---
title: "Complete Book 0"
book: "MA Pol.Sc 101 Final"
category: "MA"
publisher: "Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd."
type: "Educational Material"
---







According to Latest Syllabus
Read For Sure SuccessIn University Examination
RATAN
TEXT BOOK
WESTERN POLITICAL THINKERS
M.A.Political Science
(Sem-I)
Dr. Shushma Kardam
Published by
Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002
Copyright Authors & Publishers
Published by
Ratan Prakashan Mandir Pvt. Ltd.
2nd Floor, Centre Plaza, Parinay Kunj, Lajpat Kunj Marg, Agra-282002
ISBN :978-81-69604-51-2
Price
352.00 only
Printed at :
KIDS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.
C-60, 61, 62, 63, EPIP, Shastripuram, Agra - 282007 Ph. : +91 9719004921
Preamble to the Constitution of India
WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, Having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a
SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC
and to secure to all its citizens :
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all
FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual
and the unity and integrity of the Nation;
IN OUR CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY this twenty-sixth day of November, 1949, do HEREBY ADOPT, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES THIS CONSTITUTION.
SUCCESS
Success is not permanent and failure is not final. Never stop working after success and, never stop trying after failure.
A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM
Block-IUnit-1Plato (427-347 B.C.) Part-I
Structure:

1.1    Introduction

1.2    Learning Objectives

1.3    Life and Works of Plato
Self Check Exercise-1

1.4    Plato’s Theory of Justice


1.4.1    Prima Facie Theories of Justice and their criticism by Plato

1.4.2    Justice in the State and Individual

1.4.3    Features of Plato’s Theory of Justice
Self Check Exercise-2

1.5    Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Justice Self Check Exercise-3

1.6    Summary

1.7    Glossary

1.8    Answers to Self Check Exercise

1.9    Suggested Readings

1.10    Terminal Questions

1.1    Introduction
Greek Political philosophy is one of those ancient political philosophies which the world has been able to preserve. Its influence on European political institutions is undoubtedly profound and undisputed. It has by now been fully well established that there were few other equally important contemporary philosophies but as the chance would have been, other philosophies could not be preserved and as such they could not influence succeeding generations to any considerable extent, whereas Greek philosophy could. Greek thinkers devoted their attention mainly to the nature of the state and to man as a political animal. Early Greek Philosophy was developed by Sophists and Socrates. Although Sophists and Socrates played an important role in the development of political thought in ancient Greece but no one of them can be described as a systematic political thinker. This title applies very appropriately to Plato. He is the first Greek philosopher to have written systematic treatises. In this unit, we will discuss about Plato’s theory of Justice.

1.2    Learning Objectives
Dear Learner, after studying this lesson, you will be able to:

•    Know about the life, works and background of Plato’s Philosophy.

•    Know views on justice prior to Plato.

•    Critically analyse Plato’s concept of Justice.

1.3    Life and Works of Plato
Plato, whose real name was Aristocles, was born at Athens in 428 B.C., two years after the death of the great Athenian statesman, Pericles, and about twenty years after the breaking out of the Peloponnesian war which ended in the humiliation of his native city. He died in 348 B.C. at the age of over eighty years, when Macedonian militarism was beginning to sweep
everything before it. His life thus covers one of the most troubled periods of Greek history. He witnessed the defeat of Athens in her war against Sparta, the tyrannical rule of reactionary oligarchs, the restoration of democracy which tried and executed his beloved master Socrates, and the decline of the city state and its traditional morality. So he lived in the period of political instability. It was because of this political instability that he searched for those eternal principles of human conduct which could bring happiness to individual and stability to the state.
Plato came under the influence of Socrates in his early youth and remained with him till his execution. The entire philosophy of Plato revolves round the Socratic doctrine: Virtue is knowledge. His political thought is found mainly in the ‘Republic’, the ‘Statesman’, and ‘Laws’ though the ‘Apology’ and the ‘Crito’ also deal with the problem of the relation of the state to the individual. Plato was a deductive thinker, who deduced all his political philosophy from certain fundamental assumptions.
As regards different aspects or Plato’s philosophy, first of all we would discuss his theory of Justice.
Self Check Exercise-1
Note: Check your answer with that given at the end of unit.

Q.1 Fill in the blanks:

i)    The entire philosophy of Plato revolves round the Socratic doctrine of ................

ii)    Plato’s political thought is found mainly in his three important works namely

1.4    Plato's Theory of Justice
Plato's political writings were the outcome of his dissatisfaction with the prevailing degenerate conditions in Athens, his native city- state. The Athenian democracy was on the verge of ruin. It was only a democracy in name. Actually there was the tyranny of few. Plato found in the contemporary politics, two great and serious flaws which were, according to him, the cause of this ruin. One was the ubiquity of ignorance masquerading in the guise of knowledge. The other was the political selfishness of the rulers and the ruled. The first defect was manifested by the fact that the amateurs instead of the professionals were predominant in Athens. The Athenian democracy seemed only to mean the right divine of the ignorant to govern wrong. The system of lottery for appointment to public offices was mainly responsible for this. Any man, whatever his capacity might be appointed to the executive office only by the sheer chance of lot. The second defect which was even more formidable was the result of the Sophists's teachings of the ethics of self-satisfaction. The Sophist taught that the individual was everything and that the state was a mere means for the fulfillment of his desires. The violent, excessive and gross spirit of individualism induced the citizens to capture the offices of the state for the better fulfillment of their own selfish purposes, and divided "Athens into two hostile camps of the rich and the poor, the oppressors and the oppressed."
Evidently, these two factors-amateur meddlesomeness and excessive individualism became Plato's main targets of attack in the Republic. The attack came in the form of the construction of an ideal state in which "Justice" reigned supreme. The second title of the Republic i.e. "Concerning Justice" shows the important place which Plato gave to it. Actually the fundamental issue of the Republic is the discovery of the nature and habitation of Justice.
Before we proceed along with in the search of Justice we must note the following points:
First, that Plato is a deductive thinker who deduces all his political philosophy from certain fundamental assumptions. Incidentally, the most consistent thinker as he is always true to his plan, one cannot accept his premises and reject his conclusions.
Secondly, one of his fundamental assumptions is the tripartite division of man's mind into Reason, Spirit and Appetite-and the Corresponding division of society into three classes i.e. the Rulers, the Soldiers and the Farmers.
Thirdly, the father of the Idealist School in Politics and Philosophy as he is, he could conceive of "beauty" without there being a "beautiful thing". "Universal" carried a greater meaning for him than the "Particular". His indebtedness to Socrates is evident in this respect.
Fourthly, in another aspect in which Plato was indebted to Socrates was his master's master-idea that "Virtue is Knowledge". The latter epigram simply meant that there could be no virtue without knowledge.
Fifthly, in his attempt to discover justice, Plato adopts the 'negative approach'. That is he tells us what justice is not. He firstly refuted the 'Prima Facie' theories of Justice and then gave us his own theory of Justice.

1.4.1    Prima Facie Theories of Justice and their criticism by Plato:
The first theory is that of Traditional morality propounded by Cephalous and Polemarchus which considers Justice to be "giving to every man his due." The latter phrase result in the view that it consists in "doing good to one's friend and evil to enemies." Plato refutes this on three grounds that (1) One's supposed friends may be friends only in appearance (2) to do evil to anybody, including our enemies is inconsistent with the most elementary conception of morality (3) This view takes into consideration only the relations between two individuals on the individualistic grounds and ignores the social whole which is the raison d'etre of any theory of Justice.
The second major theory of justice, known as Radical Morality, was advocated by the Sophists, particularly by Thrasymachus. He put forward two primary arguments. First, he claimed that justice serves the interests of the stronger party. In this view, power determines justice—those in authority, such as rulers or governments, define what is just in line with their own advantage. As a result, the role of citizens is to pursue the interests of their rulers rather than their own; any attempt by the governed to seek personal interests over those of the authority would be deemed unjust.
Thrasymachus’ second argument went even further, asserting that injustice is preferable to justice. He maintained that justice amounts to obedience to authority when necessary and pursuing one’s self-interest whenever possible. The Sophists, with their emphasis on individualism, took this notion to an extreme, promoting a form of unrestrained self-interest that Plato found deeply problematic. In The Republic, Plato sets out to refute this exaggerated individualism by arguing that the self is not an isolated entity but a component of a larger, ordered society with a specific role within it.
Plato counters Thrasymachus’ first proposition by introducing the Socratic idea of government as a form of art or craft. A true ruler, like a skilled craftsman, governs not for personal gain but to enhance the well-being of those under their care. In response to the second proposition, Plato contends that justice is inherently superior to injustice. He argues that a just person is wiser, stronger, and ultimately happier than an unjust one, because they understand and accept their own limitations, leading to harmony within both the individual and society.
The third theory of justice is Pragmatism, articulated by Glaucon. This view suggests that justice is a social construct, created by human agreement rather than arising from nature. In the hypothetical state of nature, there was neither justice nor political organization. Out of fear and vulnerability, the weak banded together to form societies and governments, establishing laws and concepts of justice to protect themselves. Thus, justice emerges not from the interests of the powerful, but from the collective necessity of the weaker members of society. This theory is often seen as a precursor to later social contract theories.
Plato critiques these three prevailing views of justice—Radical Morality, Individualistic Pragmatism, and Social Contract Theories—by identifying a shared misconception. Each treats justice as something external or artificially imposed. Plato, however, argues that justice is an internal virtue, intrinsic to the human soul. It is not a product of social convention or external authority, but an essential quality rooted in human nature itself.

1.4.2    Justice in the State and Individual
Plato, as a masterful philosopher and artist, does not present his theory of Justice through a direct and systematic exposition. Instead, he employs what is often referred to as the "method of large letters." This approach involves exploring complex and abstract ideas—such as Justice—through more tangible and comprehensible analogies. In The Republic, Plato suggests that Justice manifests both within the individual and the state. However, it is more easily observed in the broader context of the state, where its features are writ large and more discernible. Therefore, before analyzing Justice within the individual soul, Plato first examines how it operates within the framework of his Ideal State.
In crafting this Ideal State, Plato presupposes a certain psychological foundation. He draws a parallel between the structure of the human soul and that of the state. Just as the soul consists of three distinct elements—Reason, Spirit (or Courage), and Appetite (or Desire)—the state comprises three corresponding classes: the Rulers (governed by Reason), the Auxiliaries or Soldiers (driven by Spirit), and the Producers or Farmers (motivated by Appetite). As the scholar Ernest Barker observes, this tripartite division of the soul forms the core of much of Plato’s argument in The Republic. It is this analogy that underpins Plato's famous assertion that "the state is the individual writ large."
Plato’s method in The Republic is deeply psychological. He begins his exploration with the lowest faculty of the soul—Appetite—and gradually ascends to Reason, the highest. At each stage, he illustrates how these elements contribute to the creation and maintenance of the state. The genesis of the state, according to Plato, lies in the inherent needs of human beings. No individual is self-sufficient; people depend on one another to fulfill their diverse needs. This interdependence gives rise to society, where cooperation and mutual exchange become essential for satisfying collective needs.
However, cooperation is not random but follows a crucial principle: the Division of Labour. Plato emphasizes that society functions effectively when individuals specialize in tasks suited to their natural abilities. Two fundamental psychological insights support this specialization: first, individuals have different aptitudes and excel in different kinds of work; second, mastery and efficiency are achieved when people dedicate themselves consistently to tasks aligned with their inherent capabilities. For example, a farmer who focuses solely on agriculture produces more food than he personally requires, while a shoemaker crafts more
shoes than he can use. Through specialization and exchange, both benefit, as each can better fulfill their own needs by trading their surplus.
This penetrating analysis of human nature and social organization forms the bedrock of Plato's Ideal State. Within this state, Justice emerges as a fundamental principle. For Plato, Justice is the harmonious structure that binds society together. It occurs when every individual performs the role for which they are best suited by nature and education. In this ideal arrangement, each person finds their rightful place and fulfills their appropriate function, contributing to the stability and unity of the whole.
Plato’s conception of Justice thus expands upon the traditional definition offered by Cephalus—“giving every man his due.” While Cephalus interprets this principle in terms of individual rights and external transactions, Plato redefines it through the lens of duty and internal harmony. Justice, for Plato, is not about merely giving people what they are owed in a legalistic sense; rather, it concerns the alignment of an individual’s nature with their societal role and the faithful execution of the responsibilities that come with it. What is "due" to an individual is to be treated according to their natural capacities and their education. Conversely, what is "due" from them is the conscientious performance of their societal duties. In this way, Plato presents Justice as an ethical and social ideal that ensures the proper functioning of both the individual and the state.

1.4.3    Features of Plato’s Theory of Justice
Plato's Justice is based on three principles of society :-
The first is the principle of non-interference. No class should interfere with the task of other classes. "It shall concentrate on its own sphere of duty and shall not meddle with the sphere of others." Only then and then only there can be unity in the state and the society as a whole can benefit by the work of the individuals.
The second is the principle of functional specialisation.
The third is the principle of harmony. Human virtue according to Plato is divided into wisdom, courage, temperance and Justice. The first three he assigns one to each class. There remains Justice. The task of Justice is to harmonise the three virtues. The nature of Justice is "architectonic" in relation to other excellences, i.e. is related to them as the work of the architect or a master- builder in the construction of a house is related to that of masons, joiners, wood carvers, and sculptors who work under his direction.
The conception of Social Justice (or righteousness) as the fitting by each men of his appointed sphere is the cardinal conception of the Republic (Barker). The conclusion of the whole matter would seem then to be this that each person should do his own appointed work in contentment. This in Plato's eyes is Justice, or in other words the true principle of social life. The Justice of the state is the citizen's sense of duty of his station issuing before the world in public action.
Such a conception of justice is the final and ultimate answer to the individualism in life and in theory which Plato combated. The conception postulates a view of the individual as not an isolated self but part of an order, intended not to pursue the pleasures of isolated self but to fill an appointed place in that order. The individual is not a whole but the state is a whole. The individual is a factor or fraction of it.
Before we attempt any criticism of Plato's conception of Social Justice, we have still to consider his definition of Justice in the individual. If the Justice of the state is the due performance of the function by each class, he argues, then "the justice of the individual (the discovery of which was the purpose of the whole argument, and the reason for the construction and consideration of the state) will be equally the due performance of function of each part of the individual mind. The parts of the individual mind represent the same principles as the classes of the state. So the justice of the individual means that Reason, Spirit and Appetite should keep within the proper bounds. To Plato justice of the individual is identifiable with virtue of excellence.
Thus Justice is for Plato, at once a part of human virtue and bond which joins men together in states. It is identical quality which makes man good and which makes him social. This identification is first and fundamental principle of Plato's political philosophy.
Self Check Exercise-2
Note: Check your answer with that given at the end of unit.
Q.1 Fill in the blanks.

(a)    The Radical view of justice as represented by Thrasymachus is ......................

(b)    Name the three Prima Facie Theories of Justice .......................

(c)    The Three elements of human soul i.e. Reason, Spirit and Appetite are represented in the state by ....................
Q.2 Answer the following questions.

(a)    According to Plato, what is Social Justice?

(b)    Describe the three main principles of Plato’s theory of Justice?

1.5    Criticism of Plato’s Theory of Justice
Platonic conception of Justice as applied to the state may be subject to the following criticism : -
First, to a modern reader Plato's conception of Justice, sound novel and striking for what it omits and for what it includes. It is in no sense a juristic definition of Justice. It is not enforceable. Some control and devotional self-abnegation in the interests of society lie the base of Plato's Justice. These are moral principles having no legal sanctions behind them. Plato's Justice does not visualise and provide for clash of individual wills and conflicts between one interest and another.
Secondly, it is not applicable in a modern nation state whose population runs into crores. It is not physically possible to devide such a large population in three stereo-typed classes and to assign to them fixed functions.
Thirdly, it tries to leave 2/3 of the personality of the individual undeveloped. When the individual possesses all the three elements Reason, Spirit and Appetite, he should develop all these faculties. But Plato would confine one class of individuals to the development of one faculty only. If he belongs to rulers' class he will develop reason only. Similarly if he belongs to the soldiers' class, he will develop spirit or courage alone. And again, if he belongs to the peasant class, he will develop the instinct of appetite. This attitude amounts to reducing the individual to 1/3 of his personality.
Fourthly, Plato's justice assigns absolute ruling power to one class i.e. philosophers only. Such a monopoly of political power in the hands of one class, however, well-trained morally and spiritually is bound to demoralise that class sooner or later and thus corrupt the state.
Lord Acton's statement that Absolute power corrupts absolutely is a truism which cannot be denied.
Fifthly, such a concept of Justice leads to totalitarianism pure and simple.
Sixthly, as Prof. Popper points out that Plato's Justice leads to a class-state in which ruling becomes the privilege of a particular class. Similarly carrying arms and fighting becomes the prerogative of a particular class. Naturally the same principle applies to the peasants class which has the monopoly of the production of articles of consumption. "Plato calls class privilege just while we usually mean by Justice rather the absence of such privilege."
Seventhly and lastly, the individual is reduced to means, the state becomes an end in-itself. The individual, according to Plato exists for the state not vice versa.
Some of the criticism against Plato's Justice can be ruled out if we know actually what the Greeks meant by Justice. Plato used the Greek word "dikaisune" for Justice which comes very near to the word "morality" or "righteousness."
Self Check Exercise-3
Note: Check your answer with that given at the end of unit.
Q.1 Write Yes/No

a)    Did Plato give a Juristic conception of Justice? Yes/No

b)    Does Plato’s Justice lead to a class state? Yes/No

c)    Is Plato’s conception of Justice is applicable in a modern nation state? Yes/ No

1.6    Summary
When all is said, we must remember that Justice is the fundamental principle lying at the root of a well-ordered society. This is one of Plato's greatest contributions to Social philosophy. Modern thinkers have not forgotten Plato and still conceive of social morality of which the best formula is "the fulfillment of my station and its duties." Then again, Plato's Justice bears a good deal of resemblance to Gita's dictum. That is, "it is better to die while doing a duty assigned to oneself, on the other hand it is dangerous to do a task which is assigned to somebody else."
The following are the elements of truth in Plato's Justice :-

1.    It is a true principle of social life.

2.    It is an ultimate answer to an extreme individualism.

3.    The proper working of three elements-reason, spirit and appetite-in the individual's mind is the sign of a sound and sane mind.

1.9 Glossary

•    Athens and Sparta- Greek City States.

•    Totalitarian- A system of government in which there is only one political party that has absolute power and control over the people.

•    Prima-Facie- What appears to be true and is accepted as a fact, until evidence to the contrary is detected or submitted.

•    Radical- Advocates fundamental changes in the political, legal, economic structure of the state; often but not necessarily by extreme means.

•    Pragmatic- Refers to an empirical and experimental outlook; a system that judges the truth of a conception by its effects.

•    Teleological- the doctrine that each of the part of nature is designed to fulfill a particular end.

•    Analogous- having analogy; similar.

•    Demagogues- A popular leader in democracy who appeals to emotions and sentiments of the people and thereby establishes his hold over them.

1.8 Answers to Self Check ExerciseSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    i) Virtue is knowledge

ii)    ‘Republic’, ‘Statesman’ and Laws.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.     (a) Justice is the interest of the stronger.

(b)    Theory of Traditional morality, Theory of Radical Morality and, theory of Pragmatism.

(c)    Ruler, Warriors and Produces.

2.    (a)  “ Justice is the bond which holds a society together, a harmonious union of
individuals, each of whom has found his life work in accordance with his natural fitness and his training.”

(b)    (i) Principle of non-interference.

(ii)    Principle of functional specialization.

(iii)    Principle of Harmony.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.  (a) No.

(b)    Yes

(c)    No

1.9    Suggested Readings

1.    G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1961.

2.    W.T. Jones, Master of Political Thought, Vol. I, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd; 1955.

3.    E. Barker, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, New Delhi: Dover Publication, 1964.

4.    David Boucher and Paul Kelly (eds.) Political Thinkers from Socrates to the Present, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.

5.  William Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co., 1960.

6.  Subrata Mukharjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, A History of Political Thought:
Plato to Marx, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2018.

7.    Brian Nelson, Western Political Thought, New Delhi: Pearson, 2006.

8.   Sukhbir Singh, History of Political Thought: Plato to Burk, Vol.I, Meernt :
Rastogi Publication, 1997.

9.  R.M. Bhagat, Political Though: Plato to Marx, Jalandher : New Academic
Publishing Company, 1988.

1.10    Terminal Question

1.    Critically Evaluate Plato’s Theory of Justice.

2.    Why Plato criticized the ‘Prima Facie’ theories of Justice.
Unit-2Plato (427-347 B.C.) Part - II
Structure

2.1    Introduction

2.2    Learning Objectives

2.3    Plato’s Theory of Communism


2.3.1    Communism as a Handmaid of Justice

2.3.2    Two main forms of Plato’s Communism

2.3.3    Partial Application of Plato’s Communism

2.3.4    Communism of Property

2.3.5    Communism of Wives

2.3.6    Bases of Plato’s Scheme of Communism

2.3.7    Plato’s Communism versus Modern Communism
Self Check Exercise-1

2.4    Conception of the Philosopher King


2.4.1    Features of Plato’s Rule of philsopgy

2.4.2    Critism
Self Check Exercise-2

2.5    Summary

2.6    Glossary

2.7    Answers to Self Check Exercise

2.8    Suggested Readings

2.9    Terminal Questions

2.1    Introduction
In the previous unit, we tried to know about the life and works of Plato and comprehend his concept of justice. In this unit, we will make an attempt to understand his view on communism of Property and Wives and Philosopher King. Plato’s concept of communism is intimately connected with his theory of justice and ideal state. Plato is of the opinion that in order to achieve justice and to have an ideal state it is essential that there should be communism of wives and property. He believes that both family and private property are serious challenges to the loyalty of the rulers. They stand in the way of rulers to devote themselves fully to the service of community. He says that if rulers acquire homes or lands or money of their own they will become house keepers and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants; instead of allies of other citizens, they will pass on their life in much greater terror of internal rather than external enemies. In other words, Plato held that the combination of the political and economic power is bound to lead to corruption and degradation in the state and an efficient system of administration could operate only if the economic power is absolutely divorced from the political power. Therefore, he pleads that those who exercise political power should have no economic motives and those who are engaged in economic activities should have not share in political power.
Philosopher king is the political component of Ideal State of Plato. Philosopher king differs from amateur rules. He has a theoretical as well as practical knowledge about the art of statesmanship. He is a symbol of knowledge and sacrifice. He is a product of long and
comprehensive system of education. According to Plato, an Ideal state must be governed by philosopher king who should be passionless person and seeker of truth and wisdom.

2.2    Learning Objectives
Dear learner, after going through this unit, you will be able to:

•    Comprehend Plato’s theory of Communism.

•    Understand his views on Philosopher king.

2.3    Theory of Communism2.3.1    Communism as a Handmaid of Justice
Like education, Plato's communism was handmaid of his justice. If education was a positive remedy for the operation of justice in the ideal state, his communism was a negative remedy. Plato had an excessive distrust of human nature. In spite of so much education and training Plato could not be convinced that members of the ruling and military class were completely reformed as to work on the altruistic motive. He could not be convinced that education had accomplished its task. For the remaining task, he advocated communism as a sure remedy. Plato is also convinced that in the face of corrupting influences, the rulers and soldiers will be shaken from acting according to those high ideals on which the very success of the ideal state depended. These corrupting influences, according to Plato, were family and property. Their continuance in the case of the ruling and defending classes, Plato regarded, as essentially dangerous- So that family and property may not become great impediments in the discharge of their duties, Plato is never weary of criticizing them in the Republic.

2.3.2    Two Main forms of Plato's Communism
Plato's communism takes two main forms. The first is the abolition of private property which includes everything- house, land or money. The second was the abolition of family, what Prof. G. H. Sabine has characterized as the abolition of a permanent monogamous marriages system and the substitution of regulated breeding at the behest of the rulers for the purpose of securing the best possible offsprings. All this was done in the name of justice and here again spiritual betterment was the ultimate aim. Plato believed that conditions were most favourable for the life of spirit under a system of communism. Plato's idea of the "life of the spirit" does not carry any mysticism with it. It does not mean renunciation in any way. It simply means that certain important type of individuals should cease to be self-centered and that they should develop such community feelings which will make them the real benefactors of society. They should treat them as a part of that social order whose misfortune was their misfortune and whose advantage was their advantage. The Platonic system of communism, in this way, invents a new social order under which the governing class surrenders both family and private property and embraces a system of communism

2.3.3    Partial Application of Plato's Communism
Plato's ideal state consists of three different classes on the basis of their natural capacities. The rulers and soldiers make the guardian class. The third class of the ideal state includes all the rest of the people-the workers, labours, artisans and clerks etc. Communism in the Republic is meant only for the guardians class, that is, for the rulers and soldiers, while the persons of the third category are left in possession of their private families, both property and wives. The unity of the state is to be secured; property and family stand in the way; therefore, property and marriage must go. Plato's communism therefore has a strictly political purpose.

2.3.4    Communism of Property
Plato's communism of property is entirely different from modern socialists. There is no mention in the Republic of the socialisation of all the means of production. Plato is only concerned with the product which is to be partly-socialised. The guardians who live under a
system of communism are distinguished from the rest of the people by being-partners in property. The members of the ruling classes do not possess any private property. Neither individually nor collectively do they own a single acre of land and its products are in the hands of the third-class of farmers and cultivators. They have no houses; they live 'encamped' in the common barracks, which are always open and public. Plato deprives them of all gold and silver.
They live without house, without land and without money. "But should they ever acquire homes or lands or money of their own, they will become house people, and husbandmen instead of guardians, enemies and tyrants instead of allies of the other citizens; hating and being hated, plotting and being plotted against, they will pass their whole life in much greater terror of internal than of external enemies, and the hour of ruin, both to themselves and to the rest of the state, will be at hand".
But the pertinent question that arises in this connection is, as to what do they live on? The answer is that the guardians are to live on a salary paid to them in kind by the farming classes according to a regular assessment, a Salary paid year by year and consisting of such necessaries as will suffice for the year. These necessaries are not to be divided among the guardians for private consumption, they are to be consumed, like the Spartan system, at common-tables. Plato's communism, it is obvious, therefore, is a way of asceticism and hence it parts company with modern socialism. Plato's communism, because it is ascetic, therefore, it is also aristocratic. "It is the way of surrender ; and it is a surrender imposed on the best, and only on the best. It exists for the sake of the whole society, but not for the whole society. It exists only for the governing class. In that sense it is a political, and not an economic communism which Plato preaches. Its aim may be said to be the substitution of a trained and professional government, supported by a system of regular taxation, for an unprofessional and unpaid government". According to Prof. Sabine, "Plato's order of ideas is exactly the reverse of that which has mainly animated modern socialist utopias; he does not mean to use government to equalize wealth, but he equalizes wealth in order to remove a disturbing influence in government"

2.3.5    Communism of Wives
Plato's scheme of communism envisages not only communism of property; it also contemplates communism of wives. He regards family affection directed towards particular persons, as another potent rival to the state in competing for the loyalty of rulers. Plato wished the rulers of his ideal state to be troubled neither by distractions from their work, nor by temptations to self-interest. He had deprived them of property because the core of it was a distraction, and the desire for it was a temptation. He also deprives them of private families because he thinks that the very coming into existence of families will introduce the question of 'mine' and 'thine'. It will, thus, destroy that corporate feeling which is the very basis of the state. Plato wants "that the wives of our guardians are to be common, and their children are to be common, and no parent is to know his own child, nor any child his parent". Plato's scheme, therefore, is a system of communism in the sense of common ownership. No guardian will be able to say of any wife or child, "She, or he is mine"; but all guardians will be able to say of all wives and children, "They are ours".
To Plato the home, which is so precious to us, was only a stumbling-block. "Every Englishman's house is his castle", we say. "Pull down the walls," Plato would reply; "they
shelter at best a narrow family affection; they harbour at the worst selfish instincts and stunted capacities. Pull down the walls, and let the free air of a common life blow over the place where they have been". It is in this way that the home is condemned as a centre of extreme selfishness and exclusiveness. Plato further condemns it as a place where each man dragging any acquisition which he has made into a separate house of his own, where he has a separate wife and children and private pleasures and pains. It is again condemned by Plato as a 'place of wasted talents and dwarfed powers, where the mind of the wife is wasted on the service of the tables. These homes will also be dominated by such things as the flattery of the rich by the poor, and all the pains and pangs which men experience in bringing up a family, and in finding money to buy necessaries for their household.
But, by the abolition of the family, it is not to be understood, however, that Plato denies his guardians a normal sexual life. In order to encourage matings between those best fitted to produce children of the desired quality, the rulers will arrange periodic festivals for hymeneal purposes, and will authorise on each of these occasions such a number of matings as may be necessary to help the population of the state at just the right figure. These acts of coition will be sanctified by impressive and holy ceremonies designed to emphasize the noble purpose of the union and to eliminate all elements of lust and obscenity what more powerful urge to excellence could the ingenuity of man devise".
One very pertinent question in this connection needs to be answered. What about those children who will be born out of such unions? Plato's answer in this connection is very clear. The children born out of such union will be the property of the state. The children at the time of their birth will be taken to a nursery and will be cared for in common by the nurses and mothers of the state. Thus no parent will lavish affection upon one child to the exclusion of others, but will love all children as their own and, instead of being concerned only for the welfare of those of their own blood, will strive for the happiness and welfare of all. The guardians in the state then will come to be one great family in which each will regard all others as kinsfolk.
Plato also fixes up a definite age both for women and men at which they will start begetting children. Plato in this connection suggests that the parents should produce children when they are in the prime of life. But what is the prime of life? he asks. May it not be defined as a period of about twenty years in a woman's life, and thirty in a man ? A woman at 20 years of age may begin to bear children to the state and continue to bear them until forty ; a man may begin at five-and-twenty, and continue to beget children until he will be fifty-five. Plato says that these years in men and women are the prime of physical as well as of intellectual vigor. Any one above or below the prescribed ages, who takes part in the public hymeneals, shall be said to have done an unholy and unrighteous thing. Such is the scheme of Plato according to which the guardians of the state are to have their wives and families in common.

2.3.6    Bases of Plato's Scheme of Communism
What is the basis or bases of Plato's scheme of communism? In this connection different opinions have been expressed from different quarters. But, whatever might have been the central idea in the mind of Plato, there is no one to deny the fact that his scheme of communism serves multifarious ends. According to Prof. R. L. Nettleship, the idea of common life is the basis of Plato's scheme. The institution of property and family appear to Plato as 'the great strongholds of selfishness'. There can be no doubt that selfishness has, in fact, found in these two institutions not its cause but its most pernicious expression. To Plato
this fact seems to prove that in order to bring about a common life we must cut away these along with all other inducements of selfishness. Writing particularly about the institution of the family, he says, that "the family is the centre of mean and petty selfishness". The greatest evils in our history have been due to dynastic interests, which are simply family interests on a large scale. Nowhere does the selfishness of man come out more obviously than in matters connected with the institution of the family. Some of the noblest things that have ever been done as well as some of the basest have been associated with the love of man and woman or with the love of parent and child". The best way to deal with them, therefore, was to abolish them in the case of guardians so that they might not grow to be selfish as to cause an irreparable harm to the state.
To Prof. M. B. Foster the object of Plato's scheme "is to promote the unity of the city by extending to its members that community of interests and sentiment which unites the members of a single family. Its direct result could only be to promote such unity among the members of the governing class with one another, since there is no indication that the system of common families is to be extended to other class in the state."
According to Prof. G. H. Sabine, it was not only the unity of the state which was the aim of Plato, but his abolition of marriage had a different purpose also. It probably "implied criticism of the position of women in Athens, where their activities were summed up in keeping the house and rearing of children. To Plato this seemed to deny to the state the service of half of its potential guardians. From this argument of Prof. Sabine one may be led to believe that Plato stood for the freedom of women and he was a champion of their rights.
Plato is convinced that women are equally capable of shouldering the responsibilities of the state along with men. Starting with this very assumption, Plato gives them the right to participate in the political life of the state, a right, which up to this time, was denied to them. It is a right which, no doubt, involves service. "Yet such service is after all true freedom : in it woman stands by man's side as his yoke-fellow in the fullness of his life, and by it she attains the fullness of her own".
Plato's communism of property and wives carries with it a great assumption, "that much can be done to abolish spiritual evils by the abolition of those material conditions in connection with which they are found, Spiritual 'dieting' is the first and primary cure in Plato's therapeutics ; but a ruthless surgery of material things is also one of his means. Because material conditions are concomitant with spiritual evils, they seem to him largely their cause; and since to abolish the cause is to abolish the effect, he sets himself to a thorough reform of the material conditions of life. By compelling men to live under absolutely different conditions in the material and external organization of their lives, he hopes to produce a totally different spirit and an utterly different attitude of mind."
In his scheme of community of wives, we may see multifarious purposes that it serves. It frees the guardians from the narrowness and worries of family life. It allows to them a whole time devotion to the service of the state. It emancipates the best among women and allows the state to gain in the service of the female section of its citizens. It creates the prefect unity among the guardians which is so essential for the ultimate unity of the state. It also paves the way for a better and a healthier stock of children. It also tries to bring about the social equality of men and women. It is the status of equality alone that establishes that team spirit which is so essential for the service of the community.
His scheme of communism of property among the guardians is a main corollary of the abolition of household. Plato is convinced that without a communism in the enjoyment of
goods that are supplied free, the rulers cannot be fully freed from unnecessary distractions and selfishness. For the full expression and development of reason, private property as an expression of appetite is abolished. Moreover, since political and economic power are not to be concentrated in the same hands, the guardians of the states should not have any private property at all. It will not only act like a safeguard against tyranny, it will also ensure the mutual dependence of the rulers and the ruled. The rulers will depend for their necessities upon the free supplies made by the subjects, while the subjects will depend upon the rulers for their protection and good government.

2.3.7    Plato's Communism versus Modern Communism
Plato's communism was not designed for the removal of property. It rather advocates the philosophy of property. The modem communism is meant for the removal of private properly and exposes the property to reform and to improve the present day world. Plato's communism remains what had been called by Prof. Natrop as "half communism". It is not an institution of the social whole. It affects less than half of the persons and much less than half of the goods, of the society to which it belongs." The modem communism affects the whole society and is applicable to all. Plato's communism does not emphasize the doctrine of equality, whereas modem communism is based on the principle of equality. Plato's communism envisages community of wives and property, whereas the modem communism is concerned only with the latter aspect of it. Plato's communism is to be realised through the agency of the state, whereas modern communism regards the state as an executive committee serving, the interests of the capitalists' class and believes in its extinction. The Platonic communism regards the state as a partnership in all science, a partnership in all arts, a partnership in all virtues and in all perfection. Plato's communism is realised through a system of classes whereas the modern communism is achieved through the establishment of a classless society. The communism of Plato establishes the dictatorship of the philosopher king; the modem communism believes in the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Platonic communism is realised only on national scale; but the modem communism is realised on international scale. The Platonic communism is achieved by making an appeal to the altruism of the governing classes; the modem communism is brought about by making an appeal to the fidelity of the workers. The Platonic communism is achieved through education and perfect training and thus through peaceful means. On the other hand, the modem communism believes in revolution and violent means for ending the system of capitalism and bringing into existence a new type of society. Lastly, the Platonic communism is spiritualistic because it purpose is realization of the life of the spirit whereas the modern communism is thorough going materialistic because its ultimate end is the betterment of the material conditions of life.
Self Check Exercise-1
Note: Check your answers with that given at the end of unit.
Q.1 Fill in the blanks:

(a)    Plato’s Scheme of Communism whether of Property or Wives applies to ................... class.

(b)  ......................class is to be left in possession of their private property and wives.

(c)    Plato viewed the ideal age for marriage to be between ................. and ................. for
men and between ...............and .....................for women.
Q.2 Write any two differences between Plato’s communism and Modern Communism.

2.4    Conception of the Philosopher King:
Few thinkers have been as logically consistent as Plato. He is one of the greatest systembuilders in the history of Political Thought, whose conclusions are the logical deductions from his basic assumptions. It is not possible to accept his premises and to reject his conclusions. Plato's conception of Philosopher Rulers or Perfect Guardians with their unlimited and unchecked powers of rulership is the direct and logical result of his basic assumptions with which he starts.
Plato starts in his Republic with the following two assumptions : -

1.    Triplicity of human mind into Reason, Spirit and Appetite and the corresponding division of the state into three classes-Rulers, Auxiliaries and Peasants. The Rulers represent Reason, the Auxiliaries represent Spirit, and Peasants represent Appetite in the state. Just as Reason is the complete master of the human mind, the other two elements being subservient to it, naturally the Perfect Guardians who represent Reason are the complete masters in Plato's Ideal State which according to him is "the embodiment of the human mind".

2.    The Socratic dictum which is the second basic assumption of Plato's Republic is that "Virtue is Knowledge". In other words "Virtue" and "Knowledge" are identical. The latter amounts to an identification of "goodness" and "wisdom". Now Wisdom according to Plato is a quality of greatest importance to the state. The basis of an ideal State according to Plato is Scientific Knowledge. Without it, the ignorant people would govern and the whole citizen lot is bound to suffer. Plato during his own time finds ignorance of rulers as the main cause of the turmoil in city-states. Hence Plato emphasizes that the philosophers who know should have the ruling power. Only then there will be peace and happiness in the state. His dictum is "The wise shall rule and the ignorant shall follow". Hence, if Virtue is Knowledge and the latter must be made the basis of the Ideal State, it naturally follows that the man who possesses Wisdom or who knows-the Philosopher or Scholar or Scientist -ought to have decisive power in government and that it is his knowledge or wisdom which entitles him to such a big role in the state.
Not only that Plato's conception of "Rule of Philosophy" is a logical deduction from his first principle but also induction from the current corruption in the various city-states. Hence, Plato's thinking in this respect is also pragmatic as he tries to remedy the then practices in all city-states and particularly in Athens. In Athens, Plato found as if "the ignorant had the rightdivine to govern wrong." No special qualification was essential in order to become a ruler in Athens. Plato's utterances like this that "in order to become a carpenter, one needs some training but in order to become a ruler, a simple lottery will do", is clearly satirical on Athenian practice. Any fool could become a ruler by the simple chance of lot. This is intolerable for Plato who believed that only competent, wise and efficient people should have the right to govern.

