Is Thomas Hobbes racist? — 6/15

The discussion of norming in the last post leads to an interesting question that isn’t really settled among Hobbesian thinkers: was Hobbes himself a racist? We have seen how modern scholars have used Hobbes to explain ingrained racism, but it isn’t clear that Hobbes intended that. The question is complicated further because ‘race’ as we know it wasn’t really operative in Hobbes’ time. People saw the world not as ‘black and white’ but more so as ‘civilized and uncivilized.’ Because of this, accusing Hobbes of racism may not be fair at all. But let’s put that aside ask again: Is Hobbes racist?

Clearly, he had unflattering things to say about the “savage peoples” of America. He thought that they were lesser because they had not escaped the State of Nature. Hobbes did not directly address race in the Leviathan so it is not clear if he believed skin color was a factor in intelligence, civility, etc., but we have seen how modern thinkers have used Hobbesian Social Contract theory to explain the roots of bias by way of norming. Still, even if we grant that norming does occur, is that enough to say that Hobbes was personally racist?

Hobbes didn’t write much on race, but he does cover slavery in the Leviathan. And as Hobbes is wont to do, he explains it with a theory of contracts. He distinguishes between slaves and servants, and says that servants have an implicit or explicit contract with the Master, which differentiates them from slaves. Here’s the quotes from Chapter 20 of the Leviathan:

“And this dominion [over the individual] is then acquired to the victor when the vanquished, to avoid the present stroke of death, covenanteth, either in express words or by other sufficient signs of the will, that so long as his life and the liberty of his body is allowed him, the victor shall have the use thereof at his pleasure. And after such covenant made, the vanquished is a servant, and not before…”

The covenant (contract) is this:  the master agrees to spare the life of the slave, and the slave agrees to serve the master as he wishes. Once the contract is established, the slave is considered a servant. A slave can only be called a slave when he is held against his will and is actively trying to escape his bondage. The key to understanding Hobbes’ views on slavery is the phrase ‘conquest is contract.’ Hobbes believed that contracts are valid even if they are initiated by conquest and enforced by physical force. In the modern world, common sense—and certainly courts of law—would not accept a contract that was made with a gun to one party’s head.

Additionally, Hobbes’ conception of slavery seems at odds with the modern idea of slavery. Hobbes would say that slaves remained on plantations because they agreed to be there in exchange for their lives. But really, aren’t slaves only working on the plantation because not working would put their lives in danger? They haven’t agreed this that arrangement at all! Hobbes would counter that if the slaves are not actively rebelling then they have, in fact, tacitly agreed to serve the master. Through this reasoning, Hobbes justified slavery. But still, it is not a racially motivated account of slavery, leaving our question still unanswered.

Although Hobbes referred to indigenous American peoples as “savage” and found a justification for slavery in his theory of contracts, there is evidence for the other side of the question as well. Perhaps among the most compelling is the fact that Hobbes went out of his way to organize his theory so that it didn’t require a religious or racial justification. There is absolutely no evidence that Hobbes believed a contract is any less binding when people of minority races are party to it. Hobbes’ writing is neutral in that respect.

It is also import to remember that at its core Hobbes’ Social Contract is egalitarian. The opening paragraph of Chapter 13:

“Nature hath made men so equal in the faculties of body and mind as that, though there be found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body or of quicker mind than another, yet when all is reckoned together the difference between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit to which another may not pretend as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination or by confederacy with others that are in the same danger with himself.”

It’s “all men are created equal” without Jefferson’s brevity. This premise is a necessary basis for Hobbes’ contracts-based view of the world, because if men were unequal they couldn’t make valid contracts with each other. So, it is possible that because black slaves could form a contract with their masters, Hobbes believed they were equal to other men.

So, what’s the verdict?

