Hobbes and Rousseau: Freedom and Authority
Joshua Cohen
Encina West 404/Law School 309
Contacts: jcohen57, or X3-0256
Fall 2008
Seminar: T 2:15-5:05
Office Hours: T 5-7
Leviathan, Hobbes says, aims “to set before men’s eyes the mutuall relations
between protection and obedience; of which the condition of humane nature, and
the laws divine (both natural and positive) require an inviolable observation.”
Because protection requires obedience, “men (who naturally love liberty and
dominion over others)” must relinquish their liberty (and dominion), and submit to
an authority whose power suffices to keep the peace and ensure their safety. As
Carl Schmitt says, this mutual relation between protection and obedience—this
rational exchange of subordination of will for personal security—is “the cardinal
point in Hobbes’s construction of the state.”
Rousseau, in contrast, locates "the essence of the body politic" in "the harmony
of obedience and freedom"—a harmony that ensures protection, without
demanding political subordination. Such subordination is morally unacceptable,
incompatible with our nature as free. The “fundamental problem,” Rousseau
says, is “to find a form of association that defends and protects the person and
goods of each associate with all the common force, and by means of which each
one uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself and remains as free as
before." That may sound like an insoluble problem (each person unites with all in
an association, and obeys only himself?), but Rousseau thinks he has a solution,
in a society regulated by a general will.
The course has three aims. We want to:
•
understand why Hobbes thinks that safety demands submission, what
kind of sovereign authority we must submit to, and whether Hobbes’s mix
of individualism and absolutism makes sense;
•
understand how Rousseau thinks we can associate with others to ensure
security without any sacrifice of autonomy, giving the law to ourselves,
what is required to achieve that mix of protection and self-rule, and why he
thinks that we can live within those requirements; and
•
come to a judgment about which view is more compelling, as a general
direction of normative political thought.
Hobbes/Rousseau, Fall 2008, 1
Books for Purchase
Hobbes, Leviathan (any edition, so long as you have the entire book).
Rousseau, The Social Contract and other later political writings, ed. Victor
Gourevitch (includes Government of Poland, from which there will be some
readings)
Rousseau, Emile, trans. Allan Bloom
Rousseau, The Discourses and other early political writings, ed. Victor
Gourevitch
Rousseau, Collected Writings, vol. 9 (includes Letters Written From the
Mountain)
Organization and Requirements
For the first two hours, I will present material, while always inviting
questions/comments/criticisms. In the third hour, we will have focused discussion
of short pieces of text. I have listed the selections at the end of this syllabus.
You may write one or two papers. If you write two, they should be 3000-3500
words each; if you write one, it should be 6000-7000 words. If you have not done
previous work in political philosophy, I strongly recommend two papers: I will
propose topics for the papers. If you take the two paper option, the first is due
Tuesday, October 28, and the second on Friday, December 5th. If you take the
one paper option, you must propose a topic by October 21st. I will, under no
circumstances, extend the deadline for submitting the topic for the one paper
option.
In preparation for writing the paper(s), you should read at least one or two pieces
of secondary literature (see the Suggested Readings listed below). Though your
paper(s) need not directly engage the secondary literature, that literature will
suggest points of emphasis and lines of interpretation different from those
discussed in class, and give some indication of what needs to be said in
defending a line of argument against alternatives. All the secondary readings
suggested below are illuminating, either because they are clarifying or
provocative. But the provocative stuff is not always clarifying, and the clarifying
stuff is not always provocative.
Reading Assignments
1. For Hobbes, read Leviathan, start to finish. The weekly assignments listed
below are the parts of the book that will be especially relevant for that session.
But it is essential to read the whole book, as slow going as some parts may be
(say, the extensive critique of Cardinal Bellarmine’s De Summo Pontifice in
chapter 42).
Hobbes/Rousseau, Fall 2008, 2
Suggested Readings:
Hobbes wrote three different versions of his political theory: Elements of
Law (1640), De Cive (1641), and Leviathan (1651). One way to approach
Leviathan is to consider the differences between it and the earlier versions
(esp. on the theory of authority/authorization). You also might read
Hobbes’s Behemoth, a study of the English Civil War, and De Homine.
Carl Schmitt, The Leviathan in the State Theory of Thomas Hobbes
Michael Oakeshott, “The Moral Life in the Writings of Thomas Hobbes,” in
Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays
Leo Strauss, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes
C.B. MacPherson, Political Theory of Possessive Individualism
Noberto Bobbio, Thomas Hobbes and the Natural Law Tradition
Howard Warrender, The Political Philosophy of Hobbes, His Theory of
Obligation
Jean Hampton, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition
Greg Kavka, Hobbesian Political Theory
David Johnston, The Rhetoric of Leviathan
Sharon Lloyd, Ideals as Interests in Hobbes's Leviathan
Quentin Skinner, Reason and Rhetoric in the Philosophy of Hobbes
Quentin Skinner, Hobbes and Republican Liberty
Thomas Sorell, ed., Cambridge Companion to Hobbes (Alan Ryan’s essay
provides a very useful overview).
G.A.J. Rogers, ed., Leviathan: Contemporary Responses to the Political
Theory of Thomas Hobbes (includes responses to Hobbes by Filmer,
Lawson, Bramhall, and Edward, Earl of Clarendon)
Patricia Springborg, ed., The Cambridge Companion to Hobbes’s
Leviathan
2. With Rousseau, be sure to read Social Contract, Discourse on Inequallty (as
well as the First Discourse, On the Sciences and Arts), Emile, Considerations on
the Government of Poland, and relevant parts of Letters Written From the
Mountain (esp. letters 6-9).
