of logical deduction led him to the final conviction that the only way ensuring a lasting peace was to have an all-powerful sovereign. This 'resolutive-compositive' method of reasoning was one of the things that led MacPherson to believe that Hobbes' model was of a bourgeois society. This is because Hobbes' postulates were based on the newly emerging bourgeois society that Hobbes lived in.6
Near to the starting point of Hobbes's journey, from bodily motion to sovereign power, was the theory that men were moved by external forces which acted on their internal makeup - their 'appetites' and 'aversions'. Chapter 6 of Leviathan considered the qualities of these appetites in detail and the conclusion drawn was that man is driven to pursue his own self-interest (though the strength of this pursuit will be different in different men) to achieve a state of 'felicity'.
"There is no such thing as perpetual tranquillity of mind while we live here; because life it selfe is but Motion, and can never be without desire,"7
Another basic postulate was that all men are equal. Equality in the Hobbesian sense would point to the basic ability of all men to be able to achieve certain things. For example the smallest child would be capable of killing the strongest giant as he slept, and several people could plot together to other throw anyone who might pose a threat.
Having established how a man is motivated to ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
"There is no such thing as perpetual tranquillity of mind while we live here; because life it selfe is but Motion, and can never be without desire,"7
Another basic postulate was that all men are equal. Equality in the Hobbesian sense would point to the basic ability of all men to be able to achieve certain things. For example the smallest child would be capable of killing the strongest giant as he slept, and several people could plot together to other throw anyone who might pose a threat.
Having established how a man is motivated to act and that basically everyone is equal, Hobbes considered what allows him to actually achieve his desires and concluded that it is a man's power that is the enabling factor. For Hobbes:
"The power of a man is his present means, to obtain some future apparent Good."8
A man's 'present means' would include both his natural abilities such as strength and intelligence and also the ability to use the power of others, perhaps through wealth. However, Hobbes theorised, the measure of a man's power must be made in relation to that of other men and because man was always 'in motion' he:
"... cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more"9
Thus the acquisition of power is conflictual. MacPherson points to Hobbes' claim that some men have an unquenchable thirst for power as the cause for conflict10 however it would surely be possible for peaceful accumulation so long as there was an unending supply of 'power'. The more likely cause is the combination of desire for more where there is only a limited supply available.
Hobbes combined his beliefs about the nature of man and used inductive reasoning to create a picture of society in a 'state of nature' where there was no man made law or state to protect the individual. His imaginary picture was one where incessant conflict led to the world being devoid of security and artistic accomplishments and:
"... the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish and short."11
In such a situation Hobbes believed that man would use reason and see that, in order to achieve a long term goal of 'commodious living' and to avoid a quick death, it would be necessary to make a 'social contract' whereby everyone gave up some of their power to a universal sovereign who would have the responsibility of keeping the contractors safe. Such sovereign power would be best vested in a single person although Hobbes admitted that a group or body of men would also be capable of performing the role. In either case Hobbes believed that the sovereign body must have the ability to choose its successor without further reference to the contractors.12 Further, the contractors would also owe allegiance to the sovereign for as long as (and no longer) it was able to protect them and maintain their way of life.13 Although Hobbes did not claim that seventeenth century England was living in a state of nature, he did believe that his theory proved the need for the existence of state authority and best of all a single sovereign whose power was neither god given nor dependent on the changing views of individual members of the society. This was a formula that was likely to displease both king and parliament (and, MacPherson argues,14 the bourgeoisie) equally.
In his introduction to Leviathan, MacPherson demonstrated how he believed that the model of society that Hobbes built is, characteristically, bourgeois and individualist,15 and, further, that it could only be such. MacPherson used powerful arguments to illustrate his analysis. As we have already seen MacPherson believed that the postulates used by Hobbes, combined with Hobbes' method of deduction, ensured that Hobbes' model would be bourgeois in nature. Further, he showed how equality, as defined by Hobbes, is a capitalist equality. Each person is equal in so far as they are able to make their own choices, and are free to make bargains as they see fit - the sovereign power is merely to protect this right and not regulate it. Further MacPherson claimed that in a Hobbesian society:
"... the value or worth of a man is simply his price, that is, so much as would be given for the use of his power."16
This proposition has obvious similarities with the idea that, in a capitalist society, labour is a commodity to be bought and sold.