2.4.1    Features of Plato's Rule of Philosophy : -
First, the conception of Rule by the Philosopher King is the most profoundly original conception in the entire Political Thought of Plato. Plato was the first Greek writer who thought of unlimited government of a Philosopher-Ruler for his Ideal State. Greeks had firm faith in democracy in which every citizen had the right to participate in public affairs. Plato denounced Athenian democracy as the government of ignorance and suggested some novel and unprecedented institution which almost resembled tyranny -the most hated institution for Athens.
Second, Plato's Rule of Philosophy is always a government by the elite. The government of intelligence must be government by a few. Scientific knowledge is the prerogative of very few meritorious persons. All do not possess the equal capacity for cultivation of virtue or Knowledge. Hence, all cannot be entitled to participate in the function of government which is one of the most technical arts. Those few who possess the capacity should rule over those many that do not. Thus Plato's government in the Ideal State will always be aristocratic if not monarchic. At a number of places Plato goes to the extent of saying that if there is only one top-most meritorious person in the state, let him become the Philosopher-King. But if there are more than one fairly equal Philosophers, let it be "an aristocracy of intellect." As Edward Zeller says, "The Platonic State can only be an aristocracy of Virtue and intellect exercised by one or few."
Third, a Philosopher of Plato's conception is one who is the lover of wisdom. He is a passionate seeker after truth. He has knowledge of the "Idea of Good." And by dint of his knowledge "he is the spectator and all time and all existence.' He knows what is the purpose of all being and all doing and the end of all human existence and human actions. With the help of such an intellectual brilliance, he can see and judge better than others can as to what is most beneficial for the community. Hence the rule of a Philosopher is best for any society.
Fourth, another distinctive feature of the Platonic Rule of a Philosopher is that the Perfect Guardians or the Philosophers realise fully the identity of the interests of the state with their own: nay, it can be said that they have no interests, apart from the welfare of the state. Their chief concern is the good of the community; they obtain whatever happiness they are capable of from dedication to the well-being of the community. The element of Reason which they represent, teaches them that the happiness of the part depends upon the happiness of the whole. Hence, the mentality of the selfless service to the state is a derivation from the rational character of the Perfect Guardians.
Fifth, Plato's Philosopher-Rulers are the product of highly technical training which they undergo up to the age of 20 along with Auxiliaries and from 20 to 35 exclusively. Hence the government of Plato's Ideal State is the consequence of his system of Education.
Sixth, and by far the most important feature of Plato's Rule of Philosophy is that the Philosophers are absolute so far as their powers of ruling are concerned The Rule of the philosophers is absolute in the sense that they are not responsible or responsive to public opinion or to custom or written laws. The Philosophers are not bound to abide by the customary laws or the public opinion or the code of laws. Such a proposition of the despotism of Philosophers is supported by three basic arguments: (1) Logical, (2) Practical and (3) Expedient.

1.    Logical argument: He starts with the idea that, "Virtue is Knowledge." If 'Knowledge' is the guiding star of the State, and the Rulers are qualified to become Rulers by the possession of their Knowledge, the control of public opinion or laws in upon their acts is irrelevant.

2.    Practical argument: Since Philosophers alone know what is good or bad and the remedy of the bad, it is as foolish to bind their hands with the rules of law, as to force an expert physician to write down his prescription from a medical text-book.

3.    Lastly, the 'Expedient' argument: No doubt every society must have a government but government by a Philosopher is better than a government by law. The reign of law is less flexible than the wisdom of a Philosopher. The decrees of a Philosopher-King would be the
dictates of his ripened wisdom and his discretion would be better than inflexible laws whose dead uniformity is against the spirit of true Justice. Law does not and cannot give everybody his due. Law has no meaning other than to give the least bungling rule that will fit an average case; but a Philosopher's wisdom gives to everybody what he deserves. Hence, it is always expedient to have the government of a Philosopher-King.
Thus, with these three arguments, Plato propounds that the Philosophers in the Ideal State should be absolute, untrammeled by law and public opinion.
Seventh and last feature of Plato's Rule of Philosophy is that he does not propound an unqualified absolutism. Though he states very clearly that the Philosophers should be free from the shackles of law and public opinion and customs, yet he says that they are not free from all restraints. They must respect the fundamental articles of the constitution of the state. They must not abruptly change the basic principles on which the state is based. These basic principles are four in number according to Plato : -

(i)    The Philosophers should watch against the excessive inflow of property and wealth in the State.

(ii)    They should keep the size of the State consistent with its unity and self-sufficiency.

(iii)    They must maintain the rule of Justice i.e. due performance of his specific function by each citizen.

(iv)    And last, they must see to it that no change is made in the system of Education.
Thus, Plato seeks to make his Philosopher-Rulers or even the Philosopher-King the servant of the fundamental and unchanging social order.

2.4.2 Criticism :-
First, Plato's conception of Philosopher-Rulers leads to tyrannical government which runs counter to Athenian democracy. Tyranny was the most despised of all forms of government.
Secondly, it is also a denial of the firm faith of the city state, with its ideal of free citizenship and its hope that every man within the limits of his powers might be made a sharer in the duties and privileges of government. By insisting on the supreme authority of the Philosopher-King, Plato reduces the majority to the status of automata or political robots.
Thirdly, his concept that knowledge is the prerogative of a few also is against modern notion of equality. His disbelief in the capacity of the masses to rule themselves is again deplorable. Here Aristotle's view seems to be more sounder that the mass of people possess more collective wisdom than the few Philosopher-Guardians. Similarly his rejection of law as the basis of the State is objectionable as law is the embodiment of the wisdom of the people accumulated through centuries. Plato later on realises this fault in his later book ''The Laws" and gives to "Law" it's due place in the State.
Fourthly, Plato's conception of the Philosopher-King completely rules out direct and indirect democracies.
Fifthly, Plato does not propose for his Philosophers any study of finance or law or military tactics. He thinks that the study of abstract Mathematics, Dialects and the "Idea of Good" would be sufficient. So "Rule of such Philosophers" Sabine says' "might easily become a rule of the saints." Philosophers would be too sublime for such a difficult art as "government."
Sixthly, excessive philosophic contemplation leads to eccentricity and the rule of an eccentric is bound to be misunderstood and therefore unpopular.
Seventhly, a Philosopher-Ruler might identify his own interests with public interests. He might rule for stabilizing his own political power, though apparently for the welfare of the
state. Plato's Philosopher-Rulers with their unlimited powers bear ugly resemblance to modern dictators with their totalitarian dogmas.
Eighthly, as Sabine points out, his comparison of government to medicine, of rulers to expert physicians, and of citizens to patients is an analogy which is over-drawn.
Ninthly, as Professor Popper in his commendable thesis points out, Plato's Rule of Philosopher and a continuous supply of Philosophers through his system of Education are incompatible. "For if Philosophers were needed as permanent rulers, there would be no need for the Educational system to produce new ones"
Tenthly, the famous passage from Plato "unless the Philosophers are Kings or the Kings of his world have spirit of Philosophy cities will never have rest from their evils" has become a target of attack on the part of Kant, who says "That Kings should become Philosophers or Philosophers Kings, is not likely to happen; nor would it be desirable, since the possession of power invariably debases the free Judgment of Reason." Here Lord Acton's dictum also can come true-"Absolute power corrupts absolutely."
And lastly, his concept of Philosopher-King is the most utopian idea of Plato. At no time in the history of the world such a Philosopher King has ever been in power. Hence Plato's Ideal State with its Philosopher-Rulers cannot and does not exist on the earth at least. One writer says "As for Philosophers they make imaginary Laws for imaginary Commonwealths.''
When all is said, one must admit that Plato is correct when he emphasises that only competent persons should rule. There might be a difference as to in what competence consists. For Plato competence consists in Knowledge. A person who possesses Scientific Knowledge is competent according to him.
Self Check Exercise-2
Note: Check your answer with that given at the end of unit.
Q.1 Plato’s conception of philosopher ruler or perfect guardian was the logical result of which of his two basic assumptions?
Q.2 Discuss any three features of Plato’s Rule of Philosophy.
Q.3 Why Plato’s concept of Philosopher king is criticized? Give any two arguments.

2.5    Summary
Thus in unit I and II, we have tried to cover all the major ideas of Plato strained in the Republic. Some of his ideas are considered as utopian, imaginary, unpractical and unreal e.g. his communism of wives which has never been practiced throughout the ages, his division of the state in three stereo-typed classes with distinct functions, his concept that in the ideal state there is no necessity of laws; his communism of property etc. However, in the ‘Laws’ Plato tried to grapple with the actualities. He re-admitted ‘laws’ and gave them the most important place in the governance of the people. He also modified his communism, admitted private property as well as family as indispensible human institutions. Further, Plato allowed wealth to share with intellect. The machinery of government advocated by him in the ‘Laws’ is the one combining the merits of oligarchy, democracy and Monarchy. This work of Plato greatly influenced Aristotle in the writing of his Politics.
However, there are certain ideas conceived by Plato which are of everlasting importance to mankind. These ideas represent the Universalism in Plato. Some of the important ideas of Plato which have exercised profound impact in years after him include his basic idea i.e. Justice. His assertion that the society is always “a unity amidst diversity” and that every member of society should perform his duties to the best of his capacities is indeed an
exceedingly penetrating analysis of society which hold good even today. Closely related to his concept of justice is Functional Specialization. His emphasis that every member of society should perform the functions for which he is best fitted by his aptitude and training is more true today when the society has grown complex. His view that the wise should rule and it is virtue which should prevail in the state is a truth which is universally recognized. Plato paved the way for the emancipation of women by insisting that they should be given necessary education on equal terms with men and be permitted to take active part in the affairs of the state. This principle has now been accepted on universal basis. Plato emphasized the importence of state-controlled education and provided a detailed scheme of education which aimed at promoting the interest of the society. In modern times, both democratic as well as totalitarian countries acknowledge the importance of education as an instrument for the effective working of the society and the political systems. Plato in his writings also displayed great sense of nationalism and placed the nation above everything else. He was even willing to sacrifice the time honoured institutions of private property and family in the interest of state. His concept of philosopher king was also designed to provide a ruler who could rule in the interest of the state and be above selfish motives. In addition to these ideas of everlasting importance, Plato is the father of more than one school of thought in the sense that he was the first to originate a number of ideas which were later on grouped under various categories of schools of thought. He is known as father of ‘Idealism, Organic Theory of the State, Fascism, Socialism, Communism, Romanticism, etc.’ No doubt, sometimes Plato is condemned for giving certain Utopian ideas, but does not in any way undermine his permanent contributions to political philosophy.

2.6    Glossary

•    Altruism- devotion to the welfare of others.

•    Utilitarian- the doctrine of Bentham used on the idea that the greatest possible happiness of the greatest number should be the criterion of all social action.

•    Utopian- fictitious island possessing a perfect political, religious and economic system.

•    Monogamy- marriage to one wife or husband.

•    Tyranny- coercive, arbitrary government uncontrolled by prescription.

•    Asceticism - the practice of living a simple life without physical pleasure, often for religious reasons.

•    Dynastic- succession of people from the same family who play a prominent role in business, politics, or another field.

•    Pragmatic- dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.

•    Proletariat - working-class people regarded collectively.

2.7    Answers to Self Check Exercise Self Check Exercise-1

1.     (a) Guardian

(b)    The third class/Producing Class.

(c)    Between 25 and 55 for men and between 20 and 40 for women.

2.    (i) Plato’s communism was not designed for the removal of private property. it
rather advocates the philosophy of property whereas modern communism is meant for the removal of private property.

(ii)    Plato’s communism is half-communism. It is not an institution of the social whole. It affects less than half of the persons and much less than half of the goods of the society to which it belongs. On the other hand, the modern communism affects the whole society and is applicable to all.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    (i) Triplicity of human mind into Reason, Spirit and Appetite and the
corresponding division of the state into three classes-Rulers, Auxiliaries and Peasants.

(ii)    The Socratic dictum that ‘virtue is knowledge’ and virtue should rule.

2.    (i) Plato’s Rule of Philosophy is always a government by the elite.

(ii)    Philosopher of Plato’s conception is one who is the lover of wisdom.

(iii)    The perfect Guardians or the Philosophers realize fully the identity of the interests of the state with their own. They have no interests, apart from the welfare of the state.

3.     (i) Plato’s conception of philosopher-rulers leads to tyrannical government.

(ii)    Plato’s conception of the philosopher-king completely rules out direct and indirect democracy.

2.8    Suggested Readings

1.    G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1961.

2.    W.T. Jones, Master of Political Thought, Vol. I, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd; 1955.

3.    E. Barker, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, New Delhi: Dover Publication, 1964.

4.    David Boucher and Paul Kelly (eds.) Political Thinkers from Socrates to the Present, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.

5.    William Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1960.

6.    Subrata Mukharjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2018.

7.    Brian Nelson, Western Political Thought, New Delhi: Pearson, 2006.

8.    Sukhbir Singh, History of Political Thought: Plato to Burk, Vol.I, Meernt : Rastogi Publication, 1997.

9.    R.M. Bhagat, Political Though: Plato to Marx, Jalandher : New Academic Publishing Company, 1988.

2.9    Terminal Question

1.    Briefly describe Plato’s Communism of Wives and Property. How his communism is different from that of modern communism.

2.    Examine Plato’s views on the rule of Philosopher King.
*****
Unit-3Aristotle (384-322 B.C.)
STRUCTURE

3.1    Introduction

3.2    Learning Objectives

3.3    Aristotle’s Method
Self Check Exercise-1

3.4    Critique of Plato


3.4.1    Aristotle on Plato’s conception of the Unity of the state

3.4.2    Aristotle on Plato’s Communism


3.4.2.1    Aristotle’s Criticism of Communism of Wives

3.4.2.2    Aristotle’s Criticism of Communism of property
3.4.3    Aristotle’s Criticism of Plato’s neglect of the lower classes Self Check Exercise-2
3.5    Aristotle’s views on State and Government
Self Check Exercise-3

3.6    Aristotle’s concept of Slavery


3.6.1    Justification of Slavery

3.6.2    Criticism
Self Check Exercise-4

3.7    Aristotle’s Theory of Property


3.7.1    Acquisition of Property

3.7.2    Distribution of Property

3.7.3    Justification of Private Property Self Check Exercise-5
3.8    Summary

3.9    Glossary

3.10    Answers to Self Check Exercises

3.11    Suggested Readings

3.12    Terminal Questions

3.1    Introduction
Though Aristotle’s theory of political ideals stands upon the ground which he had already covered because of his association with Plato yet in his methodology he chalked out a new path. If Plato was primarily a deductive thinker, Aristotle largely followed the inductive method. If Plato started with abstract notions of ‘Virtue is knowledge’ and ‘Justice’ and built his ideal state on these basis, Aristotle reasoned inductively, by comparing the working constitutions of a large number of city states, and based his ideal state on the realistic appraisal of the foibles and follies of human beings. In fact, his chief work ‘Politics’ may be regarded as the justification of the existing institutions such as the city-state, family, property and slavery. ʻPoliticsʼ suggests remedies for the drawback, if any, in these institutions and makes no attempt at their abolition like Plato in his Republic.
In this lesson, dear students, you will study with me Aristotle’s critique of Plato and his views on 'property' and 'slavery'. We will also discuss about his theory of revolution and maintaining constitutional stability. Before we discuss about Aristotle’s political ideas, I would like to tell you, in a few sentences, about his approach or method.

3.2    Learning Objectives:
Dear learner, after completing this unit, you will be able to:

•    Know about the method of Aristotle.

•    Describe how Aristotle was a critique of Plato.

•    Understand Aristotle’s views on the subjects like Slavery, Property, Revolution and maintaining constitutional stability.

3.3    Aristotle’s Method
Politics according to Aristotle, deals with forms and not ‘Matter’, as matter is unknowable because it is in a constant flux; form, on the contrary is permanent and knowable because it is permanent. As such what is the identity and what constitutes the permanence of a state? asks Aristotle. He gives the answer by stating that the identity of the state lies not in its ‘matter’, in other words not in its citizens. ‘What makes the state’s identity and constitutes its permanence, is not its particles or members but its ‘form’ that is to say its constitution, for the constitution is the ‘form’ of the state. Thus Political science is a science of political ‘form’ or constitution. But while ‘form’ is the subject of science and not “matter”, yet, with the exception of ‘Divine Mind’, ‘form’ cannot exist apart from ‘matter’, as Plato had thought. On the contrary, the two are indissolubly connected. Therefore, knowledge of ‘forms’ demands sense perception of ‘matter’ for its basis, and the process of human enquiry is an ascent from the individual ‘matter’ to the general ‘form’ or in other words, induction. Investigation being thus directed towards facts will, Aristotle holds at the beginning of the ‘Politics’ attain best results if it follows the facts most closely, and if, when they develop, it follows their development from the beginning. It will attain a true conception of ‘form’ most certainly, if it observes ‘matter’ in its growth towards ‘form’. From the point of view of development ‘form’ is an ‘end’ towards which matter is determined or in other words matter is the primary material necessary for the realization of some end and this primary material develops until the end is realised There is, thus, ‘constant movement from ‘matter to ‘form’ or from the ‘Potential”, which is the matter to be ‘Actual’ which is matter informed by ‘form’. This great general conception of ‘movement’ towards an “end” is applied by Aristotle to knowledge and science, it is also applied to politics. In politics, there is the primary material of family association, which developed until it is “bound” in the state whose constitution is its final “form”. This dynamic conception of the relation of matter is not indeed quite the same as the static. Dynamically, the matter of the state is the family association, while statically it is individual citizen. Thus, Aristotle looks upon the state from various angles and adopts different methods to arrive at its definition.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Fill in the Blanks.

(a)    The most well known of Aristotle’s work is .................

(b)    Aristotle largely followed the .....................method.

3.4    Critique of Plato:
Aristotle, the most distinguished and outstanding disciple of Plato was deeply influenced by the Political philosophy of his teacher. According to Dunning also, “he differs from his master Plato, much more in the form and method than in the substance of his thought. Most of his ideas which seem characteristically Aristotlean are to be found in Plato.” Although, Aristotle was deeply influenced by Plato but neither was he a blind follower of his teacher-nor did he ever miss an opportunity to criticize him. He has devoted first part of Book II of his ‘Politics’ to a severe, and often obviously unfair, even hostile criticism of Plato’s ideas. The main target of his criticism is his, ‘Republic’, though ‘The Statesman’ and ‘The Laws’ have not remained untouched. His severest criticism of Plato is leveled against (1) Plato’s
conception of the unity of the state, (2) Plato’s communism of property and wives and (3) Plato’s comparative neglect of the lower classes in his ideal and sub ideal state.

3.4.1    Aristotle on Plato’s conception of the unity of the state
Aristotle did not agree with Plato that greater the unity of the state, better it was. According to Aristotle, the whole conception of the ideal state of Plato is vitiated by Plato’s emphasis on the excessive degree of unity that is essential. It is the very nature of the state to be a plurality of dissimilars. A unity based on the removal of all diversities in individuals is fatal to the state. According to Aristotle, the real unity in the state arises out of proper organisation of relations among individuals who differ from one another. Each one of the diverse elements in the state has its own specific functions and .advantages. Diversity of functions and organization leads to exchange of services. It is the very basis of human association and independence which means satisfaction of moral and material needs of people. According to him, if society consists of people with diverse capacities then moral and material needs will be satisfied and thus independence will be attained but if society consists of members all alike, then it will result only in a single contribution, and an imperfect independence. In fact diversity is as essential as unity; or rather, it is essential to unity. The greater the internal diversity in the state, the greater will be its self sufficingness and independence.
According to Aristotle, Plato’s procedure in the ‘Republic’ was self destructive. He was so fixed upon the end of the unity of the state that he swept away the means. Pure unity, such as he desired, is best attained where there is but a single unit, as Plato himself dwarfs his state into a family or clan, so in strict logic, for perfection’s sake, it should be dwarfed from a family into a single individual.
This criticism of Plato is not absolutely fair because Plato had never maintained that the state is constituted of like elements. On the contrary, he had insisted primarily on the differentiation of classes. Plato was well aware of the diversity of functions and interests in the state and accordingly provided three clearly distinguished classes i.e. the rulers, the warriors and the farmers. It is only to the upper two classes that is communism applies and it is only in relation to these classes that Aristotle is justified in saying that Plato aims at too much unity. The majority of the population in the state would belong to the third class, divided into sections with their diverse functions and interests.
Alongwith this, he also criticized some other aspects of Plato’s ideal state. He refused Plato’s theory that state came into existence as a result of division of labour. According to him it is the social nature of man which brought the state into existence. According to him, “he, who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a God, he is no part of the state.” A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature.
Again Aristotle did not find true or healthy citizenship in the ideal state of Plato. According to him in Platonic state there are only rulers and the ruled. The rulers alone cannot be citizens; the ruled alone too cannot be citizens. A citizen is one who both rules and is ruled in turn. Aristotle establishes complete equality between the rulers and the ruled, one who is ruled today will be ruler tomorrow; one who is ruler today will be ruled tomorrow. There is complete equality between the rulers and the ruled; such equality between the rulers and the ruled did not obtain in Platonic state. The ruled in his state were completely devoid of political privilege or rights.

3.4.2    Aristotle on Plato's Communism
After criticizing Plato for his concept of complete unity of the state, he also criticized him for the means adopted for this unity and harmony i.e. his theory of communism. Plato had suggested that his communism of wives and property was the best means of creating harmony
and unity in the state. Aristotle was also keen in securing the unity of the state but differed on the concept of such unity and the methods of its achievement. According to him real unity of the state could be created not by the abolition of the time honoured institutions of private property and family but by organising and training individuals of various types and capacities according to the spirit of the constitution of the state.

3.4.2.1    Aristotle’s criticism of Communism of Wives
Aristotle felt that Plato’s communism of wives was neither scientific nor rational. It was unnatural and foolish. He was of the opinion that family was a time honoured and natural institution therefore its abolition will create confusion and disharmony rather than order and harmony in the social order.
Under Plato’s scheme of communism children shall not know their parents and shall absolutely be neglected. No one will bestow any affection or care on common children because the sense of personal possession and relationship is the whole basis of affection. In Plato’s scheme each guardian will have a thousand sons and each child a thousand fathers. According to Aristotle, it is better to be a real cousin than Platonic son.
According to Aristotle Plato’s scheme of communism of family will also give rise to problems concerning morals and relations between one citizen and another. Under his communism unholy acts might be committed even on the nearest relatives which will positively be curse on human civilization and which cannot be justified on any ground.
Again according to Aristotle, Plato’s scheme of communism of wives attempted to abolish all individuality or privacy in family relations, and made every wife the wife, and every child the child of the whole community. Plato imagined that through this scheme, he would destroy the exclusiveness of the family life and the disputes which this institution of family produced. Along with this he also intended to extend the warmth of family feeling over the whole state by making it one family. But according to Aristotle, actually no greater unity will be gained through this scheme because affection varies inversely with the circle which it embraces; and a limitation of the number of associates is a necessary condition of a strong sentiment of common interest. But in Plato’s scheme the circle is so large, the number of associates so many, that only a shallowest sentiment of a common interest can be possible. In this sense, the scheme destroys what unity there was in the state: it abolishes the former groups, because, though each possessed a real unity, none was sufficiently large to embrace the whole of the state; and it substitutes a larger group in their place, which is so large that it has scarcely any unity at all. While nothing is gained, there is much that is lost . Again Aristotle has not been fair while criticizing Plato. Whereas Plato, under his arrangements, tried to cover only an ideal class of extra-ordinary citizens. Aristotle levied his criticism ignoring this very basic principle and feeling as if Plato’s arrangements were meant for all including ordinary citizens.

3.4.2.2 . Aristotle’s criticism of Communism of Property
Aristotle has also criticized Plato’s communism of property. According to Aristotle, there are three possibilities with respect to the distribution of property. There may be common possession and common use, private possession and common use and there may be common possession and private use. He assumed that Plato had given his adhesion to the system of common possession. Aristotle objected to communism of property on both moral and economic grounds. Economically, he objected to a system of common ownership because it means common neglect; what is all men’s business is nobody’s business. Men set themselves to work more earnestly and efficiently at what they regard their own. The magic of property is a necessary stimulus to the maximum of production.
Secondly, common ownership is very likely to lead to disputes about the proper distribution of the amount produced as a result of joint labour and thus promotes conflicts
among the co-owners. There is no standard by which the amount received by a person may be adjusted to the labour put in by him. If an equal division is attempted, some will feel that they have received less than their work deserves; if proportional division is sought, it will be condemned as unequal and unfair by those whose share is small. Communism is thus likely to destroy like mindedness and produce conflicts among those who would have lived as good neighbours if they did not come into contact with them on too many points. Aristotle admitted that disputes arise among men in regard to private property also but due to wicked nature of man.
Aristotle also advocated private property on moral grounds. According to him, private property is an instrument for righteousness, and conversely righteousness demands a certain furnishing of private property. Virtues like liberality, generosity and hospitality cannot be practiced in the absence of private property. According to him, fullness of civic life is lost to the citizen who has no private property and is not in a position to contribute anything to the state. Sense of personality and its concomitant virtue of self respect have been the ultimate foundation of property. Property is necessary to the realization of moral will.
So Aristotle’s argument against communism of property, in its essence, is that property represents a natural and normal instrument and extension of personality, a source of pleasure and an opportunity of good and moral activity. The aim of communism of property is to try to get rid of human selfishness. Since this selfishness is inherent in the nature of man, the best cure for his selfishness is not communism, but education of the people in the spirit of the constitution so that they use their private wealth generously and allow the common use of what they own individually. There will be, in Aristotle’s formula, private possession with common use. The benefits of both individualism and communism will be secured. Private possession will bring its economic and moral advantages. Common use, not merely dictated by law, but flowing from a proper spirit, will issue in that unanimity which Plato desired. According to him, no material cure will heal a spiritual evil, only spiritual means will produce spiritual result.
All this what Aristotle maintained has been true but not a fair criticism of Plato. For Plato also spiritual means—a common education-had been his primary object. It is merely from an excess of caution that he has recourse to material means i.e. communism of property. Plato felt that his scheme of education would make good citizens but in addition, he gave the concept of communism so that these citizens did not lapse into badness by chance. This shows his distrust of human nature. So Aristotle infact should have criticized Plato for an ascetic distrust of human nature.
On the other hand, Plato was not altogether mistaken in believing that education was not in itself sufficient and that some economic basis was necessary. A common education may give us the highest type of socialism; but a starving man is not ready to receive his education, some form of martial adjustment is necessary to prepare the ultimate adjustment of the soul. 3.4.3 Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s neglect of the Lower Classes
Aristotle is dissatisfied with the vagueness of Plato’s ideas regarding the lower nonguardian classes representing an over-whelming majority of the population of the state. According to Aristotle, Plato did not formulate any system of education for them in accordance with their needs and requirements. Communism was not applicable to them. He did not fix up any position for them in the state. According to Aristotle, this neglect of lower classes would result in social division namely guardian and non-guardian classes. This type of arrangement would not result in harmony and order which had been the basic aim of Plato’s philosophy. This would rather result in disharmony, anarchy and discontent.
As regards Aristotle’s criticism of Plato’s neglect of the lower classes whose existence he holds to be necessary for the state, he himself did not grant those classes right of citizenship in his ideal state.
So on the basis of this discussion, it can be concluded that Aristotle’s criticism of Plato was not very fair. Aristotle over-looked the fact that Plato was concerned with an ideal state. This was an attempt at understanding the nature and possibilities of human creativity.
After this, now we will come to his concept of the state.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 What are the three main grounds on which Aristotle criticized his master Plato?

3.5    Aristotle’s Views on State and Government
As regards his concept of the state, first of all Aristotle applies a method of definition and tries to arrive at a definition of the state by approximation or discrimination. ‘The State”, says Aristotle, “is a kind of community”. A community, he wrote further, is a union of unlike persons, who because of their differences are able to satisfy their needs by exchange of their goods and services. Aristotle then distinguishes several aspects of community of which the state is only one. The object of this is to distinguish the rule of house-holder over his wife, children or slaves from the political rule. The problem therefore, which he poses to himself is to find as what kind of community is the state? He points out that the exchange of goods by buying and selling or merely contractual relations makes a community, but not a state because there need be no common ruler in such a community. On the other hand and on the other extreme, there are communities where there is a distinction of the ruler and the ruled but not in the nature of political (the master and the slaves) or constitutional ruler. The state, according to him, lies in an intermediate position, distinguished from the contract on the one hand and from ownership on the other hand.
A general principle for defining the state is in reference to ‘Growth’ or historical development. Aristotle wrote, “He who, thus, considers the things in their growth or origin, whether a state or anything else, will obtain the clearest view of them.” Thus history shows that family is a primitive kind of community brought into being by such fundamental needs as those for shelter, food and propagation of the species, so long as men had progressed so far and no further than to satisfy these needs, they lived in detached families under a patriarchal government. A higher state of development is represented by village which is the union of several families and still higher by the state which is a union of villages. Aristotle, therefore, defines the state as “a union of families and villages having for its end, a perfect and self sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable life". It is quite clear form this definition that the growth is not merely in size but it becomes “self sufficing”. This refers in part to its territory and also its means of economic support but not primarily to these only. What is distinctive about state is that it first produces the conditions necessary to a really civilized life. It “originates”, says Aristotle, “in the needs of life but continues for good life.” Thus I am sure that it is clear to you that the state exists for the sake of good life and not for the sake of life only.
Another point which I would like you to bear in mind is that the state includes household or family as one of its necessary elements and it is wrong to abolish it, as desired by Plato in his Republic. No doubt, family in its primitive form depends on physical needs but it definitely requires for its development, capacities beyond those possessed by gregarious animals. It requires speech and power to distinguish the right from the wrong, a characteristic only of rational animal. These rational facilities of man can be further developed only in the state. It is in this sense also that phrase ‘self-sufficing’ is used and man is regarded by Aristotle as a political animal, the only animal that dwells in cities and subjects himself to law, produces sciences, art and religion and many sided creations of civilization. These
represent the perfection of human development. To live without these, a being must be either a beast or God, man is destined by nature for state life. The state, in fact is the culmination of natural development, Aristotle wrote in Politics, ‘‘Hence it is evident that the state is the creation of nature and man is by nature a political animal.” Further, the state is by nature clearly prior to the family and to the individual since the whole is of necessity prior to the part”.
Before I explain to you this particular remark of Aristotle, I would like you to point out that Aristotle uses the word nature with reference to society in double sense. Firstly, it is true that men are instinctively or by nature social because they need each other. The primitive community as pointed out above depends upon impulses imbedded in life, such as sex and appetite for food. They are indispensable but they are not distinctive of human life because they are not very different in man and lower animals. Human nature is more, characteristically, displayed in the development of its rational faculties and moral values. Since state is the only medium in which these can develop, it is natural in a sense that it is the opposite of instinctive. Just as it is natural for an acorn to grow into oak, so it is natural for human nature to expand its highest powers in the state. Thus, as per the second meaning, the state is natural because it contains the possibilities of the perfect unfolding of the innate potentialities of human beings. It is therefore, prior to individual not in the chronological or historical order but in the order of moral priorities. Self realisation is the highest moral value, and since it is possible only in the state hence the state is prior to either the individual or the family.
It is clear that to Aristotle, the state has an organic growth and performs a moral function. This brings him to the examination of the ends of the state. Its end is to give, as noted in the definition of the state above, a perfect, self sufficing and fully developed life to the individuals living in it. This it can do by developing good faculties into habit of good action. It should provide the necessary environment for the fullest development of the ethic rational faculties of human beings. However, it didn’t mean the destruction of individual’s identity. Man, as having its nature supplanted by the state rather than the state as having control over man’s every faculty is the pivot of his thought. The function of good life among its citizens and therefore the state was spiritual association in a moral life. Which type of state could best promote these ends? And the state which best promotes these ends would be Aristotle’s Best or ideal State.
It is said that what Aristotle calls the ideal state is always Plato’s second best State. Plato’s best state is the Rule of Philosopher king untrammeled by law, whereas the state in which law is supreme is his concession of human frailties and is regarded by him as second best state. It is this type of state which is Aristotle’s best State. His ideal was constitutional and never despotic rule. It is not exactly democracy but includes elements of democracy. It is community of equals aiming at the best possible life. It ceases to be constitutional or genuinely political if the discrepancy between its members is so great that they cease to have the same virtue. Constitutional rule is consistent with the dignity of the subject, whereas a personal or despotic rule is not. The constitutional ruler rules over the willing subject. He rules by consent. The constitutional rule has three elements. Firstly, it is a rule in public or general interest as distinguished from a factional or tyrannous rule in the interest of a single class. Secondly, it is lawful rule in the sense that government is carried on by general regulation and not by arbitrary decrees and also in the vague sense that the government does not flout standing customs and constitution.
Thirdly, constitutional government means the government of willing persons as distinguished from despotic which is supported by mere force. As a matter of fact, constitutional was never defined by Aristotle. That is why it is said that Aristotle wrote upon the ideals of state and not on ideal state. Being analytical by nature he analysed the various
claims to power and came to the conclusion that none was complete in itself. He also believed that ideal should be within the domain of practicability. So he portrayed the best practicable State which results from avoiding the extremes in democracy and oligarchy that experience had shown to be dangerous. This type of state Aristotle called ‘Polity’ or constitutional government, a name applied in book III of Politics to moderate democracy. Its social foundation is the existence of a large middle class which are neither very rich nor very poor. They are not poor enough to be degraded or rich enough to be factious. They form a group large enough to give state a popular foundation disinterested enough to hold the magistrates responsible and select enough to avoid the evils by the government of the masses. The best political association is therefore the one which is controlled by the middle class. Thus, it is manifest that best political community is formed by citizens of middle class and those are likely to be well administered, in which the middle class is large and larger if possible than both the other classes or at any rate than either singly. It is in this sense that Aristotle is sometimes called the philosopher of middle class commonsense. Stability is the basic objective of the middle class commonsense and stability of the state arises out of the balance between ‘Quality’ and ‘Quantity’. The first includes political influence which arises from prestige of wealth, birth and education; the second from sheer weight of numbers. None of these is allowed to predominate in the ideal state.
Other favorable external conditions for the best state, which are partly inspired by the 'Laws' of Plato and which are based on Aristotle’s doctrine of the golden mean, are :- (i) population, which should be such that citizens know each other, to be able to select right persons to different offices (ii) size, which should be neither too large nor too small; (iii) character of people, (iv) class in the state and system of education is also prescribed by him for his best State. The other things for his best state are best means of defence against foreign attacks, topography, water supply arrangements for streets and fortification. His description of governmental organisation of his best state is very cursory’. He lays down that there should be three institutions to perform three main functions of government that is popular assembly for deliberative work which should be composed of all citizens and to whom ultimate decision of government must be submitted. There should be a magistracy for the execution of the laws and judiciary’ for its interpretation.
Viewed objectively, Aristotle writes, the state is an assemblage of citizens. Aristotle defines Citizen as one who is eligible to take part in the assembly and to serve on juries. The essence of citizenship is neither residence in the state nor right of suing or being sued, nor descent from citizenship. A citizen it is clear, would be functioning member of the city state. The prime qualification for citizenship is the capacity to rule and be ruled in turn. Artisans, mechanics, labourers were not regarded by Aristotle to be fit to become the citizen as the manual work deliberalised the soul and rendered the person unfit for political speculation and discharge of civic duties. These classes had no leisure and were mostly preoccupied with earning their livelihood. Here Aristotle is bringing through the back door what had been openly stated by Plato that the capacity to rule was possessed by a few individuals. Aristotle, by so defining the citizenship is dividing the society into two parts which was his chief point of criticism against Plato’s ideal State in his Republic. I am sure it must be clear to you that Aristotle’s conception of citizenship is extremely aristocratic and illiberal. It is impossible to provide for the direct participation of the citizens in a modem state with large population. Further if the end of the state is to serve the greatest good of the greatest number, it must be able to utilize the experience of the largest number of people. Again if citizenship is to be reserved only for a class of people who are rich enough, not to have to work for their living, we might well be certain that the governing body based on rich citizenship would first and last think of passing legislation to ensure the stability of the rule of its own class and would, therefore, identify its own class with the public interests of the state.
Self Check Exercise-3
Q.1 Fill in the blanks

(a)    The state, says Aristotle “is a kind of ......................”

(b)    Man is regarded by Aristotle as a ......................
Q.2 How Aristotle defines the state?

3.6    Aristotle’s Concept of Slavery
While trying to define the state, Aristotle begins with household. The household consists of husband, wife, children and also slaves. He finds slavery essential to a household and defends it as natural therefore moral. In order to lead a good life slaves are required as some instrument is required to produce good music. Men differ from each other in their physical and intellectual fitness. Those who are intellectually more advanced than the others are designed by nature to lead the others. The intellectual must control and rule the physical. To Aristotle, it is natural, therefore, that some men should be born slaves and some born to rule over them.
Here Aristotle's views on who is a 'slave' will not be out of place. To him, a slave holds a 'middle' position between men and animals. He is a 'humanised beast'. He differs from an animal in that he possesses reason enough to comprehend other man's reason. But he also differs from man in not possessing reason of his own, sufficient capacity of foresight and self-direction. In the words of Aristotle, "For he who can be and, therefore, is another's and he who participates in reason enough to comprehend, but not to have reason, is a slave by nature."

