HUM
3306: HISTORY OF IDEAS
Locke
is a very logical thinker; but sometimes his splitting a main point into
subpoints, or his charting out all the nuances of a political idea, will make
him sound repetitious. And
sometimes the sentences will seem never to end. In the past, however, I have found that
if you patiently read and re-read, even the most seemingly knotted-up passages
make sense, and that much of the prose is actually a pleasure to read once you
get the hang of it.
Background
and Chronology
Political
theorists of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries often sought to explain and
justify political systems (in which there are rulers, judges, written laws,
police, and so on) by speculating upon the so-called "state of nature" that
hypothetically came before such systems.
"To understand political power right, and derive it from its original,"
Locke writes, "we must consider, what state all men are naturally in" (paragraph
#4). Thomas Hobbes, a British
philosopher living roughly a generation before Locke, in his well-known
political treatise, Leviathan (1651), said life in the state of nature
was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He theorized that we bond together via a
social compact or contract, and relinquish all power and freedom into the hands
of an absolute monarch, who supposedly will adjudicate disputes and maintain the
general welfare of everyone. Hobbes
thought that this ruler must have unrestricted, absolute power, for only thus
could order be maintained over our otherwise "brutish" inclinations. Once established, the sovereignty of the
monarch could not be contested (the "leviathan" of the title refers to the power
of the monarch). Sir Robert Filmer,
the man Locke is arguing against at the beginning of the Second Treatise,
said that kings are divinely appointed because they are Adam's heirs. Locke and his aristocratic patron, the
Earl of Shaftesbury, felt that the British king (Charles II) was tyrannical,
abusing the citizens of the kingdom and infringing upon their various
rights.
You
don't need to memorize the dates below, but try to get a sense of the time
period in which Locke is writing.
1517 Martin Luther's 95
Theses. Protestant reformation
begins. Increasingly, major
thinkers will challenge authority and received traditions in politics, religion,
and science.
1521 Conquest of
1603 Queen Elizabeth dies; James I
rules until 1625; Charles I until 1649.
1607 Founding of
1616 Shakespeare
dies.
1620 "Pilgrim Fathers," a sect of
British Puritans, land at
1632 Locke born in
1637 Descartes' Meditations
published (in which appears the most famous line in philosophy, "I think,
therefore I am").
1642 English Civil War begins
(country divided between pro-Catholic loyalists to Charles I and Protestant
landed nobleman and propertied classes, who feel the king has disregarded their
traditional rights and privileges; more democratical, radical groups--the
Levellers--are also against the king).
1649 Charles I is beheaded;
Cromwell, a radical Puritan, leads the parliamentary Commonwealth to
1660.
1651 Hobbes' Leviathan (a
famous political treatise defending absolute monarchy)
published.
1652 Locke begins study of
philosophy and medicine at
1660 Restoration of monarchy in
1667 Locke enters the Earl of
Shaftesbury's service.
1682 After conspiring to rebel
against Charles II, Shaftesbury must flee to
1683 Locke also flees to
1685 Charles II, on the throne
since 1660, dies; James II (a Catholic) becomes king.
1687
1688 English "Glorious
Revolution." William III
(Protestant) usurps the throne, by invitation
of
Parliament (from now on, government in
1689 Parliament issues Bill of
Rights--no law can be suspended by the King.
1690 Locke's Essay Concerning
Human Understanding published.
Main theory is that our
minds
are "blank slates" when we are born.
There are no inborn ideas (traditional Christian notion of innate
depravity, the inheritance of Adam and Eve's sin, loses validity for
intellectuals of the period); we gain knowledge only through experience and our
environment. Consequently,
education becomes very important--perhaps humankind can be perfected in the
progress of time. Combined with
optimism from
1690 Two Treatises on Civil
Government published, to legitimate the overthrow of James
II.
1702 William III dies. Queen Anne reigns to
1714.