Suggested Readings:
Among the other political writings that are worth reading: Discourse on
Political Economy, The Geneva Manuscript (an early version of the Social
Contract), and The State of War, all of which are in the Gourevitch
volume. Rousseau’s draft constitution for Corsica is also worth attention,
as is the Letter to D’Alembert, criticizing the proposal to open a theater in
Geneva. More broadly, his Confessions and Reveries of a Solitary Walker
are of great interest (in substance and style), and provide important insight
Hobbes/Rousseau, Fall 2008, 3
into Rousseau’s larger intellectual project. The secondary literature on
Rousseau is not nearly as good as the secondary literature on Hobbes.
Joseph de Maistre, Against Rousseau, trans. Richard Lebrun
Ernst Cassirer, The Question of Jean Jacques Rousseau
Robert Derathé, Rousseau et la science politique de son temps (really
excellent book, situating Rousseau in traditions of political thought he
is responding to)
Judith Shklar, Men and Citizens: A Study in Rousseau's Social Theory
James Miller, Rousseau: Dreamer of Democracy
Patrick Riley, Will and Political Legitimacy
N.J.H. Dent, Rousseau (excellent account of some of Rousseau’s
psychological ideas; tides of language run high, but very helpful)
Allan Bloom, “Rousseau’s Critique of Liberal Constitutionalism,” in The
Legacy of Rousseau, ed. Clifford Orwin and Nathan Tarcov
Susan Okin, Women in Western Political Thought (Rousseau chapter)
Christopher Betram, Rousseau and the Social Contract (helpful
guidebook/commentary
Arthur Melzer, The Natural Goodness of Man (careful and illuminating
study of this central idea in Rousseau)
Richard Fralin, Rousseau and Representation (very helpful and detailed
examination of Rousseau’s critique of representation)
Leo Damrosch, Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius (really fine
biography)
Frederick Neuhouser, Rousseau's Theodicy of Self-Love: Evil, Rationality,
and the Drive for Recognition
Weekly topics/readings:
Week One: Main features of human nature and conditions of human interaction:
Leviathan, chs. 5, 6-13
Week Two: The roots of human conflict, natural laws as rules of peace,
conditional rationality of cooperation: Leviathan, chs. 13-15, 27, 44, 47
Week Three: Three strategies for establishing peace, and Hobbes’s case for his
absolutist solution: Leviathan, chs. 16-19, 21, 26, 28, 29
Week Four: Three criticisms of Hobbes’s solution: Leviathan, chs. 17, 18, 21, 29,
30
Week Five: On the congruence between reason and revelation, preservation in
this world and salvation in the next: Leviathan, chaps. 31, 32, 42, 43
Hobbes/Rousseau, Fall 2008, 4
Week Six: Autonomy, responsibility to self, and the general will: Social Contract,
Bks 1, 2
Week Seven: Society of the general will as a free community of equals: Social
Contract, Bks. 1, 2; Poland, secs. 1-4
Week Eight: Natural goodness of humanity, the (social) genealogy of vice, and
the possibility of virtue: Discourse on Inequality, esp. Part 2; Emile, pp. 37-98,
Bk. IV
Week Nine: Natural goodness continued, and the institutions of the general will:
Social Contract, Bks. 3, 4
Week 10: Democracy and the general will: Social Contract, Bks. 3, 4; Poland;
Letters From the Mountain, Letters 7-9.
Topics for Discussion Sections
We will devote the third hour each week to discussing small sections of the texts.
I have chosen sections/passages that: (1) discuss interesting issues; (2) advance
striking views about the issues; (3) reveal important features of the overall
position of the theorist; (4) involve argument, not just position-taking; (5) will not
(typically) be discussed in detail in lecture; and (6) are pretty brief, generally 5-10
pages (there are some exceptions). The themes vary widely.
In preparing for the discussion, read the specified section (see below) several
times, and think about the following questions:
1. What is (are) the main thesis (theses) in the section?
2. How does Hobbes/Rousseau defend the thesis (theses) in question?
What premises does he rely on? Is the conclusion well-supported by the
premises?
3. Do you think the views are plausible? implausible? pointless?
4. If you think the views are implausible, is that because you agree with
the basic assumptions, but think the arguments for the conclusions are
flawed? Or do you think the basic assumptions are themselves defective?
If you think the views are plausible, do you agree only with the conclusions
or do you also think that the reasoning itself is compelling? If you think the
views are pointless, why might the author have thought otherwise?
Hobbes/Rousseau, Fall 2008, 5
5. What role does the particular section play in the view as a whole? (You
should have a view about this, but don’t let it distract your attention from
the specifics of the passages under discussion.)
6. If there are problems in the particular section, are they isolated
difficulties, or do they reveal a more fundamental problem?
Week One: No assignment
Week Two: Leviathan, chap. 12, paragraphs 1-12
Week Three: Leviathan, chap. 19, paragraphs 1-13
Week Four: Leviathan, chap. 26, paragraphs 1-12
Week Five: Leviathan, chap. 42, paragraphs 4-25
Week Six: Social Contract, Bk. 1, ch. 4
Week Seven: Social Contract, Bk. 2, ch. 7
Week Eight: Emile, pp. 222 (“Thus is born…”)-230 (“I have not contradicted
myself.”)
Week Nine: Social Contract, Bk. 4, ch. 8
Week Ten: Letters From the Mountain, eighth letter, pp. 260-65
Hobbes/Rousseau, Fall 2008, 6