‘Norming’ and the modern State of Nature–6/9

The State of Nature isn’t real—er, well, it isn’t a physical place. But does that mean it isn’t real? Biological arguments that claim there is genetic inequality between races of people (and thereby justify discriminatory practices in law and society), have been universally discredited by modern science. We know and accept that race has no bearing on intelligence, etc.—it is literally only skin deep. So certainly, race is not true in the world, but I contend that it is real. Everywhere we turn today race is an active part on the social conversation. We see it in law, where a federal judge has ruled that Cleveland, Mississippi needs to desegregate the public school district. We see it in politics, where Donald Trump recently accused a federal judge of bias because the judge is Hispanic. We see it in Black Lives Matter and Rachel Dolezal. We see all around us that race affects social interaction and legal decision making.

Similarly, the State of Nature isn’t true—no one believes that the lawless state described by Hobbes actually exists anywhere in the world, or that it ever did—but nonetheless it is real. When Trump rails against immigrants and Muslims, he is pegging them to the State of Nature. When local governments make efforts to gentrify poorer neighborhoods, they are pushing the State of Nature out of sight. Countless instances of discrimination, xenophobia, and the like can be attributed to society’s fear of the State of Nature.

The real-but-not-true explanation works for both race and the State of Nature, and it is important to notice that they are not separate entities. They are closely tied through a process called the ‘norming’ of space and bodies. It has nothing to do with Norm MacDonald or Norm from Cheers. It is the process by which society has fused the State of Nature with racial minorities, foreigners, religious minorities, women, and the poor. Here’s how it works:

Historians agree that even Thomas Hobbes himself didn’t believe that the State of Nature was once the actual state of mankind. He acknowledges as much in Chapter 13 of the Leviathan.

“It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so over all the world…”

Here, Hobbes addresses his critics, and admits that a war of all against all never happened. This sets up the State of Nature as a hypothetical tool that supplies a theoretical framework for explaining why people form society and submit to laws. But wait there’s more! Check out the rest of the paragraph, and notice how the additional context gives new meaning to the first quote.

“It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so over all the world, but there are many places where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner as I said before.”

Now it appears that Hobbes is saying “the State of Nature never existed everywhere, but the savages in the Americas definitely live in it.” Reading this, it isn’t a stretch to if the State of Nature didn’t exist everywhere, and it exists in the Americas, then Hobbes is inferring that Europe never experienced the State of Nature. This sets up a situation where Europeans can claim superiority to other cultures because they have always been above the State of Nature. In Hobbes’ day, England and the other European powers were in the nascent stages of the Age of Exploration, and Europeans had never encountered such unfamiliar cultures. Hobbes decided these cultures must be inferior. Arguing that European culture was superior also provided a convenient justification for imperial colonization, which so often involved conquering and exploiting the native populations. Europeans could now say that they have the credentials to bring ‘civilization’ to the savage people of the Americas.

Now, the crucial process of ‘norming’ begins. When society perceives the State of Nature, it tends to assume that the physical space is bad or inferior (norming space), then by extension associates the physical space with the peoples who live there. This is the norming of bodies. Society comes to associate the fear and dislike that they have for the State of Nature with people from those places. As the physical places associated with the State of Nature have disappeared, the people from those places have been normalized as embodiments of the State of Nature. As history would have it, the places considered to be the State of Nature were the colonies of European powers in the Americas and Africa, the inhabitants of which happen to be nonwhite.

This has led scholars like Charles Mills, author of The Racial Contract, to argue that modern power structures in society are inherently raced systems. Western history is a raced history, our power structures reflect that, and society needs to acknowledge this. Through the events of history and the bias-affirming structure of law and society, certain groups have been normed to represent the State of Nature, and because we fear the State of Nature, the established power structure will inevitably work to against those groups.

Mills says in The Racial Contract that it is just a happenstance of history that “whiteness” became the dominant force in society. Our fear of the State of Nature can manifest in any group that is perceived to challenge the norms of society. People are constantly seeking security, Hobbes says, and outsider groups threaten that security. Hobbes argues that our impulse to secure ourselves against the State of Nature is natural. In a world where the State of Nature s normed onto certain groups, our defense against the State of Nature takes the form of discrimination and bias.