JOHN LOCKE'S
SECOND TREATISE
The Enlightenment overlaps, more or less, with the eighteenth century, the
century in which scientific discoveries and scientific disciplines (in
chemistry, geology, and so forth) begin to establish the scientific, rational
method and outlook that is still with us. John Locke is writing at the end
of the seventeenth century, and so, although he is very modern--in the sense
of setting up the ideology that undergirds representational, constitutional
democracy and the rights of every individual to own property and to have that
property secured by the state (i.e., government)--he is also just a generation
removed from the end of the Renaissance period, which was lavishly devoted to
protecting not your property, but your position within the hierarchical social
ladder: i.e., some get to rule and others get to be ruled.
Locke is a very
logical thinker; but sometimes his splitting of a main point into several 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
Before you begin
reading Locke, you should reflect on how, although we often want our
philosophers and social thinkers and genius scientists--from Plato to
Einstein--to be articulating "universal" arguments or theories, good for any
era, they are also deeply embedded within their own time period. This
course introduces you to key ideas that will, if you attend to them with care,
shape your thinking. But you should also ponder the history of
the ideas; how thinkers, whatever their trans-historical pertinence, are a
product of their age.
And so it is with John Locke. His Second Treatise has shaped democracies around the world, yet his ideas emerged from a very
contentious, bloody civil war in the middle of the 17th-century in his native England.
When Locke talks about the protection of property and personal liberty, he
implicitly recollects the tumultuous politics of his age. The
Second Treatise shows his distrust and dislike of arbitrary monarchical rule
and yet also his anxiety over mob-like social disorder.
Political
theorists of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries often sought to explain and
justify their desired political systems (in which there are rulers, judges, written laws,
police, and so on) by envisioning 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
should 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). Hobbes' argument is a
pragmatic one, based on the necessity to secure peace through strong rule.
Sir Robert Filmer, the man Locke
is arguing against at the beginning of the Second Treatise, used a more
theological argument. Filmer 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. And so Locke begins the Second
Treatise by undermining the divine right notion, which otherwise
legitimized Charles II's rule.
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. The Protestant Reformation begins. Increasingly, major
thinkers will challenge authority and put into question received traditions in politics,
religion, and science.
1521 Conquest
of Mexico by Cortez. In one section of Locke's book, he refers to
"America" as a land of undeveloped natural resources--implying that imperial
takeover of such land is justified.
1603 Queen
Elizabeth dies; James I rules until 1625; Charles I until 1649.
1607 Founding
of Jamestown in Virginia.
1616
Shakespeare dies.
1620 "Pilgrim
Fathers," a sect of British Puritans, land at Plymouth.
1632 Locke born
in Somerset, England.
1637 Descartes'
Meditations published (in which appears the most famous line in
philosophy, "I think, therefore I am").
1642
The English
Civil War begins. The country is divided between those loyal to Charles
I (they are mostly pro-Catholic and aristocratic) and those rebelling against
him (Protestant middle-classes and Protestant noblemen).
1649 Charles I
is beheaded; Cromwell, a radical Puritan, leads the parliamentary Commonwealth
until 1660.
1651 Hobbes'
Leviathan (a famous political treatise defending absolute monarchy)
is published.
1652 Locke
begins study of philosophy and medicine at Oxford.
1660
Restoration of monarchy in England; Charles II rules.
1667 Locke
enters the Earl of Shaftesbury's service.
1682 After
conspiring to rebel against Charles II, Shaftesbury must flee to Holland.
1683 Locke also
flees to Holland.
1685 Charles
II, on the throne since 1660, dies; James II (a Catholic) becomes king.
1687 Newton's
Principia Mathematica. The Einstein of his age, Newton's theories of
matter and motion seem to explain the workings of the universe--an optimistic
sense of being able to control and predict nature ensues. God no longer perceived as
routinely intervening in the cosmos; instead, the Deity has created a
perfectly rational, harmonious universe (like a super-complex watch), and he
is best known by understanding its mechanisms. The latter
philosophy is called "Deism" and was what many 18th-century intellectuals
(such as B. Franklin) believed.
1688 England's
"Glorious Revolution." William III (Protestant) usurps the throne, by
invitation of Parliament (future kings & queens of England become increasingly only symbolic figureheads,
with the real governmental power residing in the Parliament).
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
(the 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 as history progresses.
Locke's educational ideas combined with Newton's scientific ideas provide the
optimistic intellectual foundation for the "Age of
Enlightenment." Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
and company--all considered "Enlightenment" thinkers--read Locke and took him to
heart.
1690 Two
Treatises on Civil Government is published, to legitimate the overthrow of
James II.
