Two Sides of the Same Coin

Two Sides of the Same Coin

Hobbes' Leviathan and the Relationship Between Realist and Liberal Worldviews

     It seems that at the beginning of every course on international relations, we are asked to sum up our beliefs about world order and bin ourselves into a category of thought. The two most popular of which, if anything because of their seemingly melodramatic relationship, are the categories of Realists and Liberals. Those who believe in the ultimate power of coercion versus those that believe in the might of reason and world order. At the beginning of any one semester, or other period of instruction,  it seems there is no ground for compromise. I remember, very distinctly, in my first ever class on international relations at Boston University the teacher's assistance asked us to physically move and sit in sides of the room corresponding to our respective categories. I sat in the middle and was consequently lectured on how I needed to choose. When I retorted, I was asked what my worldview was. The response was a request for me to sit on the physical-'right' side of the room, aka, the realists' corner. I did so only in protest.

     Many scholars, and would-be scholars (students and the general public), frequently argue that Hobbes' treatise on the state and world order fit decisively into one train (or trayne, as it has been this weekend) or category of thought or another. For this initial post, I want to take a look at this perception (largely described in Part I or the Leviathan), and my disagreement with it.

     One of the primary concerns or complaints with Hobbes' work is that it takes an awfully long time to get to the point, i.e. discussion of the State. In truth, it is for good reason. Much like a 21st century student reading 17th century English for the first time, many of Hobbes' contemporaries would have found his work difficult to digest. This is not because they were not well versed his English, but because they were not so well educated in the art of governance or, frankly, as well educated in general, by and large, as the public is today (speaking in relative terms, of course). For this reason, the emphasis that Hobbes' places on imagery in Part I of Leviathan is incredibly important because it acts as a sort of Rosetta Stone that translates the everyday knowledge of the reader (about basic sciences and their body) into Hobbes' main ideas, which are more complex. This stepping stone acts as a transition and allows the concepts he describes in later chapters to be more easily digestible by his audience. In this this respect, it was a brilliant use of the English language.

     Through this imagery, in the Preface and Part I of the Leviathan Hobbes' breaks down the fundamental forces (laws) of nature as he sees them. In this respect, I can say I broadly agree with his point of view. From his initial steps into the shallow-end of the intellectual pool, explaining how human beings make decisions, to his acknowledgement that productive external discourse can only occur when the basic definitions (facts) can be agreed upon prior to debate Hobbes makes points which are difficult to disagree with. Hundreds of years after Hobbes, even NASA agrees with his basic principle that math is the universal language of life. When the Voyager II spacecraft was sent into space, the instruction manual for the on-board golden record, as well as the diagram denoting the location of our solar system, were both written in what essentially amounts to mathematics. In any case, Hobbes describes a world that lives in a general state of anarchy (the state of nature). Here is where the controversy springs... he denotes that there are three possible outcomes for an anarchic world: submission to the judgement of the Arbitrator (which is later the Sovereign), conflict, or perpetual disagreement. Realists cling to the point about conflict, liberals cling to the mention of reason and the judgement of a higher power.

     My point of view is that conflict and arbitration (i.e. binding authority of international organizations, in the international relations sense of this discussion) are two sides of the same coin and both are legitimate means of escaping the state of nature that Hobbes describes. Where I disagree with Hobbes his apparent suggestion that reason is permanent and coercive superiority is not. Throughout history we have seen that both are temporary. With regards to a monopoly on coercive force, this is why Pax Romana and Pax Britannica did not last. It is why Pax Americana will not live on perpetually. Turning to reason, because of the very nature of dissolving imagination, memory, etc. (recollection of the lessons of the past!) that Hobbes describes in at length in Part I, human perceptions of reason are evolutionary and so an agreement on definitions (facts) will never live on in unchanging perpetuity. In an ideal world? Yes. However, as Courtney touches on in her post, we do not live in an ideal world and future generations may not agree with our version of the social contract (per our version of reason, dictated by our definitions) This is so because of our humanity, because we do not think, speak and convey complex ideas of governance solely in geometry or other forms of math as Hobbes envisions.

     Hobbes acknowledges that both coercion and reason (arbitration) are means of escaping the state of nature. Consequently the realists are not wrong is suggesting that Hobbes states this, but they are only looking at one part of a greater point that he attempts to make, and thus miss his conclusion. Further, Liberals believe they see the greater point, and in a sense they do, but Hobbes' point in and of itself, as he presents it, presumes an ideal world where perpetual reason can be achieved and enforced indefinitely. Admittedly, Hobbes was a man ahead of his time (and if a Utopian future based on incontrovertible reason is attainable, he may still be). Unfortunately his point (and the Liberal school of thought) is flawed as human reason does not live in a vacuum. In the end, the Leviathan is a peaceful escape from the state of nature that allows for the resolution of conflicts through arbitration, however it must maintain a reasonable monopoly on force in order to enforce its will. When either the monopoly on force or the reason upon which the Leviathan is built begins to decay, so too does the Leviathan itself and the society it represents. We then return to a state of nature until a new monopoly is established, either through reason, or through coercive power alone. As such, Realist and Liberal worldviews are not mutually exclusive, they are two sides of the coin and jointly, the solution to the puzzle that is the state of nature and the anarchy of the human experience.