Vincent Bertolini-Felice / 12.23.24 / “The condition of man . . . is a condition of war of everyone against everyone”
-Thomas Hobbes
The context in which Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan is an often-neglected portion of analytical approaches to his work. Juxtapositions to John Locke often bifurcate the arguments of both into broad generalizations of the ideals both loosely endorsed. The fetishization of democracy has encouraged the western canon to view Locke as the philosophical genius behind the psychoanalysis of interpersonal relations and the father of an infallible governing system. This perspective is viewed as mutually exclusive with Hobbes’ perspective, meaning he is seen as an apologist for a horrendous system of governance that is synonymous with oppression.
John Locke died roughly thirty years after Hobbes. Locke’s death was premature by the modern definition and the brunt of his work regarding governance was not published until Hobbes had died. Despite this fact, the two are often presented as contemporaries posing answers to the same question. In doing this, Hobbes is entirely misrepresented. This misrepresentation devalues and summarizes an argument within Leviathan that extends beyond political structures and serves as an explicit reflection of an inherently modern issue.
Oliver Cromwell’s ascension to power does not fit the definition of a gentle transition. A multi-faceted campaign of battles across Ireland, Scotland, and England saw Cromwell dethrone a Catholic Monarchy in the United Kingdom in favor of a Puritan Parliamentary system. From the deposition of Charles II to the instillation of Parliament as the Supreme Authority in the United Kingdom, little more than six months had passed. When the pre-existing system of governance is uprooted within a nation, uncertainty and fear are bound to set in, especially when this transition is done instantaneously and violently.
The governing system outlined by Leviathan predicates its necessity on the evil of those who comprise it. The most rational decision a human could make, to Hobbes, was to recognize the inability of humanity to effectively govern itself in council and to cede its control to a man or an assembly that worked to actively reject the allures of human nature. Human nature, to Hobbes, was one of extreme violence and prejudice. The fundamental essence of the individual was to extend the cruel dictatorship of violence that tormented the mind onto as many as possible. This attempt to realize and rationalize the perversion of spirit was one Hobbes thought would be far too pervasive in a government by the people. The call of Leviathan is for an authoritarian state in which the leader is chosen by a concessive agreement of the masses, hence creating what Hobbes calls a “covenant”. The covenant cannot be replaced or destroyed by the people and the choice in how the covenant functions fully reside within the sovereign. To call for war, levy taxes, judicate on domestic affairs, or choose how poultry could be prepared were all equal responsibilities held by the sovereign. However, Hobbes recognized the ability for injustices to thrive in this environment and Hobbes identified that because the covenant is formed by the people, to commit acts that transcend Hobbes perceptions of natural laws (do not kill, do not rape, do not steal, etc.) or instinctive doctrine, is to breach the covenant and qualifies grounds for removal of the sovereign. To act unjustly to Hobbes was the most human thing possible and in acting as such, the sovereign neglects its fundamental purpose to humanity, to not be human. Hobbes subverted the traditional divine right of kings in favor of a social contract between a singular governor and the people that exists solely to subject the opposing party to the whims of the other.
The practical application of this hypothesized government would present a multitude of problems more complex and more troublesome than any system currently in place. This is not to say that Democracy is a perfect or even vastly superior means of governance for a nation, but to believe Hobbes’ Leviathan would function and function well is equal parts naive and idealist. The criticism of Hobbes’ structure is valid, yet it neglects the presupposition of Hobbes’ argument that guided him to his political ideas. Hobbes observed a violent revolution that coincided with the instillation of a supposedly humanist system that excused the grave injustices of the governing bodies under the veils of moral superiority. This transgression in thought and action was the basis of the governing bodies that Hobbes was subject to. His conclusions about human nature being one of carnal urges and violent pursuits was directly drawn from the world in which he observed.