3.6.1    Justification of Slavery:
Aristotle argued that slavery benefits both master and slave, claiming the slave gains virtue through association with a superior master. He urged slave owners to be merciful and believed cruelty toward slaves should be punished. His justification for slavery relied on two key ideas: that people naturally differ in their capacity for virtue and that it is possible to classify them accordingly.
Further, if Aristotle approves of the institution of slavery, he does so under definite conditions. He makes out a distinction between slave by law and slave by nature i.e. between casual and natural slaves. Slaves by law include prisoners of war. He admits that the child of a natural slave is not always a natural slave. He does not approve of slavery by mere right of conquest in war because superior physical force does not always mean superior excellence. Besides, the cause of war may be unjust and conquest immoral. Then again a Greek should not conclave a Greek. He asserts that the interests of the master and the slave being the same, the master should not abuse his authority over the slave but befriend him. All slaves should be given hope of emancipation.
It is quite clear that Aristotle adopted a realistic attitude on the question of slavery. He justified slavery to secure the necessary leisure to the free born Greeks for participation in public affairs. For this reason the slave was the master’s living tool, to be used kindly, but still to be used for the master’s good.

3.6.2    Criticism
Now let us make a few points in criticism of Aristotle’s defence of slavery. Firstly, his definition of a slavery according to which some men are by nature born to issue orders and others to obey them without reasoning would reduce the majority of men in the present age to the position of slaves. A wage earner with little initiative of his own is very like Aristotle’s instrument of action or a living tool and therefore nothing more than a slave according to Aristotelian definition. Secondly, his assertion that some men are born to rule and other born to obey would reduce the society into two parts arbitrarily. The fact is that, in society, there
are countless gradations with respect to moral and intellectual endowments which would point to, not slavery, but a very complex system of subordination and authority. Aristotle’s definition would reduce domestic servants and even women in backward countries to the position of slaves.
Self Check Exercise-4
Q.1 According to Aristotle, who is ‘slave’?
Q.2 Why Aristotle support slavery system?

3.7    Aristotle’s Theory of Property
Like Aristotle’s concept of slavery, his concept of wealth or property is also closely related to his concept of household. According to Aristotle, like the slave, property is also an instrument of the householder, with the difference that slave is a real part of the household as he shares in its moral life, whereas, property is external to the good life; it is a condition, but not a part. Property provides material things sufficient for the purposes of a moral life. He defined wealth as, “a store of things which are necessary or useful for life in the associations of city or household,” or it is termed as, a collection of instruments for the use of the household or state”
Firstly, this definition implies that property has instrumental value and is necessary for the proper functioning or existence of the household, and thus this institution cannot be abolished. Secondly, it implies that since wealth is a means or instrument to a moral life, it would be limited in amount. According to him, every art has a definite number of tools, and those of a definite size and same is true of economic art. In this context, he disagrees with modern thought that only an infinite wealth will satisfy infinity of need. He rather feels that unlimited wealth would not lead to the real purpose i.e. the purpose of moral life.

3.7.1    Acquisition of Property
As to methods of acquisition of wealth or property, the production of wealth for him has no philosophical significance. He regards it as a more or less disagreeable necessity incidental to the maintenance of life, and therefore as a function of the household, but the lowest of its functions. According to him there are two methods of acquiring property, natural and unnatural. The natural methods are those through which mere necessary subsistence is procured. Among these, he enumerates cattle raising, agriculture and hunting. The unnatural methods of acquisition are those which aim not at the mere maintenance of life, but at endless accumulation of wealth. Of these methods trade, whether in the form of barter or in that of sale for money, may be natural, when pursued merely for procuring necessities of life, and not as an end itself. But through the use of money to facilitate exchange men have been led to see in money itself the end of the trade; and therefore has arisen the evil of lending money at interest. In this practice, money is made to reproduce itself instead of being applied to the procurement of the needs of life. According to him, such a mode of acquisition of wealth has no logical justification and is wholly unnatural.

3.7.2    Distribution of Property
As regards distribution of property or wealth, according to him there are three possibilities: there may be common possession and common use; private possession and common use; and common possession and private use. Aristotle has discussed these possibilities with respect to distribution of land only. He assumes that Plato had given his adhesion to the system of common possession and thus was committed to communism. Aristotle has criticized Plato’s communism of property. He has objected to a system of common ownership on both economic and moral grounds but has laid greater stress on the
latter. Common ownership of property leads to common neglect. Magic of property is a necessary stimulus to the maximum of production. People set themselves to work more earnestly and efficiently at what they regard their own. Furthermore, common ownership leads to disputes about proper allocation of the produce or a common soil. If an equal partition is done then some will feel that they have received less than their work deserves; if proportional division is sought then it will be condemned as unequal and unfair by those whose share is small. Common ownership, thus, is likely to destroy common-mindedness.

2.7.3 Justification of Property
Aristotle has given moral justification of private property. According to him private property is an instrument for righteousness, and conversely ‘righteousness demands a certain furnishing of private property’. Aristotle defends private ownership because he considers property as a thing held in trust for virtue. Private ownership is natural and a necessary factor in good life exactly in the same way as the state is natural and necessary because it is the condition of moral growth.
He justified private possessions because liberality is not possible without it. One cannot have the virtue of giving, if one has nothing to give. While talking about the virtue of giving, he is thinking of the active virtue of a civic life, of which generosity is a part. Fullness of the civic virtue would be lost to the citizens, if they have nothing to give to the state. Private possession according to him is the source of development of one’s personality, it is source of self expression, it is a “realized will” and is justified provided that such will is a right will. It is the reflection of the self, if the self reflected is the moral self. This shows that according to him without these conditions, there can be no right to property.
Aristotle justifies private property only as an instrument to attain the moral end. According to him, this right is not to be simply retained, it is to be retained when it has been, “improved and perfected by proper customs and proper legislation regulating its use.” These customs and legislations would make it sure that private property is used as an instrument for moral purposes. Thus, private possession leading to virtues such as charity and generosity would also become public possession. According to Aristotle, it would be both, individual possession as well as common possession. There will be Aristotle’s formula, ‘private possession with common use’. The benefits of both individualism and communism will be secured. Private possession will bring its economic and moral advantages and common use of this possession would lead to unanimity. According to him, institution of property or anything external does not lead to disunion in the state. Disunion is the result of a spirit of disunion in man. This spirit cannot be healed by material cure i.e. by abolishing the institution of property but by spiritual cure i.e. through common education, which will put all men on the same spiritual level and initiate them into the same spiritual community.
Self Check Exercise-5

Q.1 According to Aristotle ................ and ................. are the instruments of the
householder.

Q.2. Regarding Property Aristotle’s formula is ..................

3.8    Summary
Thus, Aristotle is one of the most influential political thinkers in the history of political thought. Due to his characteristically scientific approach to political issues, he is regarded as the father of Political Science. He was the first pragmatic thinker who based his conclusions on facts and imported a scientific outlook to the study of the subject. He laid the foundations of the comparative method of study of political institutions. His views were mainly based on the study of 158 constitutions of the Greek city states. He was the first man to give the character of independent science to politics. He seperated politics from ethics and discussed
these two subjects in two different books. His philosophy is a mixture of Hellenic ideas and universal ones. His faith in the superiority of the Greek race and Greek city states, justification of slavery, notion of limited citizenship do not appeal to reason. On the other hand, his views regarding the social nature of man, natural origin of the state, popular supremacy, the rule of law, revolution and constitutionalism are of everlasting importance to mankind. His concept of ‘rule of law’ and ‘Constitutional State’ which is universally accepted in all the democratic states at present is his most important legacy to the posterity. He emphasized the principle of natural origin of state. He asserted that man is a political animal and the instincts of sex and appetite have played an important part in the creation of state. His views regarding the positive functions of the state appeal very much to the modern mind. His statement that the state’s main function is to try to bring about moral development in the individuals is really what the modern profounder of welfare state say. Further, Aristotle emphasized the importance of the masses and public opinion. He anticipated the theory of separation of powers by dividing the governmental functions into deliberative, magisterial and judicial functions. Aristotle also offered most effective justification for the institution of private property and made strong plea for its retention. He held that property should be used for the good of community. He asserted that inequality in wealth is the main cause of revolution. He said that political stability is possible only in a state where there are not extremes of wealth or property. He also favoured the time-hounoured and natural institution of family.
In nutshell, we may say that Aristotle was a practical man and had a realist approach. It was his realism with its hard logic, fine analysis, keen observations and a touch of idealism that made him philosopher and scientist of all ages.

3.9    Glossary

•    Inductive Method: The method which tries to reach generalizing propositions (Universal laws, general hypothesis) from individual facts, events and cases.

•    Deductive Method: Reason from preceding statements.

•    Despotism: The term used for the government controlled by absolute, arbitrary and tyrannical force.

•    Individualism: A type of world outlook whose essence consists in regarding the rights of the individual as absolute and setting him against the society.

•    Intrinsic: Inherent, real.

•    Ascetic : The denial and suppression of bodily pleasures and appetites.

•    Gregarious : Living in herds, fond of company.

3.10    Answers to Self Check ExerciseSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    (a) Politics         (b) Inductive Method
Self Check Exercise-2

1.      (i) Plato’s Conception of the unity of state.

(ii)    Plato’s Communism of wives and property.

(iii)    Plato’s comparative neglect of the lower classes in his ideal state.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.    (a) Community     (b) Political Animal

2.    Aristotle defines the state as “a union of families and villages having for its end, a perfect and self sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable life.”
Self Check Exercise-4

1.    To Aristotle, a slave holds a ‘middle’ position between men and animals. He is a ‘humanized beast’. He differs from an animal in that he possesses reason enough to comprehend other man’s reason. But he also differs from man in not possessing reason of his own, sufficient capacity of foresight and self direction.

2.    Aristotle justifies slavery by arguing it benefits both master and slave. He claims slaves gain from their master's virtues and guidance, while masters enjoy the leisure needed for political involvement. According to him, slavery is natural, as people differ in their inherent capacity for virtue.
Self Check Exercise-5

1.    Slave and Property

2.    Private possession and common use.

3.11    Suggested Readings

1.    G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1961.

2.    W.T. Jones, Master of Political Thought, Vol. I, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd; 1955.

3.    E. Barker, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, New Delhi: Dover Publication, 1964.

4.    David Boucher and Paul Kelly (eds.) Political Thinkers from Socrates to the Present, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.

5.    William Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH Publishing Co., 1960.

6.    Subrata Mukharjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2018.

7.    Brian Nelson, Western Political Thought, New Delhi: Pearson, 2006.

8.    Sukhbir Singh, History of Political Thought: Plato to Burk, Vol.I, Meernt : Rastogi Publication, 1997.

9.    R.M. Bhagat, Political Though: Plato to Marx, Jalandher : New Academic Publishing Company, 1988.

3.12    Terminal Questions:

1.    Critically examine Aristotle's views on Property.

2.    Analyse Aristotle's views on slavery.

3.    Present an analytical overview of Aristotle's critique of Plato.
*****
Unit-4Aristotle (Part-II)
STRUCTURE

4.1    Introduction

4.2    Learning Objectives

4.3    Classification of Constitution/Government
Self Check Exercise-1

4.4    Theory of Revolution


4.4.1    Causes of Revolution


4.4.1.1    General Cause

4.4.1.2    Particular Cause
Self Check Exercise-2

4.5    Maintaining Constitutional Stability/Prevention of Revolution Self Check Exercise-3

4.6    Summary

4.7    Glossary

4.8    Answers to Self Check Exercise

4.9    Suggested Readings

4.10    Terminal Questions

4.1    Introduction
This unit is in continuation of the previous one. In this unit, we will deal with Aristotle’s classification of government and his conception of revolution and maintaining constitutional stability.

4.2    Learning Objectives
After going through this unit, the learners will be able to:

•    analyse the Aristotlian classification of government.

•    analyse the general and particular causes of revolution and its remedies.

4.3    Classification of Constitutions/Government
Aristotle was perturbed by the prevailing instability of government in his contemporary Greek city-states. So he sought to develop a ‘Model constitution’ that would ensure political stability. He sent his disciples to various places for the purpose of preparing case histories of their constitutions. In this process, 158 case histories of various city states were prepared which were examined by Aristotle himself. On this basis he produced his famous classification of constitutions. Unfortunately these case histories, except that of Athens, have been lost. But Aristotle’s observations regarding the various forms of government, the causes of their instability and the steps required to overcome this instability are still accessible to us.
Aristotle’s classification of constitutions focused on two factors; (a) Whether a state is ruled by one, the few or many persons; and (b) Whether the ruler is devoted to interest of the state (the normal form of constitution) or to his self interest (the perverted or deviant form). From this perspective, the following classification was derived:
Aristotle’s Classification of Constitutions
Dominant                     Form of Government

Characteristic
Rule of One
Rule of the Few
Rule of the Many

Normal Form

Perverted Form
Tyranny (Despotism)
Oligarchy
Democracy

Monarchy (Kingship)
Aristocracy
Polity
(Constitutional Government
Normal Form = Where the ruler is devoted to interest of the state.
Perverted Form = Where the ruler is devoted to self-interest, against the interest of the
State.
This classification indicates only the predominant features of different types of rule because none of them is found in pure form. For example, a single government may embrace some democratic features (if all citizens are eligible for jury service) and some monarchical features (if the military forces are under the control of one man). Aristotle observed that none of these forms of government was stable for want of proper checks on the power of the ruler. Monarchy was good under normal conditions. But in the absence of any effective control over the absolute power of monarch, it degenerated into tyranny because ‘power and virtue cannot coexist’. Tyranny was followed by a rebellion by the chosen few who overthrew it and set up aristocracy in its place. In the absence of any effective curbs on their power, aristocracy degenerated into oligarchy. In due course the larger numbers rose against it and replaced it by polity. This again degenerated into democracy (the rule of the larger numbers seeking self-interest). This was eventually overthrown by a single virtuous man who set up monarchy in its place. This marked the beginning of a new cycle of change.
Aristotle on the Cycle of Change of Governments
Monarchy
(Normal Form)
Democracy (Perverted Form)
Tyranny (Perverted Form)
Polity
(Normal Form)
Aristocracy
(Normal Form)
Oligarchy
(Perverted Form)
Self Check Exercise-1
Q1. How many constitutions were examined by Aristotle before giving his classification of constitutions?
Q.2 What are the bases of Aristotle’s classification of constitutions?

4.4    Aristotle’s Theory of Revolution
Aristotle made law, which is the supreme power, as basis of various forms of government. The classification is well known. If the supreme power is vested in one, it is monarchy, if in several, it is aristocracy and if in many, it is polity. In all, then the supreme body must exercise its power according to law. If the power is exercised arbitrarily then these forms will be transformed into tyranny, oligarchy and democracy respectively. These are regarded by him as the perverted forms of government. It may also be pointed out that Aristotle made a distinction between the state and government. To him the identity of the state depends upon the identity of its constitution which is defined as an arrangement of the offices of a state, determining their distribution, the residence of sovereignty and the end of the political association. In fact, change of constitution denoted a change in the state itself. Therefore, anything which unsettled the spirit of constitution was regarded by him as a major change, or revolution or sedition. Thus revolution or sedition was something which unsettled the ‘tone’ and disturbed the law abidingness of a city.

4.4.1    Causes of Revolution
Aristotle discusses the causes of revolution in Book V of the ‘Politics’ and suggests preventives for them. It is a very detailed discussion yet illuminating. Though it may not be possible for me to go into that lengthy discussion yet I will try to summarize for you the subtle points from his 'Politics'. First of all, Aristotle takes into consideration the general cause of revolution or change and also explains the meaning of sedition. According to him sedition is the act of body of persons, forming a combination for the attainment of some political end by illegal means. Therefore, it involves revolutionary action. There is a possibility it may not result in a revolution and only produce a non revolutionary changes within the four walls of the constitution. For instance, a revolution will be considered to have occurred if oligarchic form of government is overthrown and is replaced by democracy or vice-versa. However, a revolution will not be deemed to have taken place, for instance if within a democratic set up changes is made about the selection of the members of the assembly or magistrates or in the qualifications for the grant of citizenship.

4.4.1.1    General Cause
Explaining general cause Aristotle pointed out that it lays in the sense of justice of an individual or a group of individuals, when some feel that distributive justice of the state is for them a system of injustice as it gives to them the same as other when they ought to have in justice more or it gives to them less than others, it may become the ultimate motive of a rebellion or a political revolt. Thus, I hope, it is clear to you that it is the different interpretations of justice and equality that lead to the making of claims by different persons and different parties, and the conflict of these claims causes political struggle and leads changes. So the general motive is always passion for some conception of equality.

4.4.1.2    Particular Cause
Aristotle then takes up particular causes of revolution and broadly divides these causes into three categories. Firstly, there are Psychological motives or temper of revolutionaries. This includes a passion for equality or the quality. It is therefore the state-of mind which creates a revolution. This is the general cause which we have already discussed and here it is made to appear as a specific cause. Secondly, it could be honour, dishonour, disgrace or profit, loss or fine. The desire to secure honour or profit or to avoid dishonour or loss may lead to the attempt to bring about the change. Thirdly, there are initial occasions which serve to start a political disturbance and mutual dissensions. The intrinsic occasions are insolence
and profit making among those in authority ; honours being distributed amongst those who are not considered to deserve them, presence of superiority in some form such as acquisition of power by a person, institution or group of persons becoming too great for the state and more than a match for the strength of the general body of citizens; fear amongst the wrong doers that they would suffer punishment or amongst the ordinary person to suffer wrongs; contempt, disproportionate increase in a part of the society. The incidental occasions enumerated by Aristotle are election intrigues, willful negligence in allowing people disloyal to constitution to take power, neglect of trifling changes such as disappearance of property qualifications gradually in an oligarchy and lastly dissimilarity of elements in composition of state such as heterogeneity of territory. While explaining this particular cause, Aristotle wrote that the causes for a revolution may be small, but the issues are invariably great. Small and personal matters may lead to large and general consequences. Here it may be added that even strength of parties resulting in a deadlock may also prove to be cause of a revolution. Further, it may also be pointed out that force and fraud both play an important part in the conduct of revolutions.
Aristotle then proceeds to discuss the particular causes of revolution and changes in different types of states. In democracies, it is the demagogue ‘talking’ as well as ‘fighting’ who is held responsible for the revolution. The talking demagogue by his policy of attacking the rich individually and collectively drives them to oligarchic revolution in self defence. By bringing false occasions in order to confiscate property or wealth and be egging on the people against them, by imposing on them heavy public burdens in his anxiety to win popular support, a talking demagogue forces them to combine and hit out at a democratic form of government. On the other hand, a fighting demagogue makes himself a tyrant by posing to be a friend of the people. Thus, there is the possibility of a democracy turning into mobocracy, in case the eager candidates in their anxiety to court the people displace the rule of law and it may change into oligarchy or tyranny.
Oligarchies are overthrown when unjust treatment is meted out to the masses by ruling oligarchies. The other case is the dissension amongst the governing class when a section of that class begins to play the demagogue or some of its members become impoverished and turn revolutionaries or an inner ring is formed inside the governing body. Further, personal disputes may affect the stability of an oligarchy and another cause may be general growth of wealth leading to increase in number of persons eligible for office which may also alter their character.
In aristocracies revolutions are due to a policy of narrowing the circle of government. The collapse of aristocracies as also of ‘polities’ which are closely allied—is generally a defective balance of different elements combined in the constitution. This may lead either to change in the direction in which the balance is tilted or to violent reaction towards the opposite extremes. Aristocracies are particularly liable to be victims of trifling occasions. The last and important cause of change in all types of constitutions is said to be the influence of powerful neighboring state. This greatly affects and undermines the constitution. This analysis of the causes of revolution of Aristotle has been illustrated by a number of historical examples and is regarded as a perfect example of application of historical method in Political Science.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Define ‘Revolution’ according to Aristotle.
Q.2 What is the general cause of Revolution?

4.5    Maintaining Constitutional Stability/Prevention of Revolutions
Aristotle’s attempt at suggesting the methods for ensuring constitutional stability in various forms of constitutions is no less illuminating and penetrating. Aristotle wrote that to know the causes which destroy the constitutions is also to know the causes which would lead to their preservation. Opposite effects are brought about by opposite effects? Briefly stated, the following are the suggestions for prevention of revolutions :-

(i)    Authorities must guard against petty forms of lawlessness which creep into the society unperceived. When each is small all are small too, yet ‘the whole or all is not little although it is made up of little’.

(ii)    Confidence should never be placed in devices to intend hoodwink the masses. They are always explosive in actual experience.

(iii)    Menace of danger is not the only cause of preservation of the constitution. When danger is imminent, men are alarmed and they therefore keep a firmer grip on their constitutions.

(iv)    The State must keep a watch against quarrels and seditions amongst the notables.

(v)    Assessment connected with the requirement of property qualifications be regularly made.

(vi)    No person should be advanced by the state out of all proportion to others. It is always better to ward small honours over a period of time than to give honours rapidly (It is not all who can stand sudden prosperity.) Nor the honours should be removed suddenly.

(vii)    A magistracy should be instituted to supervise those who live in a way out of harmony with the established constitution. For example, flourishing sections of society should be kept under watch in democracy.

(viii)    Provision should be made not by law but also by the general system of economy to prevent the magistrates from being able to use the offices for their own gain especially in an oligarchical constitution.

(ix)    In democracies, the rich be spared, their estates should be secured from the threat of redistribution, however, they should be prevented from undertaking expensive but useless public service.
Aristotle also noted that in the holders of high offices three qualities are needed. Firstly, there should be loyalty to the established constitution. Secondly, they should have high degree of capacity for the duties of the office and lastly, a quality of goodness and justice is part of their character. Further, he also insisted that it should be ensured that the number of those who want a constitution to continue should be greater than those who do not and that the education of citizens should be so organised as to train them in the Spirit of the constitution under which they live.
Kingship is best preserved by a policy of moderation. The example ‘par excellence’ of objectivity and scientific outlook is the approach of Aristotle towards the preservation of tyranny, the most hated form of the constitution. Two methods were suggested by him. The traditional method based itself on repression with the object of breaking the spirit of the subjects, sowing distrust amongst them and making them incapable of action. These objectives could be achieved by looping off “tall poppies”, by forbidding common meals, clubs and education thus trying to destroy anything that generates mutual confidence and a high spirit, by setting up an efficient espionage system, by impoverishing the subjects, by the imposition of taxes, by constant war mongering and thus keep the subject occupied and in need of a leader all the time. A tyrant should never trust his friends, as they have the most
power to affect his overthrow. The second method for establishing tyranny suggested by Aristotle was by resimiating it with kingship. Thus a tyrant by good administration and exercise of personal restraint will tend to stabilize himself. A wise tyrant will adorn his city, pay heed to public workship, honour the good, keep his own passions in check and enlist in his favour as large a measure of social support as he possibly can. An echo of these suggestions, my dear students, you will hear in Machiavelli, at a later stage during the course of our future exchange of ideas. In fact, you will realize, as you go along with me in the discussion on political philosophy, how all pervasive has been the influence of Aristotle. Thomas Aquinas, Marsigilo of Padua, Locke, Montesquieu and even Karl Marx will be found to owe something of their philosophy to this master of the masters of Political Science.
Self Check Exercise-3

Q.1    Write any three measures suggested by Aristotle to prevent revolution or maintain constitutional stability.

4.6    Summary
The specificity with which Aristotle deals with the causes and remedies of revolution illustrates his political insight. This remains one of the greatest contribution of Aristotle in the realm of political science, where political realism is at its high water mark. Aristotle was a practical man and had a realist approach. He asserted that inequality in wealth is the main cause of revolution. He said that political stability is possible only in a state where there are not extremes of wealth or property.

4.7    Glossary

•    Aristocracy - A form of government in which power is held by the nobility.

•    Oligarchy- A government in which supreme power is held by a privileged few.

•    Heterogeneity- The quality or state of being diverse in character or content.

•    Demagogue- A political leader who seek’s support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

•    Tall Poppies - Someone who performs better than their peers and stands out.

4.8    Answer to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1

1.   158

2.    Aristotle’s classification of constitutions is based on two factors:

(a)    Whether a state is ruled by one, the few or many persons; and

(b)    Whether the ruler is devoted to interest of the state (the normal form of constitution) or to his self-interest (the perverted or deviant form)
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    To Aristotle the identity of the state depends upon the identity of its constitution which is defined as an arrangement of the offices of a state, determining their distribution, the residence of sovereignty and the end of the political association. In fact, change of constitution denoted a change in the state itself. Therefore, anything which unsettled the spirit of constitution was regarded by Aristotle a major change, or revolution or sedition.

2.    Explaining general cause, Aristotle pointed out that it lays in the sense of justice of an individual or a group of individuals, when some feel that distributive justice of the state is for them a system of injustice as it gives to them the same as other when they ought to have in justice more or it gives to them less than others, it
may become the ultimate motive of a rebellion or a political revolt. So, the general motive is always passion for some conception of equality.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.  (i) Authorities must guard against petty forms of lawlessness which creep into the
society unperceived.

(ii)    The state must keep a watch against quarrels and seditions amongst the notables.

(iii)    No person should be advanced by the state out of all proportion to others. It is always better to ward small honours over a period of time than to give honours rapidly.

4.9    Suggested Readings

1.    G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1961.

2.    W.T. Jones, Master of Political Thought, Vol. I, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd; 1955.

3.    E. Barker, The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle, New Delhi: Dover Publication, 1964.

4.    David Boucher and Paul Kelly (eds.) Political Thinkers from Socrates to the Present, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2009.

5.  William Ebenstein, Great Political Thinkers, New Delhi: Oxford & IBH
Publishing Co., 1960.

6.  Subrata Mukharjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, A History of Political Thought:
Plato to Marx, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2018.

7.    Brian Nelson, Western Political Thought, New Delhi: Pearson, 2006.

8.   Sukhbir Singh, History of Political Thought: Plato to Burk, Vol.I, Meernt :
Rastogi Publication, 1997.

9.  R.M. Bhagat, Political Though: Plato to Marx, Jalandher : New Academic
Publishing Company, 1988.

10.    Gauba, O.P., Western Political Thought, New Delhi: National Paperbacks, 2023.

4.10    Terminal Questions:

1.    Give an account of Aristotle's ideas on the causes and prevention of Revolution.

2.    Discuss the principles underlying Aristotle's classification of constitutions.
*****
Unit-5Machiavelli (1469-1527 A.D.)
STRUCTURE

5.1    Introduction

5.2    Learning Objectives

5.3    Life and Works of Machiavelli
Self Check Exercise-1

5.4    Views on Statecraft
Self Check Exercise-2

5.5    Relation between Politics and Ethics
Self Check Exercise-3

5.6    Machiavelli’s Humanism
Self Check Exercise-4

5.7    Summary

5.8    Glossary

5.9    Answers to Self Check Exercises

5.10    Suggested Readings

5.11    Terminal Questions

5.1    Introduction
Niccole Machiavelli was an Italian diplomate, politician, historian, philosopher and humist of the renaissance period. He has often been called the father of modern political philosophy. With him a new phase in the development of political philosophy sets. In fact, he was more a practical politician rather than a political philosopher. His thought was largely determined by the historical background of his life. He is best known for his writing ‘The Prince’, a handbook for unscrupulous politicians that inspired the term ‘Machiavellian’ and brought him a reputation as an atheist and an immoral cynic. But Machiavelli’s character like that of other philosophers is neither good nor bad. His character is a compound of more or less contradictory motive forces into a relative and partial unity. The essentials of his republicanism on the one hand, and his advocacy of princedom on the other hand, somehow reconciled by his conviction that in these corrupt and degenerate times men are incapable of ruling themselves and so require a strong unified power over them.

5.2    Learning Objectives
By the end of this unit, students will be able to:

•    Analyze the historical context that influenced Machiavelli's political thought.

•    Understand the Political Philosophy and methods of Machiavelli.

•    Explain his views on power, politics and statecraft.

•    Comprehend Machiavelli as a humanist thinker.

5.3    Life and Works of Machiavelli
Machiavelli was born in Florence, of well-to-do parents in the year 1469. His father was a lawyer. In 1494, he entered the service of the Republican government in the capacity of a clerk in Chancery. Because of his sharp intellect, he rose in his position so rapidly that in 1498 he got one of the highest posts in the government, that of second Chancellor and Secretary. It was a post concerned with diplomatic, military and administrative affairs. This post he held until 1512. Florence, during this period, was an independent Republic. Because of Machiavelli’s position and reputation, he came to be entrusted with many important and delicate responsibilities of state. He was sent on diplomatic mission to several courts. In 1502, he was sent as an envoy to the court of cesare Borgia, Duke of Valentina whose
methods he studied and admired. The year 1512 brought Machiavelli’s public career to an end. The Medice family which had been driven out of power in Florence, effected a coup d’etat with the help of the Spanish army, and came back to power. With it, Machiavelli fell into disgrace and in 1513 was put into prison on suspicion of his part in a conspiracy against the Medice family. After remaining in the jail for a year, he was finally released on the condition that he would retire from public life and abstain from all political activity. He returned to his farm at San Casciano and lived the life of an exile. It was here that he died in 1527. It was during this period of retirement that he wrote his immortal works. Among his works the most famous are 'The Prince’, 'The Discourses’, 'The Art of War', ‘History of Florence’, and 'Mandragola'. In his works, there has been brilliant epitome of his period.
Self Check Exercise-1

Q.1 which are the most famous works of Machiavelli?

Q.2 To which post Machiavelli rose in the Government.

5.4    Views on Statecraft:
Machiavelli was less a political philosopher and was mainly concerned with the art of government. The “Prince’ and the “Discourses’ are books on the art of government rather than on the theory of state. Machiavelli never thought in terms of writing a treatise on political theory; he only concerned himself with giving suggestions to the ruler as to how to solve day to day administrative problems and how to keep himself in power. Machiavelli’s main subject-matter is causes of the rise and decline of states and the means by which statesman can make them permanent. “The Prince” consists mainly of the ‘tips’ given by Machiavelli to his fictional Prince. It is mainly the handbook on the art of ruling and maintaining oneself in power. He writes almost wholly of the mechanics of government and the policies by which they can expand their power and the errors that lead to their decay or overthrow. Machiavelli made casual references to the theory of state in his works and dealt at length with the principles which the Prine should observe to maintain himself in power.
State, according to Machiavelli, is the highest form of human association which has to be created as the human beings are selfish, egoistic and ambitious, but weak and fickle. State is not something natural to human beings but is an artificial creation. It is not something which is implanted in the social instincts of human beings but has its origin in a calculating selfinterest on the part of the individual.
According to him, there are three forms of the state e.g. Monarchy, Aristocracy and Republic. He deals at length with the Monarchy, and the Republic and ignores Aristocracy altogether. He had a very low opinion about Aristocracy. He regarded the Republic as the best form of government, but as the conditions in the then Italy had become rotten, it no longer remained practical. Monarchy suited the conditions of Italy of his times as it was meant for founding a new state or reforming a corrupt one. Machiavelli stressed that a normal or healthy state always has an impulse to expand or grow its power. The tendency towards extension of its dominion is in his opinion inevitable in both republics and monarchies. To him, aggrandisement is the symptom and natural consequence of health in a state. To him, the acquisition of an Empire is as natural to a state as growth to a human body. Though Machiavelli regarded force and fear as important instruments in administration, yet he also considers the good laws as the foundation stones of the state. He holds that a law enacted by a law giver is not only helpful in regulating and controlling the actions of the citizens but also helps in the growth of civil and moral virtues among the citizens and the development of national character.
After dealing with the theory of state in a casual manner, Machiavelli offered some suggestions to his fictional prince regarding maintaining himself in power. Some of them are as under:

1.    The prince should crush all opposition to his authority with an iron hand, should not hesitate to make use of ruthless force. He should enforce his will without bothering about the privations of his subjects.

2.    As force is an expensive and inefficient method of attaining the objective, Machiavelli says that a shrewd ruler should also use methods of propaganda and religion to lull the people into submission. He holds that a tactful use of these devices can obviate the need of force. He wants the rulers to be both fox and a lion.

3.    The prince should try to take quick and firm decisions, because hesitation can prove very harmful. He would like the prince to act promptly and make mistakes rather than lose initiative through delay and uncertainty.

4.    A good prince should try to maintain peace and plenty in the country so that the people can lead a comfortable and contended life.

5.    The prince should maintain a well-trained regular national army of his own citizens and should not depend on mercenary soldiers, because the national army alone can defend the state and make it powerful.

6.    The prince should be a good soldier and commander. He should possess thorough knowledge of the war strategy and maintain best possible arms and equipments. He must also keep the morale of his forces high.

7.    The prince must try to maintain his popularity with the people and earn their love and affection. In the words of Machiavelli “a prince should retain the affection of his people otherwise in any crisis he has no remedy.” A prince who is popular with the people can easily handle hostile nobles and rich men in the state.

8.    The prince should try to cultivate public spirit and patriotism among his citizens through education, religion and propaganda. The personal qualities of the prince can also help a great deal in the cultivation of the public spirit.

9.    The prince should be better feared than loved because people love a ruler so long as they receive or expect certain benefits from the ruler. On the other hand, by creating a fear in their mind, he can get their obedience for a longer duration. However, Machiavelli warns that the prince should not be hated, as the hatred can be ruinous for him.

10.    The prince must maintain utmost secrecy in the conduct of the state’s affairs. If his plans or strategy etc., are leaked out, they will lose their effectiveness and prove harmful for the state.

11.    It was not essential for the prince to be always honest. If the interests of the state so demand, he should not mind resort to fraud and other dishonest means. The prince should not mind even violating his promises for the good of the state.

12.    The prince should not under any circumstances touch the property and women of his subjects, because people are very touchy about both these things. To highlight this point Machiavelli goes to the extent of suggesting that a person will more readily forgive the murder of his father than the confiscation of his patrimony.

13.    The prince should be a good showman and project himself as the embodiment of qualities like generosity, kind-heartedness, chivalry, mercy, sincerity, humanity, bravery, and religiousness. It is not essential that the prince should actually possess these qualities, but he should be able to make a show of these qualities, in other words, he should be able to build up his reputation as a good man even though he may not actually be so.

14.    The prince must avoid the company of flatters because it helps debasing effect on his sense of judgement. He therefore wants the prince to tell everyone that he wants to know the truth and does not feel offended even if the truth is bitter.

15.    The prince should not have permanent friends or enemies. Therefore, he should not hesitate to leave his friends any time if the interests of the state so demand. He should make friends keeping in view the degree of interests he can promote.

16.    The prince should not listen to every Tom, Dick and Harry, because this could undermine his respect with his subjects. He should mix up only with a handful of counselors, who have proved their sincerity and collect all necessary information from them.

17.    The prince should try to collect correct information about the strength of his enemy through intelligence and crush him before he becomes too powerful and poses a challenge to his authority. He should never under-estimate the strength of his enemies.

18.    The prince should be miser or lavish in keeping with the general feeling of the subjects. This can secure for him their praise and co-operation.

19.    Finally, he wants the prince to follow an expansionist policy. Failure to expand the state shall lead to its stagnation and ultimate decline. It was therefore both in the interest of the prince as well as the state that he should pursue expansionist policies.
In addition to the above suggestions, Machiavelli made numerous other suggestions to his prince, but it is not possible to reproduce all of these here. We get a fairly good idea about the shrewd insight of Machiavelli from these tips to the prince. In fact, some of the principles laid down by Machiavelli for his prince hold good even today.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Fill in the Blanks:

(a)    Machiavelli’s statecraft is mainly described in his book

(b)    ‘The Discourse’ is mostly written     about ............. Government
(Monarchy/Republican)

(c)    Machiavelli identifies .................as the key issues of politics.
Q.2 According to Machiavelli, why state has been created?
Q.3 Describe any three tips suggested by Machiavelli to his fictional Prince?

