Fear and ‘Brexit’ –7/7

On June 23 the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, an unexpected result that puts the future of the European Union and British politics up in the air. It has called into question the EU’s role as an institution of post-war unity. It has flung Britain’s economic future up in the air, and no one knows where it will come down. The UK’s political leaders are falling left and right, right when they need some direction. If Britain follows through with this vote, they will lose some of the economic advantages that come with being part of the EU, potentially hurting the very voters who supported the ‘Leave’ campaign because of economic anxiety. What could drive a nation to such an extreme decision?

On this site, the answer is always Fear.

Brexit is a middle finger to the establishment. It is a rejection of the bureaucrats and politicians who operate detached from the concerns of regular people. It’s been said in other places, but this sounds a lot like Trump voters. Trump supporters and ‘Leave’ supporters also have in common a strong concern for their economic future. They are worried that their children will not be as successful as they have been. They are worried that their job is moving to China. The recent wave of right wing populism has given this segment of the population a channel to express themselves, and they are lashing out.

Now, Fear comes into play. The people who have this economic anxiety need a place to direct their anger and fear. In the UK and the US, immigrants are a primary source of this fear. One reason for the rejection of the EU by British voters is the open borders policy between EU members. This affects two key areas of voter interest:  economy and national security. The ‘Leave’ campaign put forth a narrative that immigrants were coming to Britain and taking jobs, depressing wages, etc. Leaving the EU is an attempt to repel foreigners from the British economy. In Hobbesian terms, immigrants represent the State of Nature, and when people feel threatened they will defend themselves against the State of Nature. In our modern world, discriminating against others is a major mechanism by which we protect ourselves from the State of Nature.

Secondly, national security is another reasoning driving the fear of immigrants. Statistically, many recent immigrants to Europe are Muslim. Many people worry about terrorism and feel that the EU immigration policies make Britain susceptible to terror attacks. Really, it is about national autonomy. The EU seeks to collectivize the potential of European nations. Brexit seeks to regain its autonomy over its economy and borders. Britain wants to protect itself from the State of Nature on its own terms.

Ultimately, the UK voted for Brexit because voters felt that their national identity was under threat. They became convinced by politicians who exploited these fears that leaving the European Union would make Britain more secure, more prosperous. I can’t say whether that’s true, but I can say it was motivated by fear.

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.

 

What’s the DEAL with the State of Nature?!–5/26

Seinfeld was a show about nothing. The State of Nature, as Thomas Hobbes saw it, is also a show about nothing. He argues that there is no way for people to develop anything physical or cultural in the State of Nature, leaving them with nothing except their person to defend. In the quote below, from Chapter XIII of the Leviathan, Hobbes lists all the things that could not exist in a State of Nature.

In [the State of Nature] there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain, and consequently no culture of the earth, no navigation nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea, no commodious building, no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force, no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time, no arts, no letters, no society, and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. (Leviathan, Part 1, Chapter XIII, paragraph 9)

That’s a whole lotta nothing. Hobbes feels that in the State of Nature, people would be constant enemies, so they could never develop relationships, share ideas, or build communities. This is no way for humans to live, and Hobbes said that we would come to together to form the civil society to escape this.

An aside:  This is probably the most famous paragraph Hobbes ever wrote. The final line has been paraphrased over and over, and is often misunderstood to be Hobbes musing on the nature of human existence. More accurately, it is how Hobbes describes life in the every-man-for-himself war that perpetually exists in the State of Nature. Nevertheless, it is the line that permanently typecast Hobbes as the pessimistic foil to John Locke’s utopian State of Nature.

Back to the main event:  Why couldn’t people ever join together in the State of Nature? Self-preservation. Hobbes says we have an unlimited right to self-preservation. In the State of Nature we have no allegiances, no obligations to our fellow man, no laws, no incentive at all to cooperate with other people. If, for example, I built a shelter, I would never share it with you because your existence is a threat to my self-preservation. In fact, we both have a right to kill each other in order to get the shelter. In Hobbes, self-preservation is the only right we have in the State of Nature.

But wait! Couldn’t forming alliances with other people actually work toward self-preservation (teaming up to defeat a more powerful enemy, perhaps)? It could, but even if these alliances did occur in the State of Nature, they would quickly dissolve and the participants would turn on each other as soon as the goal was accomplished. Why? Because of what Hobbes calls “diffidence.”

