Whenever reading political theory always ask three questions:
1. What is the premise?
2. What is the account/mechanism?
3. What is the payoff?
So for Hobbes it would be something like:
1. People have a projectivist epistemology which causes acrimony. We must solve that by bringing people together under one rule.
2. Consent is employed to transfer 'natural rights' to one body.
3. A perfectly consensual and represented politics.
There are still some bugs in this and my account of Hobbes might not be perfect, but I think it is a good rubric. A surprising number of articles do a hack job of #2 and don't address #3 at all. So, for instance, if you ever read something that outlines a problem and resolves it by magic pixie dust, dragon fire or power excised by the industrial bourgeoisie always be skeptical.
Blackbird singing in the dead of night
13 years ago
5 comments:
I think Hobbes is a good example of where your methodology encounters problems. (sorry I'm picking on you so much these days, but you are posting publicly). Is Hobbes really advocating the kind of one-man sovereign that he argues is a consequence of his theory? Does he really think absolute power should be held in the hands of one man? Alternatively, does Hobbes realize that his scheme is inapplicable? Can his view of absolute monarchy be applied? Could he have reasonably expected it to?
Notice I wrote 'body' and not 'man.' Hobbes is not a monarchist, per se, just an absolutist (according to most readings). I was just presenting the standard analytic approach.
I did notice that you said "body" and not "man." But Hobbes specifically and clearly argues that a single man is the best sovereign. If the "standard analytic approach" does not admit this, are they really reading Hobbes?
So I think you're missing the point. I am not expressing an exclusive reading of Hobbes, I am just using a particular reading to illustrate what I mean by premise, mechanism and payoff.
Actually, my point was that your mechanized reading of texts can only be useful for the most straightforward texts. It would work very well for some one like John Rawls. For someone like Hobbes, where the text and his meaning are not straightforward, you may reach a "payoff" which is not the author's intended goal.
Post a Comment