5.5    Relation Between Politics and Ethics:
Throughout the Ancient and Medieval Ages, Politics had been the hand maid of Ethics. A very luckwarm attempt was made by Aristotle to separate Politics from Ethics but he, too was not very successful. It was Machiavelli who completely separate Politics from Ethics, though at the cost of his reputation. Machiavelli had said that politics and Ethics were two different sciences whose spheres of enquiry were altogether different. Politics deals with the rules of conduct of State, and Ethics deals with rules of conduct of individuals. The ruler who for all practical purposes is the state is much above and different from the subjects.
Machiavelli asserts that the Ruler whether in a corrupt state or in a free state must identify his interests with those of the subjects. A prince cannot hope to be successful unless he regards the interests of the subjects as his own. The chief interest of a prince is public welfare. If the end is to safeguard the interest of the state, then Machiavelli would recommend any means whatsoever. Reasons of state justify every degree of treachery and brutality. Even murder, deceit and assault are permissible if the end is of course to safeguard the interests of the State. It is only the promotion of public welfare that Justifies immoral deeds. He said, “in the actions of rulers”, end justifies the means. Let a prince therefore aim
at conquering and maintaining the state and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by everyone.” In the ‘Discourses’, Machiavelli defines the reasons of state even more clearly: for where the very safety of the country depends upon the resolution to be taken, no consideration of justice or injustice, humanity or cruelty, nor of glory or of shame should be allowed to prevail. But putting all other considerations aside, the only question should be: what cause will save the life and liberty of the country.
Machiavelli never praises immorality for its own sake; his basic attitude is not one of nihilists. He neither assumes that there are no values in this world, nor wishes to create a world in which all values would be destroyed. Machiavelli is aware that civilization implies some sort of values. His immorality implies therefore, not the denial of moral values in all situations but the affirmations that, in the specific situation of the statesman, the rules of power have priority over those of ethics and morality.
Machiavelli did not invent political murder, treachery, and fraud. But before his time such crimes were committed defacto and no attempts were made to integrate them into a moral world of their own. The traditional reaction to political immorality has been either one of polite neglect, half hearted excuse or at best, severe censure of individual violation of ethics and morality. The sanctity and inviolability of the moral code seemed, before Machiavelli, in no way impaired by the regrettable exception to the rule, regardless of how frequent they were. In Machiavelli, the traditional attitude of polite neglect and hypocritical, or sincere regret is replaced by the positive affirmation that the reasons of state is for the statesman the determining code of conduct, and that statecraft constitutes a value system of its own which is different from that of ethics and religion. What is evil from the view point of morality and religion may therefore be good from the view point of the reason of state, if it serves to acquire, retain, or expand power.
Good and evil are thus reduced from absolute to relative categories, and it depends upon the basic assumption of a system of values whether a particular action is good or bad. Assuming power as the end of politics, goodness then coincides with efficiency, an efficient means of acquiring, consolidating and expanding power is good. Efficiency in politics is thus analogous to virtue in morals or religion and inefficiency replaces the concept of sin. Machiavelli himself still uses the term ‘virtue’ for the successful ruler, but he means the ambitious, ruthless, successful ruler, and not the ruler who is a regular church goer, mindful of other men’s wives and generally a practicing moralist.
The role of religion as a mere instrument of political domination, cohesion and unity becomes even clearer in Machiavelli’s advice that the ruler supports and spreads religious doctrines and beliefs in miracles that he knows to be false. The main value of religion to the ruler lies in the fact that it helps him to keep the people “well conducted and united” and from this viewpoint of utility, it makes no difference whether he spreads among them true or false religious ideas and beliefs.
Machiavelli’s theory of separation of Ethics and politics is not immune from criticism. If suffers from the following defects:-

(i)    It puts premium on the misdeeds of politicians. The politicians, under the grave of protecting the integrity of state may commit all sorts of crimes.

(ii)    There is no guarantee that interests of the Ruler and the Public would be the same. His personal whims of prejudices may be given effect to just as the policies of the state.

(iii)    Machiavelli’s theory of “End Justifies the Means” goes directly against Mahatma Gandhi’s theory of “Means Justify the End”.
We can conclude by saying that though criticized yet, Machiavelli raised a very serious question. All clear-minded political thinkers in subsequent centuries have agreed with
Machiavelli that individuals and states cannot be subjected to the same rules of morality. He was realist enough to realize this.
Self Check Exercise-3
Q.1  (a) Who completely separated Politics from Ethics?

(b)    Who said, ‘Politics and Ethics were two different sciences whose spheres of enquiry were altogether different. Politics deals with the rules of conduct of state, and Ethics deals with rules of conduct, of individuals. The ruler who for all practical purposes is the state is much above and different from the subjects.’?

(c)    Who said, “in the actions of rulers,” end justifies the means?
Q.2 Why Machiavelli’s theory of separation of Ethics and Politics is criticized?

5.6    Machiavelli's Humanism:
Humanism, as a concept, is complex and multifaceted, varying across different historical periods and intellectual traditions. At its core, however, it can be described as a philosophical and ethical stance that prioritizes human value, dignity, and agency over doctrines rooted in faith or divine authority. Humanists advocate for rationality and critical thought rather than adherence to dogma. They reject the belief that social and political realities are inherently bound to a divine or metaphysical order. Instead, they argue for understanding human existence through empirical, historical, and practical frameworks. In political terms, humanist discourse moves away from theology and metaphysics, asserting that human societies are malleable and shaped by human intentions and actions. Reality, in this view, is not divinely ordained but is a human construct, constantly subject to change.
Humanism typically upholds ideals of human freedom, progress, and moral development. It emphasizes the universal over the particular, the transcendent over the mundane, and often privileges contemplation over action. However, when we examine Niccolò Machiavelli within this tradition, we find a thinker who both aligns with and challenges these humanist principles.
Machiavelli as a Humanist—And Beyond
Machiavelli can indeed be categorized as a humanist, particularly in his rejection of the medieval Christian worldview. He opposed traditional notions of natural rights and dismissed the belief that the world was structured according to divine principles of justice and order. Though he acknowledged patterns and regularities in the universe, he argued for a reality open to human intervention and agency rather than bound by determinism.
However, Machiavelli diverged from mainstream humanism in significant ways. While many humanists believed that education naturally leads individuals toward virtue, Machiavelli was more skeptical. In The Prince, he contends that people are often driven more by fear than by moral principles. For him, power and pragmatism—not morality—are the cornerstones of effective governance. Yet, despite his critique of idealistic humanism, Machiavelli remains committed to the human capacity for agency and choice, rather than relying on divine providence.
Machiavelli acknowledges the dual nature of humanity. While other humanists emphasized human potential and virtue, he was unflinching in his recognition of the darker aspects of human nature. His political philosophy seeks to navigate the tension between corruption and nobility. Through his works, he lays out a cyclical theory of politics, where societies move from glory to corruption and back again. This analysis exposes not only humanity's potential for vice but also its capacity for greatness, depending on conscious human choices.
Morality and the Social Contract
Machiavelli’s understanding of morality also departs from both ancient and Christian traditions. Unlike the belief in eternal moral laws ordained by God or nature, Machiavelli proposed a secular, pragmatic morality. In his view, moral obligations are constructed by humans as rational responses to the necessity of forming societies. This idea places him within the broader tradition of social contract theorists like Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, who argued that laws and moral codes are products of human agreement rather than divine mandate.
Interestingly, while social contract theory often imagines a pre-civilized state devoid of morality, Machiavelli does not entirely dismiss the existence of values prior to organized society. He suggests that moral reasoning is inherently tied to human necessity, which predates formal institutions.
Misinterpretations and Machiavelli’s True Goals
The term "Machiavellian" has often been misused to describe ruthless political maneuvering. This interpretation overlooks the nuanced goals Machiavelli outlines in both The Prince and Discourses on Livy, two works that must be read together for a complete understanding. The Prince offers concise, practical advice to rulers on maintaining power, while Discourses presents a more elaborate vision of republican governance, favoring citizen participation and the common good. Although he explores both autocratic and republican models, Machiavelli’s ultimate aim was to create stable states where human beings could live securely and flourish.
For Machiavelli, the ends justify the means only when the end serves the greater good of political stability and societal well-being. His approach is grounded in realism: he focuses on governing people as they are, not as they ought to be. This clear-eyed assessment marks a significant departure from idealistic political philosophy.
The Role of Psychology in Machiavelli’s Statecraft
Machiavelli was also among the first thinkers to incorporate psychological insight into political theory. He treated individuals as distinct agents in the political sphere, understanding that successful governance requires insight into their motivations and perceptions. His pragmatic approach to leadership involves manipulating public perception and emotions to maintain order and control.
Moreover, Machiavelli recognized the importance of adaptability in politics. He viewed the "state of war" not merely as a physical conflict but as a state of mind—an ever-present condition requiring vigilance and flexibility from political leaders.
Machiavelli’s Legacy and the Tensions Within Humanism
While Machiavelli is often positioned as a critic of Christianity, Plato, or Aristotle, his broader intellectual project was to challenge any prevailing ideology that threatened societal security and stability. His work laid the groundwork for modern social science by applying a scientific, objective lens to the study of politics, history, and human behavior. Like Galileo in the realm of physical science, Machiavelli sought to analyze political power without moralizing it. In doing so, he revealed a deep contradiction within the humanist tradition: the tension between moral idealism and objective analysis.
Ultimately, Machiavelli presents a realistic and pragmatic form of liberal political philosophy rooted in humanist ideas. His vision of a balanced constitution that respects various social classes and empowers the executive during emergencies reflects his belief in human agency and rationality. His political theory rejects deterministic views of morality and governance, favoring a dynamic and evolving understanding of human society. Machiavelli’s contributions reveal both the potential and limitations of humanism, offering a complex, deeply analytical perspective that continues to influence modern political thought.
Self Check Exercise-4
Q.1 What is Humanism?

5.7    Summary:
Machiavelli is probably one of the most misunderstood political thinkers. He is mainly criticized for drawing a bad picture of human nature; his principle that ‘ends justify the means; and his undue emphasis on the role of force in keeping the people united. Even then he has made tremendous contribution to the growth of political thought. He was the first modern thinker in many of his great ideas.
Firstly, he completely rejected the feudal conception of a hierarchy of autonomous entities and envisaged a territorial, national and sovereign state which enjoyed supreme power over all the institutions in the society. Secondly, he deserves the credit for freeing politics from the clutches of ethics. Prior to him politics was considered a hand maid of ethics. He, for the first time, asserted that there were two distinct standards of morality for the state and the individual and freed the state from the shackles of moral principles. However, he insisted on the individuals to observe the ethical principles. This way of looking at politics greatly influenced the subsequent political thinkers. Thirdly, Machiavelli was the first thinker to emphatically denounce the authority of Church and tried to reduce it to a subordinate position to the government. However, he was not against the idea of using religion as an instrument for the promotion of state interests. Fourthly, Machiavelli for the first time offered materialist interpretation of the origin of state, and completely ignored the metaphysical or supernatural elements. His theory that state was founded in the weakness of human nature, insufficiency of human mind and inordinate ambitions and desire of human beings, was a novel one. Fifthly, he was the first exponent of the principle of ‘power politics’ and propounded the theory of aggrandisement which insisted that the state must either expand or perish. He was a great humanist. He proposes a realistic form of liberal political philosophy. In fact, Machiavelli was more of a practical politician rather than a political philosopher. With him a new phase in the development of political philosophy sets in. Dunning has said, “Machiavelli was the first modern political philosopher. It is quite as accurate to say that he ends the medieval era as that he begins the modern.”

5.8    Glossary

•    Renaissance- was the period in Europe especially Italy in the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries, when there was a new interest in art, literature, science and learning.

•    Machiavellian- a person who is sneaky, cunning and lacking a moral code. The word comes from the Italian philosopher Niccole Machiavelli, who wrote the Political treatise ‘The Prince’ in which he encourages “the end justifies the means” behavior especially among politicians.

•    Aggrandisement- the term is used for the enlargement of the territory of one state at the expense of another.

•    Republicanism- Belief in or support for government by elected representatives of the people.

•    Morality- principles concerning what is good and bad or right and wrong behavior.

•    Perfunctory- done quickly as a duty without any interest or feeling.

•    Acquiescence- to accept something without argument, although you may not agree with it.

•    Nihilist- a person who believes that life is meaningless and rejects all religious and moral principles.

•    Pragmatic- dealing with problems in a practical way rather than by following ideas or principles.

5.9    Answers to Self Check Exercise:Self Check Exercise-1

(1)    ‘The Prince’, ‘The Discourses’ and ‘The Art of War’.

(2)    Second Chancellor and Secretary.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.   (a) The Prince (b) Republican Government (c) Power

2.        State, According to Machiavelli, is the highest form of human association which
has to be created as the human beings are selfish, egoistic and ambitious, but weak and fickle. Sate is not something natural to human beings but is an artificial creation. It is not something which is implanted in the social instincts of human beings but has its origin in a calculating self-interest on the part of the individual.

3.   (i) The prince should crush all opposition to his authority with an iron hand.

(ii)    The prince should try to take quick and firm decisions, because hesitation can prove very harmful.

(iii)    The prince should follow an expansionist policy. Failure to expand the state shall lead to its stagnation and ultimate decline.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.  (a) Machiavelli (b) Machiavelli (c) Machiavelli

2.  (i) It puts premium on the misdeeds of politicians.

(ii)    There is no guarantee that interests of the ruler and the public would be the same.

(iii)    Machiavelli’s theory of “End Justifies the Means” goes directly against Mahatma Gandhi’s theory of “Means justify the ends”.
Self Check Exercise-4

1.    See Section 3.6, first para.

5.10    Suggested Readings:

1.    G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1961.

2.    H. Butterfield: The Statecraft of Machiavelli, London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1940.

3.    F.J.C. Hearnshaw (ed.) : The Social and Political Ideas of Some Great Thinkers of the Renaissance and the Reformation, London : George G. Harrap and Co. Ltd., 1926.

4.    D. Germino, Modern Western Political Thought: Machiavelli to Marx, Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1972.

5.11    Terminal Questions:

1.    Critically examine Machiavelli’s views on Politics and Statecraft.

2.    ‘Machiavelli had one theory for Revolution and another for government’ (Sabine). Elucidate.

3.    Narrate the most important tips given by Machiavelli to his prince.

4.    'Machiavelli was a great huminist thinker'. Discuss.
*****
Block-IIUnit-6Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679 A.D.)
STRUCTURE

6.1    Introduction

6.2    Learning Objectives

6.3    Human Nature
Self Check Exercise-1

6.4    The State of Nature and Law of Nature


6.4.1    The State of Nature

6.4.2    Law of Nature
Self Check Exercise-2

6.5    The Social Contract
Self Check Exercise-3

6.6    Hobbes as an Individualist and Absolutist
Self Check Exercise-4

6.7    Summary

6.8    Check Your Progress

6.9    Glossary

6.10    Answers to Self Check Exercises

6.11    Suggested Readings

6.12    Terminal Questions

6.1    Introduction
Hobbes was the first Englishman to present the system of Political Philosophy that can stand among the great systems of history. His work placed him at once in the first rank of political thinkers and his theory became from the moment of its appearance the centre of controversy and enormous influence throughout Western Europe. “So skillfully did he plead all the most conspicuous concept of current political thought in his system and adapt them to his ends,” writes W.A., Dunning, “that philosophers of all schools were forced to a recognition and discussion of his doctrine; whether by way of approval or by way of condemnation.”
Among the great modem philosophers, Hobbes attempted to bring political theory into intimate relation with a thoroughly modern system of thought. He strove to make this system broad enough to account for all facts of nature on the basis of scientific principles. He attempted to analyse human behaviour both in its individual and social aspect. It is for this reason that George H. Sabine regards Hobbes as the greatest thinker on political philosophy that “the English-speaking people have produced.”
What is the political philosophy? What is the scientific principle on which his political philosophy is based? To answer these questions, my dear student, we will have to examine some of the influences which shape his views on Human Nature and formed the basis on which he raised the super-structure of his political philosophy.
The new developments in physical science, which were taking place during his times, greatly influenced him. According to these developments the physical world began to be
regarded as purely mechanical system in which all that happens may be explained with geometrical precision, according to the new quantitative conception of the physical world. It consisted of colourless, Soundless particles moving with mathematical precision in accordance with simple, deterministic mechanical law. Hobbes grasped this principle of motion and the concept of world as mechanical system and made it the central point of his political philosophy.
In ‘Leviathan’, he tried to answer the perennial problems of political science. What is state and what is man, and why man should obey the state? He is most renowned systematic thinker. Although Hobbes claims himself an original thinker, yet he had some influences of contemporary thoughts. However he is considered one of the most original thinkers. He is a great system builder and is ranked with Plato and Hegal. ‘The Leviathan is the greatest, perhaps the sole master piece of political philosophy written in the English Political Philosophy......'

6.2    Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, you will be able to

•    Know about Hobbes’ Theory of state of Nature.

•    Understand Hobbes’ Theory of Social Contract and

•    Evaluate Hobbes’s as an absolutist or Individualist.

6.3    Human Nature
Hobbes' political philosophy was greatly influenced by the violence, the brutality and the appalling waste of life and property caused by the civil war in England. His observation of human nature—in himself as he frankly admits and also surely as he saw it revealed in those dreadful years-of revolutionary disturbances-led him to the conclusion that “man is an animal who is moved by two and only two considerations—fear and self-interest. Every other motive which at first sight seems to distinguish man from other animal is reduced by him to one or the other of these basic tendencies. For instance, we generally regard sense of humour as distinctly human trait, laughter is regarded as a sign of friendliness, good nature and good fellowship. But to Hobbes, on the contrary, it is occasioned in man “either by some sudden act of their own that pleaseth them, or by the apprehension of some deformed thing in another, by comparison where of they suddenly applaud themselves.”
Man is not primarily a creature of reason but of the passions. His further assumption is that the movement of particles either aids or retards ‘vitality’ of the organ which was the heart rather than the brain. If the vitality increased and decreased, two primary types of emotions, desire and aversion respectively, are created. What men wish good is called desire and he avoids is omission. For Hobbes, conception of good or bad is subjective and ever changing. The end of every man is success in obtaining the things which he from time to time desires. And this according to Hobbes is ‘Felicity’ and the means through which a man can achieve “Felicity” are ‘powers’. This life becomes a perpetual and restless desire of powers after powers that ceaseth only with death.
These twin influences determined the Hobbesian concept of Human Nature. The first influence enabled him to develop a psychology of human nature on the principle of motion. According to Hobbes, the motion of bodies is transmitted through the sense organs to the central nervous system where it appears as ‘sensation’. Such transmitted motion always aids or retards the ‘vital motion’ the organ for which, as he supposed was heart rather than brain. Accordingly as the vital motion is heightened or repressed, two primitive types of feelings
appear. These are ‘desire’ and ‘aversion’ respectively. Desire is an endeavour towards that which is desirable or favourable to vital process and ‘aversion’ is repulsion from that which is undesirable or unfavourable.
This leads Hobbes to postulate that human will is completely determined. It is also a motion and is preceded or accompanied by the thought of the subsequent motion of which it is cause. Accordingly animals (Human beings included) have two sorts of motions. Firstly, voluntary motions which begin with birth such as course of blood, excretion etc. Secondly, there are involuntary motions such as ‘go’, ‘speak’, ‘move’ whose cause is imagination and are preceded by the thought of ‘whither’, ‘which we’ and ‘what’.
On this psychology of human nature, Hobbes further builds his philosophy of ‘value’. The object of desire is ‘good’ and that of aversion, ‘evil’ (in relation to the person that uses them). The conclusion is that ‘nothing is inherently good or evil.’ Value is subjective. According to Hobbes value is simply the expression of motion of body towards or away from object about which the judgment is made. Thus, it is not the case that we desire the object, we do desire because it is ‘good’, on the contrary, ‘good’ is the name we give to those objects which attract us that is towards which we move. As such, ‘goodness’ we assert of the object is not in it, it is a feeling in us, produced by the motion of particles which form our body in exactly the same way as the heat or colour which we feel or perceive is really in us though it seems in the object.
Now this psychology and view of ‘value’ when correlated to man’s capacity for the rational would simply mean that procession of reason though an important function does not really alter the picture of man motivated by ‘self-interest’ and ‘fear’. Reason is conceived by Hobbes as purely instrumental and therefore, it simply enables the animal who posesses it to avoid many of things which he fears and secure many selfish gratification whose enjoyment otherwise he will have to forego.
In a nutshell, Hobbes's concept of human nature is that men are essentially selfish, contentious, quarrelsome, mean, wicked, non-altruistic, non-rational, impulsive and selfcentered.
It is this conception of human nature which is the basis of political philosophy developed by Hobbes. It was the first whole-hearted attempt to treat political philosophy as part of a mechanistic body of scientific knowledge.
Self Check Exercise-1

1.    According to Hobbes, man is guided by which two main considerations?

2.    Who is the author of the book ‘Leviathan’?

6.4    The State of Nature and Law of Nature6.4.1    The State of Nature
Human nature as it is, Hobbes couldn’t have painted a bright picture of the ‘State of Nature.’ The state of nature was, therefore, a state of war where every man was an enemy of every other man. Since ‘self-interest’ and ‘fear’ was the sole motive which guided the human behaviour, life was necessarily hard and cruel. In the state of nature, might and fraud prevailed. In the words of Hobbes, in the state of nature, “there is no industry, no culture, no navigation.... no society; and which is worst of all continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The all absorbing preoccupation of all men is self- preservation. “1 put for a general inclination of all mankind”
writes Hobbes “a perpetual and restless desire of power which ceaseth only in death.... because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, he cannot do without the acquisition of more.”
Thus, no moderation of desire can place a limit to the struggle for existence. Since each individual is roughly equal in strength and cunning, none can be secure. There is a ‘war of every man against every man’. There is neither right nor wrong, justice nor injustice. The rule of life is that, a man can get so long as he can keep it. It appears that life in the state of nature approximated that of savages.
However, Hobbes was not much interested in the question of actual historicity of the state of nature. For him the question was as to what life would be like if men had no sovereign. He regarded the question of equality in the state of nature as irrelevant. Therefore, the fact, supposing it to be a fact, that man had never so lived, could not disprove the Hobbesian thesis that man’s life would be “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short” without a sovereign. Rather if it could be ascertained that man had so lived it would be simply additional evidence to support Hobbes’s view.

6.4.2    Law of Nature
Humans move from the state of nature to civil society through the guidance of reason. While human nature consists of opposing forces—desire and aversion, which give rise to emotions and impulses—it is reason that directs actions toward self-preservation. This rational capacity enables the shift from a solitary, primitive existence to a structured and social way of life.
The transition is made by the laws of nature, the “conditions of society or of human peace.” These laws state what an ideally reasonable being would do if he considered impartially his relation with other men in all their bearings upon his own security. Hobbes wrote, “A law of nature is a precept, on general rule, found out by reason by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taken away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he think it may not be best preserved.” The laws of nature, therefore are the hypothetical conditions upon which the fundamental traits of human beings allow a civil society to be founded. They do not state like the laws of the nature as postulated by Cicero, Thomas Aquinas and other medieval thinkers, values but they determine, casually and rationally what can be given value in legal and moral systems.
Let me make it clear to you that there are two stages involved in the argument put forth by Hobbes. The first is the contention that by following certain rules (which Hobbes chooses to call the laws of nature), we could live together in peace and harmony. These have great utility for self-preservation than violence and general competition. The second contention is that we are far too intemperate and short sighted to follow these rules of our own volition. In other words men can avoid attacking others and start co-operation for mutual self-preservation, only when there arise a powerful sovereign authority with overwhelming powers to enforce these rules.
Hence it follows, writes Hobbes, that man should be “willing, when others are so too, for peace, and defence of himself. He shall think it necessary, to lay down his right to all things, and be content with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himself.” It also follows that there should be all powerful sovereign authority to enforce these rules since men being selfish, may not do so of their own.
However, this conclusion does not follow because neither of his prepositions is true. This is the case even if we accept his estimate of human nature: it is still more obviously the case if this account of man’s character and motives is rejected as being one-sided and exaggerated. Hobbes was, in fact, an individualist and utilitarian. He justifies power of the security of human beings and there is no rational ground of obedience and respect for authority except the anticipation that these will yield a larger individual advantage than their opposite. No moral considerations are involved. But since utility alone is not enough, he suggests a common coercive power to enforce these rules in common interest of all, for he feared that some clever people may deem useful, though mistakenly, to ignore them. Thus, his view of human nature, the state of nature and the law of nature implies him to devise a social contact with the help of which men came out of state of nature, established a state with an all powerful sovereign.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    Explain the ‘State of Nature’ according to Hobbes.

2.    Define ‘Law of Nature’ according to Hobbes.

6.5    The Social Contract
In order to get out of the terrible state of nature, men enter into covenants to forego such of their natural rights which, being retained will hinder the progress of mankind towards the establishment of a civil society. Though men realize it yet, because of their selfish and unsocial inclination, they cannot be expected to agree spontaneously to respect each other’s rights. The performance of covenants may be reasonably expected only if there is an effective government which will punish non-performance. In Leviathan, he wrote, “covenants without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all,” In the same book, he wrote at another place. “The bonds of words, are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger and other passions, without the fear of some coercive power.”
Hobbes wrote. “the obligation of subjects to the Sovereign’s understood to last as long and no longer, than the power last by which he is able to protect them.”
Thus, security depends upon the existence of a government having the power to keep the peace and apply the sanctions needed to curb man’s innately unsocial inclination. The effective motive by which men are socialized in the fear of punishment and something glory. The law is observed only if the government has the powers to enforce it. Reason provides a sufficient ground for mutual accord but is too weak to offset the avarice and greed of man in the mass. In substance, his theory amounted to identifying government with force, at least, the force must always be present in the background whether it has to be applied or not.
To justify force, Hobbes retained the old idea of the social contract. But the contract was not to be binding on the sovereign or ruler. It was a covenant between the individuals by which all sign self help and subject themselves to a sovereign. In Leviathan Hobbes stated thus:
“The only way to erect such a common power as may be able to definite them (i.e. men) from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of another—is to confer all their power and strength upon one man or upon one assembly of men that may reduce all their wills by plurality of voices into one will, which as much as to say, to appoint one man or assembly of men to bear their person, and everyone to own and acknowledge himself to be the author of whatsoever. He that so birth their person shall act, or caused to be acted in those things which concern the common peace and safety and therein to submit their wills; everyone to his will,
and their judgement to his judgement ........... every man should say to every man, I authorize
and give up my right of governing myself, to this man, or to this assembly of men, on this condition, that thou give up thy right to him and authorize all his actions in like manner. This done, the multitude so united in one person, is called commonwealth.”
* Hobbes’s contract is characterized by the following features:-

1.    The contract is not between groups, associations, superiors, or subordinates, but among individuals in a state of nature, all possessing equal and natural rights. It is a voluntary agreement made freely among equals.

2.   The sovereign authority in the state is the artificial creation of the contract.

3.   The sovereign is not a party to the contract and he can never make a breach of the
contract.

4.   The contract so entered by the individual is perpetual and irrevocable.

5.   The raison d’etre of the contract is the protection of individual’s life from inside or
out-side encroachments. The right to self-preservation of the individuals is the core of Hobbes’s political philosophy. At the time of contract the individuals surrender all their rights to the sovereign except the right to life.

6.    Hobbes’s sovereign may be one person, two persons or many persons. But Hobbes’s preference is for one.
Let us, analyse the Social Contract. Firstly, it is clear that since the right resigned is merely the use of natural strength and covenants without sword are mere words, this is a contract only in a manner of speaking, in fact, it is logical fiction to offset the anti-social fiction of his human psychology. Undoubtedly, it helped him to import the notion of moral obligation into social relation.
Secondly, the contract comes up suddenly and transforms the chaos of the state of nature into the order lines of civil state. In the state of nature, no contracts are possible, for there is no sovereign to enforce. How then is it possible to make a social contract in the state of nature? Perhaps Hobbes failed to realize that sovereign resulted from but did not coexist with the social contract. Locke ridiculed the Hobbesian social contract by remarking that it appears when men quitting the state of nature entered into society they agreed that all of them but one should be under the restraint of law; all but he should retain all the liberty of the state of nature, increased with the power and made him nitrous by impunity. This is to think that men are so foolish that they care to avoid what mischief may be done to them by polecats and foxes, but are content to be devoured by lion.”
Thirdly, the state of nature of Hobbes was a state of war of all against all in which the cardinal virtues are force and fraud. How could then a man who is antisocial go against his own nature and suddenly enter a state of peace and harmony? A state in which force and fraud are deliberately set aside, a state in which acts of wrong and justice are put under the double ban of public disapproval and positive prohibition. How could a man stick to such a state?
Lastly, it is not clear as to how the self interest of individual suddenly changes into duty towards the sovereign after the contract. If men are selfish, they cannot tolerate an absolute sovereign. How could the extremely selfish man of the state of nature willingly agree to an irrevocable and unconditional surrender of all his natural rights? It is something one fails to understand.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.    Why men enter into covenants/social contract?

2.    The covenant/contract was between whom?

3.    Was sovereign/ruler a party in the contract? (Yes/No)

4.    Was the contract revocable? (Yes/No)

6.6    Hobbes as an Individualist and Absolutist
At times, scholars find contradictions in Hobbes's thoughts. According to Mcpherson' "Hobbes starts as an individualist, concludes as an absolutist" or "Hobbes is individualist in his assumptions, but absolutist in his conclusions." However, according to Sabine, Hobbes absolutism is a derivative of his individualism. We may say that absolutism and individualism are two important political ideas which find important places in Hobbes's scheme of things. There is, on the one hand, theory of sovereignty which makes Hobbes's sovereign absolute in all respects. Hobbes has been regarded as the first exponent of the theory of the absolute powers of the sovereign. Thinkers like Bodin who precede him put certain veritable limitations on the powers of the sovereign. It was destined for Hobbes to make his sovereign absolute and unlimited, supreme and unrestrained from all sides. As this theory of sovereignty proved to be the revolutionary theory of its time, and also controversial theory, in its dust and turmoil people forgot that the theory of absolutism of the sovereign was derived from his individualism. His critics failed to realize that Hobbes started with individual and ended with individual. Individual's security is the pivot round which all his other political ideas revolve. Everything in Hobbes's political philosophy, either before or after the institution of the civil society, is for the individual, of the individual and by the individual. His critics never penetrated deep into his theory and got the superficial impression that absolutism was the central part of his system. But actually absolutism was only an ally, an accompaniment, a subservient idea of another idea that is individualism. This idea of absolutism derived all its light from individualism, just as the moon gets its light from the sun. Without the light of the sun, the moon has no radiance similarly, without the necessity of the individual self-preservation, it was not probably necessary for Hobbes to make his sovereign absolute. From the point of view of influence of Hobbes on subsequent political thought also, we find that his individualism was more important than absolutism. His individualism gave rise to the laissez-faire theory which became a powerful tool in the hands of utilitarian thinkers like Bentham in the development of the individualistic doctrines in the 19th century. Self-interest of the individual came to be regarded as the pre-dominant motive in life. His absolutism, on the other hand, was forgotten after the dust of the revolution had settled down. There was wrong impression about him that he was absolutist and nothing else, because he belonged to the Royalist camp.
The view of Sabine is definitely correct when he says, "The absolute power of the sovereign-a theory with which Hobbes's name is more generally associated was really the necessary compliment of his individualism." Prof. Wayper also said," the Leviathan is not merely a forceful enunciation of the doctrine of sovereignty ……. It is also a powerful statement of individualism. "Hobbes is no liberal or democrat but he is an individualist because for him the world is and must always be made up of individuals. For him, there did not exist such things as people, or common will or general will or common good as, for instance, they exist for a staunch democrat like Rousseau. What was most important for him was the inevitability of separate individuals and their separate interests. His individualism is based on the philosophy for which the world is composed of individual substantiate. Hobbes's
individualism is also to be distinguished from atomism, the doctrine which believes that individual is an indestructible particle of matter, and also from universalism, the doctrine that there is but one individual, the universe. Hobbes's individualism regards the individual, as a distinct and separate unit.
In Hobbes's theory there is definitely a primacy of will, non-rational element over rational part. According to him, individual person is that which is separate, incommunicable, eccentric or even irrational. Individuals may be collected together, may be added, may be substituted for one another or made to represent, but can never modify one another or compose as a whole in which their individuality is lost. We have seen in the preceding pages that Hobbes's individuals even after execution of the contract, do not lose their individuality. They do not submerge themselves in something new, but remain their individual-self, with their self-preservation. The theory that Hobbes's individuals retain their individuality even after the contract becomes clear if we realize that they transfer all their natural rights except the most significant of them i.e. the right to life. Had Hobbes the inclination of a collectivist, he would have enunciated the theory of the total surrender of rights including the right to life. Hence, in Hobbes, neither before nor after the institution of civil society we find any such thing as people or community. Hence, before and after the contract what continues to be important is the individual wills.
We have seen also in dealing with Hobbes's origin of the state, that what is created is an artificial representative who wills and acts in the place of each individual. There is substitution of many conflicting wills by one will and not extinction. The individuals continue to exist, the only difference the contract has brought about is that in case of conflict between the two wills, they agree among themselves, to surrender themselves to the final arbitration of the sovereign, the artificial person so created. The conflict between two or more wills will arise mostly in respect of the right to life and nothing else. In Hobbes's society there is no concord of wills, no common will, no common good, its unity lies in the singleness of the representative. Hence the creation of the civil society does not, in any way compromise the individual of its components.
There is a common belief that Hobbes started as an individualist and ended as an absolutist. It is believed that up to the institution of the sovereign, he was a staunch individualist and the creation of the civil society of his concept was designed precisely to destroy individualism. This belief is completely fallacious. It is not possible for a consistent thinker like Hobbes to start with one view-point and end with another. Once his first principals are accepted his conclusions follow automatically. He was an individualist through and through. He had to assign absolute powers to his sovereign as this was also warranted by logic. His absolutism does not destroy individualism. In support of our contention the following arguments are adduced :-
First, the dark view of human nature with which he started necessitated the creation of the absolute power, with ruthless and coercive force, capable of keeping them in awe and also in control, against the upsurge of the anti-social tendencies. This animal, as he is depicted by Hobbes, understands only one thing that is force. The very fact that an absolute sovereign has been created for the control of the anti-social tendencies of the individuals pre-supposes their individuality and does not destroy it.
Secondly, according to Hobbes the absolute sovereign is a means to an end, not an end, in itself. "The State is not the end of the individual, but the individual is most certainly the end of the state."The sovereign exists to serve the specific purpose of the individual. The absolute
sovereign was created to provide sufficient security to the individual's life. Its justification lies on its utility: Since the absolute sovereign is reduced to a utility, a servant in the cause of individual security, a means to an end, it does not destroy the individuality.
Thirdly, the sovereign gets the absolute powers with the consent of the individuals. He is their representative who would not destroy the individuality of his constituents. His sovereign and absolute powers are derived from the consent of the governed.
Fourthly, even after the creation of the absolute sovereign, the individual is not completely swallowed by it. The individuals have the liberty of thought, belief, education, art, literature, etc. They are free to do anything in the silence of law. So long as the law does not forbid, the individual are free to do anything. Law will interfere only when the life and security of the individual is involved. This right of protection of the life of individuals, they have themselves transferred to the sovereign for which they should not have any grudge. Where is the question of the sovereign, howsoever absolute it may be, superseding and by-passing the individual and his individuality?
Fifthly, Hobbes's individualism is nowhere more glaring and apparent than in the individual's right to resist the sovereign in case the latter fails to give sufficient protection for individual's life or in case the sovereign himself tries to kill him or places him in such conditions in which his life is endangered. That clearly shows that the individual still retains his individuality. He is the judge in every case, to determine whether a particular action of the absolute sovereign is detrimental to life and security and whether to offer resistance or shut his eyes to it.
Sixthly, as we have discussed above, that even after the institution of the absolute sovereign, there does not come into existence any collective will or general will or people or community. There still remain "the only individual human beings each actuated by his private interests." The absolute sovereign remains an out-side power to enforce discipline in the recalcitrant sections of the individuals.
Lastly, Prof. Oakeshott has given a very sound argument in this respect. He says that the Leviathan has not been created with the purpose of the destruction of the individual, it is in fact the minimum condition of the civilized and settled society. He argues further that the sovereign is absolute in two respects only and neither of them is destructive of individuality: first, the surrender of natural rights to him is absolute and his authorization is permanent and exclusive; secondly, there is no appeal from the legitimacy of his command. The surrender of the rights was absolute. Even after giving absolute rights to the sovereign, and providing for no appeal against the command of the sovereign, except in the case of danger to the life of the individual, Hobbes was an individualist out-and-out.
We can conclude by saying that the Leviathan was the first democratic attack on democracy. We already know that Hobbes had no liking for democracy. He was no democrat or liberal, but he was definitely an individualist as we have tried to establish in the fore-going discussion. He attacked democracy with the instrument of democracy itself. Democracy is normally defined as government of the people, for the people and by the people. "Hobbes's government can be said to be the government of the individual, for the individual and by the individual but it cannot be said to be the government of the people, for the people and by the people, rather it is the anti-thesis of democratic government. Democracy involves the answerability of the ruler to the ruled at periodical intervals. Hobbes's sovereign is not
answerable to the people for his acts of commission and omission. He is prone to resistance from the individual separately, not people as a whole, only to one contingency, threat to the life of the individual. Hobbes as we know, never allowed associations or institutions of individuals to be formed lest these should oppose the sovereign. He also did not give the right of opposition to any section of the population. He thought that sovereign has the power to punish any seditious activity lest it should lead to the dissolution of the civil society. And look at the ingenious way he has tried to curb all opposition or difference of opinion. He has used the most democratic method for crushing democracy. He uses the theory of consent. It is the individuals themselves who have by their willing consent, instituted the sovereign, transferred their natural rights to him and empowered him to act on their behalf. What else is meant by democracy? But all this is the theoretical part. The sovereign in practice wields the maximum powers that could ever be used by any ruler. To some extent the omnipotent ruler is necessary also. Our social instincts are not yet mature. Most of us are not yet ready to pension the police.
Self Check Exercise-4
Q.1 “Hobbes starts as an individualist, concludes as an absolutis,” whose statement is this?
Q.2 Who is regarded as the first exponent of the theory of the absolute powers of the sovereign?
Q.3 Who said? ,” Hobbes is no liberal or democrat but he is an individualist because for him, the world is and must always be made up of individuals.”
Q.4 Even after entering into contract, which right Hobbes’ individuals retained with themselves?
Q.5 ‘Hobbes’ absolutism does not destroy individualism.' Give two arguments in support of this contention.

6.7    Summary
In Conclusion with Prof. Wayper, we say that the “succeeding generations had usually disagreed with Hobbes, but it is no exaggeration to say that they have found in him a mind well worth their while to work for the riches of the ore that it yield.” The central point of Hobbes’s Philosophy is the individual and security of his life. In his philosophy everything is for the individual, of the individual and by the individual, and there is nothing beyond the individual.

6.8    Glossary

•    Philosophy: the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

•    Human Nature- The General Psychological Characteristics, feelings, and behavioural traits of Humankind, regarded as shared all human.