This, by itself, does not mean that Hobbes’ perspective carried any merit. The merit within his argument about human nature can be derived through the same inductive methods used in Leviathan. It is crucial that in order to extrapolate on the manifesto of Leviathan, one must understand the origin of the name and cover. Thomas Hobbes commissioned the cover art for Leviathan to reflect the namesake of the book, the leviathan. In the book of Job, the leviathan is referred to as a herculean beast near impossible to steady. This coincides with Hobbes’ beliefs about the delicate balance of structuring power in dealing with an entity such as the leviathan. Being a sea creature, the despot on the cover bears the lower body of a serpent, with a torso and upper body being human. The irony in this comes in the historical connotation of serpents and their deceptive nature. Combining the given connotation about deception from the snake and the appearance of humanity in the face of Hobbes’ character, the true nature of humanity as deceptive and deceitful beings is ever-present.
This contrast that Hobbes highlighted through the cover art to his book, paired with the biblical context of the leviathan, paints the image of an entity that is near impossible to tame and will present a facade of personhood but is ultimately a duplicitous institution. There is no better personification of this concept than the internet.
Western political structures would seldom adopt structures from Hobbes and even less would look upon the work of Hobbes fondly. Leviathan’s prediction that an engrained institution that holds significant power over society would be one that indulged the inner cruelty of humanity has proven true with the shortcomings of internet governance.
The seemingly boundless virtual world of the internet is one that is ever-evolving. A sort of Moore’s Law trajectory of the internet’s ability and usage has seen the online space evolve from a humble vessel for convenient communication to THE entity pushing society forward. As a result, the pandering to specific interests by individuals hosting communities, corporations, and algorithms has created niches for any conceivable hobby or passion that may exist. One natural consequence is the creation of communities and platforms for the indulgence of the violent aspects of human nature. A study done by Nottingham Trent University Professor of Psychology, Jens Binder and a Terrorism Expert for the U.K.’s Prison and Probation Service, Jonathon Kenyon outlined how social media has proven to be an effective vessel for radicalizing and recruiting to terrorist organizations while promoting extremist dogmas. From 2000 to 2006, the amount of people arrested for possession of Child Pornography in the United States increased by over 46% from 1,713 to 3,672 and this trend only increased through 2012. Through video sharing platforms on the internet, more young adults have reported a desensitization to gore and an acceptance of “extreme violence” as normalcy to view online.
While these cases only represent a minority of the masses online, Oliver Cromwell’s perspectives on governance only reflected those of a minority of the population. To Hobbes, the flaw comes in the acceptance of these minority views and cases as simply accepted standards of a shared space. The majority of people online are not actively using the platform for perverse or violent circumstances, yet the system that is run by the people, for the people, has proven incapable of preventing these remnants of a sadist part of the human mind infect the masses.
The degradation of the human mind through the internet is one that need not be defended. The ability to influence the masses is easier than ever and the majority of online space has been colonized by corporate and government influence attempted to propagandize. The standard will continue to be defended so long as the people are too numbed to recognize the leviathan facing them. The historical narrative that condemned Hobbes will not undo their mistake and identify how Hobbes fears of human nature and self-governance has proven correct in how the internet has evolved.
There may not be a call to action out of this recognition. The fetishization of individualism is one unlikely to change amongst western society. The internet will likely continue to grow both in influence and ability. Hobbes belief of an ordained one to rule the masses was and is impossible both in terms of governance and managing the true leviathan of the internet. Some rational steps that can be taken to face the leviathan as Job was called to (figuratively) ultimately reside within the residual. Hobbes spoke of a state and an individual’s worst fate being ignorance. To exist in an environment that shelters the masses from reality, no matter how difficult it is to face, encourages the individual to think less and care even less. To avoid this fate in approaching a leviathan, learn about how propaganda infiltrates the public sphere and focus on limiting participation in platforms that encourage apathy, greed, and overconsumption.
It feels cliche for the conclusion of this piece to warn people about the dangers of the internet. A better point to leave with is to avoid fetishizing democracy and the American system. Hobbes wrote at a time in which he looked upon his nation with fear and confusion and his proposals, while radical, would identify the shortcomings of human nature in governing itself. The western world may be fast approaching a similar perspective and the knowledge Hobbes offered may be a solid foundation for outlining the flaws of the individuals that comprise the positions of power.
Comments