Module 1, week 1

As I made my way through Hobbes’ Leviathan, I couldn’t help but wonder what he might have had to say if he were in the room with the Founders in 1776. Although he had been gone several decades at that point I think he would have been able to point out a few similarities between his ideologies and those of the founding fathers. However, I think he may have had some disagreement with them about the use of the words freedom and liberty.

While many of the principles Hobbes applies to the workings of common-wealth or more generally to man itself can be applied across boundaries of time, there are some ideologies that, quite obviously, do not transcend those boundaries. For example, his views on the role of women in society (e.g. “feminine courage” as less than that of men) while reflective of the time in which he lived, could use some serious updates.

 I tend to agree with Hobbes’ initial remarks on liberty, such as those that are broached in Chapter 21, regarding the liberty of the subjects of a sovereign body. He introduces liberty as the “absence of opposition,” or external pediments of motion. As the chapter develops on the “true” liberties of a subject, one could ask if such a thing as true liberty exists.

One of the primary words I associate with our own Constitution is Liberty. In some aspects I would argue that America is similar to Hobbes’ observation of Rome, in that we have been taught to “hate monarchy” or at least to disregard it; which is fair given the events that led to our country’s formation. But could it have led us as a people to put too much emphasis on the words freedom and liberty?

Take for example, our democratic system of elected representatives. If the people have, by electing their representatives, “for the attaining of peace and conservation of themselves” and created as Hobbes calls, “artificial chains called Civil Laws” (pg. 92) and have also authorized our representatives to interpret those laws, we have only allowed ourselves liberty insofar as our representatives are inclined to determine.This is not to say that these laws are a detriment to our self-preservation but to acknowledge their role and that it should not be supposed that Americans possess “natural” liberties.