•    Vitality : The State of being strong and active.

•    Felicity : State of being happy.

•    Covenants : A covenant is a commitment in a bond or other formal agreement that certain activities will or will not be undertaken.

6.9    Answers to Self Check Exercise
Self Check Exercise-1

1.    Fear and Self interest.

2.    Thomas Hobbes.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    That state of nature was a stage when there was no state, no sovereign. It was a state of war where every man was an enemy of every other man. Since ‘Self-Interest’ and ‘fear’ was the sole motive which guided the human behaviour, life was necessarily hard and cruel. In the state of nature, might and fraud prevailed. In the words of Hobbes, in the state of nature,” "there is no industry, no culture, no navigation ......... no society; and which is worst of all continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” The all absorbing preoccupation of all men is self-preservation.

2.    Hobbes wrote, “A law of nature is a precept, on general rule, found out by reason by which a man is forbidden to do that which is destructive of his life, or taken away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he think it may not be best preserved.” The law of nature, therefore are the hypothetical conditions upon which the fundamental traits of human beings allow a civil society to be founded.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.    In order to get out of the terrible state of nature.

2.    Between individuals.

3.    No

4.    No
Self Check Exercise-4

1.   Macpherson

2.   Hobbes

3.   Prof. Wayper

4.    Right to life i.e. right of self preservation.

5.    (i) According to Hobbes, the absolute sovereign is a means to an end, not an end, in
itself.

(ii)    The sovereign gets the absolute powers with the consent of the individuals. He is their representative who would not destroy the individuality of his constituents.

6.10    Suggested Readings

1.    G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1961.

2.    W.T. Jones, Master of Political Thought, Vol. II, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd; 1955.

3.    M.M. Gold Simth, Hobbes Science of Politics, New York : Colombia University Press, 1969.

4.    F.S. Me & Neilly, The Anatomy of Leviathan New York : St. Martin’s Press Inc, 1968.

5.    David P. Ganthier, The Logic of Leviathan : The Moral and Political Theory of Hobbes, oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

6.    Shefali Jha, Western Political Thought from the Ancient Greeks to Modern Times, Chennai : Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd., 2020.

7.    Subrata Mukharjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2018.

6.11    Terminal Questions

1.    Hobbes was an advocate of absolutism. Justify?

2.    Critically evaluate Hobbes' Social Contact Theory?

3.    Discuss the views of Hobbes on Human Nature?

4.    Write Short notes on Hobbes views on:-

a)    Sovereignty of the State.

b)    Nature of Contract.
*****
Unit-7John Locke (1632-1704 A.D.)
STRUCTURE

7.1    Introduction

7.2    Learning Objectives

7.3    Locke's Perception of the Human Nature and state of Nature


7.3.1    Human Nature

7.3.2    State of Nature
Self Check Exercise-1

7.4    Locke's Conception of the Law of Nature
Self Check Exercise-2

7.5    The Social Contract
Self Check Exercise-3

7.6    Locke as a Liberal Philosopher
Self Check Exercise-4

7.7    Summary

7.8    Glossary

7.9    Answers to Self Check Exercise

7.10    Suggested Readings

7.11    Terminal Questions

7.1    Introduction
Locke is the greatest figure in the history of English political thought. He was born in a family of Puritan lawyer in the year 1632. He was a physician and due to that reason he got some contracts with Lord Ashley. Later Earl of Shaftesbury appointed him personal medical advisor. Due to this association, he was influenced by the founder of Whig Party and it was a turning point of Locke’s life. Another thing which influenced his life was the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which English people changed their monarch and established responsible government without any bloodshed. In this revolution, he got the idea of Human nature. He observed that human beings are essentially decent and honest.
The political writings of John Locke were also inspired by the same civil conflicts which produced the Leviathan. Regarded his relation to the 17th century as a whole, Locke stands high in the group of thinkers who promoted rationalistic idea of life—who preached that the earth and all the institutions thereof were made for man, and not man for them, and that whatever the importance of unquestioning faith in preparation for the life to come, to peace and comfort which were sought by man in the present life were to be secured only by the relentless application of reason to all the problems that arose.
Locke’s political theory, like that of Hobbes, rests on his conception of ‘Human Nature’. This not only determines, at the moral level, the end or propose for which the state exists, but also at the psychological level, the means for attaining this end. Locke and Hobbes agree about the end for which the state exists, i.e. peace, security and well-being of its individuals. However, they disagree fundamentally about the way in which this end can best be achieved because their conception of human nature and motivation differ.
Although the psychological theory about the Human Nature is never set forth formally and explicitly as Hobbes set out in Book I of ‘Leviathan’ yet we can easily comprehend Locke’s conception of human nature from numerous passages in his Second treatise on Civil Government. He wrote, ‘All men are naturally in a …...... State of equality, wherein all the
power and jurisdiction is reciprocal no one having more than another …..”
The use of word equality in the above quotation need a little explanation. Whereas for Hobbes equality ment that man’s physical and mental powers on the whole are almost equal, for Locke equality ment that every individual is counted as one and is, therefore morally the equal of every other. It means that man has rights which belong to him simply as a human being and not because of his pre-eminence in strength, wealth or intellect. This ought to be recognized by everyone.
Thus, the physical powers and capacities, status, strength of a human being have nothing to do with his being morally equal to his fellow beings. Human beings ought to be equal, even if in fact they are. In short, men are morally equal, just as soon as reason in them which makes them human beings is sufficiently developed for them to recognize those natural laws which define their rights and duties. The relations of man to man are human. This also means, to begin with, that there is a moral order in which men participate and to which they ought to correspond. It also means that being rational, they are capable of recognizing the existence of this order and their duty to conform to it. It means finally that men are moved by sympathy, love and tenderness to perform socially cohesive acts, even when they do not have duty to do so.

7.2    Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, students will be able to:

•    Know about Locke’s Perception of the Human Nature and State of Nature.

•    Understand Locke’s views on the Law of Nature.

•    Explain the Social Contract Theory of John Locke.

•    Comprehend Locke as a Liberal Political Philosopher.

7.3    Locke’s Perception of the Human Nature and State of Nature.7.3.1    Human Nature
For Hobbes, as you already have been told in the previous lesson, man is merely an animal, a creature of nature, while for Locke, he is a member of a moral order and subject to a moral (and in this case natural) law. No doubt, this moral law is only an “ought”. It states not the way in which men behave but the way in which they ought to behave. Locke was certainly realist enough to see that men do not always, or even often do not do what they ought. But this in itself is enough to distinguish man from other animals, as in case of animals an “ought” is meaningless, being irrational, the moral law simply does not apply to them.
Moreover, the fact that Locke’s man is subject to a moral order also distinguishes him from Hobbes man at the psychological level. While Hobbes’s man is moved solely by animal considerations of bodily comforts, Locke’s man, at least sometimes hears the voice of duty. And while Hobbes’s man is always utterly selfish, Locke’s man is sometimes really altruistic.
In spite of all these differences, I must tell you that Locke’s theory of ideas contained in his ‘Essay concerning Human understanding” is fundamentally as egoistic in its explanation of human behaviour as that of Hobbes’ in terms of self-preservation a doubtful improvement but the calculation of pleasure and pain was as self-centered as the calculation of self- preservation and security.

7.3.2    State of Nature:
Like the ‘Leviathan’, Locke’s Second Treatise’ opens with a description of society from which government has been abstracted, the State of Nature. It seems quite a different condition from that by Hobbes. While Locke calls it a “state of perfect freedom where men are able, to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit” and while he makes it— “a state also of equalities wherein all power and jurisdiction is reciprocal”, he does not extend liberty of action to the seizure and use of one’s neighbour and his property in the manner of Hobbes’s “right of nature”. Even the freedom of use our self, as explained in the paragraph above is confined ‘within the bounds of law of nature’. He wrote, ‘Reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, not one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possession. Men “living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them are properly in the state of nature” which is “a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation.”
The picture is an idealic one that seems far removed from the capacity of Hobbes’s natural man. But it is the traditional picture of man in his perfection, a sociable and rational animal, living in harmony with his fellows. New researches point out that scattered, through the chapter on the state of nature are traces of quite different pictures, much like that drawn by Hobbes. And in the subsequent discourse “of the state of war” its details are tiled in. The statements are subtle. The first and the chief qualification of individual liberty in the state of nature is that one has not the liberty to destroy himself. A few line further on the idea is rephrased in more positive language : “Man being born as, as been proved, with a title to perfect freedom and uncontrolled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world hath, by nature ‘a power not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate against the injuries and attempts of other men but to Judge of and punish the breaches of that law in other.” Every one, as he, is bound to preserve himself.
The formula looks remarkably like Hobbes’ first law of nature, the law of self preservation. However, Locke broadens the mandate and makes his natural man a sociable animal—our ought also “as much as he can to preserve the rest of mankind”. Yet this is interestingly qualified by the phrase, when his own preservation comes not in competition. Duty to self always comes first. In fact, we are brought to wonder whether the State of Nature is as Locke says, one of “peace and goodwill”. There are aggressors in it, for we are told the law of nature needs an executor, “that all men may be re-strained from invading other’s rights and from doing hurt to one another.” In the state of nature this executive power is given to every man, who has the right and obligation to “preserve the innocent and restrain offenders.” Some offenders will be no better than wild beasts and men will find it necessary to “destroy things abnoxious to them.”
The peace of the state of nature will be broken not only by an occasional offender but by all its members, who are all ill-natured, passionate, and revengeful. Therefore, the objection continues, the state of nature should be abandoned for the governmental order, which God himself has appointed” to retrain the partiality and violence of men.” He wrote, “I easily grant that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature; which must certainly be great where men may be judges in their own case.” Thus the state of nature involves the state of war because of the passionate nature of man. There can be no, “living together according to reason” in the state of nature. If this is meant as a key
element of the definition of the State of nature, then that society simply does not exist. There is only the state of war and it is excluded only by the creation of governmental authority. This is the way in which Locke “scatters” his meaning up and down the text and hides his Hobbesian natural right theory under the respectable grab of the traditional natural law. Sabine comments, “It is evident then, that Locke’s whole theory depended upon explaining exactly what was meant by the law of nature, upon which pre-political conditions of mutual assistance rested and in accordance with which political societies are. In fact, he never gave any careful analysis of it at all.”
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Locke was influenced by which 'Revolution'?
Q.2 Who wrote the book 'Second Treatise on Civil Government?
Q.3 Which natural right were enjoyed by people in the state of nature according to John Locke?
Q.4 Explain 'State of Nature' according to Locke.

7.4    Locke’s conception of the law of nature
The controlling link in the chain forged by Locke is manifestly law of nature. It is that which determines the character both of the state of nature and of the civil state which eventually follows. What the law of nature is to him. It is a law that does not materially differ from that of Hobbes. Although the Hobbesian conception of the law of nature in the beginning was essentially that of brute force, it was just a law of the sword, which Hobbes later for the sake of his convenience changed into a law of peace. The law of nature, to Locke, is not a natural impulse. It is rather moral law based on reason to regulate the conduct of men in natural conditions. One of its main purposes is equality but not in intellect, physical might and possession, but in personal liberty and independence. Locke defines it as a dictate of right reason which obliges everyone and teaches mankind who will but consult it, that all beings are equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possession. It is a law which proclaims itself to the heart of every individual, not an infant or an idiot; a law which owes nothing to human institutions, social or political, but to which, on the contrary, those institutions owe everything that gives them any worth. It is a law which not only commands man to love his neighbour in general, but which also lays itself out, so that he who runs may read in a detailed code of specific duties covering the whole field of his conduct and governing his whole life in whatever circumstances he may find himself placed. What is the general nature of this law? Locke is at once ready with an answer. It is a law of goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation: in one word, a ‘law of peace’; a law which might have been dictated and if we believe the scriptures, as in fact dictated by the Prince’ of Peace.”
This very law which was a determining body of rules for the conduct of men in their natural conditions, the very author and originator of natural rights which was also the arch of the covenant, was not free from defects. This law of nature, the very source of all blessings, was found on experience to fail man at the very moment when he stood most in need of it. Secondly, every man is ready to apply its restraining canons to the acts of others, he is not quite so ready to apply them equally to his own. Thirdly, even when a man’s will is honestly set on doing justice to others, he can never be sure that his judgment is not wrapped by unconscious selfishness ; by the bias to which all men are subject in favour of themselves. No man with a sensitive conscience will care to be judge in his own case. Lastly, even supposing
both these conditions to be satisfied that his will is perfectly good and his judgement perfectly sound, he can have no assurance that, in the absence of any settled law, he will be able to make justice triumph. A law which is not written, a law that has no sanction behind, a law which is merely the dictate of right conscience and the principle of morality, cannot be regarded a law in the real sense of the term. It is because of these drawbacks of the law of nature that the natural rights of men became unsafe and insecure. Variety in manner and method of the enforcement of justice inevitably cause confusion and uncertainty in life, and there is need of a known and certain rule in accordance with which the lights of individuals are to be protected and maintained. It is to secure such a rule that civil society was instituted through the social contract.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 What was ‘Law of Nature’ according to Locke?
Q.2 What were the main drawbacks of the ‘Law of Nature’?

7.5    The Social Contract
To get rid of the state of nature which had become a state of inconvenience, people make a contract to enter into a Civil Society. This is a contract of all with all. By the first contract, the civil society is constituted. By the second contract, the government comes into existence. This contract is the step to the drawing up a trust which creates government as only a fiduciary power to act for certain ends. The community is thus both creator and beneficiary of the trust. But as a beneficiary of the trust, the community makes no contract with the trustee who accepts a unilateral obligation towards it. The acceptance of the trust by the government is at the same time its undertaking not to exceed the limits laid down by the trust.
It is to be noted that the essential basis of the contract in the case of Locke is consent. He himself writes at one place in the civil Government that no man can be incorporated into the commonwealth without his consent. In this connection, Locke discusses two types of consents: (1) formal or active consent, (2) implied or tacit consent. If the consent is implied or tacit, the individuals, according to Locke, are at liberty to depart and to organize and to begin a new order in any part of the world they can find free and unpossessed. But if the consent is formal or expressed, they are perpetually and indispensably obliged to be and remain unalterably a subject to it. The Lockean contract is based on the expressed and formal consent and as such, like that of Hobbes, it remains essentially irrevocable. He who has signed it “can never again be in the liberty of the state of nature.” Freedom to depart, so long as no express undertaking to join the commonwealth has been given, obligation to remain until death brings release, from the moment it has been given, such is the social contract as it presented itself to Locke.” It is permanent and indissoluble like that of Hobbes and rests on a much firmer sanction.
Another, a very significant feature of this contract, is that like Hobbes, men do not surrender their rights which they possessed in the state of nature. It is, rather, for the safety and protection of these rights that the authority is constituted. All that the men agree to is to “give up everyone his single power of punishing to be exercised by such alone as shall be appointed to it amongst them, and by such rules as the community, or those authorized by them to that purpose, shall agree on.” Hence the contract is no more than a surrender of certain rights and powers whereby man’s remaining rights will be protected and preserved. It is then not general as with Hobbes, but limited and specific. The contract by which men pass from the state of nature to the civil state is not an instrument of enslavement but a charter of
freedom for the individual who, so far from surrendering all his powers to a despotic monarch or a despot oligarchy, surrenders so much, and only so much, of them as shall provide security, hitherto lacking in fact though not in right, for the free untrammeled exercise of all the rest.
Another significant feature of the Lockean contract is that it ensures to the individuals the right of revolution against despotic and tyrannous government. The purpose of the government is to ensure justice and protect the natural rights of the individuals. But if the king betrayed the trust which had been placed in him, if he tried to assume more power than that which had been delegated to him, the people according to Locke have a perfect right to revolt. He was also willing to admit that even Parliament, consisting of the elected delegates of the people, might at times become tyrannical and so the right of rebellion was extended to cover this situation as well.
The decision of creating a revolution against the king is to be taken by a majority of legislature; and the decision of making a revolt against the legislative body is to be taken by the community as a whole. Thus the creation and recreation of government entirely depend upon the consent of the people. Nothing is done without taking the people into confidence.
The theory of contract, as applied to the relation between the governor and the governed, was intended to be counter blast to the theory of Divine Right. It roughly stripped the king of the halo of sanctity, of mystical majesty, cast around him by seventeenth century theology. It reduced him at one stroke to a position of equality with his subjects. The Essay of Civil Government is, in fact, “an assault not only upon the sovereignty of Leviathan, but upon the very idea of sovereignty. Its shafts are aimed not merely against one particular form of sovereignty, the most oppressive and the least endurable, but against any form, even the mildest, that sovereignty can assume.” The practical effect of this interpretation is to restore the theory of contract to the purposes for which it was originally framed : to overthrow the portentous fabric so ingeniously conjured out of it by Hobbes; to sweep away the absolute sovereignty of the whole community - a sovereignty, however, strictly limited by the prior claims of the individual in its place.
Self Check Exercise-3

Q.1 Discuss the main features of Locke’s social contract.

7.6    Locke as a Liberal Philosopher
Locke is one of the greatest liberalist in the history of political thought. He is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition, based on the social contract arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property and governments must not violate these rights. He maintained that rights of man rested on the law of nature, government was regarded as a human institution-merely an artificial arrangement for maintaining law and order. The people were sovereign, with the government as their delegate with limited power. Locke concerned himself with the problem of the maintenance of natural rights and liberties on the one hand, and a limited and constitutional government-which may not harm these rights, liberties-on the other.
He believed in the principle of separation of power to prevent accumulation of government powers and despotism. He had separated the government powers into three i.e. Legislative, executive (including Judiciary) and federative powers. He believed in Laissez-faire state (French term meaning leaving alone). For maximization of individual liberty, he
limited the government functions. For him, human beings are rational beings, they are aware of the fact that what is in their best interest and they strive to acquire maximum pleasure.
According to Vaughan, the whole philosophy of Locke is centered around individual and individual liberty. He can be called as father of liberalism on the following grounds:
First, the idea of innate, inherent, and natural rights forms a fundamental position in his general system. John Locke’s ‘Second Treatise of Government’ is a ringing defence of individual liberty and individual rights, including rights to private property. These right are believed to belong to the individual, not due to any extraneous reasons, but due to the fact of his very personality.
Secondly, the individuals enter the state, already possessed of the natural rights with the proclaimed purpose of protecting them better. The raison d’etre of the state is the protection of the individuals rights and liberties. Locke’s state can justify its existence only by the performance it shows in making the rights more secure. According to Locke, the main problem of the state is to secure the greatest amount of liberty. Locke sought not the liberty for the strong, the fovoared or the fortunate, but liberty for everyone regardless of his circumstances in life.
Thirdly, Locke makes the consent of the individuals as the foundation-stone of the state. The consent, may be express or tacit. It is the liberalism in him that is responsible for his theory of consent. According to him an absolute government is no government at all since it is based on caprice instead of reason. The absolute government, like that of Hobbes, lacks the essential element of consent without which the law will have no binding force. Law is binding on individual only if it emanates from his express or tacit consent. Only that government is legitimate which is founded on the consent of the individuals. If legitimate government is based upon the consent of its subjects they may withdraw their consent also, if the government forfeits its right to rule by making a breach of the trust.
Fourthly, Locke’s liberalism is evidenced by his theory of Negative State. The functions of his state are limited to the negative role of preventing the subjects from infringing the rights of the fellow citizens. The state interferes only where there is infringement of the rights of the individuals. The state has no positive work to do. The individual is left to his own in the sphere of morality, intellect, and education. A staunch liberalist like Locke cannot tolerate the state’s interference in the social affairs of the individual. The state’s jurisdiction is limited to the protection of the rights of the subjects inter se. Beyond that begins the sphere of the individual. Through his theory of negative state, Locke, proves himself to be the greatest liberalist in the history of political thought. He believed in Laissez faire state or theory of night watchmen state’ where role of state islimited to night watchmen ship. The economic affairs shall be governed by market forces where every individual is driven by ‘Profit motive’. He has considered state as necessary evil confined its role to maintain law and order, protect the country from outside attack and protect rights and liberties of people.
Fifthly, his theory of property also unambiguously tells us that Locke is out-and-out an individualist and liberalist. According to him, the property in the beginning was owned by community in common. The right to private property arises only when the individual mixes a part of his personality, namely, labour with some object commonly owned by the community. Prior to this process everything was common. It becomes private when an individual imparts a bit of his individuality to the common object. This shows the value of the individuality to
the personality which Locke recognizes without any ambiguity. The individual becomes the owner of the things to which he adds his bodily labour. Probably, there won’t be better proof of the worth of the human beings. That is why he wants the man to be free in economic sphere also.
Sixthly, he maintained that man, being rational, can live in natural harmony with his fallow beings and maintained that choice, which is based on reason, is the normal basis of human action. Man knows better what is good and what is bad for him, so let the man be firee.
Seventhly, Locke’s theory that civil law cannot go against the law of nature, is another tenet of individualism in his philosophy. Law of nature, according to him, is intelligible and plain to every rational creature. Now the state’s law has to conform to the law of nature under all circumstances. The type of relation between the civil law and the law of nature “lays the state at the mercy of the individual, by enabling any minority, however small, to challenge the moral justification of any law which the majority has passed. It thus throws a slur upon the law of the state from the very beginning and lays a perpetual ferment for rebellion against the state on the part of any and every individual.” The law of nature, as we know, does not cease in the civil state. State’s interpretation of the law of nature even is not final.
Eighthly, Locke’s theory of Revolution also demonstrates his liberalism without any ambiguity. That only shows that the individual is absolute or sovereign and the state, the moment it transgresses its limits or fails to rise up to the mark forfeits its right to rule and can be legitimately overthrown. The state is reduced by Locke to the status of the hand-maid of the individual who rules supreme in his scheme of things.
Apart from these, by attacking patriarchal defenses of absolutist monarchy, he takes some modest steps towards attacking patriarchy and promoting the moral rights of women and equal moral status of men and women. Locke espouses a theological ethics, within which one can discern seeds of secular and even utilitarian notions of the foundation of ethics.
This short listing of some of Locke’s ideas indicates that he was a liberal political philosopher. However, there are tensions and perhaps inconsistencies, in Locke’s thought, and later articulations of Lockean ideas not surprisingly emphasise and develop different elements in the Lockean package. Opposed positions in modern liberalism can with justification trace their roots back to Locke.
It reduces the state to a ‘negative institution, a kind of gigantic limited liability company” (Laski.) One of the fatal consequences of this extreme individualism and liberalism is that the life of the state is stripped of all moral purposes. Its role is centred in preventing the individuals from cutting each others’ purses or flying at each other’s throats. After all each individual, howsoever weak, must act what is known as social justice. The so called sovereignty of the individual will definitely lead to the domination of the strong over the weak, the rich over the poor. The true sovereign in Locke’s system is individual as against the Leviathan who is sovereign in Hobbes’s system. But both these thinkers have taken their views to the extreme. What is required is the via media, the golden mean in which the just rights of the individuals could be reconciled with the rightful authority of the state.
Self Check Exercise-4

Q.1 Why individuals enter the state, according to Locke.

Q.2 “Locke’s Liberalism is evidenced by his theory of Negative State”, Discuss.

7.7    Summary
Let us now make an overall assessment of the political theory of Locke. Sabine writes that “in spite of simplicity which it seems on the surface to possess and which made it the most popular of political theories, it is in reality involved though he saw the multitude of issues with great clarity yet he could not give it a logical structure ………… Though circumstances made him the defender of revolution, he was by no means radical, and in intellectual temperament he was the doctrinaire of the philosophers. His principles, he mainly inherited and he never examined them thoroughly.” His political philosophy was an effort to combine past and present and also find nucleus of an agreement for reasonable men of all parties, but he did not synthesize all that he combined.... From his political philosophy emerged diverse theories in the century following him.” Dunning gives the estimate of Locke’s political philosophy as under:
“It was a theory treating of state of nature that was not altogether bad and its transformation into a civil state that was not altogether good; by a contract which was not very precise in its terms or very clear in its sanction. It embodied moreover, a conception of sovereignty of the people without too much of either sovereignty or people; the law of nature that involved no clear definition of either law of nature; of natural rights, but not too many of them; and separation of powers that was not too much of a separation. It concluded, finally, with a doctrine as to the right of revolution that left no guarantee whatsoever for the permanence of rather loose jointed structure which the rest of the theory had built up. Yet this illogical incoherent system of political philosophy was excellently adapted to the constitution which England needed at time and which Whigs actually put and kept in operation. It was a good, respectable commonsense view of the features of political life that impressed a philosophical observer, it was strong in individual parts, if not in their correlations.”
Whatsoever the criticism, it cannot be denied that the greatest importance of Locke’s philosophy lay beyond the contemporary ‘English Settlement’, (after the ‘Glorious Revolution’), in the political thought of America and France which culminated in the great revolutions at the end of eighteenth century. Here Locke’s defence of resistance in the name of inalienable rights of personal liberty, consent and freedom to acquire and enjoy property had their full effect. “As a force in propagating the ideals of liberal by non violent reform Locke probably stands before all other writers whatsoever. Even his more doubtful ideas such as the separation of powers and the inevitable wisdom of majority-decisions remained a part of the democratic creed.”

7.8    Glossary

•    Individualism: The habit or principle of being independent and self-reliant.

•    Natural Law: An observable law relating to natural phenomena.

•    Social Contract: A social Contract is an unofficial agreement shared by everyone in a society in which they give up some freedom for security.

7.9    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    Locke was influenced by the Glorious Revolution of 1688 in which English people changed their monarch and established responsible government without any bloodshed.

2.   John Locke

3.    Right to life, Liberty and Property.

4.    According to Locke, “it is a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation.”
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    The ‘Law of Nature’ to Locke was not a natural impulse. It was rather moral law based on reason to regulate the conduct of men in natural conditions. One of its main purpose was equality but not in intellect, physical might and possession, but in personal liberty and independence. Locke defines it as a dictate of right reason which obliges everyone and teaches mankind who will but consult it, that all beings are equal and independent and no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty and possession. It is a law which not only commands man to love his neighbour in general, but which also lays itself out some specific duties covering the whole fields of his conduct and governing his whole life in whatever circumstances he may find himself placed. It is a law of good will, mutual assistance and preservation; in one word, a ‘law of peace’.

2.    The main drawbacks of law of nature were as under:

(i)    A law which was not written.

(ii)    A law that had no sanction behind.

(iii)    A law which was merely the dictate of right conscience and the principle of morality.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.  (i) A contract of all with all.

(ii)    People entered into two contracts. By the first contract, the civil society was constituted and by the second contract, the government came into existence.

(iii)    The essential basis of contract is consent.

(iv)    Men do not surrender their rights to the authority which they possessed in the state of nature. It is, rather, for the safety and protection of these rights that the authority is constituted.

(v)    It ensures to the individuals the right of revolution against despotic and tyrannous government.
Self Check Exercise-4

1.    The individuals enter the state, already possessed of the natural rights with the proclaimed purpose of protecting them better. The raison d’etre of the state is the protection of the individual rights and liberties.

2.    For Locke, the functions of his state are limited to the negative role of preventing the subjects from infringing the rights of the fellow citizens. The state interferes only where there is infringement of the rights of the individuals. The state has no positive work to do. The individuals are left to his own in the spheres of morality, intellect, and education. Locke does not tolerate the state’s interference in the socio-economic affairs of the individuals. He believed in Laissez-fairs state or theory of night watchmen state where the role of state is limited to the night watchmenship. He has considered state as necessary evil confined its role to maintain law and order, protect the country from outside attack and protect the rights and liberties of people.

7.10    Suggested Readings

1.    G.H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc, 1961.

2.    W.T. Jones, Master of Political Thought, Vol. II, London: George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd; 1955.

3.    Shefali Jha, Western Political Thought from the Ancient Greeks to Modern Times, Chennai : Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd., 2020.

4.    Subrata Mukharjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, A History of Political Thought: Plato to Marx, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2018.

5.    M. Saliger, The Liberal Politics of John Locke, New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc. 1968.

6.    John Dunn, The Political Though of John Locke, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969.

7.11    Terminal Questions

1.    Make a serious valuation of Locke’s State of nature and Social contract?

2.    Examine the Social Contract Theory as propounded by John Locke?

3.    Make an estimate of John Locke as a liberal Political Philosopher?
*****
Unit-8Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778 AD)
STRUCTURE

8.1    Introduction

8.2    Learning Objectives

8.3    Rousseau's views on Social Contract
Self Check Exercise-1

8.4    Rousseau's Theory of General will


8.4.1    Attributes of General Will

8.4.2    Criticism
Self Check Exercise-2

8.5    Rousseau's Critique of Civil Society Self Check Exercise-3

8.6    Summary

8.7    Glossary

8.8    Answers to Self Check Exercises

8.9    Suggested Readings

8.10    Terminal Questions

8.1    Introduction
With the work of J.J. Rousseau, we leave the Machiavellian and Hobbesian world of calculating mind and egoistic reason and enter the world of sympathetic heart and generalwill. The politics of interest balancing and liberal conflict gives way to the politics of interest fusion and democratic co-operation.
While Rousseau lived his entire life in the eighteenth century (1712-1778) and while his literary product is contemporaneous with the great writing of the Age of Reason, his thought stands apart from the main schools of his day. This is true despite the fact that many of his chief concepts, such as the state of nature, natural man, the social contract and General Will constituted the fashionable Jargon of eighteenth century. Rousseau is the theorist of will and sentiment, and as such, is the father of romanticism. In fact, his life and personality epitomizes one of the great turning points in the history of the Western mind. Rousseau’s anti-rationalism was, at least in part, the result of personal unhappiness flowing from the class of the neurotic personality with the society of his time. Rousseau tells us about himself in his ‘Confessions’. As his father had left Rousseau’s mother to go to Constantinople, she urged him to return. He abandoned everything and came home. He writes, “I was the sad fruit of this reunion. Ten months after wards I was born ill and weak; I cost my mother her life and my birth was the first of my misfortunes. He grew up almost a wild thing under the unsteady tutelage of his father who abandoned him at the age of ten. He lived for many years the life of tramp, absolutely without discipline or responsibility. His self education began after the age of twenty-six. Though his ‘Discourse on the Arts and Sciences’ made him famous, he could not adjust himself to the artificial life in Paris. He withdrew from the fashionable world of France to a hermit, seeking comfort and solace in the arms of the mistress, Lavasseur, a simple uneducated peasant woman with whom he lived for the most part of his life. We must
understand his violent attack on civilization and praise of the primitive and common place, his attack on philosophic reason and praise of sentiment and emotion, in this context.
The writings which were to establish Rousseau’s reputation as a political theorist were 'A Discourse on the Origins and Foundation of Inequality among Men’, ‘A discourse on Political Economy,' ‘The Social Contract’ and the ‘Emile’.
I think the above paragraphs might give you some idea of the environmental setting which inspired Rousseau’s writings. So, let us turn our attention to his political theories. The main point which you should keep in mind is that despite the fundamental difference in the political theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, they share much common ground, in seeking to define the political good, the proper goal and object of the political order. For example hypothetical behaviour of man, a pre-political, pre-social ‘State of Nature’ for a standard. The hypothesis is worked out in each case by “a prior’ separation of original from acquired human characteristics, rather than teleological analysis of man as a perfect form of idea—-as in the classical (Plato and Aristotle) and Christian (Thomas Aquinas) traditions. Each writer thinks of the subject under analysis as an ‘Ingenious Machine’.

8.2    Learning Objectives
After reading this unit students will be able to:

•    Know about the Rousseau’s Concept of social Contract.

•    Understand the Rousseau’s Theory of General Will.

•    Evaluate Rousseau as a critic of civil society.

8.3    Rousseau’s Views on Social Contract:
Rousseau, like Hobbes and Locke, beings with the state of nature. But his concept of state of nature is very different from that of Hobbes and Locke. In Rousseau’s state of nature, all men were equal and living peacefully and having joint ownership over all property. People were living a very simple and natural life. Rationality, morality and artificially had not yet creped into their lives. The life was not, as yet, organized. There is one important feature of Rousseau’s’ state of nature. It is that, his state of nature, is not historical, but a “hypothetical one, a way of illustrating his view of human nature and diagnosis of society’s ills.” According to Rousseau, in the hypothetical state of nature men only were possessed with gregarious instinct and the capacity for learning by experience. Hunting, fishing and subsequently agriculture become the chief sources of subsistence. Everybody co-operated in the food gathering occupations. There was absolutely no social bickering and disorder, as private property, was not yet born, and there was ample produce for all to consume. The man in the state of nature was leading the happy, care-free life of the brute, without fixed abode roaming about, with his herd, like a nomad. No social evils had yet crept in the natural savage. Unlike Hobbes’s state of nature, all were not at war with everybody else. It was a state of peace and not that of war. Again, unlike Locke’s state of nature, it was neither organized nor moral. Rousseau’s concept of man in the state of nature is that of a noble savage. According to Rousseau, in the state of nature man was without any knowledge, dress or speech. The state of nature of Rousseau, unlike that of Hobbes was a state of peace, and not of war. Natural man was leading a solitary, happy, free and independent life. His life was self-sufficient. In the state of nature of Rousseau, there was no law, no morality, no family. These institutions, according to Rousseau, are based on Reason, which is artificial and was conspicuous by its absence in the natural state. Noble Savage was basing his behaviour,
purely on instincts. The primitive man was in paradise. He was leading a very happy life. He was constantly in the state of bliss.
According to him the origin of civil society lies in the institution of private property. It came as a Fatal chance or coincidence, like Adam’s Biblical Fall. Like Adam, one cursed man tasted the Forbidden fruit of private property. The latter became the root of all troubles. One man thought of owning some property of his own. Prior to that there was no question of “Thine and Mine.” Everything was owned in common by all. Previously everybody used to do his best and to enjoy the fruit of common effort. The land was tilled in common and the grain was distributed according to their need. Then came the sudden fall. In the inimitable world of Rousseau “The first man who, after enclosing a piece of ground bethought himself to say “this is mine,” and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. ‘‘The scramble for land and other private property resulted in war, murder, wretchedness and horror. The capacity of individuals to own and produce being different, there came into existence inequality in every sphere of life. There raged a fierce war between the rich and the poor. There came every possible vice. Liberty and Equality had disappeared. The people started leading a miserable life. They were still in the state of nature. They wanted to get rid of the state of things in which, they found themselves. Thus we find that in Rousseau’s state of nature there were two stages or periods namely—(i) Pre-property State of Nature and (ii) Post-property State of Nature. Pre-property state of nature was ideal stage while the Post-property state of nature was wretched; How could they get rid of this ? Social Contract comes as a convenient device.
Rousseau’s concept of Social Contract is a kind of mixture of the views of Hobbes and Locke and also a sort of improvement upon the two. He adopts the method of Hobbes in as much as the entire individuals surrender their rights completely to the body-politic. The individuals become complete zeros. They merge their wills in the will of the society. Rousseau combines this method of Hobbes with the substance of Locke. As a result of Locke’s as well as Rousseau’s Contract what emerges is the Political Society and not society as such. The Society existed even before. The improvement made by Rousseau upon the ideas of Hobbes and Locke is that, according to Rousseau what emerges as a result of his contract is an organism with a will, as against the idea of Hobbes and Locke of an artificial thing, an artifact, a mechanism, a machine. “The body politic”, he says, “is also a moral being possessed of a will.” Such a will, Rousseau calls’ a General Will.
The terms of Rousseau’s Contract are: “Each member puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.”
According to Rousseau, “Each gave himself unreservedly to the whole community— surrendered all his right and liberties.” Thus was equality preserved? But in giving himself to community as a whole, each gave himself to nobody in particular. Thus was liberty preserved, “The fertile brain of Rousseau evolved, a plausible-looking theory that the people by mutual contract alienate all their liberties, not to any human superior but to the General Will, of which every individual is an integral part. They transfer their freedom “from themselves as individuals to themselves as a collectivity. Each was an equal and indivisible part of the corporate entity, and the sovereign was the’ General Will”
By such a contract a political-society is created. The politic society, so created, is based on the consent of all members. Rousseau has solved Locke’s dilemma also, in as much as, the constant flow of consent comes to the General Will; as every individual is a constant
participant in the General Will. Locke cold not solve that problem. According to Locke, consent once given was forever, and was binding on future generations also.
By this contract, the state of nature came to an end. The political society is ushered in. The character of the man is changed. The contract substitutes justice for injustice and right for appetite. By it the man is transformed from a stupid and limited animal to an intelligent being and a man. It gives a moral character to the action of the individuals. Morality is the bye product of the contract. Here also, Rousseau differs from Locke. Locke’s individuals were moral even before the Contract. As a result of contract, Locke’s individuals become only rational. Locke’s individuals become both rational and moral after the contract. As a result of the contract, Rousseau’s individuals are gainers. Prior to contract, they had only control over their actions alone. After the contract, as active participant of the General Will, every individual stands to gain equal power to control others. Every individual is the cosovereign.
Another important aspect of Rousseau’s contract is that no government is created by this contract. Only political society or the state comes into being, with the powerful and sovereign General Will as the central figure of the society. Rousseau thinks of government only as sub-servient agent of the community, which is brought into existence in order to implement the decisions of the General Will. In this respect, Rousseau disagrees both with Hobbes and Locke. Hobbes’s contract brings into existence simultaneously, the state and the government. Rather, for Hobbes, the Government is the condition-precedent of society. Here Hobbes is putting cart before the horse. Similarly, Locke’s view that government comes into being as a result of second contract, also, significantly differs from the view of Rousseau. Rousseau does not regard the creation of government so significant, as meriting a second contract.
Though, out of the three social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau, the latter’s theory is most appealing and popular, yet, it can be subject to one very serious criticism. How could the individuals surrender all their fights on the one hand in individual capacity and receive the same back in the hands of the community as a whole. Rousseau forgot to distinguish between individual and the community. They are two entirely different things. His theory was more of a “Medley of Fancies” than a logical and convincing piece of argument. But, all the same it had a great mass appeal, as the people of his time wanted to have in their hand a theory of popular government, based apparently on consent, without looking to its logical contents and results. If Rousseau’s theory of social contract is put to logical test, it will result in the most autocratic and worst type of despotic government.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Name some important works of Rousseau.
Q.2 Which were the two stages in Rousseau’s state of Nature?
Q.3 “Rousseau’s concept of social contract is a kind of mixture of the views of Hobbes and Locke and also a sort of improvement upon the two.” Discuss.

