First mention of ‘the state’ ever was made by him in the 1600s, as were phasing from churches, empires and cities, into states
He’d witnessed the English Civil War, in which parliament had taken up arms against the king to dispute who’d hold the power in the country. Hobbes thought this war was ridiculous, saying that it’d been caused by ‘false notions regarding the nature of the state’: people thought that sovereignty (rulership) could be divided up and given to multiple people/parties
He said sharing power only worked if people were willing to share, which was not the case in the UK, since there was a whole war taking place as a result of not wanting to share
He admitted there could be one sovereign only since there’d be no disputes as a result, but what was the sovereign? Hobbes said that as individuals, we all have wills and passions, and if we put them all together, we’d all have one will and passion. This conjoined unit of individuals was called The Leviathan. But, as an artificial creation, the Leviathan couldn’t rule- the people would need to pick the sovereign to rule. So, this sovereign should be easy to pick considering the Leviathan was composed of the same wills and passions.
Hobbes argued the sovereign could be a monarchy (one person ruling), a democracy (a party ruling together), an aristocracy (a few powerful individuals ruling), etc, but there can only be one of whatever is chosen to rule
The role of the sovereign was to protect the state from outsiders while keeping them strong, in good form. And once this strong formation was achieved, their duty of protection from outsiders would be easy, so the people can be left to do as they please once they’re in good form.
In the modern day, we go against Hobbes’ theory using divided sovereignty because it means everyone is represented. While Hobbes would argue this causes chaos, it works well under capitalism because there are different passions and wills today. There would’ve been different wills in Hobbes’ time too, but perhaps society was too rigid to admit people those wills yet.
The idea is that now, states comply with a constitution. This constitution is kind of like the Leviathan’s united wills and passions, without the Leviathan constantly existing
Liberal democracies rely on no one part of the state trying to seize all power, i.e. the judges, the monarch, the parliament, policing systems, etc. What’s interesting to observe is that, while this balance has been disrupted a few times in a lot of places, it’s balanced more often than it’s imbalanced.
I think Hobbes is such an interesting thinker. It’s interesting to imagine a society in which one (Hobbes) can confidently say that everyone has the same wills and passions. I’d assume this was based on a lot of conformity to expectations of society at the time, i.e. a man’s will is to provide for and protect his family, a woman’s role is to care for and nurture her family, a child’s role is to be educated in the correct gender roles to be an ideal member of society and a family later in life, etc. I wonder how life was for those who actively chose to disobey these pre-determined ‘wills’, or were simply unable to sustain the duties expected of them, i.e. a man with a disability who couldn’t work in the way expected of him, or a woman unable to have children. Society was definitely not as gentle as it is today, so I’d love to know the reaction or even punishments to refusing to have the same ‘wills and passions’. The Leviathan itself seems simple enough put into words, but in modern day practice I don’t imagine it working, because there is such a divide in opinions that I don’t think we’d be able to have one united ‘will’ among us. For example, some people believe women need to be liberated from the patriarchy, and some are strong supporters of the patriarchy- how do we handle that direct juxtaposition of opinions? In my other section of notes on Hobbes (someone right at the bottom of my blog, enjoy scrolling :P), he mentions that we should never go against the sovereign, simply because they are the sovereign. I think this idea is fascinating for his time, and may even perhaps work for the 17th century: no one (of importance or power, at least) was focussed on the progression of human rights, and one’s main concern was a war with a nearby country. Yet, in the 21st century, I think there’s far more concerns which, as I mentioned earlier, cause direct juxtapositions in opinions. The last part about liberal democracies is potentially the most interesting part of my research today. We are in a constant gamble that no one with the adequate power will rise up against the other sovereigns they share power with. For example, the military has all the necessary equipment and training to totally take of the UK, but we continue to give them this equipment and training and simply hope they don’t do that? I’m not suggesting we defund the whole military tomorrow, but it’s totally interesting we’re just hoping they don’t. I suppose it could be considered proof that anarchism may work? I’m not sure. It’s definitely food for thought.