1704 Locke dies.
Study/Review
Questions
1-3 In the
First Treatise (referred to as the "foregoing discourse" in Chapter 1 of the
Second Treatise), Locke argued against the notion of the divine right of
kings. Locke sums up his argument
in Chapter I: what does he say about the relationship of present rulers'
authority to Adam's rule?
4-6 Imagine you
are the director of a movie-documentary of Locke's treatise: what opening scenes
would you shoot to illustrate the "state of nature," as Locke describes it
here? How does he describe the way
individuals interact, before governments exist? Is the "state of nature" lawless? If it is not lawless, how are its laws
known? Do we have any obligations
in the "state of nature"?
7
How do you relate Locke's earlier idea about the state of nature being "a
state of perfect freedom" (paragraph #4) to the idea here about the need for
"all men to be restrained from invading others' rights"? What does he mean when he writes "the
execution of the law of nature is ... put into every man's
hands"?
11 Why
do you think Locke compares murderers and other breakers of the law to
animals?
12
According to Locke, in the state of nature, how much can you punish a
transgressor of the law? Imagine
you live in the state of nature, without government: you discover your neighbor
has stolen your favorite pig. What
do you do? What would an
appropriate punishment be?
13 Does
Locke seem to think that everyone having "executive" power in the state of
nature would lead to a Mad Max sort of world? What does Locke refer to when he speaks
of the "inconveniences of the state of nature"? Does Locke seem to envision the state of
nature in this section in the same way that he did earlier in Chapter
I?
19 Locke
says that the state of nature and the state of war are distinct? On what basis does he make this
distinction? What does he mean in
this section when he uses the phrases "common superior" or "common judge"?
20 Locke
gives a "great reason for men's putting themselves into society and quitting the
state of nature: that is, for creating a community with an explicit
government. What is the reason?
23 When,
according to Locke, is slavery justified?
25
Initially, in the state of nature, who owns property? Restate for yourself what Locke proposes
to "shew" at the end of this paragraph.
26-30 According to Locke, what gives an
individual a right to property? Is
this right to property conferred by society-at-large, by government, and if by
neither, by what?
31 In
the state of nature, how much property can you accumulate? Should you be able to kill, say, three
deer if you and your kin could only eat one deer for dinner?
32 How
does land become private property?
33
& 36
Why, initially, would there be little competition for land?
37 Try
to envision how a society without money would function. Why, before the invention of money, was
it more or less "impossible for any man" to acquire so much property as to harm
his neighbor?
37
& 40-44
Write (for yourself) a brief paragraph explaining why mankind as
a whole benefits from the labor of each.
This is the key argument for Locke's thesis that the right to keep the
fruits of one's labor (property) is for the common benefit, and is not merely
one person getting wealthy at the expense of others. Pay attention to Locke's references to
Indians (the inhabitants of the "
46-50 Write (again, for yourself) a brief
paragraph describing the effect of money on economic life. How have we "agreed to a
disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth" (#50)? A final question to ponder: go back to
#37 and answer this question: according to Locke, does the invention of money
allow us to satisfy an innate acquisitive urge, or does it create greed in the
first place? What do you think
Locke would say about the Donald Trumps of the world?
Summary of Locke's Argument about Property
--you own your
body/own labor of your body
--mixing your labor
with nature’s stuff removes it from common ownership (granted by the Bible,
Locke says, in the lines about Adam getting dominion of the earth and its
creatures) and makes it yours
--this makes sense
because it is labor activity that makes natural resources of true value (e.g., the
coconut has no use until you pick it up or climb a palm tree to get it)
--Locke does not
have a strong concept of ecological stewardship or communal labor, because he
is so preoccupied with individualistic labor and individualistic
acquisition
--he does say,
though, that you only get to convert to private property what can be used without
spoiling (actually, the no-spoiling rule could maybe be used against Locke and
modern conspicuous consumption: i.e. if Donald Trump’s many mansions lay
vacant…???)
