A Note on Two Texts: Leviathan and Discourse on Inequality
by Yvy Truong
I still want to talk about Leviathan a little bit because from my last blog post, I think I missed the mark on Hobbes! I still don’t understand him but I’m still trying.
So from what I heard, last seminar (the one that I missed), the group talked about …
1) Why Hobbes thought monarchy was the best for of government
and
2) If today’s society is much like a Hobbesian sovereignty (as it can also be a democracy)
With number one, why Hobbes thought monarchy was the best way to go, I think I want to look at it more in a historical context (if you can say that). I think Hobbes doesn’t like democracy for the same reason Plato didn’t like democracy. From what I know, democracy was dramatically different than how we practice democracy today. We have proportional representation whereas before it was the practice of oratory. Plato (from what I believe and remember), feared that whoever spoke well everyone would agree and follow them. That worries me and I can see how that would worry everyone else. However, I do not know how democracy was practised during Hobbes time, so maybe I missed the mark again.
And if todays society is much like a Hobbesian sovereignty… Hm, I think I would have to understand Hobbes a but more but if from what I do know, I can see how it can be fitting. Speaking specifically of Canada, I think everyone more or less, have common values and we have a certain identity that we like to uphold. Though we aren’t all exactly the same and we are trying to live our own lives and whatnot, we are nevertheless Canadians and try to fit in the stereotype… Does that make sense?
But enough about Hobbes!
I thought Discourse on Inequality was nice to read and I guess that is what is so appealing about Rousseau. The way he writes is miles away from Leviathan (though they were written in different times). To add, during the time of the Enlightenment, reading wasn’t mean for everyone. It was meant for the scholars and the educated and not for the everyday person (then after the Enlightenment came the Early Romantics and Romantics), so the way Rousseau writes really does feel a lot more… Refreshing. But I will admit, I don’t agree with him. I find that he’s too nostalgic for an age he didn’t see. Actually, during lecture I was reminded of the movie Midnight In Paris.
I think I’ll make another blog post explaining more on what I mean later today
I think you’re right on the mark for one of the reasons Plato didn’t like democracy, but Hobbes’ reasons are somewhat different. He thinks that democracy can be inefficient & unstable in the sense of having policies change quickly with different people in office, that with a lot of people in the sovereign there is much more chance for those in power to use their position to help their friends rather than the state, among other reasons. Plato may have agreed with these too, come to think of it.
As for whether our government here in Canada could be like a Hobbesian sovereign, the issue isn’t so much whether we all share the same values–that’s not necessarily what a Hobbesian sovereign will require in a state. We need to share the same values in terms of agreeing to follow the laws, but in all other things that the sovereign doesn’t legislate about (and the laws should just be about promoting peace and security), we’re free to think and do what we wish. So we can be quite different. Rather, one could look at what he says the powers of the sovereign are, what the sovereign can and should do, and to see if our government has those same powers (which it does, pretty much).
The main differences, as I see them, between the current Canadian governmental system and a Hobbesian sovereign include: we split up the government into different bodies, so the legislative and judicial functions are separate, for example. Hobbes thought that was dangerous, because then you can have infighting within the sovereign itself, which is not conducive to peace and security. The sovereign also has to follow a higher set of laws (e.g., the constitution, charter of rights and freedoms), and the Hobbesian sovereign is not subject to any law. This is because to be subject to a law there should be a higher power holding you to it, but for a Hobbesian sovereign there is no higher power (or else THAT would be the sovereign).
So much for Hobbes!
Curious why Rousseau reminded you of Midnight in Paris!