The notion of individual freedom is something that was of great value to both Thomas Hobbes and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Even though their conceptualization of freedom was somewhat different, they both agreed on the fundamental role of authority in securing liberties. Indeed, Hobbes and Rousseau were, to a great extent, supporters of a powerful and coerce sovereign. Interestingly this is where the problems begin and answering the question becomes so difficult: how can two minds that essentially disagree on the principal of freedom support absolute authority? This essay will take a step back and analyze why they come to this similar conclusion from completely different ideas on freedom and human nature. This essay will argue that Hobbes and Rousseau arrive at similar conclusions essentially because of their understandings of human nature. It will also be argued that there is a thin line which separates their different understandings of authority, and that Rousseau’s authority is slightly more absolutist than Hobbes’s, but not authoritarian as some scholars like Robert Nisbet claim. I will first discuss the definition of absolute authority, and will follow by confirming that both Hobbes and Rousseau promote an absolute authority. This essay will then touch upon their contrasting ideas on freedom, by categorizing Hobbes and Rousseau under Isaiah Berlin´s negative and positive sense of liberty. Seeing as freedom is not the key factor that explains absolute authority, another step is taken back to discuss Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s understanding of human nature. The fact that they think absolute authority is necessary in securing individual liberties will thereafter be explained. To conclude the essay will compare and contrast the different opinions of both political philosophers on how the body politic functions. It is in this part of the essay where the complexity and subtlety of their different views on authority can be found.Before the discussion can commence, it is vital in the development of this essay, to define the term absolute authority. After research, it becomes noticeable that the definition, is mostly seen as extremely similar. Indeed, the scholar Felix Oppenheim is of the opinion that “A government has an absolutistic form if all power is wielded by one or a few without any restraint” (Oppenheim 1950, 952). Similarly politics textbooks tend to claim that authority is absolute when “It possesses unfettered power” (Heywood 2007, 28). This paper will also contend that such power “cannot be constrained by a body external to itself [... and has] unlimited right to rule”(Heywood 2007, 28). However it is important to make a distinction between absolute power and authoritarianism. Authoritarianism, in essence, is opposed to democracy and this is one of the key elements which distinguishes authoritarianism from absolute authority. However, this is still a contested topic seeing as even Felix Oppenheim considers “implementing some anti-democratic aim”(Oppenheim 1950, 952) as a purpose of an absolute authority. Nevertheless, for the function of the essay, this debate shall be ignored and absolute authority shall be defined as: a government having unrestrained power to rule.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau describe an authority which is absolute. Indeed, Hobbes’s Leviathan is in parts described as all powerful and as an immortal God. He describes the sovereignty as ostensibly coerce in chapter XVII: “For by this authority, given him by every particular man in the commonwealth, he hath the use of so much power and strength conferred to him that by terror thereof, he is enabled to perform the will of them all”(Hobbes 1969, XVIII). Moreover, chapter XVIII discusses thoroughly the powers assigned to the sovereign. The powers assigned to the sovereignty include: “the whole power of prescribing the rules” (Hobbes 1969, XVIII), and the “right of judicature” (Hobbes 1969, XVIII) amongst other powers which crown the Leviathan as an absolute authority. Rousseau also employs an absolute authority in which one must give up oneself absolutely to enjoy an equal contract. Similarly to Hobbes, Rousseau describes the sovereign as having unrestrained power to rule and this is summed up in Rousseau’s following words: “As nature gives each man absolute power over all his members, the social compact gives the body politic absolute power over all its members also.” (Rousseau 1986, 204) Additionally, the authority can be seen as absolutist in that “whoever refuses to obey the general will, shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than he will be forced to be free” (Rousseau 1986, 195). In other words, whoever disobeys the general will be forced to “pay the penalty for violating that rule of law” (Wokler 1995, 124). In that infamous quote of Rousseau there is almost a hint of authoritarianism.
