Hobbes' Leviathan: Sovereignty, Human Nature, and the State

Introduction: Hobbes and the Purpose of Government

At the beginning of the second part of his monumental philosophical treatise on the nature of government, Leviathan, the political philosopher Thomas Hobbes stated that "the final cause, end, or design of men (who naturally love liberty, and dominion over others) in the introduction of that restraint upon themselves, in which we see them live in Commonwealths, is the foresight of their own preservation, and of a more contented life thereby" (Chapter 17). In other words, for Hobbes, self-preservation and the desire to maintain the physical self in a state of pleasure is the root of all human desire. Hobbes thus posits the essential nature of humanity and makes an argument about the institutions of government best suited to that nature, given this foundational premise.

This opening claim neatly summarizes Hobbes' view of human nature: that human beings must be governed by a strong monarch so that their innate drive to maintain the physical, animal self in the most comfortable fashion possible can be curtailed and channeled into effective social arrangements. Effectiveness, for Hobbes, is not defined by every individual exercising his or her own individual choice, but by all individuals within a state living in safety and order. He adds that for all human beings to live in such a manner, the state must be maintained and assured that its confines are not overtaken by rival powers.

Human Nature and the Commonwealth

The threat of takeover was a constant concern during the era in which Hobbes wrote. However, Hobbes wrote Leviathan not simply to validate the place of royalty. He held a deflationary view of all humanity, including the human nature of kings. Hobbes believed that human beings possessed few, if any, innate higher impulses — in contrast to theologically oriented political views of human nature. Rather than seeing human nature, in its raw social state, as existing in an Eden-like paradise of purity, Hobbes viewed the restraints of civilization in a positive light. Unlike bees and ants — relatively social creatures — humans, Hobbes observes, seem continually to band together in order to wrestle for greater spoils and honor, rather than living in contentment with their circumstances.

Without the construction of a strong state, Hobbes argued, human beings will fall into a constant state of war. It is not enough that human beings band together in small numbers — as families and clans — to resist the forces of war that threaten from organized states. The individual citizen must place his or her trust in the state rather than in smaller units of governance or self-governance, because he or she is powerless to preserve his or her own life without the protection of larger organizational forces. Hobbes acknowledges the possibility of individuals governing themselves through an assembly, as illustrated by ancient Greek and Roman examples, but he believes this form of governance is only effective when the assembly fuses the will of many into one.

Hobbes on Monarchy Versus Assembly

Despite his dark vision of personal autonomy, Hobbes' distance from the modern constitutional tradition is not as great as it might initially seem. It is true that he states at the beginning of Chapter 19 that "where there is already erected a sovereign power, there can be no other representative of the same people, but only to certain particular ends, by the sovereign limited" — a defense of the inability of the populace to overthrow the sovereign monarch, provided the state offers adequate protection against invasion. Yet, unlike advocates of the divine right of kings, Hobbes' viewpoint does not depend upon a specific relationship between God and humanity. The foundation of governance rests upon human beings' essential nature — for good or for ill — in an almost Darwinian sense, rather than upon the goodness or godliness of kingship as an institution.

In democracy, Hobbes sees not a theological threat but simply the practical limitations of allowing a great deal of human freedom in making choices about governance. He takes a deflationary view of the monarch as a man, noting: "first, that whosoever beareth the person of the people, or is one of that assembly that bears it, beareth also his own natural person. And though he be careful in his politic person to procure the common interest, yet he is more, or no less, careful to procure the private good of himself, his family, kindred and friends; and for the most part, if the public interest chance to cross the private, he prefers the private: for the passions of men are commonly more potent than their reason." He also acknowledges that succession can be difficult in a monarchical context and can produce poor leaders.

Conclusion

Hobbes' main purpose in writing Leviathan was to lay the practical, political-philosophical foundation for a secular defense of what was originally defended as divine institution — that of monarchy — based upon a presumption of the basic nature of humanity. Although he drew from examples of ancient and classical modes of assembly governance, rather than from the immediate world around him, his argument remains grounded in human nature rather than divine sanction. His work still demonstrates, despite its antiquity, the potency of an almost completely unsentimental view of political philosophy — one that engages human beings as they are rather than as they might ideally be, and that continues to provoke debate about the proper relationship between individual liberty and the authority of the state.

Work Cited

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan or the Matter, Forme and Power of a Commonwealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil. Originally published 1651. Edited with an introduction by Michael Oakeshott. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1960.