Thomas Hobbes and The Fear of Ourselves.
Written by James Hawkins
What is the role of the state in our lives? This key question forms the context for the third article in this series of an examination of political ideals and philosophy.
We are individuals who exist and live within a realm of others, and we obey and abide by a series of norms, of rules, and standards laid down by family, or community, but on a political level. It is the kallipolis, the state, that moulds and defines our parameters within life, and indeed, as reflected recently in the assisted suicide bill, through death; it is to the state we turn to for protection, for education, for welfare and in many respects, it defines our lives.
And yet there exists a delicate balance and imbalance in the relationship between the individual and the state. Our relationship with the state is also a relationship with ourselves; our rationality and irrationality – how do we see ourselves.
For Hobbes, who we will examine later, we are defined through the state, as in the state of nature, we are anarchic creatures who will stop at nothing to gain individual autonomy; so, we turn to Hobbes in the third article to try to define the nature of ourselves, through the prism of The Leviathan.
How do we view ourselves? Trump’s recent burning of the last vestiges of the post-war rules-based series of norms demonstrates either a vainglorious last stand of populism against the omnipotent drive of globalisation, or indeed, a reversion to an inherent guttural reaction to the liberal creed of Utopian idealism. Liberalism aspires to the breaking of bread and a belief in the virtues of the human spirit through discussion, dialogue and the virtues of communication. Globalisation, post Fordism and a postmodern reaction to the fall of communism and the rise of individuality, have played into the orchestra of agreement, individuality and harmony; we can have dialogue with oligarchs, we can use the BWI’s and the EU as a new world order to form consensual agreement, trade freedoms and cultural acceptance on a multinational scale – we can reject our fears and be rational.
Yet look to the realist. Realism looks to the liberal as a utopian moralist, one who disregards the reality of our existence, a perpetuity of irrational behaviours which see the development of war. Power, not ideals, is the main driver of society; Thucydides, Machiavelli and Hobbes look at history through a lens of not what should be or ought to be, but what is. What unites the post First World war recession and ultimately the Great Depression and post 2008 Banking Crisis; liberal utopianism, economic prolificacy, idealism and the politics identity, and therefore, and this can be empirically evidenced, the march to war; the rise of utopianism and the rejection of the principles of power, history demonstrates, leads to war.
EH Carr argues, that “in the international order, the role of power is greater and that of morality less.” Just as Athens would battle Sparta, and Parliament would do battle with the Monarch, Vladimir Putin does battle with the West. For decades, Putin has watched and seen a decadent west, getting fat on the liberal ideals of the rejection of family, of morality, drug taking and dividual hedonism that erodes the family and national spirit; the west, through liberal idealism and rational ideals, is there for the taking, just as The Weimar Republic, with its hedonism fell as the left dissipated in the face of fascism. Morality offers a facade or balm against the realities of our existence; it is obsessed with morals, and for this reason that the West cannot see the wood for the fascist or authoritarian trees;
"Like the alchemists, they were content to advocate highly imaginative solutions whose relation to existing facts was one of flat negation."
The facts of history present a consistency of antagonism and warfare – an overt dynamic of conquered and those who conquer, and if we deny this historical precedent, we are denying a reality which is overt reality in 2025. Contemporary international politics; the rise of populism, the political discontent of masses, the disconnect between the herd of mass and the bourgeoise elites, is a consistent theme through history. As in the inter-war period were the neglect of economic demand, the weakening and fragmentation of the left, and the subsequent rise of fascism, witnessed a war so vast it was to see the death of hundreds of millions, the construction of the Cold War, the rise of authoritarian murder in China and ultimately, US hegemony.
There are parallels today; identity and the reinterpretation of the term progression, has given carte blanche to authoritarianism from Russia to Turkey, to flout the liberal rules-based post war order. Carr sees neither universal value nor legitimacy in the liberal interpretation of international relations to challenge realism. Rules based international orders, based upon liberal values and progression, simply lead to war, as he argues that those who aspire to the moral are in deceit; they are concealing their own agenda and interests, shrouded by a form of morality that simply is not based in reality of politics – morality is not politics, idealism is not power, he argues,
“Just as the ruling class in a community prays for domestic peace, which guarantees its own security and predominance, … so international peace becomes a special vested interest of predominant powers” ………… “pure realism can offer nothing but a naked struggle for power which makes any kind of international society impossible.”