Having affirmed that Hobbes and Rousseau employ an absolute authority, this essay will take a step back and discuss how these political philosophers arrive at such conclusions. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau fundamentally disagree on the principle of freedom. Indeed, Hobbes sees freedom as “the absence of external impediments” (Hobbes 1969, 79). One must bear in mind that Hobbes does not mean that one is un-free because one cannot, for instance, fly. In fact, “mere incapacity to attain a goal is not lack of political freedom” (Berlin 1989, 122). Rather, a man is truly free when he does what he wants without being impeded by human beings. Rousseau on the other hand considers one to be truly free when he is the master of his own self rather than being dependent on others. Thus independence is the key aspect of freedom for Rousseau. So Rousseau sees freedom “not in the sense of immunity from control of the state but in that of withdrawal from the oppressions and corruptions of society” (Rousseau 1986). One could therefore classify Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s notion of freedom by Isaiah Berlin’s negative and positive sense of liberty. Hobbes can be seen as propagating freedom in the negative sense because he is of the opinion that interference from others brings about un-freedoms. Rousseau on the other hand, could be seen as a classic positive liberalist. In general terms, positive liberty calls for more state interference, whilst, negative liberty calls for minimal state interference. If this statement stands then one would expect opposite views on authority to develop, however, they both promote an absolute authority. Perhaps freedom is not the only factor affecting their views on authority, perhaps their understanding of the human nature also plays a role.
Having discussed their different conceptualizations of freedom, it was apparent that categorizing Hobbes and Rousseau by negative and positive liberty does not explain why they arrive at their conclusions. This is especially the case for Hobbes; freedom is not the biggest factor in determining an absolute authority, because his freedom would intuitively ask for a minimal government. It is therefore important to take another approach and look at what Hobbes and Rousseau write about human nature and the state of nature.
Thomas Hobbes illustrates the natural world in the Leviathan as completely chaotic, a world where society finds itself in “continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes 1969, XIII). In the world of Hobbes, men have been made equal in their abilities, and from this equality there is a common hope and desire that one can attain their aims. Because of this common ability, “if any two men desire the same thing, which nevertheless they cannot both enjoy, they become enemies” (Hobbes 1969, XIII). Hence, the state of nature is defined by “war” because everything in life is relative, there is only a limited “stock” of things which causes a disharmony of interests between people. Indeed, Hobbes explains that there are three principal causes of such quarrelling: competition, diffidence and glory. All three principals allow for violence and war “of everyman, against every man” (Hobbes 1969, XIII). To demonstrate such a brutish human nature-which is commonly depicted by students of realism -Hobbes explains in chapter XIII that even in a society where we are safeguarded by laws, justice, police and militia we still lock our doors, walk accompanied by others and walk armed. This is because we are aware of human nature and its tendencies in a world where there is a limited power, goods, resources and liberties. Henceforth, the fear of death and desire of self-preservation lead people to the common search for peace. It is through this common inclination to peace that people will lay down their rights to anything, so that they can ensure their own security and freedoms. Therefore a man will give up his right to someone else’s property so that his own right to private property can be guaranteed, hence eliminating the fears of having things taken away and having to bear the paranoia that comes alongside it. Hobbes called the “mutual transferring of right” (Hobbes 1969, XIV) the contract. In the contract people transfer their rights to the sovereign so that the will of all “to peace at home” (Hobbes 1969, XVII) can be secured.
Without a sovereign Hobbes explains that “desires, and other passions of man, are in themselves no sin. No more are the actions, that proceed from those passions, till they know a law that forbids them”( Hobbes 1969, XIII). In such a world there is also no just or unjust acts, it is what it is and hence Hobbes perceives it as a world where there is no place for justice: “where there is no common power, there is no law: where no law, no justice” (Hobbes1969, XVIII). Moreover, Hobbes attempts to demonstrate the importance of the sovereign to secure ones liberty by saying that a covenant of words between people is “too weak to bridle men´s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions without the fear of some coercive power”(Hobbes 1969, XIV). This lends us to the next point, which is that Hobbes sees the need for a coercive authority merely as a measure to assure that freedoms, peace and self preservation. Thus it seems that human nature was the key in determining the need of an absolute authority.
