Theoria

I’ve been working through Hobbes over and over again the past few weeks – his political writings and a number of commentaries. (The imbrication of rational choice/game theoretic and analytic philosophy – i.e., Gauthier, Kavka, Hampton, etc – is especially infuriating; but that is another discussion. Suffice to say, I find it problematic how (1) concepts and definitions are “translated” into  more “acceptable” terms and (2) how inconvenient parts are left out, such as Gauthier’s attempt to exclude the prohibition against intoxication as a law of nature. But, perhaps this is appropriate: Hobbes is certainly an anti-historical writer and the anti-historical methods of these commentators might be strangely appropriate.) It seems to me that I’m prepared to make two claims that are most likely controversial:

First, the state of nature/social contract relation is a ruse. His point here, I think, is that if you accept the abstract and artificial account of the origin of the state, you also have to accept concrete and ‘natural’ accounts of the origin of the state – that is, the state and political power is always about conquest and acquisition. The state is the organ of institutionalized domination.

Second, the essential conflict in his political anthropology is that between savage and barbarian, represented, on the one hand, by the fearful and rational and, on the other hand, by the vainglorious and arational. In order to secure peace, it is necessary that the barbarian be excluded.