And so, to Hobbes, and the question at hand – does fear of the state offer a form of realistic safety from oppression; the paradox of safety through the loss of individual autonomy; a social contract. Hobbes is the first and most important of the modern political theorists; and the emphasis is on the political solution to our lives – politics is an answer to our irrational selfish desires. This may sound simplistic, and yet Hobbes defines for the contemporary political generation – post English Civil War, or indeed the English Revolution and assertion pf parliamentary democracy, the emphasis on the politics of power and human’s relationship to this and indeed an individual’s nature. Hobbes defines politics. We are creatures of irrationality who are slaves to our instincts and passions, we are designed to rule nature, conquer our surroundings and defeat our enemies; we are a force of nature that cannot be pacified without another force, as we are driven by our pride, ego and self-determinism; Hobbes declares,
“In the first place, I put for a general inclination of all mankind a perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death. And the cause of this is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight than he has already attained, or that he cannot be content with a moderate power; but because he cannot assure the power and the means to live well which he has at present, without the acquisition of more”.
It is here, within The Leviathan, the most classic piece of political literature that Hobbes denies not just a political discourse, but our human nature. As EH Carr passionately railed against, there is no play the idle connection of morality and politics, but the perpetuality of a pursuit of power; and this will not cease. And it is this perpetuality which does resonate with the realist; from the first stone to be thrown in the defence of a riverbank or the use of metals to carve objects of war – we are creatures of subjugation.
There is a realistic pessimism within Hobbes, an understanding of the true lens of how we should and have to view history; the state of nature of one of anarchy. And yet, Hobbes, the first modern thinker, does not simply let the veil of pessimism drown the light of political power – as Hannah Arendt was later to famously argue, violence is not politics, it never can and once the sword is mightier than the ballot box, the political realm is withdrawn; violence, is always and simply violence – it is not politics. So, with Hobbes, there is a paradox at play; though our nature is one driven to realign an anarchic world and produce a degree of stability, it is this stability that we ultimately crave – though pessimistic, though realistic and stubbornly anti idealist, the realism of Hobbes is driven by a “general rule of reason”. Hobbes identifies our natural state of war and pessimism, but he is a liberal; we have an ability to challenge this state of nature as we search for a political state where;
“The first branch, of which Rule, containeth the first, and Fundamentall Law of Nature; which is, "To seek Peace, and follow it."
The Second, the summe of the Right of Nature; which is, "By all means we can, to defend ourselves."4
Therefore, though Hobbes’ realism looks through the prism of men’s brutality and striving for power, the nature of government and the state, is to strive for peace. The “general rule of reason” is paramount in the search of peace; the natural state of nature, is war, it “nasty, brutish, and short” but through a social contract the rational individual can forge a relationship with the state, with the sea monster of the Leviathan, and can negotiate the ebbs and flows of our brutality and search for peace; the state of war, though perpetual, as overtly demonstrated in 2025, can be mitigated. It is obvious to all – war is irrational – it cannot be reconciled with Enlightened thinking and the progress that art, science, technology overtly offers; and yet it continues.
It will exist, and Hobbes’ recognizes this clearly, but it is in this recognition of this, where the genius of Hobbes is apparent. An acceptance of the omni presence of war, the all-encompassing nature of our pursuit of power, allows for an alternative, or indeed parallel alternative; the social contract. Hobbes, and Locke, who we will consider later in this series, arise from the Enlightenment period, not to reject God or the church, but to understand that through technology and progress, there is an alternative to war driven in the name of a God – the English Civil War and the certainties that were supplied by religion and God.
Progress, science and the art of political science could offer new certainties through the state rather than pure religion. A social contract between the individual and the state, an ember of contemporary, modern, classical liberalism, rose to define our modern form of citizenship; our relationship to and with the state. As with the realist school of thinking, the state now is everything, and this would have its origins with Hobbes. The perpetuality of war will make our lives a misery if we live a life as an anarchic irrational creature; our freedom is paramount to think, to engage with God/gods, and to pursue our potential, but it does not offer safety – to gain safety we relent on the perpetuality of freedom and release a part of us to the safeguarding arms of the Leviathan – the state. In essence, we forgo a degree of our freedom for our protection – we relent to a greater good that is not God.
As I looked to in article one, we are political animals, Hannah Arendt pursuing so eloquently the zoon politikon analogy of political solutions to our woes; and this is where Hobbes has taken us – classical liberalism ensures that we are rational creatures, free to move, to live and to live a life which is heralded by God as one that has autonomy over our decision making – but we obey the state, we accept the sovereignty of laws, designed and upheld by Parliament, enacted through the judiciary and above all, our lives are political. We, as individual political animals, can abide the laws constructed via and through our institutions, relent a degree of our freedoms to allow us to live prosperous and safe lives; in essence, we form a contract with the state – I will agree to relent some of my natural freedoms, to ensure I am protected by the state; I am a political citizen. Politics constructed the modern city state through this prism – we forfeit our autonomy, our will, not solely at the altar of God or gods, but through the political mechanisms of the state – politics, the role of the state, the Kallipolis, will offer the individual protection, maximise our individual potential, and offer us protection from our own deep seated insecurities, doubts and irrationality.
Hobbes, offers the first modern concept of this that we still abide by, cherish and protect today – thereby, saving us from ourselves.