1702 William
III dies. Queen Anne reigns to 1714.
1704 Locke
dies.
Study/Review
Questions for the Chapters One-Five of The Second Treatise
CHAPTER ONE
1-3 In the
First Treatise (later referred to as the "foregoing discourse" in Chapter 1 of the
Second Treatise), Locke argues against the notion of the divine right of
kings. Locke sums up his argument in Chapter I: what does he say about the
relationship between present rulers' authority and Adam's rule?
CHAPTER TWO
4-6 Imagine
you are the director of a movie-documentary on 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 interacted, before
governments existed? Is the state of nature lawless? If it is not lawless,
how are its laws known? Do we have any obligations or responsibilities 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 vicious transgressors to animals?
12 According to
Locke, in the state of nature, how much can you punish a transgressor?
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 every individual having "executive" power in the state of
nature would lead to a Mad Max sort of world
GO site for those not
knowing this reference? 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?
CHAPTER THREE
19 Locke
says that the state of nature and the state of war are distinct from each
other. 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 this reason?
CHAPTER FOUR
23 When,
according to Locke, is slavery justified?
CHAPTER FIVE
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 the right to own property?
Is this right conferred by society-at-large, by government, or 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
These sections comprise 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 "Americas") in #37 and #41: what point is he making? What sort of
countries do you think would find Locke's ideas in these sections the most
useful?
46-50 How
have we "agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth"
(#50)? A final question to ponder: go back to #37--according to Locke,
does the invention of money allow us to satisfy an innate acquisitive urge, or
does it rather 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 and by extension you own the labor of your body. This IS a key idea--keep it in mind when
you read Equiano in a week or two from now!
•
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 your own.
•
This makes sense because it is through labor activity that natural resources
obtain their true value (e.g., a coconut has no use until you pick it up or
climb a palm tree to get it).
•
Because Locke is so preoccupied with individualistic labor and individualistic
acquisition, he does not have a strong concept of ecological stewardship or
communal labor.
•
He does say, though, that you only get to convert to private property what can
be used without spoiling. (Do you think the no-spoiling rule could be
applied against Locke himself and modern conspicuous consumption: i.e. if
Donald Trump’s many mansions lay vacant?)
•
Labor in the form of tillage, farming, development, etc. = what Locke phrases
as “inclose it from the common”: i.e., you can acquire real estate.
• In
the foggy historical beginning of this land acquisition, all the world "was
America" (i.e. there was a lot of land, seemingly unowned), and so acquisition
does not infringe on somebody else's capacity to acquire. There is no
scarcity of land to own.
•
“God gave the world ...to the use of the industrious and rational” i.e. not
Indians.
•
Locke does not explain in detail how a barter economy would work; he only says
surplus goods are exchanged for needed goods, which also avoids the problem of
spoiling because the surplus is used.
• He jumps to
the invention of 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 the 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 Justly Revolt
1) Has the ruler made
his/her will or ambition more important than preserving the law and, in turn,
the
citizens that the law protects (section 199)? If you answer “yes,”
continue.
2) Can you appeal to a
court system that might address how you feel violated (207)? If “yes,” you can’t revolt. If
“no,” continue.
3) Are only a few
individuals abused by the ruler (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 by governmental power might only be in the eye of the beholder!
5) Is the ruling
power/gov't malfunctioning = misusing its power (219)? Again: requires
interpretation. If I lived in New Orleans, I might say gov’t malfunctioned,
hugely!
6)
You must be able to
escape before you are fully 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 against 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.
Please
note: Locke offers some very sensible guidelines to when revolt is
legitimate, but as a careful reader you should start to try to see tensions
(Locke's nervousness about revolt; his puzzlement and curiosity over money) in
his writing. Try to maintain analytical appreciation and
analytical skepticism with all our authors in this course--they are, truly,
profound thinkers, but they are also human, and therefore subject to many conflicts.
When you read Equiano next week, especially exercise this bi-focal
analytical appreciation/skepticism!
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.
•
our reason lets us know this (We “hold these truths to be self evident”
Jefferson says in the Dec. of Ind.).
•
the 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 our irrational lust for treasure/money?).
3) Social contract
emerges: we transfer our power to the state /gov't by consent.
• gov’t then assumes
executive/judge power.
•
this takes care of what Locke calls the “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 those rights 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 (Locke begins his Second Treatise by speaking of our
God-given reason), is almost impossible.
4) In return, the
individual gains security (life, liberty, property).
5) Do you remember
consenting to the social contract explicitly? 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 that inheritance is bad, based on the initially-argued 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 generation to
generation!!!).
6) Sure, you can
revolt, but the rules are tricky!