--labor in the form
of tillage etc = “inclose it from the common”: you can acquire real estate
--ok because lots
of land (all the world in the foggy historical beginning) “was
--“God gave the
world ...to the use of the industrious and rational” i.e. not Indians
--Locke does not
elaborately explain how a barter economy would work; he only says surplus goods
are exchanged for needed goods, which also avoids the problem of spoiling
--he jumps to
money: “it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal
possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found
out a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the
product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which
may be hoarded up without injury to any one; these metals not spoiling or
decaying in the hands of the possessor”
--did desire to
hoard (beyond immediate use) create the need for gold? Locke is ambiguous
--or did the capacity of gold to permit hoarding create the hoarding desire?
Locke is ambiguous (his brief puzzlement is an example of the classic nature/nurture
debate: do we indulge certain behaviors, which “civilization”/culture then
codifies or aids in the satisfaction of; or, are we only nurtured, via “civilization”/culture,
to have certain desires
Summary of Locke's Ideas
about Revolution: a Guidebook to When You can Revolt, or Not
1) Has the ruler
made his/her ambition or will more important than preserving the law and the
citizens the law in turn protects (section 199)? If you answer “yes,” continue.
2) Can you appeal
to a court system that might provide remedy (207)? If “yes” you can’t revolt. If “no”, continue
3) Are only a few
individuals abused (208)? (Locke gets
fuzzy here: would he have a serious problem with, say, the pre-Civil Rights
era?)
4) Can the majority
see a train of abuses leading towards tyranny (209-210)? Hmmm… starting to get tricky. Abuse might only
be in the eye of the beholder!
5) Is the ruling
power/gov't malfunctioning = misuse of power (219). Again: requires interpretation. If I lived in
6) Must be able to escape before you are under the heal of the
tyrant, so, rather tricky yet again, you should revolt against a tyrant before
full tyranny has become manifest (which sort of contradicts # 4 above) (220)
7) Ultimately,
whether you are righteously revolting from a bad ruler, or are recklessly
rebelling and are simply a beastly “discontent” is unclear: only
"impartial history" can determine (230). Example: John Brown, the pre-Civil War
radical abolitionist, was thought to be a madman in his day and was hung for
sedition; today, he’s a hero.
Review of Locke's Entire Argument
1) In the state of nature no one is subordinate
to another: all have equal rights (life/liberty) and executive/judge power.
--reason lets us
know this (We “hold these truths to be self evident”
--divine right of
kings/absolute monarchy, based on genealogical descent from Adam, is bogus
2) But peace is precarious:
much insecurity because we might not use our power rationally.
--might punish too
much
--some (lacking
reason) might attempt to dominate others (Locke does not have a psychological
vocabulary for the irregular use of power: maybe we need Freud to pathologize
power? Or the lust for treasure/money?)
3) Social contract
emerges: we transfer our power to the state /gov't by consent.
--gov’t then
assumes judge/executive power
--takes care of
what he calls “inconveniences” of the state of nature
--Locke’s is an
analytical/theoretical rather than strictly or realistic anthropological/temporal-historical
argument. Antecedent rights are needed
to validate a state that protects them or to condemn a state that doesn’t. Let me say this more emphatically: it is very
difficult to condemn racism or torture if you don’t believe that fundamental
trans-cultural, universal human rights exist.
“Proving” that such rights exist, without a transcendental deity notion
(where Locke begins), is almost impossible.
4) In return, the
individual gains security (life, liberty, property)
5) Do you remember
consenting? thus Chapters VI, VII, VIII
in which such elements as children’s acceptance of the social contract by
virtue of inheritance are argued (Locke could have said inheritance is bad,
based on the importance of labor value, but instead he makes inheritance the
glue that binds the social contract thru time… very convenient for the
accumulation of capital over time!!!)
6) Sure, you can
revolt, but the rules are tricky (master rhetorician Thomas Jefferson applied
them, apparently rather compellingly, in the Declaration of Independence)