8.4    Rousseau’s Theory of General Will
The terms of Rousseau’s Contract, which in his memorable words are “Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the General Will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.” As if by one stroke, the society or community as a whole becomes a living organism,
possessing a will of its own. This will of the Moi Commun, Rousseau calls General Will. This Will is Sovereign and Supreme. Though the General Will now would rule over all other wills, yet we must not forget that it is derived from the wills of the contracting individuals. It is a collective or moral body composed of as many members as the whole society consists of and deriving its unity, its common identity, its life and its will from the constituents. Rousseau does not mean to say that the General Will substitutes or replaces the individual wills altogether. On the other hand, he is clearly of the view that, individual wills continue to exist with equal protection of their rights under the sovereign General Will. If the individuals have surrendered their rights, they have also regained them as members of the sovereign General Will. Being a member of the society, is, on the whole a good bargain as individuals, being participants in the General Will, have equal control over others, which they lacked previously.
According to Rousseau, the concept of the General Will is not simply equivalent to the will of the majority. While it is possible that the majority may express the General Will, this is only true if their collective intention is directed toward the common good of all members of society. Rousseau emphasizes that the General Will must always prioritize the common interest. There are instances, he argues, where the majority fails to embody the General Will because their decisions are driven by private interests rather than the general welfare. Conversely, Rousseau even suggests that a single individual might truly represent the General Will if they are guided by a genuine desire for the common good, despite opposition from the majority.
To grasp Rousseau’s theory of the General Will, it is essential to understand his distinction between the “real will” and the “actual will,” a distinction unique to his philosophy. He explains that an individual’s actual will is typically self-centered, irrational, and motivated by personal desires. In contrast, the real will reflects a higher, more noble purpose—it seeks the well-being of the entire community. The General Will, according to Rousseau, is the collective expression of these real wills, unified in their aim for the common good. It represents what citizens will when they set aside their private interests in favor of the general welfare.
Rousseau also draws a clear distinction between the General Will and the “Will of All.” The General Will is not merely the aggregate of individual wills. Instead, it emerges when the collective focus is on the common interest. While Rousseau acknowledges that unanimity among all citizens can reflect the General Will, he cautions that this is only true when their shared agreement is rooted in the pursuit of the common good. Thus, the General Will and the Will of All may align—but only when the latter is guided by a genuine concern for collective welfare.
In a nut-shall, we can say that Rousseau’s General Will is the synthesis of real wills, irrespective of the fact whether those real wills are those of many or a few or one single individual. The criterion is not the number, but the common good or general good. Even if minority or one single individual wills the common good, it would be general Will.

8.4.1    Attributes of General Will

(1)    It is indivisible:— The General Will cannot be divided. Division of General Will means its death. Just as personality or an, individual cannot be divided, General Will cannot be divided.

(2)    General Will is Unrepresentable: Rousseau’s General Will cannot be represented by anybody else. Just as human will cannot be represented, similarly the General Will cannot be properly represented by anybody else. In fact, Rousseau’s General Will was meant only for those countries where there was direct democracy. In representative democracies, General Will is in true sense not applicable.

(3)    Ii is unlimited, absolute and supreme:— Rousseau’s General Will is as supreme or absolute as Hobbes’s Leviathan. It has complete control over the regulation of the state. General Will is not synonymous with the Government. The Government is only an agency or tool in the hands of Great Will to implement its policies; General Will reigns supreme in its jurisdiction. Nobody can dare disobey it, as it is the sovereign will of all for the welfare of all. Rousseau writes; “Whosoever refuses to obey the General Will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body ….. he will be forced to be free.”
(4)It is Inalienable: General Will can not be separated or delegated. It is a single whole and must remain as such. Any attempt to separate it from the body-politic will mean its end What is delegated to the Government is the authority to implement politics and decisions of the General Will and not the ingredients of the General Will.

(5)    It is infallible :— Rousseau says that General Will is always right, because it tends to the good of all. People are always night, but their will is not sometimes known. Rousseau says “the deliberations of the people are always equally correct. Our will is always for our good, but we do not always see what this is…..”

8.4.2    Criticism:-
Rousseau’s theory of General will can be criticized on the following grounds :

1.    As Jones points out, it leads to totalitarianism, pure and simple. All the powers attributed to the General Will by Rousseau will be enough to turn anybody’s head. It may become dictatorship of one person or a few, serving the interests of a clique though it may have the guise of morally justifiable appearance of a popular government.

2.    Rousseau has no clear conception of General Will. It is clear from the fact that he uses the term General Will in different senses in different parts of his works. Sometimes he identifies General Will with that will which wills the good of all. Sometimes he suggests that General Will may be discovered through the will of the majority. Some-times it is a will of wise legislature.

3.    Thirdly, in practice it is difficult to distinguish the General Will from the Will of All. Rousseau provides us with no standard judgement whether a decision taken by the people represents the General Will or merely the Will of All. But who is to decide as to what is right and what is wrong.

4.    Rousseau believes that General Will is the standard of justice. But by this conception, he has created more confusion. Justice is an abstract conception and reconciling two abstract conceptions is not desirable.

5.    Rousseau divided the Will of an individual into two integral parts namely essential and non-essential Wills. But we cannot divide an individual Will into an essential Will and a non-essential Will, because an individual Will is a corporate thing, one complete whole.

6.    Rousseau’s theory of General Will gives rise to what Sabine calls, “the paradox of freedom.” By signing, the Social Contract, the individual gives his natural, simple liberty and in return gets the very liberty of obeying the General Will….. If he does not obey the General Will he should be rebelling against the right and be, actually the slave of his selfish Will. So Rousseau advocates compulsion on one who refuses to obey the General Will on the plea that the force used is for his own good. This force may take the form of imprisonment or death. It may not, however, be in the interests of the individual to have his liberty or life taken away from him. In short freedom and force cannot go together.

7.    The theory of General Will emphasises the notion of general good rather than the good of the individual. This leads to a conception of the state as a super-entity, distinct from its organic elements, the individuals. But in practice, it is very difficult to separate the interest of the individual from that of the state. Interest of the state and of the individuals are identical.

8.    Rousseau’s Theory of General Will demands too much sacrifice from the individual,

9.    Moreover, it is wrong to say that General Will cannot be represented… It can be represented if the representatives are enlightened persons belonging to an enlightened community. It is possible to conceive such a society.

10.    According to Jones the applicability of the General Will in a large state is not possible.

11.    Rousseau does not tell us how to put the General Will in practice.
Thus we find that Rousseau’s concept of General Will is inadequately described and is surrounded by’ paradoxes. In spite of this, the conception of General Will, is described by Hearnshaw, as the single and simple volition of the body politic regarded as a living entity. It is Rousseau’s most profound contribution to political theory. According to Maxey, “the concept of General Will is the crux of Rousseau’s system and probably his most distinctive contribution to political thought.” It is Rousseau’s theory of General Will which became the basis of Hegel’s dictum Will not force is the basis of the state.” The true basis of democracy is not force but active and selfless will. The theory puts the social interest before individual interest. Rousseau is also primarily responsible for promoting the theory Nation State.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Distinguish between the ‘real will’ and the ‘Actual Will’.
Q.2 Define General Will.
Q.3 Describe briefly the main attributes of General Will.

8.5    Rousseau’s Critique of Civil Society
For Rousseau, society was essential for humans to fulfill themselves and realize their inherent potential. His critique of civil society stemmed from its unjust foundations and corrupting influence. He believed the solution was to create a new social order that nurtured human nature and promoted genuine freedom.
The second Discourse, as this essay is described, is a narrative of the fall of man- how his nature got twisted, warped and corrupted with the emergence of civil society, which in turn was necessitated through the rise of the institution of private property and the require to defend it through institutionalizing social inequality through law. However, we have to keep in mind that Rousseau’s investigations on civil society were not to be considered as historical truths, but only as mere imaginary reasoning, rather exact nature of things.
Tracing the fall of man, Rousseau says that in the initial phase of the state of nature, which is a condition prior to the emergence of society, man was ‘noble savage’ leading a solitary, happy, free and independent life. He existed in separation and had a few elementary, easily appeased needs. It was neither a condition of plenty nor scarcity; neither there was disagreement nor co-operative livelihood.
There was no language or knowledge of any science or art. In such a situation man had no conception of just and unjust, virtue and vice. The noble savage was guided not through cause but through two instincts self-love or the instinct of self-preservation, and sympathy or the gregarious instinct.
The state of nature, which was one of innocence, did not last forever. In course of time, the noble savage who lived in isolation and was satisfied with little means discovered the utility and usefulness of labour. Without yet having given up their primitive dispersal, men began to collaborate occasionally and created a degree of provisional order. Later men began to build shelters for themselves and families stayed jointly- a stage. Rousseau calls the patriarchal stage. But as he consolidated his first social dealings, he gave himself to labour and to thought i.e. to the use of cause and language. This brought in the first fall for men wrenching him from the happiness to the patriarchal stage and passed from a subsistence economy to an economy of productive development. The emergence of metallurgy and agriculture was indeed a great revolution, but iron and corn, which civilized men, ruined humanity.
The farming of earth led to the enclosure of land, and this necessarily gave rise to the thought of property. As Rousseau puts it in a well-known statement, “The first man who after fencing off a piece of land, took it upon himself to stay "This belongs to me" and establish people easy-minded enough to consider, was the true founder of the civil society.”
Once people began to claim private property, differences in talent and skill led to unequal wealth. This inequality allowed the wealthy to dominate others. The desire for possessions stirred competition and conflict, which created a need for laws to maintain order. The rich, fearing for their property, especially supported this. According to Rousseau, this marked the beginning of civil society and laws—structures that secured greater power for the wealthy while further oppressing the poor, ultimately ending natural freedom.
Rousseau argues that although events did not have to end so poorly, they did because people recognized the benefits of political institutions but lacked the experience to anticipate their risks. He later revisits this idea in The Social Contract.
Thus, according to Rousseau, the origin of the civil society and resultant creation of a political authority happened in three revolutions. The first revolution took place after the institution of family evolved on a permanent basis. The second revolution was brought by the agriculture and the discovery of metal leading towards the specialization of functions and division of labour. The enclosure of land gave rise to the idea of private property and the sense of mine and thine and the change from the state of nature to that of the civil society. The scramble for the land and other private property resulted into war, murder and horror. Conflict led in turn to a demand for a system of law for the sake of order and tranquility. The rich and the poor, with their interest tried to find out a solution, led to the creation of civil society with Laws to protect private property and the force to implement them. Thus, the formulation of civil society is accomplished through an artificial co-operation between the rich and poor having their own motives, this coming into being of the civil society is
considered as the third revolution by Rousseau. However, to Rousseau, this origin of civil society is a curse to the civilization because it irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the laws of property and inequality, converted the clever claims into inalienable rights, gave new powers to the rich. It became advantageous to a few, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness. People wanted to get rid of this post-property state of nature and the way out is through social contract.
Civil Society as Rousseau described it in discourse, came into being to serve two purposes; to provide peace for everyone and to ensure the right to property for anyone lucky enough to have possessions. It was thus of some advantage to everyone but mostly to the advantage of the rich, since it transformed their de facto ownership into rightful ownerships and kept the poor dispossessed. It was, indeed, a somewhat fraudulent social contract, since the poor got so much less out of it than did the rich.
It may however be noted here that Rousseau was not depicting the transition from state of nature to “civil society” as a historical fact. Rather the above account has to be understood as hypothetical reasoning calculated to explain the nature of things, than to ascertain their actual origin.
But Rousseau also believed in the possibility of genuine social contract, one in which people would receive in exchange for their independence a better kind of freedom, namely true political, or republican^ liberty. As described in the Social Contract (1762), such liberty is to be found in obedience to what Rousseau called the “general will” a collectively held will that aims at the common good or the common interest. The fundamental problem for Rousseau is not man but instead the social institutions, Rousseau’s view is that society corrupts the pure individual. Arguing that men are not inherently constrained by human nature, Rousseau claims that men are limited and corrupted by social arrangements.
Self Check Exercise-3
Q.1 According to Rousseau, what destroyed man’s natural liberty forever?
Q.2 Why Rousseau criticized civil society?

8.6    Summary
Notwithstanding the implications, it has to be .said that Rousseau expressed through the doctrine of General Will an important fact about the way political societies actually operate which is quite missing from the individualist theories that is, the recognition that men in political society do not live in merely utilitarian relationship with one another, each morally completely apart from his social involvement.
The individual receives from the society in which he is educated, a way of life and a way of looking at the world. He becomes as Rousseau supposed, in large part what society makes of him. Of course the dependence is not necessarily on a single, all inclusive, “reference group,” a fact which Rousseau also recognized though he did not approve of it. An individual becomes “Socialized” through a variety of primary and secondary groups which warp him in an intricate web of social influence. The political society remains, however, a most significant reference group in pluralist society, and operates through a variety of specific structures and processes to influence the important aspect of individual behaviour. Understanding how these processes operate, how men become “politicized” has recently become an important subject of empirical research in Political Science.

8.7    Glossary

•    Contemporaneous : Existing or occurring in the same period of time.

•    Romanticism : A movement in the arts and literature that originated in the late 18th century emphasizing inspiration, subjectivity, and the primacy of the individual.

•   Gregarious : Sociable

•  Moi-Commum : A Common Self

•    General Will : The source of legitimate authority residing in the collective will as contrasted with individual interests.

•    Sovereignty : Supreme power or authority.

•    Legitimate : Conforming to the Laws or to Rules.

•    Totalitarianism : A system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state.

•    Patriarchal : A system of society or government controlled by men.

8.8    Answers to Self Check Exercises:Self Check Exercise-1

1.    ‘A Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality among Men,’ ‘A Discourse on Political Economy’, ‘The Social Contract’ and ‘The Emile’.

2.    We find that in Rousseau’s state of Nature there were two stages or periods namely-(i) Pre-property state of nature and (ii) Post-property state of nature. Pre-property state of nature was ideal stage while the post-property state of Nature was wretched one.

3.    Rousseau’s concept of Social Contract is a kind of mixture of the views of Hobbes and Locke and also a sort of improvement upon the two. He adopts the method of Hobbes in as much as the entire individuals surrender their rights completely to the body politic. They merge their wills in the will of the society. Rousseau combines this method of Hobbes with the substance of Locke. As a result of Locke’s as well as Rousseau’s contract what emerges is the Political Society and not society as such. The society existed even before. The improvement made by Rousseau upon the ideas of Hobbes and Locke is that, according to Rousseau what emerges as a result of contract is an organism with a will, as against the idea of Hobbes and Locke of an artificial thing, an artifact, a mechanism, a machine.” The body politic,” he says, “is also a moral being possessed of a will.” Such a will Rousseau calls ‘a General Will.’
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    Rousseau divides individual will into two parts the real will and the actual will. The actual will is selfish, irrational, personal motivated, individualistic and self-oriented. The real will is something higher, nobler and supreme. The real will wishes the good of all. It aims at the common good.

2.    Rousseau’s General will is the synthesis of real wills irrespective of the fact that whether those real wills are those of many or a few or one single individual. The criterion is not the number, but the common good or general good. Even if minority or one single individual wills the common good, it would be general will.

3.    The main attributes of General will are:-

(i)    It is indivisible.

(ii)    It is unrepresentable.

(iii)    It is unlimited, absolute and supreme.

(iv)    It is inalienable.

(v)    It is infallible.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.    According to Rousseau, the creation of civil society and laws strengthened the power of the rich and further oppressed the poor, permanently ending natural freedom.

2.    To Rousseau, the origin of civil society is a curse to the civilization because it irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, eternally fixed the laws of property and inequality, converted the clever claims into inalienable rights, gave new powers to the rich. It became advantageous to a few, subjected all mankind to perpetual labour, slavery and wretchedness. People wanted to get rid of this post property state of nature and the way out is through social contract.

8.9    Suggested Readings

•    Supplement the list of books already given in the previous lesson, with the following

•    Prem Arora, Brij Grover, Western and Indian Political Thinkers, New Delhi : Book hive Publisher.

•  Roger D. Master, The Political Philosophy of Rousseau, Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1968.

•  John W. Chapman, Rousseau, Totalitarian or Liberal, New York: Columbia
University Press, 1956.

8.10    Terminal Questions

1.    Critically examine Rousseau’s Theory of General Will?

2.    How is Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory different from that of Hobbes and John Locke?

3.    Evaluate Rousseau as a critic of civil society.
*****
Unit-9Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832 A.D.)
STRUCTURE

9.1    Introduction

9.2    Learning Objectives

9.3    Utilitarian Theory
Self Check Exercise-1

9.3.1    Measurement of Pleasure and Pain

9.3.2    Classification of Pleasure and Pain

9.3.3    Critisim
Self Check Exercise-2

9.4    Summary

9.5    Glossary

9.6    Answers to Self Check Exercises

9.7    Suggested Readings

9.8    Terminal Questions

9.1    Introduction
The Utilitarian School dominated English political thought for over a hundred years, from the middle of the 18th to the mid of the 19th century. The Utilitarian doctrines became dominant in English political thought because of the repercussions produced by French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution. On the one hand, French revolutionary ideals of “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity” had made a deep impression on the English people. On the other hand the Industrial Revolution had created a new manufacturing class composed of people who were intolerant of state restrictions upon trade. Their economic philosophy of laissez-faire and free trade reflected the economic needs of the times; their political philosophy of individualism and their love of liberty were largely a reflex of their economic doctrines. They opposed the stagnation of the 19th century and desired to liberate new forces, being confident of human progress. This was, in addition, a wide-spread discontent among the working classes. The trade union movement was growing and demands were being made for reform in industrial conditions and for an extension of political power to the masses. Accordingly the doctrines of natural law and of social contract disappeared, and liberal theory in England turned from visionary idealism to practical and commonplace reform. The Utilitarian philosophy was the only consistent and systematic body of doctrine developed to serve as a foundation for the practical needs of the period.
The founder of Utilitarianism was David Hume, and it was professed by Priestly, Huteheson and Paley in England and by Helventius in France. But it was first around Jeremy Bentham, the most typical utilitarian of them all that a utilitarian school began to take form. He laid down the foundations of the utilitarian school as distinct from the utilitarian theory.
In this work, he was greatly assisted by James Mill, who was able to convert Bentham to radicalism and bring him into contact with a remarkable group of men who came to be known as the utilitarians because of their firm faith in the general principles formulated by Bentham. Some of these adherents of Bentham, like J.S. Mill, developed the aspects of
Utilitarianism, and others like Malthus and Ricardo applied the principle to the economic field.
All those who had a faith in Utilitarian principle; were convinced that all men seek happiness. If pleasure alone is good, then the only right action is that which produces the greatest happiness, and that the sole justification of the state is that it makes possible this greatest happiness. They were all philosophic radicals, theorists of representative democracy and of universal suffrage. The English speaking world today still bears witness to their teaching. In the words of G.M. Young, “It would be hard to find any corner of our public life where the spirit of Bentham is not working today.”
Jeremy Bentham was born on February 15, 1748 in a well-to-do family in England. His life span covered the first three decades of the nineteenth century. Bentham’s contribution to Political Science, unlike his predecessor Hegal’s philosophical approach to the relations between man and state lay primarily in the legal and practical philosophy. As an active practitioner of law, he mainly concerned himself with the task of improving the existing system of law as well as of current legal thought. Throughout his career, he sought to provide a scientific foundation to the study of Jurisprudence. But he was not wholly pre-occupied with writing, he was also engaged in the task of prison-reform.
Although we find his style of philosophizing often turgid and barren, he remarkably succeeded in attracting a band of followers who familiarized his ideas to the people. Not a system builder like Hobbes or Hegel or having Rousseau’s capacity for lucid exposition, he combined in his thought the scientific spirit of Hume, the liberal insights of John Locke and Montesquieu, the hedonism of Hartely and Helvetius and above all the rationalism of the French enlightenment, in the tradition of Rane Descartes. He believed that reason helps us to solve all problems by resolving complex appearances into simple elements which in turn, could provide guidelines for action.
Some of his famous works are the Fragment on Government, the Introduction to the principles of Morals and legislation (1789) and the Essay on Political Tactics (1791).
Bentham was not concerned with the problems of man’s relation to cosmos. His quest was for reasonable solutions of social and political problems and problems of law and government. He was not a very passionate man and yet he revolted against the defects of his contemporary legal order. He was obsessed with the problem of change in the legal system, and provided powerful arguments to convince people why it ought to be changed. His was the voice of the middle class of his times who reached against the rotten, aristocratic order having outlived its utility. His works like Catechism of Parliamentary Reform (1809) and constitutional code (1823) cleared the decks for web the passage of the Reform Bill of 1832 in the British Parliament.
Following Locke, argued that knowledge is derived from experience to repudiate the doctrine of Natural Law which had found a new support in Blackstone’s jurisprudence. Impressed by Hume’s attack on the doctrine of Natural Law he argued that since knowledge is a product of sense experience, it is bound to be subjective in character. Therefore, there cannot be anything like eternal natural laws or eternal natural rights.

9.2    Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, the students will be able to understand Bentham’s Utilitarian theory and will know about his ideas on pleasure and pain.

9.3    Utilitarian Theory
Jeremy Bentham was influenced by Priestly’s work, “Essay on Government” (1768)which emphasizes that good and happiness of the majority of a community should be the great standard. Priestly had taken this phrase from Hutcheson. According to Bentham, the main purpose of politics is to discover a principle by which the government should promote happiness of the greatest possible number. Such principle is based on utility which in turn recognises two sovereign masters of human behaviour, pain and pleasure. These two sovereigns—pain and pleasure—point out what men shall do. Standard of right and wrong, and chain of causes and effects are linked with these two sovereign masters who govern the process of thinking and actions of men. Principle of utility recognises men’s subjection to these two sovereign masters. The goal of the principle of utility is to promote the fabric of felicity with the help of reason and law. The principle of utility approves or disapproves a action according to the tendency which increases or decreases the happiness of an individual or of a group or of a government whose interest is in question.
Bentham bases his theory of principle of utility on human psychology. All ideas are derived from the senses as a result of operation of sensible objects. Pleasures and pains of body arise from perception of the sensible objects and are the sole determinants of human behaviour. However, Bentham recognises other determinants like sympathy’ and imagination. He is not very clear on the question of freedom of will which is affected by motives. Again motives are perceptions of pleasure and pain or external events.
Bentham defines what is utility. According to him, utility is property in any object. It produces benefit and pleasure and may prevent the happenings of pain, evil and unhappiness to a party whose interest is taken into consideration. The utilitarian principle takes the interests of the community and the individual into consideration. The interest of the community is the sum of the interests of all the members of society. An action is conformable to the principle of utility if it has a tendency to increase the happiness of the community. An action of the government is conformable to the principle of utility if a tendency of the government is to increase the happiness of the community. Every action of the government or of an individual should be judged in terms of its utility. The words like “ought”, “ought not”, “right” and “wrong” have meaning when they are judged in the light of the principle of utility. The principle of utility is also called the principle of the greatest happiness. The objective of the government is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number.
There are four sources of pleasure and pain, according to Bentham. They are physical, political, moral and religious. Pleasures and pain belonging to these four sources are capable of giving a binding force to any rule of conduct. Therefore they may be termed as sanctions : (i) Pleasure or pain which is caused in the present life in the ordinary course of nature belongs to the physical sanction. If a man suffers in natural and spontaneous course of things, such suffering is styled calamity. If suffering is caused to a man due to his own imprudence, it is a punishment of physical sanction, (ii) If judges dispense justice according to the will of the sovereign, it is political sanction. Here suffering is imposed by law and has political sanction, (iii) When some persons concerned with the public good dispense justice, not according to the settled rules, it is issued from moral or popular sanction. If a man suffers for lack of any friendly assistance due to his misconduct, punishment has moral sanction, (iv) It is religious sanction when it is issued from the hands of a super invisible being. If a man suffers on account of interposition of a particular providence, punishment has religious sanction. All pleasures and pains which come from the physical, political and moral must be
experienced in this life. But pleasures and pains coming from the religious sanction may be experienced either in the present life or in the future life.
Pleasures and pains are to be classified according to their sorts, says Bentham. A distinction has to be made between simple and complex pleasures and pains because laws are concerned with them. These simple and complex pleasures and pains are to be considered by the legislators and the judges because the punishment prescribed by the legislators and applied by the judges shall have the just effect.
Pleasure and pain are produced in the minds of men by the effect of certain factors. But quantity of pleasure and pain produced in the minds of men by the effect of physical, moral, religious and institutional factors is not uniformally proportionate to the cause.’ It depends upon the sensibility of a man. Further, the same cause may produce different degree of pleasure or pain at different times to the same man.
According to Bentham, the people should be governed only by the principle of utility. All other principles are either inadequate or wrong. The principles of asceticism, sympathy and antipathy are opposed to the principle of utility. The principle of asceticism approves those actions which diminish the happiness of man. It disapproves those actions which promote happiness. This principle is followed by the moralists and religious men. Though some citizens have followed this principle, no government has completely followed it. In a few instances it has followed. For example, the Spartan regime in Greece followed it to some extent. Bentham opines that the principle of asceticism cannot be consistently followed by all people. On the contrary, the principle of utility can be consistently pursued by all people. Another principle which adversely affects the principle of utility is the principle of sympathy and antipathy. Various systems which are concerned with the standard of right and wrong may be reduced to the principle of sympathy and antipathy. The principle of sympathy and antipathy is likely to error on the side of severity. But errors occur, in many instances, on the side of lenity.
The principle of utility is the basis of legislation and morals, declares Bentham. This principal is to be followed by the legislators and the private persons. Bentham is mainly concerned with the legislators. The legislators who work through compulsion must take note of pleasures and pains of individuals. Pleasures and avoidance of pains are the objects which the legislators must have in view. They are also instruments with which the legislators are expected to work. Therefore, the legislator must understand the force of pleasure and pain in measuring their value. Pleasure or pain of an individual or of a community is to be measured in terms of intensity, duration, certainty, uncertainty, nearness, remoteness, etc. If balance is on the side of pleasure, it gives good tendency of the action. If balance is on the side of pain, it is bad tendency of the act. Pleasure or pain may be measured either for an individual or for the whole community. The legislators must understand the importance of pleasures and pains because both are their ends and means with which they work.
The principle of utility which works for the greatest happiness of the greatest number has an immense value because it rejects the infallibility of the supreme ruler who desires to impose his concept of happiness or of morality on the people. The main concern of Bentham’s principle of utility is Welfare of the community. This utilitarian principle can be applied to all social, constitutional and legislative reforms.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Who laid down the foundations of the Utilitarian School of thought?
Q.2 Mention some famous works of Jeremy Bentham.
Q.3 What is the main principle of ‘Utilitarianism?
Q.4 What is ‘Utility’ according to Bentham?
Q.5 What are main sources of pleasure and pain according to Bentham?

9.3.1    Measurement of Pleasure and Pain
Bentham’s doctrine is the doctrine of “hedonistic calculus”. As it categories various pleasures quantitatively. Bentham believed that pleasure and pain can be measured, if not actually, to enable the ruler to promote the one and discourage other. He gave a specific calculus to calculate the amount of pleasure and pain which a thing or an action would generate.
He believed that value of a pleasure considered by itself and in relation to a single individual, depends upon four circumstances: (a) its intensity, (b) its duration; (c) its certainty, and (d) its proximity. But in dealing with pains and pleasures, it is not enough to assess their value as though they were, necessarily, isolated and independent, Pains and pleasures may have as consequences of other pain and pleasures. Therefore, if one wishes to estimate the tendency of any act from which pains or pleasure directly results, one must take into account two other circumstances; These are (a) its fecundity or productiveness; (b) its purity. A productive pleasure is one which is likely to be followed by other pleasures of same kind. A productive pain is one which is likely to be followed by other pains of the same kind. A pure pleasure is one which is not likely to produce pain. A pure pain is one which is not likely to produce pleasure. When the calculation is to be made in relation to number of individuals, yet another circumstance is to be taken into account of its extent. That is the number of persons who are likely to be affected by this particular pleasure or pain.
Bentham believed that a legislature, working through compulsion or moral power, could increase one and diminish the other by application of the following sanctions (a) physical; operating in the ordinary course of nature, (b) political, operating through organs of governments, (c) moral or popular, operating through social sanctions and, (d) religious, arising from an invisible power.

9.3.2    Classification of Pleasure and Pain
Bentham has also classified pleasures and pains into simple and complex. He has given a list of fourteen simple pleasures and twelve simple pains. Pleasures of sense, health, amity, power, piety, benevolence etc. illustrate the first; and the pains of sense, privation, awkwardness, enmity, piety, malevolence illustrate the second. These simple pains and pleasures are the foundations of all the complex pleasures and pains.
After delineating the principle of utility, Bentham thought, how to reconcile man’s diverse interests? Bentham admitted the need of a common agency which would eliminate the clash of interest in society. When such reconciliation is not product of voluntary co-operation, the state must try to achieve it. It is significant to note that Bentham identified society and state. For, Bentham - the individual is the ultimate reality, the .society or community is a ‘fictitious body’ having no existence apart from the citizens who compose it. The state exists for the individual and not the individual for the state. This is the individualistic or atomistic conception of society which is an important feature of the theories of Hobbes and Locke, and is quite opposed to the organic view which one finds in Rousseau. 9.3.3 Criticism:
Bentham’s theory of utility can be criticized on the following grounds:

1.    He started with a wrong psychology. Human beings are not as coolly calculating about pleasure-seeking as he presumes them to be. He takes an over-simplified view of human nature. Human nature is too complex to be capable of being defined in such a manner. Man is a bundle of desires of immunerable types and also of reason and intuition. Man is more than a pleasure-hunter.

2.    There is a contradiction in two statements. On the one hand, he says that man can only seek his own personal happiness, on the contrary, he says that he should strive to seek the greatest happiness of the greatest number. When by nature he cannot seek his own personal pleasure, how can he strive for the general goods? He is not able to reconcile his egoism with his altruism.

3.    Pleasures are always subjective. No subjective standards can be laid down. Human beings are not like set machines to enjoy objectively the pleasures.

4.    The quality of pleasure is as important as quantity of pleasure. To emphasise only the quantity of pleasure is going far away from reality.

5.    His so-called felicific calculus is simply not the method of calculating quantitatively the pleasures. In fact, quantitative measurement of such subtle and subjective sensations like pleasures is not possible. Pleasures, unlike physical objects, cannot be added or subtracted or divided.

6.    There is no logical connection between the two phrases “Greatest Happiness” and 'greatest number'. Suppose there are two possible actions x and y. Suppose ‘x’ is capable of producing 25 units of happiness for each of 5 people (25x5 = 125); and ‘y’ 4 units of happiness for each of 25 people (4x25=100). Which is the correct course to follow? If we are ruled by the recommendation to produce the greatest happiness, we shall do x; if by the recommendation to serve the greatest number, we shall do ‘y’. Thus, two separate exhortations appear on the surface which contradict each other.

7.    He identifies pleasure with happiness, but as we all know happiness is a much broader term than pleasure.

8.    Theory of the greatest happiness of the greatest number implies logically that interests of 49% people can be sacrificed for the sake of 51%, which is not a correct theory according to the democratic principle. The state should stand for the interests of practically all the individuals comprising it.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 How pleasure or pain of an individual or of a community is measured?
Q.2 Why Bentham’s theory of Utilitarianism is criticized? Give any two arguments.

9.4    Summary:
In spite of his philosophical ambiguities and shallowness of philosophical depth Bentham is regarded as one of the greatest political thinkers in the history of political thought. He influenced the course of events in the 19th century to such an extent that all the reforms carried out in England and elsewhere followed the directions that Bentham has indicated.
The utilitarians dominated the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Despite its flaws, "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" became a guiding principle for liberalism and reform, giving lawmakers a standard to assess legislation.

9.5    Glossary

•    Utility: It is a measure of satisfaction an individual gets from the consumption of the commodities.

•    Hedonism : A belief that pleasure is the most important thing in life.

•    Felicity : Intense happiness.

9.6    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    Jeremy Bentham.

2.    ‘Fragment on Government’, ‘the Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation’, and ‘the Essay on Political Tactics’.

3.    Greatest Happiness of the greatest number.

4.    According to Bentham, Utility is property in any object. It produces benefit and pleasure and may prevent the happenings of pain, evil and unhappiness to a party whose interest is taken into consideration.

5.    According to Bentham, the main sources of pleasure and pain are physical, political, moral and religious.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    Bentham’s doctrine is the doctrine of “hedonistic calculus’. It categorizes various pleasures quantitatively. He believed that pleasures and pains can be measured to enable ruler to promote the one and discourage the other. He gave a specific calculus to calculate the amount of pleasure and pain. According to Bentham, pleasure or pain of an individual or of a community depends upon four circumstance - (a) its intensity (b) its duration (c) its certainty and (d) its proximity. One must also take into account two other circumstances; (a) its fecundity or productiveness (b) its purity.

2.   (i) He takes an over simplified view of human nature. Man is more than a pleasure
hunter.

(ii)    There is no logical connection between the two phrases “Greatest Happiness” and “Greatest Number.”

9.7    Suggested Readings

•    J. Bentham, A Fragment on Government (ed), with an introduction by Wifrid Harrison.

•    J. Plamenatz, The English Utilitarians: Basic Blackwell and Molt, Ltd, 1949.

•    L. Stephen, English Utilitarians, Vol.I, 1990.

•    E. Halevey, The Growth of Philosphical Radicalism, 1928.

•    R.M. Bhagat, Political Thought : Plato to Marx, Jalandhar: New Academic Publishing Company, 1988.

9.8    Terminal Questions

1.    Examine and Estimate Bentham's Utilitarianism.

2.    Why Bentham's theory of Utility is criticized?
*****
Unit-10John Stuart Mill (1806-1873 A.D.) Part-I
STRUCTURE

10.1    Introduction

10.2    Learning Objectives

10.3    Mill's Views on Liberty


10.3.1    Definition of Liberty

10.3.2    Dangers to Liberty
Self Check Exercise-1

10.3.3    Types of Liberty

10.3.4    Limits of the Activities of State and Society

10.3.5    Criticism
Self Check Exercise-2

10.4    Mill's Views on Representatives Government
Self Check Exercise-3

10.5    Summary

10.6    Glossary

10.7    Answers to Self Check Exercises

10.8    Suggested Readings

10.9    Terminal Questions

10.1    Introduction
John Stuart Mill (1806-73) was a philosopher, economist, political thinker and a dominant figure in English intellectual life in the latter half of the 19th century. In his childhood, he was an object of an experimental education in the hands of his father James Mill and Jeremy Bentham. Mill later became a key advocate of utilitarianism, an ethical and political theory that views moral goodness as dependent on greatest happiness for the greatest number of people concerned and stresses the importance of representative government in politics. His works include ‘on Liberty’ and ‘other Essays’, Utilitarianism, System of Logic, Principles of political Economy, and Considerations of Representative Government. This unit intends to examine Mill’s views on liberty, and Representative Government. He refined the utilitarian tradition of philosophy established by Jeremy Bentham and he re-emphasised the primacy of individual liberty and self determination against the inroads of the majority in democratic societies. Mill’s case for women equality reflects his Utilitarian roots, the subordination of women he argues, is not only “wrong in itself’ but one of the chief hindrance to human improvement. By denying women the same opportunities as men, he says society not only impedes the development of roughly half of population but denies itself the benefit of their talents. We will discuss his view about the subjection of women in the next unit.

10.2    Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, students will be able to

•    Explain Mill’s views on Liberty.

•    Understand Mills views on the Representative Government.

10.3    Mill’s Views on Liberty
John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty stands as one of the most profound explorations of freedom, particularly emphasizing the significance of freedom of thought and expression. Mill asserts that only through open discussion can meaningful and progressive ideas emerge. Suppressing an individual’s opinions not only hinders the discovery of truth but also stifles that person’s personal growth and development. In Mill’s view, self-realization and personal development are impossible without the presence of liberty.
Unlike the traditional concept of Liberty as an abstract or inherent natural right, Mill frames it as a practical right, whose justification lies in its utility—specifically, its role in fostering individuality. The freedom to develop diverse personalities and characters is essential; each person’s actions should aim at nurturing their own unique self. Mill emphasizes that differences in opinions reflect the rich diversity of human individuality, and safeguarding these differences, even against opposition, is a sign of a healthy and morally progressing society. Individual development and societal advancement, for Mill, are interdependent.
Without the freedom to express differing views, society risks becoming stagnant and lifeless. For Mill, liberty is not merely an ideal but the essential force that sustains a vibrant and dynamic society. Interestingly, his deep commitment to liberty seems to go beyond the conventional principles of utilitarianism, suggesting a broader and more profound concern for human flourishing.

