Alternative Theory for 'The State of Nature' and 'The Social Contract'

In my discussions of anarchism I continually come across the Hobbesian theory of 'the state of nature.' For some reason, people use Hobbes as concrete evidence against the possibility of a human society without government. Usually referring to Hobbes' belief that: "The life of man..." in the state of nature is "... solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." (Hobbes, 292). In reality, Hobbes' concept of human nature, and even his approach to the argument, is flawed. He makes bold claims, essentially based on nothing, and applies them to political practice. He claims, for example, that humans are selfish, only interested in self-preservation, and violent. Hence, humans need a sovereign power to keep every one's violent tendencies in check.

Of course there are problems with Hobbes' theory. First, there is the problem of justification. Is Hobbes justified in saying what he does about human nature and the social contract? Hobbes believes human nature is basically violent. He gives three reasons for human violence: competition, diffidence, and glory. He applies this to man in the state of nature. If we apply simple empiricist principle, then we can criticize Hobbes' claims abouth the state of nature. Empiricism states: justified knowledge can only be gained through experience. If Hobbes has never experienced humans in the state of nature how can he claim that they are violent? Perhaps, it is not the case that humans are violent. It would seem that he cannot make this claim. He is merely stating conjecture about how a human might behave in the state of nature.

Hobbes may even commit the fallacy post hoc ergo procter hoc. Hobbes is essentially looking at the world he lives in, which was in a violent civil war, and applying it to the human in a state of nature. He essentially claims that because humans are violent now, they have always been violent and will always be violent. This is not necessarily the case. There is one central difference between man in the state of nature and the man being ruled. The difference is the ruler. Perhaps the ruler is the reason man has become violent. In the state of nature man could have been very peaceful. We must at least consider this possibility. Perhaps man may desire self preservation through community and generosity in the state of nature.

An examination of the Hobbesian man in the state of nature should show the utter arrogance of his claim. He says man in a state of nature is constantly in a war of all against all. He literally says: "... Every man against every man." (Hobbes, 592). In reality man has always been a pack animal. There were never men independently running around killing one another in the way Hobbes describes. In fact, humans were always working together to preserve his or her community, hunter gatherers are probably the best example of this. Since we have shown a flaw in the Hobbesian man in the state of nature, we can certainly criticize his theory of 'the social contract.'

The social contract essentially claims that men enter into an agreement wherein they give up their ability to use violence by giving all of their powers to a sovereign. In this way men are protected from one another by the sovereign. Again, Hobbes is merely speculating, and does not give us evidence. One could easily say the sovereign gained his power in another way. We have already seen that man probably lived in packs; then it is most probable that one pack simply dominated another, enslaved them, and then institutionalized their dominance so as to pass it on through the generations.

If this were true, then we would see that the sovereign never protected humans from one another. Rather, the sovereign simply dominated and exploited humans, which were once peaceful. Once domination was instilled in humans their sense of self worth became diminished and began lashing out because of it.

We now have reason not to believe some of the central claims of Hobbes. Among them is the belief that the sovereign protects humans from one another. Really, the sovereign is constantly trying to consolidate its power over humans. Murder, rape, poverty, theft, all of these crimes are people inflicting harm on one another and are still rampant in the sovereign's society. How does the sovereign protect us from one another? Through fear of punishment? The simple fact that these crimes are still being commited shows the ineptness of the sovereign's protection. How can a person actually consider the Hobbesian state of nature a good criticism of anarchism? Hobbes' concept of human nature was flawed and should not be regarded any longer.

_____________________________________________________________________


Works Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Classics of Moral and Political Theory: Fourth Edition. Ed. Morgan, Michael L. Hackett Publishing Company. IN. 2005. Page 592.