Rousseau’s beliefs disagree with Hobbes’s on the thought that “because man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked” (Rousseau 1986, 71) . Indeed, Rousseau explains that in the state of nature, men are simply amoral rather than immoral and hence man “couldn’t be either good or bad, virtuous or vicious” (Rousseau 1986, 71). However, Rousseau claims that men were changed from the moment that they started the unequal civil society. Rousseau believed that due to the unequal contract where the many bow down to the privileged few, everyone has been led to a state of great dependency. In a civil society “if rich, they stood in need of the services of others; if poor, of their assistance; and even a middle condition did not enable them to do without one another” (Rousseau 1986, 95) .Because of this there is great un-freedom and hence his renowned quote that “man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau 1986, 181). Rousseau doesn’t believe that this unequal contract came about due to the wickedness of man but rather that it was brought by the invention of private property. He explains that the point in which this unequal contract was created was when “the first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself saying ‘this is mine’ and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society” (Rousseau 1986, 84).
Rousseau argued that the way to step out of this state of dependency upon others and be truly free is to adopt a contract of equals. What this contract requires is that people absolutely alienate their private rights, the rights to private property. If this is done, then we can have true freedom where no one depends on others, but rather on the sovereign. However, this requires that society give up their power to be directed by the general will. Rousseau made it clear that if one holds the power to decide what is best for oneself, dependency and therefore un-freedom remain. Rousseau also explains that the power must be absolute so that independence and thus freedom can be secured: “in order that the social contract shall be no empty formula it tacitly implies that obligation which alone can give force to all others: namely that anyone who refuses obedience to the general will is forced to it by the whole body” (Rousseau 1986, 148). So to resume, Rousseau believes that because of the condition of man an absolute power is necessary.
So it’s fair enough to say that both Hobbes and Rousseau feel that absolute authority is necessary to secure individual liberties regardless of how they arrive to this conclusion. However, I wish to make a distinction between Hobbes’s and Rousseau’s sovereign, because it is counter intuitive that different views of human nature and freedom have led Hobbes and Rousseau to an analogous conclusion. The way to explain the difference is by looking at how Hobbes and Rousseau think the body politic works. For Hobbes the body politic is made of artificial man, “in which the sovereignty is an artificial soul, as giving life and motion to the whole body” (Hobbes 1969, Introduction). For Rousseau on the other hand, man is the limbs and the sovereignty is the brain. Indeed, Elizabeth Wingrove wrote: “Just as the fingers of a sane man move only in accordance with his will, so the limbs of the body politic (the citizens) can act in accordance with its brain (the sovereign)” (Wingrove 2000, 152). In other words, for Hobbes, the sovereignty is an entity which simply aids with the motion of things. So whilst for Hobbes the body politic is the integration of man with the sovereign in a sense, for Rousseau the brain (sovereign) of the body politic decides the will and what is good for you, hence one becomes totally dependent on the authority. These metaphors which are found in the works of Rousseau and of Hobbes explain the complex and subtle difference in the similar authorities of the philosophers. It would seem that both are absolute, but that Rousseau’s authority is more absolutist. As explained in the introduction, the difference between the two in essence is defined by a thin line.
To conclude, this essay took the title[1] for granted and it focused on how Hobbes and Rousseau arrived to their conclusions. It was realized that the way in which Hobbes and Rousseau understand human nature rather than freedom leads them to favour absolute authority, or rather think of it as necessary. The essay resumed by making a distinction between the way that Hobbes and Rousseau view the body politic in order to demonstrate the difference with the authorities that they think of as indispensable. It was suggested that Rousseau’s perception of authority is more absolutist. Some scholars have argued that Rousseau verges on authoritarianism because “What Rousseau calls freedom is at bottom no more than the freedom to do that which the state in its omniscience determines” (Nisbet 1943, 102). However, this paper concludes that due to the truism that Rousseau is “familiarly identified with the philosophy of democracy” (Nisbet 1943, 111), one cannot due to the definition of the word associate Rousseau with authoritarianism. Surely this changes as the definition of absolute authority takes another meaning. I would like to resume with the following quote: “Rousseau is the philosopher of democracy, but never of liberalism.” (Nisbet 1943, 112).