There are “three principle causes of quarrel.” The first is competition, as humans as naturally competitive; the second is diffidence, which is important to this post; and the third is glory, since humans are concerned with reputation. Diffidence is the reason men cannot form alliances in the State of Nature. The word has changed meaning somewhat since 1651. Today it refers to a lack of self-confidence, shyness, etc., but Hobbes used it to mean “distrust of others; insecurity in one’s possessions.” This insecurity is critical to understanding fear in Hobbes.

We are in constant fear of having our possessions taken, so we proactively conquer others to prevent that. Hobbes notes the centrality of fear to the State of Nature in the quote at the beginning of this post. He lists all the things humans couldn’t create in a State of Nature, then concludes, “and, which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death.” He states that constant fear in the State of Nature is the worst part of the State of Nature. With no Social Contract, people live in a unending war in which we constantly fear having our possessions taken by force, so all of our actions seek to prevent attacks by others. Therefore, fear is the driving force behind all actions in the State of Nature. Check out this syllogism to sum it up:

1. The State of Nature is a State of War
2. The State of War is a State of Fear

Therefore: The State of Nature is a State of Fear

Finally, let’s get down to brass tacks. How is all this useful in analysis of the world today? This site will use Hobbes ideas about the State of Nature to explain current events. Although we don’t live in a state of Nature, Hobbesian ideas about fear are still relevant. A basic tenet of the analysis on this site will be that the State of Nature is active in the world today and that fears of immigrants/minorities/women/whatever are driven by an underlying fear of the State of Nature. Here’s why:

In the modern world, no one physically lives in a State of Nature. BUT we know that we have formed a society to get away from the State of Nature. So, when something conflicts with the social organization that we are comfortable with, we try to suppress it. In the State of Nature we would use force, but now we use tactics like politics, law, discrimination, and social norms. We are trying to defend our society because we fear the State of Nature. This is my ultimate contention that will recur across this site:  that fear of the State of Nature is an explanation for discrimination based on race/sex/nationality/sexual orientation/economic class.

In today’s world, society uses discrimination as a defense mechanism. We want to defend our “possessions” (in the form of culture, jobs, tax dollars, whatever), but instead of by force as in the State of Nature (although sometimes by force) we use discrimination.

The State of Nature is nothing concrete, it is whatever it is perceived to be. It has no set place, no actual members, no physical presence. Nothing to point to directly. That is partly why we attach the State of Nature to outsider groups. It is largely a human construction that has no true being. Nevertheless, the State of Nature is real and active in our world, driving the plot. For a ‘show about nothing,’ it’s really something.

 

Leave a comment on this post and tell me what you think about fear as a cause of social actions and about the State of Nature lurking in society.

 

COMING MONDAY:  Is Hobbes racist? and the mechanism by which we ascribe the State of Nature to ‘other’ groups

 

 

Welcome to Fear in Philosophy

Don’t let the name get you down – “Fear in Philosophy” isn’t a gloomy site. My basic thesis for this site is that Fear is always subtly at work in the world, behind the scenes, motivating our decisions on policy, social norms, and really anything. The idea is that fear is sometimes exploited (see: Donald J. Trump), but sometimes it is constructive and even leads to positive outcomes.

I started thinking about fear in this way over the last year when I studied the works of Thomas Hobbes, the founder of Social Contract Theory. His premise was that before civilized society, the world was in a State of Nature, and it was a horrible place. Hobbes said we would do anything to escape the State of Nature, and so we formed a society in which we have limited rights. We fear the State of Nature, and the role the sovereign is to suppress the State of Nature. One piece of this site will be fleshing out Hobbes’ ideas and see how they apply in the modern world. Much of the analysis of fear will draw from Hobbesian ideas. Future posts will expand on Hobbes and show how important he is to this site’s theme.

The other piece of this blog will be doing this fear-analysis with current events and pop culture. Politics is a prime candidate for this, and so the plan is to feature the 2016 Presidential Campaign prominently. Donald Trump’s campaign has been successful by exploiting the fears that Americans have about immigrants, terrorism, free trade, and the like. The goal isn’t to be anti-Trump, but his campaign provides plenty of material (comedic and otherwise) to do the type of analysis this site is built for. As for the pop culture aspect, fear is prevalent in daily life. At the movies, in sports, in television commercials, and on blogging sites, fear is an active player. Wherever fear can be seen in culture, this blog will write about it.

As for me, I’m a college student who has been studying Hobbes and politics and who wants some law school to lift me out of the State of Nature that undergrads live in (my dorm room has no heat and a mouse infestation). My goals for this site are to explore fear in society with a couple of posts per week, some academic, some just fun. I’m pretty new to blogging, so leave me comments about the format, content, and whatever else. Go ahead and start a conversation on any post, I’m always up for a debate.