10.3.1    Definition of Liberty
At two different stages, Mill gives two “different definitions of Liberty ; (a) The first definition of Liberty as given by Mill to which he generally sticks is that “Liberty is being left to oneself.” In Mill’s words ‘‘Over himself, over his actions and thoughts the individual is sovereign”. “All restraint is an evil”. These are some of the ideas of Mill on this aspect of Liberty’s definition. Mill goes to the extent of saying that any interference with individual’s liberty of action is not justified except to prevent him from doing harm to others. If by my action no member of the society is harmed, neither the society nor the state has the right to interfere with that action of mine over which I have the exclusive jurisdiction. Mill divides individual’s actions into two categories :—(i) Self regarding, (ii) other-regarding actions, in the sphere of self-regarding actions of the individuals, they should be left totally free: Mill critically examines the legitimate degree of control that society and the state may exercise in the sphere of self-regarding actions. He takes the example of Drunkenness which is a purely self-regarding action so long as it does not lead to disorder or cruelty or dangerous neglect of family, and the society and the state should not interfere and should not enforce prohibition or stop sale of alcoholic liquors to put any restrictions. But as stated above, if it leads to disorder it will become other-regarding action and the state will have the right to interfere. In the sphere of other-regarding actions which involve and affect the interests of other members of society, the state and society can legitimately interfere. The state and the society should interfere only in such other-regarding actions alone “as produce positive, demonstrable harm to others.” The state will be within its legitimate limit to enforce compulsory education. Lack of education to the children will certainly harm the society as a whole. If parents fail to give education to their children, the state should either force the parents to do so or to arrange for the education of the children itself. Mill gives another example wherein the state can force the individuals to do something for their own benefit. The state can enforce conscription legitimately. In the words of Wayper, “It is legitimate to oblige a man to bear his share in maintaining society. Conscription is not to be regarded as an unwarranted infringement of his
liberty”. Mill abandons the Laissez Faire Theory and justifies state's interference in the sphere of business and industry to a legitimate extent.

(b) The second definition of Liberty, as given by Mill is “Liberty consists in doing what one desires.” This definition is very much different from the earlier definition. Mill gives an example. The state or society would be justified in preventing a man from crossing a bridge which was known to the unsafe. Liberty consists in doing what one desires and he certainly does not have the desire to fall in the river. He has the desire of crossing the bridge. It would be better to frustrate this desire of his than to allow him to fall in the river which is greater evil. This leads to much more positive activities on the part of the state than the earlier definition. In the words of Wayper, "This definition of liberty throws the door open to any amount of interference. Mill has gone far towards admitting the extremist idealist contention that one can be forced to be free. Bentham must have gyrated in his grave...that his favourite follower could ever contemplate such a non-utilitarian proposition.”

10.3.2    Dangers to Liberty
The above discussion reveals that Mill is not concerned with any narrower concept of liberty. His concept of liberty may be equated with the liberty of the individual to develop, enrich and expand his personality to the fullest extent. Mill’s Essay On Liberty is not a complete treatise on state, its nature or political obligation, unlike Hobbes’s Leviathan and Locke’s ‘Of Civil Government’. It is, as Mill says himself an essay. This essay deals with the value and nature of human freedom, of the conflicts that arise between the citizen and the state and between the individual and the society. Not only that such freedom is useful to individual but also to the society as a whole. For Mill, liberty of thought and expression, freedom of discussion and investigation, freedom of self-controlled moral judgment, absolute freedom of feeling, sentiments and opinion (on all subjects—speculative, religious, scientific, theological or literary). Liberty of expressing and publishing opinions, Liberty of tastes and pursuits etc. were good in their own rights. Intellectual and political freedoms, in particular, are beneficial both to the society, that permits them and to the individuals that enjoy them. Mill deals in detail with the dangers to such a valuable concept liket Liberty. According to him dangers to Liberty come from two sources:

(a)    from the state, through the laws that could restrict freedom.

(b)    unorganized but terrible power of general opinion, in other words, the society.
In Mills times, the influence of unorganized society, the unwritten and unconventional authority of the masses over the individual was probably more menacing than the power of the state. The demands of the state on the individual in his time were less exacting and fewer. On the other hand in many matters, ‘‘affecting his private and intellectual life, his love affairs, his views on religion, sex and science” the individual found himself bound by” a constricting orthodoxy and would have to guard his words and actions with a care which he might find intolerable” (Macallun). In England of Mill’s times the yoke of opinion was heavier and that of law-givers lighter than in most other European countries. Mill, knew to his cost, the tyranny of the opinion of the public. He used to visit one highly polished and intelligent lady, Mrs. Taylor about five years his senior, quite often, and used to draw inspiration and guidance from her in his political writings. At the age of 25, he had met Mrs. Taylor and this association continued for the whole life. This association he calls as ‘‘the most valuable friendship of my life.” After the death of Mr. Taylor, Mill married Mrs. Taylor. His association of about twenty years with a married woman and his subsequent marriage with a widow was the subject-matter of a severe criticism from the public and almost became
a scandal. Mill found nothing wrong in his association with Mrs. Taylor but the then society, rigged as it was with century-old and out-moded customs, found his conduct certainly objectionable.
This is the background of Mill’s being more critical of the interference of the society than of the state in the individual’s affairs. In his own words, “in our time from the highest class to the lowest, everyone lives as under the eye of a hostile and dreaded censorship. We fear our neighbours more and the policemen less.” This was the general tyranny of society to which we have already elluded, and which was then, much more than the state power, a serious danger to individual and freedom. Mill found that the pressures of society were not only constraining man’s actions but were also weakening their impulses .and desires. It was against this kind of restraints from the society that Mill raised his voice. His voice was against the magical influence of out-moded customs and practices.
Mill was not against custom as such. He speaks very highly of the value of custom, but he criticised only those customs or rules of society which don’t appeal to reason. Mill’s primary concern as a political thinker is that all the unreasoning assumptions, customs and usages should be weighed and considered by the reflective and balanced judgement of thinking men. But his problem is not solved here also. He finds that the thinking men are apt to be few, very few. He does not have faith in the mental abilities of the man on the street. He believes in the ‘’aristocracy of wisdom.” Mill was the apostle of the wisdom of the few and that is why he propounded the theory of plural voting for university graduates, scholars and other intelligent classes of society. If the age-old customs and usages are screened by men of wisdom, the opinion of the public will no longer be a menace to liberty.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Mention some important works of J.S. Mill.
Q.2 How J.S. Mill defined liberty?
Q.3 In which two categories Mill has divided the individual actions?
Q.4 For J.S. Mill, what are main dangers to liberty?

10.3.3    Types of Liberty
Mill, in his 'Essay On Liberty' discusses Liberty under three heads:-
First, the inward domain of consciousness, liberty of thought and feeling, including the liberty of expressing public opinions.
Secondly, liberty of tastes and pursuits, of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character of doing what we like.
Thirdly, the liberty of combination among individuals, freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others.
Mill is mostly concerned with the first type of liberty, namely the liberty of thought and expression. He briefly touches upon the other two types of liberty.
The first type of liberty is the most important part of his Essay. According to Mill the freedom of thought and expression is most essential for the self--development and selfrealisation of the individual. Such freedom of expression and thought is, not only essential for the development of the individual’s personality but it is necessary for the health and vigor of the society and the state. The state should frame its laws and the society should make its rules and curve out its institutions in such a way that this liberty of thought and expression is
realized. This is essential for both the high type of moral character of the individuals and the high type of civilization.
Mill believed in the error of judgement of many. The number was no criterion of rightness or wrongness of any decision. The majority was not infallible. It had no right to impose its judgement on the minority. Mill was the first political thinker to realize the impact of the tyranny of majority. In the words of Sabine, “The threat to liberty which Mill chiefly feared was not government but a majority that is intolerant of the unconventional, that looks with suspicion on divergent minorities and is willing to use the weight of numbers to repress and regiment them ........ What Mill recognised and what the older liberalism bad never seen,
was that behind a. liberal government there must be a liberal society."
Mill realized the third and the most important factor, the first two being individual and government, in the realization of individual’s liberty. In the words of Mill, “All mankind minus one is destitute of the right to coerce the single dissentient. The human race would be loser if one single individual is not permitted to express his opinion. His approach in his discussion on liberty of thought and expression is very rational, appealing. His view that truth emerges out of free discussion and free arguments actually appeals to reason. He is extremely convincing in demonstrating the fallibility of human reason. How nicely has he put it that when human reason is fallible no person should be prosecuted or persecuted for holding an opinion which is different from the popular or majority opinion. He quotes examples from history. The two examples that he cites are of Socrates and Christ who were both prosecuted for holding opinions different from the ones popularly accepted in their times. But later on people realised their mistakes and future generations worshipped them. Humanity has suffered a lot from such prosecutions.
For Mill, Liberty is not an abstract or Natural right to be asserted but a concrete right to be judged by criterion of development of individual personality. The individual personality or individuality is not something which goes against society. It is rather complementary. ‘Individuality is both a personal good and social good. Mill’s difficulty comes to lime-light when there is clash between the two goods—namely Freedom and responsibility, between the individual good and social good as represented by the state. The firm opinion of Mill is that society can never be more important than the individual.
If the individual good and the social good run in accord, well and good. But when there is conflict, the freedom of individual will prevail upon the social good. Mill’s is another answer to the perennial question how far can one good namely freedom be reconciled with the other good namely order and social peace. As Mill invariably prefers freedom as compared to social peace, he is one of the greatest individualists of all ages.

10.3.4    Limits of the Activities of the State and Society
Mill examined the legitimate degree of control which society and state may exercise over the individual. In the sphere of self-regarding actions which affect the individual alone no interference of the society or the state can be tolerated. This position is in connection with intellectually mature persons only. In the case of children, lunatics and peoples living in independent colonies, the society and the state can interfere even in the sphere of selfregarding actions. In the sphere of other regarding actions, Mill said that the state can interfere. Some of the examples of other regarding actions are encroachment on other’s rights, infliction on them of any loss or damage not justified by his own rights, falsehood or duplicity in dealing with others, unfair or ungenerous use of advantages over them, even
selfish abstinence from defending them against injury. These actions and others like them are fit for moral reprobation by the society and punishment by the state. Some of the selfregarding actions which start affecting others will be classified under the head other-regarding actions and can be interfered with by the society and the state. He gives an example of a man who through incomperance of extravagance becomes unable to discharge his debts or support his family, he may be justly punished by the society and the state. But this punishment is for the breach of duty towards family and the creditors and not for extravagance.
Similarly, a man trying to commit suicide may be prevented from doing so as the loss of his life will affect the other individuals. But the dividing line between the self regarding and other regarding actions may be a matter of endless dispute.
So far as the liberty of action is concerned, the society and the state can interfere only if action of any member harms others; the good of the individual, physical or moral, is not a sufficient reason. So long as one does not become a nuisance to others, freedom of action and of association is unfettered from the interference of the state and society.

10.3.5    Criticism—

(l)    There is no definite line of demarcation between the self-regarding and other-regarding actions. At various items and various stages the disputes may arise as to what is a selfregarding and what is other-regarding action.

(2)    Mill assumed that the individual is sovereign over his body and mind. He should be left free to act as he wished and society cannot impose any limitation on his freedom. The soundness of this statement may be doubted. The sovereignty of the individual himself is not a self evident proposition.

(3)    Though Mill’s exposition of Liberty is one of the best in the history of Political Thought, he was unable to reconcile the claims of individual freedom with the claims of order and social peace satisfactorily. He was emotionally attached to Benthamism so much that he could not get rid of it. Moreover, he started with the premise of atomistic concept of individual. Hence, he could not arrive at a different conclusion. He had to sacrifice the social goods at the altar of individual freedom. He only defended the old theory of liberty with new arguments. As Sabine puts it “he represents a typical example of the futility of putting new wine into old bottles.” Though sometimes he talks of social legislation and socialism, yet he could not do justice to social good and society as a whole so far as their relation to individual liberty was concerned. His solution of the perennial problem of political obligation cannot be said to be the correct one. Sabine has aptly put it, “The fundamental difficulty with Mill’s argument was that he never really analysed the relationship between freedom and responsibility. At times he retained the traditional view derived from Bentham that any compulsion or even any social influence is an abridgement of liberty. What Mill’s theory of liberty required was a thorough going consideration of the defence of personal liberty on social and legal rights and obligations.’’

(4)    Barker has criticized Mill as the “Prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual.” What Mill gave to his individuals, was not liberty in the true sense of the term. Liberty grows within the precincts of the society. He gives to Liberty more of a negative connotation while Liberty, properly speaking, is a positive term. Liberty, as some of the idealists realized, was the freedom of being one’s true self. This freedom can only be
achieved by becoming a member of the organic social whole, and accepting willingly all social control. Hence it is correct to say that Mill is prophet of empty liberty. Similarly, the type of individuals that Mill envisaged, in fact do not exist in reality. They are not like particles in the sand-heap of society. On the other hand, they are like limbs of the body-politic or a living organism. It is both-way traffic. Mill would say that without individuals society cannot exist. Agreed, But can the individuals exist without society? The answer is ‘no’. Just as only living organism cannot live without the limbs (in fact it can live for sometime without non-vital limbs) the limbs cannot survive for a single minute after the death of the living organism. On the same analogy, the society cannot live without individuals just as the individuals cannot live without the society. The individuals and society are so related to each other that one cannot imagine to live without the other. Hence, it is correct to say that Mill was the prophet of “the abstract individual.”
No doubt, the inconsistencies from which Mill’s concept of Liberty suffer are many, but all these have not succeeded in eroding his importance as the most enlightened champion of individualism and individual liberty in the history of political thought. He is remembered and respected even today for his earnest plea for individual liberty. Liberty for him is both individual good and social good. His concept of freedom combines both the internal and external worlds of individuals. Particularly his emphasis upon the spiritual aspect of freedom makes it more sublime. He offered one of the best vindications of the liberty of thought and expression. He realized the danger of society from the tyranny of the majority over the minority and suggested necessary remedial measures. Mill has become immortal due to his reorganization of the value of human personality and his insistence on the development of full individual as the goal of state and government.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 What are the different types of liberty according to J.S. Mill?
Q.2 Who criticized Mill as the “Prophet of an empty liberty and an abstract individual.”

10.4 Mill's Views on Representative Government
In his ‘Representative Government’ Mill is mainly concerned with institutional reforms in the government so as to make it more representative and responsible. Political institutions are the work of men and are either well or ill made like other things, says Mill. When political machinery is to be operated by men, it requires active participation by them. It is to be adjusted to the capacities and qualities of men who participate in it. Such requirement implies three things :

(i)    People must be willing to accept a particular form of government.

(ii)    They must be able to do certain things which are necessary to keep that form of government in good condition.

(iii)    They must be able to fulfill the purpose of such form of government. Failure to fulfill any of these conditions renders a form of government unstable to the particular case.
Mill discusses the characteristics of the government which is best fitted to promote the interests of people :

(i)    The first element of a good government is the possession of virtue and intelligence by the people who constitute the state. Political operations of the government depend on
the possession of these qualities by the people. The good qualities of the people provide the moving force which runs the machinery of the government.

(ii)    The second constituent merit of the good government is the quality of the machinery itself. It is to be observed how the machinery takes advantage of the amount of good qualities of the people and uses them for good purposes. The representative government is a means through which the general standard of intelligence and honesty of the community and intelligence and virtue of individual members are brought to bear upon the government.
People who have highly developed moral and intellectual qualities, the most just laws, the purest judiciary, the most enlightened public administration, and the most equitable financial system can move easily and quickly towards a higher stage. On the other hand, if the institutions of the people are not properly constructed, the people cannot march ahead.
Mill explains what a representative government is and why it is ideal? A representative government is one in which the whole people or some numerous portion of them exercise sovereign power through deputies who are popularly and periodically elected. People possess this sovereign power in all its completeness. Every citizen has a voice in the exercise of sovereign power. Occasionally, he is called on to take an actual work in the government by discharging general or local functions. Mill lists the following reasons why the representative government is ideal:

(i)    The representative government in which all people participate can fully satisfy all the exigencies of the society. Participation even in the smallest function is useful.

(ii)    Rights and interests of every citizen are secure because everyone is able.

(iii)    The representative government promotes the good management of the affairs of the state by means of moral and intellectual faculties of the citizens. In turn it improves the faculties of the citizens. Thus it promotes a higher form of national character.

(iv)    It promotes the well-being of the citizens. The general prosperity achieves greater height and is widely diffused.
Representative government can be successful if three conditions are fulfilled:

(i)    People should be willing to accept the representative government.

(ii)    They should be able to do what is essential for the preservation of representative government.

(iii)    They should be willing and able to discharge the functions which the representative government imposes on them.
Mill explains the composition of parliament. The British Parliament is always in his mind as the typical instance of representative bodies. The lower class consisting of small employers of labour, tradesmen and manual labourers and the upper class consisting of employers of labour, possessors of inherited wealth and professionals shall have equal representation in the parliament. In this parliament, no group should be so powerful as to suppress truth and justice. Though the parliament does not represent a selection of the greatest political minds in the country, it represents a fair sample of every grade of intellect among the people. These sections have to express the wants of the various sections of the people and to be an organ for popular demands.
The following are the functions to be performed by the parliament:

(i)    One of the important functions of the parliament is voting of taxes. This function exclusively belongs to it. Sanction of the parliament is required for the appropriation of revenues to the different items of the public expenditure.

(ii)    Another important function of the parliament is deliberation. As it is less fitted to administer, it cannot dictate in detail to those who are in charge of administration.

(iii)    The parliament can decide who shall be prime minister but cannot nominate the members of a cabinet. It recognises the leader of a party whose general policies and programmes command its support. It can expel the political executives if they abuse its trust.

(iv)    It also watches and controls the government. It throws light of publicity on the acts of government.

(v)    It is nation’s committee of grievances and congress of people’s opinions. A subject of discussion in the parliament is of great public importance and interest. Every interest and shade of opinion is pleaded in the parliament. The decisions that are arrived at after the great discussion are to be carried out by the individuals specially trained to it. The parliament has to see that these individuals are honestly and intelligently chosen. However, it shall not unduly interfere with administration. In describing the functions of the parliament, Mill is influenced by the British parliament.
Certain evils of representative parliament are listed by Mill:

(i)    Certain dangers may arise if an adequate amount of intelligence and knowledge is not found in the parliament.

(ii)    Improperly constituted parliament may encroach on the area of the executive. It may expel a good ministry and elevate a bad one. It may be partner in the misdeeds of the executive.

(iii)    It may impose a selfish, impulsive, short-sighted, ignorant and prejudicial general policy. It may abrogate good laws and pass bad laws.

(iv)    There may be danger of class legislation from the parliament.
Mill makes an attempt to remove these and other evils of representative parliament as far as possible without interfering materially with the necessary benefits of democratic system:
Mill has suggested some very intelligent safeguards and methods by which representative government democracy can be effectively ensured and worked properly.
First, education should be imparted to the individuals in the civic sense and the art of citizenship. Mill’s basic assumption is that men are made what they are by their education. Right type of education can make the citizens up to the mark and keep them aware of their rights and obligations.
Secondly, eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. If the public is vigilant enough, no government can deprive them of their rights and rule over them in a dictatorial manner. Enlightened public opinion is the greatest safeguard against the dangers of democracy.
Thirdly, in order to avoid the rule of the ignoramus. Mill suggests that more educated and intelligent-classes should be given weightage in voting. The only device to ensure this is what Mill calls Equal Representation and which is better known as Proportional Representation. The minorities should be given representation into their strength. According to Mill, True Democracy is one which will give due weight and influence to all the different elements of society. He suggests plural voting for men of worth and proportional representation for giving due weight to the minorities and intelligent sections of the society.
Mill approved the Hare System of proportional representation. Mill had the guts to reject the easy doctrine that the suppression of minorities was the necessary price to be paid for free government.
Fourthly, another safeguard that Mill suggested was the voting by open or public ballot. According to Mill, “People will give dishonest and mean votes from lucre, from malice, from pique, from personal rivalry, even from the interests and the prejudices of class or sect, more readily in secret than in public”
Fifthly, Mill suggested that for safe-guarding the interest of those sections of society which would not otherwise be adequately represented in an assembly popularly elected, there should be a Second Chamber. Moreover, the Second Chamber would curb the enthusiasm of the majority party in the lower chamber to recklessly pursue its own interests and would point out its weaknesses.
Sixthly, another minor safeguard is that the Member of Parliaments should not be paid any salary. They should be treated as true representatives and not mere delegates?
Seventhly, he was in favour of extending the right to vote to women also. In his time, he was regarded as an eccentric. He was advancing arguments of the 20th century, while living in the 19th century. In his Essay on the Subjection of women, he gives detailed physiological and psychological reasons for giving suffrage to women. His cause ultimately triumphed.
Eighthly, the next safeguard for democracy as suggested by Mill is that, though there should be universal suffrage and the workers and household servants should also be represented, the evils of general suffrage should be mitigated :

(i)    by restricting the suffrage only to those who knew three R’s i.e. who could read, write and perform the common operations of arithmetic. The state should make every endeavour to make available educational facilities to all the citizens of the state.

(ii)    by restricting the franchise to only those who paid some prescribed minimum amount of taxes, otherwise the “vote will be merely allowing every Tom, Dick and Harry to put his hand into other people’s pockets for any purpose.” This would make the voters and the legislator, both, more responsible. His argument is very sound. Those who do not pay any taxes but have the power to dispose of other people’s money by their votes “have every motive to be lavish and nose to economize.” The bankrupts and paupers should never be allowed the right of franchise.

(iii)    By giving extra votes to the superior elements in society. He wrote boldly in favour of such additional or plural voting. Criterion for such plural voting should not be property as it is a temporary make-shift. Educational criterion is also not satisfactory. A person’s occupation can be some sort of a good test. Foremen, merchants, bankers, professors etc. are likely to be more intelligent than the labourers. The number of such additional votes, taken together, should not weigh the votes of the rest of the community so that the privileged plural voters taken together should not be powerful enough to pursue their sinister class interest without restraint at the cost of the single voters. The maximum number of additional votes that can be allowed is only three. The clear motives behind the scheme of plural voting are Equality and Freedom in the true sense of the terms.
Ninthly, indirect election is another safeguard of democracy. According to him, the past experience has suggested that indirect elections can mitigate the evils of democracy. In his time, the Senate of the U. S. A. was elected by the state legislature. According to him indirect election works well where the electors have some other functions also to perform.
Presidential election in America, be regarded as direct as the electoral college is dissolved after the election of the President. The election of Rajya Sabha in India and that of the President of India are the examples of the indirect elections of the type that Mill desired.
Tenthly, expenditure on elections should not be borne by the candidates. The state should bear the expenses on election. The rich people who can afford to spend large sums of money usually what happened in his time and what is happening these days is that get elected with the sheer force of their money.
Lastly, public servants should not be popularly elected. They should be selected through competitive exams.
The study of Mill’s ideas on representative government reveals that he was a democrat alright but with some reservations. He was a reluctant or distrustful democrat. He accepted representative democracy with a pinch of salt. The safeguards of democracy that he has provided clearly speak of his insight into the statecraft. This goes to his credit that where he was conservative, he was supporting well- established institutions and those institutions have still survived after eventful careers. Such institutions that he supported are British Cabinet system, U.S. Senate, U.S. Supreme Court, and Swiss and American Federalisms. It further speaks well of him that where he made innovations such as in his concepts of women’s suffrage, competitive exams for the civil servants, proportional representation etc. the progeny has been with Mill. Of course, some of his safeguards against extreme democracy like plural voting and exclusions from suffrage have been discarded by the various nations of the world. The Reforms Act of 1867 in Britain was a great tribute to him. Moreover, his boldness in advocating even unpopular theories which he considered to be correct is worth appreciating. As Maxey has put it, “Contemporary liberals did not share Mill’s apprehensions as to dangers of democracy. But the generations following both world wars have found in Mill much to approve. A half century of experience with demagogism, bossism and pressure politics has brought democratic thought face to face with reality.”
Self Check Exercise-3
Q.1 Why Mill considers representative government an ideal government?
Q.2 Enlist Some of the safeguards suggested by J.S. Mill to ensure effective representative democracy.

10.5    Summary
Thus, we see that in spite of his drawbacks and weaknesses, Mill was a great man and great political thinker. The contributions made by him to the growth of political thought are really remarkable. He gave a new direction to the Utilitarian tenets so as to enable them to be acceptable in the high political and intellectual circles in particular, and the masses in general. He modernized Utilitarianism, so to say. He had a great insight into the “things to come”. He realised that the time had come when state had to be assigned a more positive role than the one the early Utilitarian’s were willing to assign to it. He was a perfect democrat but he was not blind to the shortcomings of the democratic set-up. The world will always remember him for his advocacy of the emancipation of women, their suffrage, proportional representation, his liberalism, individualism, classic advocacy of liberty, his cautious approach towards democracy, his realisation of the possible tyranny of majority rule, so on and so forth. He will also be remembered always for his qualities of head and heart.

10.6    Glossary

•    Proportional Representation: Refers to a type of electoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.

•    Hare System: A system of proportional representation that aims to achieve party representation in the closest proportion to actual voting strength by transferring votes beyond those needed to elect a candidate from that candidate to the next indicated choice.

•    Plural Voting : Practice of casting more than one vote or of voting in more than one constituency.

•    Demagogue : A Political Leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument.

10.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    ‘On Liberty’, ‘Other Essays’, ‘Utilitarianism’, ‘System of Logic’, ‘Principles of Political Economy’, Considerations of Representative Government’ and ‘Subjection of Women’.

2.    Mill gives two different definitions of liberty-

(a)    “Liberty is being left to oneself.” In his words, “Over himself, over his actions and thoughts, the individual is sovereign.”

(b)    “Liberty consists in doing what one desires.”

3.    Mill divides individual’s actions into two categories:- (i) Self Regarding, (ii) Other-Regarding.

4.   According to Mill, dangers to liberty come from two sources:-

(a)  From the state, through the laws that could restrict freedom.

(b)    Unorganized but terrible power of general opinion, in other words, the society.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    Mill, in his ‘Essay on Liberty’ discusses liberty under three heads:-
First, the inward domain of consciousness, liberty of thought and feeling, including the liberty of expressing public opinions.
Secondly, liberty of tastes and pursuits, of framing the plan of our life to suit our own character of doing what we like.
Thirdly, the liberty of combination among individuals, freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others.

2.    Barker
Self Check Exercise-3

1.          Mill lists the following reasons for considering representative government as
an ideal government :-

(i)    Participation of all people

(ii)    Rights and interests of every citizen are secure

(iii)    Promotes the good management of the affairs of the states.

(iv)    Improves the faculties of the citizens and thus promotes a higher form of national character among the citizens.

2.     (i) Education to the individuals in the civic sense and the art of citizenship.

(ii)    Eternal vigilance and Enlightened public opinion.

(iii)    Weightage in voting to the educated and intelligent classes.

(iv)    Representation to every section of society and minorities in the parliament.

(v)    Plural voting.

(vi)    Voting by open or public ballot.

(vii)    Education and property qualifications for voting.

(viii)    Right to vote to women, etc.

10.8    Suggested Readings

•    E. Barker, Political Thought in England 1841-1914.

•    J. Berlin, John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life in his four Essays on liberty.

•    J.S. Mill, On Liberty, Representative Government, the Subjection of Women, London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1919.

•    M.J. Cowling, Mill and Liberalism.

•    R.M. Bhagat, Political Though: Plato to Marx, Jalandher : New Academic Publishing Company, 1988.

10.9    Terminal Questions

1.    Discuss J.S. Mill’s views on Liberty.

2.   Write an essay on Mill’s views on Representatives Government.

3.   What are the main safeguards suggested by J.S. Mill to ensure effective
representative democracy?
*****
Unit-11John Stuart Mill (Part-II)
Structure

11.1    Introduction

11.2    Learning Objective

11.3    Subjection of Women


11.3.1    Historical Context of the subjection of Women

11.3.2    The subjection of Women

11.3.3    An Estimate
Self Check Exercise

11.4    Summary

11.5    Glossary

11.6    Answers to Self-Check Exercise

11.7    Suggested Readings

11.8    Terminal Questions

11.1    Introduction
‘The subjection of Women’ is an extended essay by J.S. Mill. Mill published the essay in 1869 in memory of his late Wife, Harriet Taylor Mill. Harlot Taylor died in 1858, more than a decade before Mill wrote “The subjection of Women” but he nevertheless attributes much of the essay to her. Mill says that though he had been committed to the principle of equality before he met her, she taught him the ‘Practical’ consequences of women’s legal subordination. He developed the essay with the Harriot’s help. Mills vision of liberalism extended to the rights of women. He was a champion of gender equality. Mill presents arguments as to why women should be allowed to participate equally in society, politics, education, and professions.

11.2    Learning Objectives
After going through this unit, the learners will be able to make a critical evaluation of Mill's views on the subjection of women.

11.3    The subjection of Women11.3.1    Historical context of the subjection of Women.
In his essay The Subjection of Women, John Stuart Mill presents a compelling argument for gender equality, a stance that was considered radical at the time of its publication. Victorian Britain was a deeply patriarchal society, where women were systematically subordinated to men. Educational opportunities for women were minimal, and access to professional careers was largely denied. The prevailing view among many philosophers, politicians, and scientists was that women were inherently inferior to men, particularly in terms of intellect and rationality. This belief was often used to justify excluding women from political participation, including the right to vote. Marriage further entrenched women's subjugation; upon marrying, a woman was legally absorbed into her husband’s identity. Her property became his, and she had no legal right to separate from him or claim independence.
However, as the 19th century progressed, the “Woman Question” became an increasingly prominent topic in political and social discussions. The rapid urbanization and industrialization of Britain began to alter traditional social structures. The growth of factories and manufacturing created new employment opportunities for women, allowing some to work outside the home and gain a degree of financial independence. Many employers
actively sought female workers, often because they could be paid lower wages than men. Despite the exploitative nature of this dynamic, women’s growing participation in the labor force raised important questions about their legal, political, and social rights.
Debates over women’s roles and entitlements extended beyond the working classes. Industrialization also affected the lives of middle- and upper-class women, challenging traditional expectations and sparking discussions about education and public engagement. From the mid- to late-19th century, incremental progress was made in women’s education. Notably, in 1868, women were admitted to the University of London for the first time, marking a significant milestone.
As a Member of Parliament, Mill was a leading advocate for women’s rights. He used his position to introduce a women’s suffrage bill, arguing for women’s inclusion in the electorate. He also supported reforms to marriage law, including the Married Women’s Property Act, which aimed to grant married women property rights equal to those of unmarried women. Although Mill’s efforts laid important groundwork, the first Married Women’s Property Act was not passed until 1870, and it was not until 1891 that British courts finally denied a husband’s legal right to use physical force against his wife.
Mill argued that the legal and social position of Victorian women was, in many respects, worse than that of slaves. His critique highlighted the systemic inequality women faced and underscored the urgent need for legal and societal reform. Mill’s work remains a landmark in the history of feminist thought, challenging the entrenched norms of his time and advocating for a more just and equitable society.

11.3.2    The subjection of women:
Mill strongly advocated for gender equality. Acknowledging that progress in women's rights had been limited, he argued that much more was necessary to achieve true equality. In The Subjection of Women, he exposed the baseless prejudice against women and maintained that embracing gender equality would benefit society as a whole.
Mill’s main argument is that the subordination of women is wrong. It is wrong because it is unfair, and it is also wrong because it promotes unhappiness among women. Anything that makes people miserable must be remedied. Mill claims that, until we guarantee gender equality, humanity can’t improve itself. We will never progress, morally or economically, while we cling to outdated and harmful gender ideals. Mill accepts that his arguments are controversial but all change is painful.
The main problem, Mill claims, is that men make false assumptions about women. They assume that women are weak and feeble. They believe that women are incapable of intellectual discourse. However, the reality is that no one knows what women are capable of -be it voting, working, or living independently - until they try.
‘The subjection of women’ explores where these false assumptions come from. Mill blames customs and traditions. We believe that, if something is customary it must be right. Since men have controlled women forever, subordination, then is customary and is treated correct and natural. Unsurprisingly, Mill critiques this logic. Mill says that we should only uphold customs if these customs make sense. Since we don’t know what women are capable of, it is illogical to say that they are weaker than men. We can’t know this unless women have the same opportunities to better themselves as men.
The implication, then, is that if men can prove that the women are weaker sex, then subordination possibly makes sense. In the mean-time gender equality must be the default position. Saying that men are physically stronger than women isn’t a solid argument, either.
Just because someone is powerful doesn’t make them a good leader. Women must have the opportunity to govern themselves and put their own stamp on society. Women must have the same rights as men to forge their own path in life, Mill says. We shouldn’t accept our birth rank if we don’t want to. This is the principle of social mobility. A poor man can rise from the working class to the middle class if he works hard enough. If we accept that men can change their place in society, then we must afford the same freedom to women.
Mill knows that men think subordination is natural. He knows that men assume that they are better than women, simply because it is the way they taught to think. Women take on subordinate roles because they are taught to do so. It does not mean that subordination is natural- it simply means that men condition women to accept subordination and inequality.
‘The subjection of women’ lays out another significant proposition. Even if women are naturally the weaker sex, it doesn’t mean they deserve subordination. They deserve legal and political equality. Women are naturally different from men biologically and mentally, but different does not mean incompetent. Women simply have different qualities to offer society.
Human are naturally competitive. Mill claims. We always want to be good at something. This goes back to social mobility. We want to improve ourselves. In a free society, everyone should have the same opportunities to succeed. The capable will succeed while others will not. ‘This logic applies whether someone is male or female. A progressive society let’s everyone strive for greatness regardless of their gender.
Mill harshly criticizes slavery in all forms. He believes that talent and good minds are wasted when humans are forced into slavery. If some has talent, then we should nurture them. They should be allowed to use their gifts to improve the society and help others. Whether this person is a male or female is irrelevant.
Mill then considers what might happen if we try on equality for size. For example, if women see themselves as equals, they won’t be so weak or docile. They will be mentally stronger and happier. They will be self-sufficient. If we let women explore their full potential, they will improve society, which will benefit everyone. Since marriage was so important in the 19th century, Mill considers the effects of gender inequality on the marital home specifically. He argues that husbands and wives should be equals. They should be partners. The problem is that, since women are uneducated, they can’t talk about the things that interest their husbands. They can’t offer companionship and the improvement that follows healthy intellectual debate; once we guarantee gender equality; we improve every facet of society from the marital home to the political sphere.
Mill argues in favour of legal and social equality between men and women. He writes that the legal subordination of one sex to the other is wrong in itself and one of the chief hindrances to human improvement.
At the time that Mill wrote ‘The Subjection of Women, Women could not vote. A married woman was not a separate legal entity from her husband and any property or money she owned came under his governance. A common justification for women’ inferior legal status was that they were morally superior to men, and therefore better restricted to the home, where they would be protected from the polluting influence of public life and could shape the morals of the future generation. Mill argues that it is illogical.
Further, it was widely believed that women were more emotional than rational, and did not have the intellectual capabilities of men. Mill argues that if women seen emotional,
passive and apolitical, it is because they have been brought up to be so. Mill insists that until society treats men and women equally, it will be impossible to know the natural abilities of women, or whether there are inherent differences between the sexes.

11.3.3    An Estimate
Upon its publication, The Subjection of Women faced criticism from some reviewers. However, women’s rights activists embraced the work, widely circulating it in Britain and the United States. The text established John Stuart Mill as a key figure in the emerging feminist movement. In it, Mill argues that marriage strips women of their property rights, leaving them financially dependent on their husbands and limiting their personal autonomy.
Mill analyses the institution of marriage, which fails to protect women from physical harm and financial ruin. He argues for greater professional opportunities for women. Mill also calls on reform to change existing social structures. Indeed, Mill makes caustic appeal to intellectual evil of the immorality of subjugating women as second-class citizens due to prejudicial limitations of birth and birth alone. He questioned the faulty rationality behind the subordination of women. In place of the existing social and legal order, Mill suggests “complete equality, admitting no power or privilege on the one side, or disability on the other.”
Mill explains the structure of his argument. He showed how the opinion that women are inferior to man is based on prejudice and untested presumption rather than on reason and proven fact. Mill criticizes the logic of the prevailing social order, in which men control the lives of women. He boldly advocated enfranchisement of women. He fought for the rights of women. Women all over the world can never discharge the debt that they owe to Mill who championed the cause of their emancipation.
Criticism: Many commentators have criticized the limit of substance in Mills writings on women. Susan Okin (1979) argues that Mill is denying women the opportunity to establish themselves fully as equals with men through outside employment. Similarly Gail Tulloch (1989) sees Mill as someone who did not question the traditional division of labour as the division of power despite arguing for women’s political equality. For Okin, Mill also asserts that women should only have a right to that property which she brings to the marriage or earns herself, not that which is brought in by her husband while she is at home running the household.
Mary Shanley (1981) sees the hypocritical attitude of Mill when he argues for ‘marital friendship’ but does not question the traditional division of labour. According to Shanley, attitude of Mill’s man towards the sharing of household duties is far from building any genuine form of friendship between married couples for which Mill is arguing.
In short, the criticism is that Mill argues for equality and freedom of opportunity for women, and yet he asserts that the best division of labour is for women to stay at home- thus denying them the opportunity to establish themselves as equals will men and denying women the right to a share in the income earned by their husbands.
Elizabeth S. Smith tries to defend Mill by pointing that for Mill traditional division of labour is not the only way rather it is the best division of labour. Arguing on the logic of pragmatism, she tries to defend Mill from his many other writings and his political contexts. First, she thinks, for Mill, allowing women to work outside the household would place women in the situation of ‘double-burden’, which is unjust. But this logic presumes the
primacy and essential duty of household to women and will not be digested by many feminist thinkers.
Smith’s last defence is through political and social contexts of Mill. She sees the ‘Subjection of Women’ a text not only of philosophical rather political necessity as far as Mill’s motive of political activism was concerned. She brings the issue of enfranchisement of women which was hotly debated in Mill’s time and in which Mill was the prime important figure. But at the same time 18th century England was not much got rid of deeply patriarchal assumptions. Smith says, for Mill enfranchisement of women was prime concern and he was pushing hardly for it. He knew the potential reaction of the fellow English-people. Therefore, Mill forced himself to be soft on several other more important women’s issues like questioning of sexual division of labour, to build a suitable atmosphere for legislations of women’s enfranchisement right Mill thought that the opening of one sphere will lead to others.
Some critics, such as Jenifer Ball and Moira Gates, argue that Mill tends to focus on the socio-legal aspects of the subordination of women and not on the cultural aspects which subjugates women. They criticize Mill’s argument that solely striking down legal barriers against women will create equality between the sexes but fails to mention that women are subjugated not only by law, but also by customs and general feelings.
Although Mill had a limited role in shaping the legal aspects of society which hinder and cage women to inequality, his influence cannot be discounted. Mill ultimately endorsed the debate of equality within the political sphere and kickstarted a campaign which would later lead to universal suffrage and gender equality. Mill had a much larger role in creating a new relationship in marriage by creating ‘martial friendships’. Mill was a revolutionary in bringing about gender equality.
Self Check Exercise

1.    In whose memory J.S. Mill published the essay ‘The Subjection of Women’.

2.   What was the position of women in the Victorian Era in Britain.

3.   According to J.S. Mill, what are the main reasons responsible for subjection of
women in the society?

4.    Who were main critiques of the substance of Mill’s writings on women.

11.4    Summary
Thus, J.S. Mill’s 'The Subjection of Women' is a landmark work both in the long history of women’s struggles for political, legal, economic, and personal equality, and in the shorter history of rigorous intellectual analyses of women’s subordination. One of the lasting legacies of Mills 'the Subjection of Women' is its careful argument for the need of Justice at both the public and the private levels, which requires changes at the domestic level that are as radical in the 21st century as they were in the 19th.
Mill argued nearly 150 years ago that the liberation of women will produce two important results. It will benefit society by triggering the contributions of women in many fields, and it will benefit women by granting them autonomy that is essential to their happiness. Mill was first male to advocate feminism in a time when feminism in the political discourse was discouraged.’