However, is a bourgeois society the only society that would fit into Hobbes' model as MacPherson claimed? For instance, if one took Hobbes' proposition that the appetite for power was different in different men, 17 and then that all men entered into Hobbes' social contract, would it not be possible to create a feudal system of society? If, as Hobbes believed, men were capable of using reason, then a feudal system might indeed work best. If those men with a smaller appetite for power reasoned that it were better to allow others to have more power then so be it - there was always the sovereign to protect their life and commodious living. While, as Hobbes demonstrated, men have a constant need to seek more power in the state of nature (in order to survive), once they have made their social contract will that need not diminish? They have limited the sphere in which they can develop their personal power in return for a long-term benefit of peace and stability. Surely this is the essence of a hierarchical society? The problem is that if the social contract allows for the equality of men (and their ability to acquire the power of others) to continue after the contract has been made then there is a recipe for discontentment. If people can trade to increase their power then there will be a perception that some have gained whilst others have lost - probably the strong gaining at the expense of the weak. While a person may have entered into a social contract at one level, and would not object to moving up in the hierarchy, it is unlikely that he will wish to move down. MacPherson considers this type of criticism of Hobbes, but only briefly.18 When it is levelled at a bourgeois Hobbesian society, he dismisses it altogether,19 and yet, moving on, it would certainly provide an explanation why the bourgeoisie did not accept Hobbes.
If, by capitalist endeavour the rich wished to get richer they could not accept a society that was 'locked' into a fixed distribution of power and a sovereign power that would protect this distribution. MacPherson claimed that a bourgeois interpretation of Hobbes' model would allow for classes,20 but recognises that this would be so only where:
"... the members of all classes are acknowledged to have an equal need for continued motion"21
However, a scientific (Hobbesian) approach would suggest that there can be no action without a reaction - if power is measured relatively then when one man's power increases another's must decrease. Marx claimed that the capitalists used the power of their wealth to increase the divisions between themselves and the proletariat but why should Hobbes's contractees allow such a situation to occur? If the sovereign does not protect their way of life then they are entitled to tear up the contract.22 Perhaps the bourgeoisie needed a contract that they could vary to their advantage without the proletariat having the ability to rescind it?
Instead, MacPherson presented a different explanation of why the bourgeois class did not rally to Hobbes' 'capitalist' model.23 The main problem, MacPherson believed, was with Hobbes' requirement that the sovereign be self-perpetuating and that Hobbes did not allow for the cohesiveness of the bourgeoisie as a class.24 How could the bourgeoisie accept the possibility of losing control of a society when they were already, or very close to being, the 'ruling class'? Why should they commit themselves to a 'locked' society when by a series of shorter-term administrations they could hope to achieve the power to mould that society to their own model? Of course this is an extremely good point but it does not explain why, when (as MacPherson himself pointed out) the bourgeoisie attained a sovereign Parliament largely controlled by themselves in 1689,25 they did not embrace Hobbes wholeheartedly.
If Hobbes was a 'child of his time' then so too was MacPherson. Writing at a time when the cold war was it its zenith, and supposedly Marxist societies were becoming as powerful as their capitalist counterparts, MacPherson may be forgiven for believing that a more socially supportive type of society may have been about to develop. He concludes his introduction to Leviathan by saying:
"Hobbes built better than he knew, and better than most of his modern critics know. If his prescription has run out, it is only because bourgeois society, after three hundred years, is no longer self-renewing."26
Perhaps, with the end of the cold war, the global economy and international terrorism, Hobbes built better than even MacPherson realised and his prescription is still good.
Bibliography
Clarke, Hobbes's Theory of Human Nature: A Warning to Libertarians', Libertarian Alliance, 1995
Gauthier, 'The Logic of Leviathan', Oxford, 1969
Henriksen, 'C.B.MacPherson's theory of liberal democracy', http: //folk.uuio.no/oyvinhhe/phil/cbm.html
Hobbes, 'Leviathan'
MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968
MacPherson, 'The Political theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke', Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1962
Weber, 'History of Philosophy - Thomas Hobbes', http://www.ets. Uidaho.edu/mickelsen/texts/Weber%20-%History/hobbes.htm
Woolf, 'An Introduction to Political Philosophy', Osgood (1996)
MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968
2 Henriksen, 'C.B.MacPherson's theory of liberal democracy', http: //folk.uuio.no/oyvinhhe/phil/cbm.html
3 See MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968 pp 10-11
4 ibid pp 25-26
5 ibid p 19
6 Ibid p 57
7 Leviathan pp129-130
8 Leviathan Ch10 p 41
9 ibid p 47
0 See MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968 p36
1 Leviathan, Ch13 p63
2 Ibid, Ch 19 p99
3 Leviathan, Ch 21 p 114
4 see MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968 pp 54-60
5 Ibid, pp 38-39 & 48-50
6 Ibid p51
7 See Ch 6 Leviathan p 24
8 See MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968 pp 60-61
9 See MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968 pp 62-63
20 Ibid pp 59-60
21 ibid p60
22 See Leviathan Ch 21 p 114
23 MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968 pp 55-60
24 MacPherson, 'Introduction' in Hobbes Leviathan, ed C.B.MacPherson, London: Penguin, 1968 p56
25 Ibid p 53
26 Ibid p63
Hobbes - A Bourgeois
Model of Society?
Page 2 of 10
