Leviathan, by Thomas Hobbes, strongly intones the coming thoughts and deliberations emphasizing scientific reasoning seen in the Enlightenment. He lays out each side of every scenario and
argument for the commonwealth in such a way not to confuse
the reader, but so that the reader can draw his or her own conclusions based on
reason and logic.
In the tones of a realist, he
admits that man’s natural state is a constant condition of war due to fear of
death and oppression. This may be due to his own personal state of constant fear due to the time of his birth and his upbringing in an ever-violent world- the time of the English Civil Wars (Leviathan: Context).
Also admitting the need for a social contract,
in which two or more parties mutually give up certain rights, such as the right
to attack each other, in order to ensure their mutual survival, implies
the ideals of a liberal mindset, in which rational arrangements can be reached. Acknowledging evidence on both sides, makes Hobbes’ argument ambiguous in terms of
realism or liberalism.
Yet, Hobbes also critically focuses on
the construction of language, its relevance to the ways in which thoughts
and ideas are communicated and how this shapes society. Human life is
understood through common language and actions, including religion (which made him a very unpopular man once Leviathan was published). Hobbes mathematically depicts
the construction of society from the very basic beginning of any movement of matter signaling a “sense” in a human being, which leads to a train of though or
“imagination”, communicated through words or “speech”, which are defined based
on geometrical terms of aversion and desire leading to action. The use of
reason, or deliberation of experience and memory, makes possible the creation
of a social contract creating peace between two or more parties.
This detailed focus on the
construction of the social contract and the natural state of man (a constant
state of war), which can be escaped through these social contracts, implies
that Hobbes was more of a constructivist. This constructivist perspective
guides Hobbes to lean toward the possibility of those contractual agreements
which liberalism promotes. However, the contract will only be valid as long as it can provide peace and security, which is a reflection of the tenets of realism.
Therefore, Hobbes is neither a liberal,
nor a realist, but rather a constructivist. The possibility of peace and
security depends upon the experience of those who create the contracts and the
ability of those parties to then uphold the contracts. But once the ability to maintain peace and security is absent, the contract is void and man begins again in a natural state of war, beginning the process again.
Taylor -
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to see that Hobbes can be described as a "constructivist" even though he is highly regarded by realists. I tend to agree with you though, he doesn't fit squarely into the realist frame of mind. He is a blend of the two perspectives, both realist and liberal or as you mentioned, neither. Instead he can be considered a constructivist, which blends Hobbes' main views from each.
I also found your description of Hobbes' focus on language and religion interesting. In fact, he mentions Leviathan does not contradict the "Word of God". It is interesting to see Hobbes mention some of the "non physical boundaries" such as religion in the international realm.
Taylor, like you, I also found Hobbes' beliefs on contracts to be of interest. I particularly liked Chapter 15 were he lists the laws of nature which help emphasize the importance of the contract. Like most topics in the book, the laws seems to continually build upon each other, but all the laws are ultimately used to provide more strength to the idea of a moral contract.
ReplyDeleteLooking at how much detail Hobbes goes into in regards to contracts, it's certainly reasonable to conclude he is taking a more liberal stance, or even a constructivist view as you pointed out.
I hear your instinct, but defining concepts does not make one a constructivist. Let me try to be clear: those concepts, for Hobbes, do *not* have other legitimate meanings. He works very hard to give each concept very particular meanings as a strategy to head-off other interpretations. This runs counter the typical IR constructivist (which is a contentious claim itself, and probably best tackled some other time!).
ReplyDelete