11.5    Glossary

•    Subjugation - The action of bringing someone or something under domination or control.

•    Patriarchal- A system of society or government controlled by men.

•    Victorian Era- The period between approximately 1820 and 1914 in British history.

•    Prejudice- Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience.

•    Apolitical- Not interested or involved in Politics.

•    Pragmatism- An approach that evaluates theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application.

•    Feminist- An advocate of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes.

11.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise

1.    His late wife, Harriet Taylor Mill.

2.    During the Victorian Era in Britain, society was deeply patriarchal, with men holding dominance in both public and private life. Women faced significant restrictions, particularly in education and employment opportunities. Their roles were largely confined to the domestic sphere, and they were widely regarded as subordinate to men. Prevailing beliefs of the time suggested that women lacked the intellectual capacity and rational judgment necessary for participation in political matters, including the right to vote. These societal norms reinforced the perception of women as inferior and limited their influence outside the home. The women’s vocation vas marriage and in marriage a woman ceased to be a separate person and became the person of her husband. Her property became her husband’s property and she had no right to separate from him. The legal position of Victorian women was worse than that of slaves.

3.    The main problem, Mill claims, is that men make false assumptions about women. They assume that women were weak and feeble. They believe that women are incapable of intellectual discourse. However, the reality is that no one knows what women are capable of-be it voting, working or living independently-until they try. Mill argues that these false assumptions come from prejudices, customs and traditions rather than on reason and proven facts. We believe that, if something is customary it must be right.
Since men have controlled women forever, subordination, then is customary and is treated correct and natural. Mill criticizes this logic. He says that we should only uphold customs if these customs make sense. Since we don’t know what women are capable of, it is illogical to say that they are weaker than men. We can not know this unless women have the same opportunities to better themselves as men.

4.    Susan Okin, Gail Tulloch, Mary Shanley, Jenifer Ball and Moria Gates.

11.7    Suggested Readings

•    E. Barker, Political Thought in England 1841-1914.

•    J. Berlin, John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life in his four Essays on liberty.

•    J.S. Mill, On Liberty, Representative Government, the Subjection of Women, London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1919.

11.8    Terminal Questions

1.    Make a critical analysis of J.S. Mill's views on 'Subjection of Women'.

2.    According to J.S. Mill, What are main reasons responsible for subjection of women in the society?
*****
Block-III Unit-12Immanuel Kant (1724-1804 A.D.)
STRUCTURE

12.1    Introduction

12.2    Learning Objectives

12.3    What is Enlightement?
Self Check Exercise-1

12.4    Notion of Perpetual Peace and Cosmopolitanism
Self Check Exercise-2

12.5    Towards International Peace and confederation
Self Check Exercise-3

12.6    Summary

12.7    Glossary

12.8    Answers to Self Check Exercises

12.9    Suggested Readings

12.10    Terminal Questions

12.1    Introduction
Immanuel Kant was a brilliant German philosopher who is regarded as the most systematic thinker of the Enlightenment. He is also known as the exponent of idealism. Kant was born at Konigsberg in East Prussia in a family of modest means. His father was a saddlemaker, and his grandfather was an emigrant from Scotland. He was educated at the University of Konigsberg where he was appointed to the chair of logic and metaphysics as late as 1770, after a prolonged struggle.
Kant was a sociable person who enjoyed the company of his scholarly friends, but he never married. He lived in a relative isolation from the political upheavals of the eighteenth century. He did not comment on his contemporary politics in his writings, but exerted enormous influence on legal and political thinking of his time as well as of the subsequent generations. According to Roger Scruton (A Dictionary of Political Thought; 1982), “Kant believed that reason, which could lead to theoretical knowledge only when carefully circumscribed, has a natural tendency to transcend its limits, leading to empty and paradoxical beliefs which could never be rationally supported.” This simply implies that reason should always be applied with caution. Normally, it is capable of legitimate practical application where it serves as a competent guide to moral principles and practice. Kant believed that reason is the distinctive quality of human agency which impels each person to treat himself and every other person as an end- in itself and not as means to an end. This is the keynote of Kant’s philosophy. Kant valued the essential ideals of the Enlightenment and viewed the French Revolution, which put these ideals into law, as the triumph of liberty over despotism. In an essay entitled “What Is Enlightenment?” (1784), he contended that the Enlightenment marked a new way of thinking and eloquently affirmed the Enlightenment’s confidence in and commitment to reason.
Kant’s reputation as a philosopher largely rests on his following works; Critique of Pure Reason (1781). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785); Critique of Practical
Reason (1788); Critique of Judgement (1790); Towards Eternal Peace (1795); Metaphysical Principals of Virtue (1797); and The conflict of the Faculties (1789). Several twentieth century philosophic movements have their origins in Kantian though, and many issues retain their importance.

12.2    Learning Objectives
After going through this unit, the learners will be able to:

•    Understand Kant’s views on Enlightenment.

•    Describe his notion of perpetual peace and cosmopolitanism.

12.3    What is Enlightenment?
In his essay 'What is Enlightenment?' Kant discusses the reasons for the absence of enlightenment and what is required from people for enlightenment to flourish.
Kant defines enlightenment that a person achieves when he frees himself from immaturity that he caused himself. Immaturity to Kant means an inability to be able to think on your own and to rely on other people’s opinions to make decisions, this also means that a person is immature if he is unable to use his own Judgment and understanding of things.
Kant acknowledges that remaining ‘immature’ is the easy option for most people, because it’s the lazy option. People can turn to a priest to be their moral conscience for them, or a doctor to determine their diet. Women have been rendered perpetually immature by men in order to keep them meek and ignorant.
Kant explains that the immature person is so because he lets others decide for him and he becomes dependent on help from others so much so that acting and thinking on your own becomes something very difficult. Here to explain his argument, Kant draws an analogy of the influence of government on its people with tamed animals, who are trained to not cross a certain boundary without their carts by making the animals aware of the dangers that lie ahead. This makes the cattle afraid to even try and see for itself. In the same way the government-provides its people with a set of beliefs and ideas that the immature person’ immediately agrees upon and which aids in furthering his immaturity.
Kant argues that it is extremely difficult for a man to reach maturity alone but it is easy for a number of people to do so together. The reason is that when a person starts relying on others for guidance he finds it increasingly difficult to break out of that pattern and start thinking on his own as any mistakes he makes will highlight the defects in his way of thinking. Kant also hints in his essay that a person needs certain qualities to leave immaturity, and these include fearlessness and vigor.
The key to enlightenment, Kant asserts, is freedom. If people are granted that, enlightenment will follow. The problem is that most people aren’t free. Even those guardians and authority figures who keep others enslaved are themselves victim of this system, which they inherit from those who have gone before them.
Kant goes on to say that if a society was given freedom, it will inevitably become enlightened. This statement seems a little extreme but he goes on to explain further that for enlightenment to reach everyone it should be brought about slowly and gently. Then Kant goes on to explain how and to what extent freedom should be exercised. Kant explains that public use of freedom is absolutely essential for enlightenment to take place. He says once people start expressing themselves openly in public forums, these thoughts will eventually influence decisions taken by those in positions of authority. The philosopher also points out
the difference between use of freedom at an individual level. To attain enlightenment, public freedom has to be used; however he says that use of freedom at an individual level is not useful at all.
Kant also distinguishes between what he considers a public freedom to exercise one’s reason (and to question the way things are) and the civic duty we have to obey orders without questioning them. For instance, a soldier engaged in military action cannot afford to question the order his superior gives to him: he needs to obey the order without question, because that is his ‘civic’ duty at that moment. But off-duty, if that soldier wished to philosophise publicly (e.g., in the role of a scholar) about the flaws in the military system, he should be free to do so.
The same goes for paying taxes. One can argue in parliament, or write pamphlets and newspaper articles about whether high taxation is a good thing (i.e., exercising one’s public duty to question things), but when the taxman sends you a bill, you’d better pay up (i.e.. observe your civic duty).
Kant also differentiates between expressing of one’s opinions and acting on those opinions, he uses an example of a clergyman at the church. He is appointed on the condition that he will teach the principles lay down by the church so he has to teach them as it is. However, he can point out constructive criticisms in the way of working of the church which can then be reviewed by his seniors. Thus, Kant points out that one can -not achieve enlightenment without following the laws of the society, he has to obey the laws but at the same time he should have the courage to criticize what the things are wrong or should be changed. So for him any society that does not obey the laws cannot achieve enlightenment.
Kant invites us to consider whether a society of priests could set down some rules which would be binding for generations to come. He says this would be wrong, because it denies future generations the chance to question such rules, and social development would be impeded as a result. He also argues that an enlightened monarch would allow his subjects true freedom to think and do as they wish in religious matters, and the monarch should keep his nose out of such matters.
Kant says that revolutions are counter-productive as new ideas replace old ones. Those new ideas are imposed on the immature population like the older ideas were. So according to Kant, the situation brings about no difference but this is not true for a democratic world where rulers are selected by the people and can be changed if majority of the population is dissatisfied. However, one of the unique principles of democracy is that people have freedom. They have the freedom to think and either choose to extend the current government's terms or elect a new leader if they are not satisfied with the performance of the current one.
Thus, it is evident that the slow and gradual change that Kant talks about can be implemented in Monarchial society, it may even be the most efficient way of bringing about change but in a democratic world this is not possible.
Next, Kant argues that (at the time of writing ‘What is Enlightenment) people are not living in an enlightened age 'but in an age of enlightenment’: that is, we’ve not attained full enlightenment yet because the process is a long one, but progress is (gradually) being made, “thanks largely to the enlightened monarch under whom Kant himself is living, Frederick the Great.
Kant concludes “What is Enlightenment?’ by considering the difference between civil and intellectual and spiritual freedom. Perhaps paradoxically, the less civil freedom people have, the more intellectual freedom they gain, and as their intellectual abilities grow, so the health of a particular society grows as governments can start treating people with dignity.
An Analysis: Thus, ‘What is Enlightenment’, is concerned with every citizen’s public right to use his reason. Everyone in a civilised society, Kant argues, should have the freedom to question the status quo and take part in a debate about how society should be governed and maintained. But such public rights and freedoms need to be balanced by the citizen’s private or civic responsibility to obey the law, and observe the status quo, when required to.
In other words, even while we discuss and philosophies about how to improve society, we have to live in the one we currently have, and civilisation would break down if people chose, for instance, to stop following laws they considered unjust or refused to pay their taxes because they disagreed with the levels of taxation.
What is Enlightenment?” is fundamentally a clarion-call to people about the need to dare to be wise. What is required is not merely intellect but also a willingness to engage one’s reason and exercise that reason upon the everyday things that govern our lives: political systems, financial structures, education, trade, and much else. Enlightenment is mankind’s coming-to-maturity, a willingness to think for oneself and emerge from an immature state where we hand over the power and responsibility to authority figures, whether they’re priests, doctors, teachers, or politicians.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Who is known as the most systematic thinker of the Enlightement?
Q.2 According to Kant, what is Enlightement?

12.4    Notion of Perpetual Peace and Cosmopolitanism
Kant was the first philosopher to make a case in a systematic manner for perpetual peace among nations as Nature’s inherent purpose. The invisible hand of Nature was working its way through human history converting individual egoistic, competitive, aggressive human actions into higher state of peace. In the Science of Right (1790), he discussed the rights of nations, international law and also the universal right of humankind. Inspired by Rousseau’s emphasis on the dignity of the human being Kant insisted that ethically people ought to be treated as ends in themselves and that means, a ruler had no right to treat his people as objects for his ambitions and wars. The people had rights but did not owe any duty to the sovereign. According to Kant it was sovereign who had duties towards the people.
Kant’s insistence on human dignity led him to emphasize on some important key concepts like individual rights, equality before law, the need for a correct legal procedure and an educational system that enhanced reason. Moral law and the autonomy of the individual formed the basis of freedom which was possible only under the rule of law. Hence, laws were necessary and it was our duty to respect the law. But law could be administered only in a state without prejudice to rank and privilege, which was a union of human beings. Laws were the conditions by which the will of one particular individual would be harmonized and united with the will of others within the framework of a general law whose basis was freedom. Only in a republican state would all human beings be free, equal, independent and autonomous.
For Kant, morality and self-determination were the same thing and a person acted on the basis of categorical imperative which implied acceptance of general principles which one recognized within oneself and was not self-contradictory and was universally applicable. This
framework allowed Kant to make a synthesis between individual’s own moral will and the universal law. Action followed a philosophy of right which allowed the freedom of existence of an individual while allowing all others to exist equally on the basis of a universal law.
According to Kant, since human beings were endowed with reason by nature, the purpose of nature was to ensure the development of rationality for that constituted the human essence. History was a process towards rationality and linked progress with reference to the moral character of human beings. With his firm conviction in human rationality, Kant condemned servility and cherished independence of mind. He regarded paternalism as the worst form of despotism. Members of a civil society were united for the purpose of legislation, and thereby constituted a state. Citizens were endowed with three juridical attributes that inseparably belonged to them by right. These attributes were constitutional freedom, civil equality and political independence. Kant did not dwell into the ways and means of achieving a republican constitution, but merely indicated a set of absolutely valid principles for conflict resolution. He was categorical that republican constitutions in individual states were the necessary stepping stones to achieving perpetual peace among all nations. His faith in republican ideals of 1776 and 1789 did not waver despite the excesses in France during the reign of terror, ultimately helping in the rise of Napoleon. The overall optimism of the enlightenment, and the rise of republicanism and constitutional liberalism convinced Kant that perpetual peace can be envisioned within the plurality of nation states.
Moral practical reason within us pronounces the following irresistible veto: there shall be no war, either between individual human beings in the state of nature, or between separate states, which although internally law-governed, still lives in a lawless condition in their external relationships with one another. For, war is not the way in which anyone should pursue their rights.... It can indeed be said that this task of establishing a universal and lasting peace is not just a part of the theory of right within the limits of pure reason, but its entire purpose (Kant ibid: 17).
The general perception in the eighteenth century was that the transition from monarchical to republican institutions would eclipse wars, and herald in an era of peace and moderation. “Kant and the other liberals were essentially correct about the benefits of democracy. Peace is more likely when societies have adopted non-violent means of conflict resolution, executive authority is constrained by a system of checks and balances, and intertwined commercial interests make conflict uneconomical .... There has been a dramatic
increase in the number of democracies since World War II .... The pacific efforts of
interdependence provide more reason than ever, therefore, to believe that Hobbesian anarchy is being reconstructed to reflect liberal values” (Russett).
Kant believed that the history of human race was a progress towards a perfect political constitution, and considered the republican constitution as the perfect one. He asserted that there was a reason to believe that the natural process supported the ultimate goal of perpetual peace and explained this with reference to the idea of unsocial sociability of human beings, meaning that the personality of human beings was that of a split personality. They could not live with one another and could also not do without one another. In earlier times, human beings spread over the entire surface of the earth to escape others, but the necessities of existence led them to develop trade and commerce and the latter two in turn brings people together. In the same process, he was convinced that nations would be brought together making the dream of perpetual peace a reality. He applied the categorical imperative to the relations of states and rejected any action or policy that would make peace among nations
impossible. Like individuals, he insisted that nations, must enter into a union of states, which was the only way to establish peace. This would make a permanent congress of nations a practical reality enabling nations to settle their differences in a civil process than by barbarous war. He based the right to a universal peaceful union of all nations on the juridical principle of legal justice, namely that all people have a right to associate with one another as they originally share the entire soil of earth. He also insisted that even though perpetual peace may not be a reality in the near future, but must be worked for, as one’s duty and states that “the universal and lasting establishment of peace constitutes not merely a part, but the whole final purpose and end of the science of right as viewed within the limits of reason” (Kant ibid: 69). It was morality itself that vetoed war, as war treats human beings as mere means and persons as mere things. War was rejected by rational citizens out of legal motive of self love and conversely to wage war was to renounce reason.
In Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View (1790), Kant argued that nature drives humanity toward a cosmopolitan order, where a league of nations becomes the inevitable result of social progress. Until such unity is achieved, humanity will continue to endure the hardships of conflict. The way out was a moral order which can be brought about only through education, as that would help in building character in accordance with moral principles. The justice and conscience within us, and not with help of governments, would enable us to realize our destiny, the sovereignty of God on Earth. Kant lamented that rulers spend very little money on public because they spend it on paying for past and future wars and was convinced that the ever-growing war debt would eventually make war impractical economically. Reiterating Montesquieu, he highlighted the value of interstate commerce as paving the way eventually for an international government, as commercial activity and material prosperity were a panacea against war.
In 1795, Kant published his major work on peace entitled Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch as a just treaty that could be signed by nations in the background of his indignation at the separate treaty of Basel in which Prussia ceded France territory west of the Rhine so that it could partition Poland along with Russia and Austria. Kant described his proposed peace programme with reference to two steps—the preliminary articles and then, to three definitive articles at not only halting hostilities but also to lay solid foundations of peace. As far as the first was concerned, he stipulated the following;

1.    No secret treaty of peace shall be held valid in which there was tacitly reserved matter for a future war.

2.    No independent states, large or small, shall come under the dominion of another state by inheritance, exchange, purchase, or donation.

3.    Standing Armies shall in time be totally abolished.

4.    National debts shall not be contracted with a view to the external friction of states.

5.  No state shall by force interfere with the constitution or government of another state.

6.  No state shall, during war, permit such acts of hostility which would make mutual
confidence in the subsequent peace impossible: such are the employment of assassins, breach of capitulation, and incitement to treason in the opposing state. He added that a state had no right to wage a punitive war because just punishment must come from a superior authority and not an equal. Like Bentham, Kant emphasized that justice must be delivered publicly and open to scrutiny.
For enduring peace Kant suggested the need for three definitive articles. They are as follows: (i) the civil constitution of every state should be republican in which laws apply to everyone universally and fairly, as that means a government by law and not by favoured persons. His hope lay on the mechanisms of checks and balances within a democratic setup which was absent in authoritarianism. The public opinion would be the restraining element in a republic. His reasoning was that majority of the people would go to war only in self defense and not otherwise. Therefore, if all nations were constitutional republics it would signal the end of war and aggression. For perpetual peace, constitutional republics were the only one of several necessary conditions, (ii) The law of nations shall be founded on a Federation of Free states. If all wars have to be ended forever, then there must be a league of peace and if more republics associate with one another the more practical a federation becomes, (iii) The law of world citizenship shall be limited to conditions of universal hospitality. He also conceded that realization of this ideal would be slow and long but was confident that intensive education of all citizens in every country would make possible the ideal. Eventually, the conflict between the individual’s obligation qua citizen to obey the law of the state and his obligation qua man to obey the cosmopolitan law will cease as the member states of the universal confederation cease to contravene the cosmopolitan law. As a result, the moral responsibilities of citizen and man will coincide and citizenship would assume a universal status. Kant’s argument for perpetual peace rested on the assumption that human beings have the singular potential for reasoning and moral development. But Kant did not advocate world government as centralized authority was detrimental to individual freedom.
Kant’s doctrine of perpetual peace was one of the most influential aspects of his political philosophy, and has inspired many subsequent thinkers. Herbert George Wells, writing in the early days of World War I, believed that this War would be the war to end all wars on the grounds that once popular government replaces Prussian militarism and autocracy there would be no war among European nations. In 1909, Sir Ralph Norman Angell reiterating Kant pointed out that war had become unprofitable due to modem commerce even for the technically victorious country and an interdependent European community based on economic self interest then political wars would cease in the same way as religious wars had stopped in the West. Angell rationalist, believed that war could be eliminated through the growth and progressive application of human reason to international affairs. He pointed out that once human beings were convinced that war was mutually destructive with no winners,’ disarmament and peace would become possible. However, Angell failed to realize that most of the modem wars, including the First World War, were not necessarily due to economic reasons. Schumpeter argued that modem states were inherently peaceful and opposed conquest due to capitalism’s success in ensuring prosperity. Clarence Streit in Union Now (1938) proposed a federal union of democratic states modelled after the US constitution on the grounds that trade and peaceable ways of democracy would keep this union perpetual. It included common citizenship, a defense force, a tariff-free market, and a common currency. In recent times, on the basis of the Kantian doctrine of perpetual peace, a thesis has emerged that democracies do not fight one another as peace has its dividends; that commerce and trade are much better alternatives than war and conflict.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Fill in the blanks.

(i)    According to Kant, human beings were endowed with ...............by the nature.

(ii)    ........... constitutions in individual states were the necessary stepping stones to
achieve perpetual peace among all nations.

(iii)    To achieve perpetual peace, Kant insisted that nations must enter into a

(iv)    It was ................... itself that vetoed war, as war treats human beings as mere means
and persons as mere things.

(v)    “Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical sketch” is a book written by .................

12.5    Towards International Peace and Confederation
State of nature among the nations is to be given up in order to enter into a confederation of states regulated by law. All international rights are provisional until the state of nature among the nations is given up. A true peace can be acquired only within a universal union of states. Though it may not be possible to establish an international state, there can be an inter-national alliance designed to realize perpetual peace. A union of many states designed to maintain peace may be called a permanent congress of states. Neighbouring states are at liberty to join such union which enables all the states to settle their disputes in a civilized manner. All states can unite thus in order to enact certain universal laws to regulate their intercourse. Revolution in transport is bringing the states closer to one another.
Kant explains the conditions necessary to secure international peace : (i) Conclusion of peace is not valid if there is a secret reservation of the materials for a future war. It is not a peace but is a mere truce. It is only a suspension of hostilities. Peace implies an end to all hostilities. A conclusion of peace eliminates all causes for a future war. (ii) Existing states should not be acquired by another state by inheritance, exchange or gift. A state is not a possession but it is a society of men. Like a tree, it has its own independent existence. A moral personality of the state cannot be converted into a commodity. Similarly the subjects cannot be used like commodities. (iii) Standing armies are to be gradually abolished because they always threaten one another with frequent wars. Men are not to be hired to kill or to be killed. Such killing cannot be reconciled with the rights of men. (iv) Even when the states are at war, they shall not engage themselves in certain acts of hostility which would affect mutual confidence and future chances of peace. Acts to be prohibited by belligerent states are assassination, poisoning, breach of agreements and treason which are dishonourable stratagems. Even during war there must be some sort of trust between the warring states. A war of punishment between states cannot be justified because there is no relationship of superior to inferior among the states. A war is only an unpleasant means of asserting one’s right by force in the absence of court of justice to decide disputes. Peace can be established when every neighbour gives a guarantee of peace to other. (v) Foreign debts should be prohibited by terms of peace because national bankruptcy involves other states in the resultant loss and other states may conduct public inquiry into the financial affairs of the bankrupt state. (vi) No state should be allowed to interfere in the constitution and government of another state. Interference of external power in the affair of a state is a violation of the rights of an independent people. Such interference would make an autonomy of all other states insecure and is a serious offence. (vii) A state should allow the philosophers to express freely and publicly on the matters of war and peace. Their discussions may throw light on important public issues. (viii) A republican constitution is necessary to secure international peace. It offers an opportunity to establish a perpetual peace. Under this constitution, consent of the citizen is required to declare war. The citizens usually hesitate to embark on such
dangerous enterprise because they have to suffer the consequences of war, to fight in war, to supply war materials from their own resources and to bear a burden of debt. Hence they understand the evil effects of war and importance of peace. Conditions are different in a nonrepublican state in which the people are not citizens and in which the head of the state is not a fellow citizen but the owner of the state. A war does not force such head of the state to make the slightest sacrifice. His banquets, huntings, pleasure-palaces and court festivals are not affected by war. Therefore he declares war without any sufficient reason. (ix) In order to secure an international peace, there is need for a confederation of states in which rights of everyone are safe. If the states have to co-exist with one another, they must renounce their savage and lawless freedom and submit themselves to public coercive laws under the confederation of the states.
Kant explains the steps through which mankind has to go through in order to secure the confederation of states: (A) Every state eventually feels resultant distress of military preparations and wars. Though reason of mankind may suggest the establishment of a confederation of states, the states will establish such a confederation after many devastations, upheavals and complete exhaustion of their powers. Wars will increasingly become great financial burden on financial stability of the states. As violence and distress compel men to submit themselves to the coercion and to enter into a civil constitution, the distress produced by constant wars compels the states to enter into a cosmopolitan constitution. (B) As men have to take decision to renounce their brutish freedom and to seek peace and security within a law governed constitution, the states have to renounce brutish force and to seek peace and security in a confederation of states. (C) When the states are closely linked by trade, upheaval in any state affects all. Hence other states offer themselves as arbiters without any legal authority. Thus they indirectly prepare the ground for a future political system without any precedent in the past. Every state will have an interest in maintaining this political structure. (D) If every state has to enjoy its independence and possessions, there should be an international right based on enforceable public laws.
Nature does not work without a plan, maintains Kant. There has been a regular process of improvement in the political constitutions. Good factors like civil constitutions, laws and mutual relations among the peoples have elevated and glorified the states while their inherent defects are responsible for overthrow of the political systems. In this process, a germ of enlightenment has survived and developed with each revolution and has paved the way for higher level of improvement. A plan of nature reveals how the mankind eventually works towards the conditions under which destiny of people can be realised. A purpose of the history of human race is the development of all natural capacities of mankind under a perfect political constitution.
Kant advocates a confederation of states but not an international state. A confederation of states is a group of separate states which are not welded together as a single unit. There is no amalgamation of separate states under a single universal monarchy because a soulless despotism will finally lapse into anarchy. A strong ruler of one of the confederating states may desire to dominate the whole world but nature does not allow him to do so. Linguistic and religious differences maintain the separate existence of the states. Nature plays the double role. It unites the states in certain matters and keeps them with separate existence in some other matters. Lawful agreement of the confederation of states is reconcilable with the freedom of the state. The confederation of states links peoples without any kind of lawful condition. It binds them for a single purpose of preserving peace in the world. It is not based
on coercive laws but it is a free association. It has no sovereign power. It is expected to encompass all the states and to establish perpetual peace. Under no circumstances it shall have military conquest as its objective. It intends to preserve freedom of every state. It shall protect the member-states from the external aggression and shall refrain from interference in the internal affairs of a state. It should be possible even to the smallest state to derive its security and rights not from its own power, but from the strength of the confederation of states.
In course of time, concludes Kant, culture grows and men move towards a greater agreement over their principles which lead them to mutual understanding and peace. Further unity is also preserved by an equilibrium of forces within the confederation of states. Thus world peace is preserved both by the individuals and by the confederated states.
Self Check Exercise-3
Q.1 Explain the conditions suggested by Kant to secure international peace.

12.6    Summary
Kant’s philosophy is based on three basic ideas (i) There should be supremacy of the spiritual over the materials. (ii) There should be supremacy of pure reason over sensation or experience. Pure reason provides a body of principles for guidance in actual affairs. (iii) There should be supremacy of the universal law over the wishes, caprices and desires of the individual citizen. These basic ideas exerted a great amount of influence over subsequent social and political speculation.
‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Cosmopolitanism’ are two important aspects of Kant’s political philosophy. Enlightenment is concerned with every citizen’s public right to use his/her reason. It is a clarion call to people about the need to dare to be wise. What is required is not merely intellect but also a willingness to engage one’s reason and exercise that reason upon the everyday activities that governour lives. Enlightenment is mankind’s coming to maturity, a willingness to think for oneself and emerge from an immature state to a mature one. Further, he was a champion of world peace and cosmopolitan society. In recent times, on the basis of the Kantian doctrine of perpetual peace, a thesis has emerged that democracies do not fight one another as peace has its dividend, that commerce and trade are much better alternatives than war and conflict.

12.7    Glossary

•    Idealism: The branch of philosophy that studies the fundamental nature of reality, the first principles of being, identity and change, space and time.

•    Enlightenment: A philosophical movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism.

•    Cosmopolitanism: Is the idea that all human beings are members of a single community; believing that humans can and should be ‘world citizens’ in a ‘Universal Community’.

•  Autonomous: Not subject to the rule or control of another.

•   Synthesis: The act of combining separate ideas, beliefs, styles, etc.

•    Punitive: Intended as a punishment.

12.8    Answers to Self Check Exercise
Self Check Exercise-1

1.    Immanuel Kant.

2.    A person achieves Enlightment, according to Kant, when he frees himself from immaturity that he caused himself. Immaturity to Kant means an inability to be able to think on your own and to rely on other people’s opinions to make decisions. This also means that a person is immature if he is unable to use his own judgement and understanding of things. ‘What is Enlightement’ is an essay written by Kant. It is concerned with every citizen’s public right to use his reason. 'What is Enlightenment’ is fundamentally a clarion call to people about the need to dare to be wise. What is required is not merely intellect but also a willingness to engage one’s reason and exercise that reason upon the everyday things that govern our lives; political systems, financial structures, education, trade and much else. Enlightement is mankind’s coming to maturity, a willingness to think for oneself and emerge from an immature state where we hand over the power and responsibility to authority figures, whether they are priests, doctors, teachers, or politicians.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.     (i) Reason

(ii)    Republican

(iii)    Union of States

(iv)    Morality
(vi) Immanuel Kant.
Self Check Exercise-3

1.    See Section 12.5, Second Para.

12.9    Suggested Readings

1.    Subrata Mukharjee and Sushila Ramaswamy, A History of Political Thought, Delhi: PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd., 2018.

2.    S.H. Patil, Modern Western Political Thought, Jairpur: Printwel Publishers, 1988.

3.    D. Germino, Modern Western Political Thought: Machiavelli to Marx, Chicago; Chicago University Press, 1972.

4.    Shefali Jha, Western Political Thought from the Ancient Greeks to Modern Times, Chennai : Pearson India Education Services Pvt. Ltd., 2020.

12.10    Terminal Questions

1.    Discuss the views of Immanuel Kant on Enlightenment.

2.    Describe Immanuel Kant’s notion of Perpetual Peace and Cosmopolitanism.
*****
Unit-13Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831 A.D.) Part-I
STRUCTURE

13.1    Introduction

13.2    Learning Objectives

13.3    Hegel's Ideas on Individual Freedom
Self Check Exercise

13.4    Summary

13.5    Glossary

13.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise

13.7    Suggested Readings

13.8    Terminal Questions

13.1    Introduction
Hegel was one of the greatest philosophers of the nineteenth century both in the volume of his writings and in the range to his influence. He became professor in Heidlberg and then succeeded Fichte to the coveted Chair of philosophy in the University of Berlin. For the rest of his life, he was undoubtedly the uncrowned king of philosophy is Germany. Some of his important books are Phenomenology of Mind, (1807), Encyclopedia of Philosophy Sciences (1817), Outline of Philosophy of right and the Philosophy of spirit (1820), Philosophy of Law and Philosophy of History.
Hegel was deeply influenced by the historical forces working around him. And therefore, his philosophy embodied the cross currents of contemporary European politics. It reflected changes that had come upon the European society after the breakup of the feudal order in the wake of the French Revolution and the emergence of a mercantile society. More than two centuries ago, Machiavelli had emphasised the need for national unification. Thomas Hobbes, a century ago, had stressed the need for law and order in society. About fifty years later, Burke had given a justification for tradition and prejudice as the most important forces which ought to govern every society. And again, Montesquieu and Locke in their own way emphasized the value of a liberal society. All these trends in European political thought crystallized in the difficult but the grandiose figure of Hegel, who represents the best and the worst features of the area of revolution, reaction and reconstruction.
Medieval thinkers believed in the distinction between the real and the apparent and thought that all appearances are deceptive. Hegel abandoned this static view of reality which had also received support from Kant’s distinction between the subject and the object; and reconciled this with Hume’s recognition of the role of reality. According to Hegel, the real is inherent in the apparent and both cannot be separated. The unity of what he calls ‘determinate existence’ and ‘its concept’ is achieved in the Hegelian system by the notion of Absolute. The Absolute manifests itself in the world, taking the world into itself and transforming it into a spiritual existence. The movement of the absolute or the idea follows the dialectical pattern. 13.2 Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, students will be able to understand Hegel's ideas on individual freedom.

13.3    Hegel's Ideas on Individual Freedom
The world, according to Hegel, is a mere datum but the Reality is universal and therefore, we can get freedom neither by subduing the world nor by turning inward but by realising our identity in an articulated universe which is recorded in the continuous movement of the Absolute. According to him, the mind under an illusion comes to think of itself as distinct and separate from the world, the finite. But, Hegel maintains, finite is a part of infinite which is “accomplishing itself in the world”. This contradiction or the concept of alienation or what Hegel calls, “unhappy consciousness,” is central to his thought. He calls this state of mind as that of objective cynicism. There ensues a dialectical tension between human needs and desires on the one hand, and the social environment, on the other. In such a condition, the mind finds itself alienated for it becomes self-conscious, but not conscious of the world as its own extension. The most characteristic example of a man in such a state is that of an ascetic. But then, slowly and gradually, mind realizes with the help of reason that there is no contradiction between itself and the world, and the latter comes to be regarded as the part of the former. It should be noted that in the Hegelian system this opposition is not merely an aberration, but an essential law of nature.
Here from the sphere of nature, Hegel passes on to the sphere of the objective spirit which is the world embodying the idea of freedom. Through the dialectical tension between the morality on the subjective, on the one hand, and the law, which is objective, on the other, we pass on to the sphere of social ethics which reeks to combine the Ideal and the Actual. According to Hegel, the fullness of ethical life is achieved in the three stages. The order of progress is from the family to the state. Civil society comes in between the two. According to him family serves the sensual needs of man, provides for the satisfaction of his simple wants, and affords him protection. The family incorporates the rational idea of mutual love and is thus the basis from which Hegel begins his analysis of the state. But the family is too small for the adequate satisfaction of man's wants and the individual finds it necessary to get out of its narrow circle and to be introduced to a wider range of interests which are pubic in their nature and broadening in their influence. This is made possible through the membership of civil society, which according to him is the antithesis of the family. Civil society consists of independent men and women held together by tics of contract and self interest. In civil society, there is universal competition. In the words of Wayper, the whole process of trade and industry in bourgeois society becomes a new organisation for the supply of human needs, so that man in that society is producing for his family, satisfying his own wants and at the same time serving his fellows, which makes bourgeois society take on a rational and universal significance. As this bourgeois society develops it produces guilds and corporations, which teach their members to think not of their own interests but of the interests of the whole to which they belong. The thesis, the family, a unity held together by love, knowing no differences is thus confronted by the antithesis, bourgeois society, an aggregate of individuals held apart by competition, knowing no unity, even though it is manifestly struggling towards a greater unity which it has nevertheless not yet attained. The synthesis, which preserves what, is best in thesis and antithesis which swallows up neither family nor bourgeois society, but which gives unity and harmony to them, is the state. Hegel considers the state as the consummation of the whole process of the progressive realization of human freedom. It is both the “end” and the ‘activity’ of the public life. Hegel says that the state is
both universality and particularity, “It is the actualization of the ethical idea. It is the ethical mind knowing and thinking itself.”
Thus, as an illusion for Hegel, we attain our freedom only through the state. He rejects the individualistic notion of individuals enjoying freedom at the dawn of human history, later lost in the process of time. Such a state of nature, Hegel argues must have been a state where violence and caprice ruled. According to Hegel, true freedom is a distinctive quality only of the state order because it alone unifies the objective and the subjective, universal and the particular.
The state is the true giver of the real freedom to the individuals. In the state alone man can fully raise his outward self to the levels of his inward self of thought” (Hegel). Again, in the words to Hegel, "nothing short of the state is the actualization of Freedom”. The real Freedom, which is the product of the state manifests itself first in law, secondly, in the rule of inward morality, and thirdly, in the whole system of social institutions and influences that make for the development of personality. At a number of places Hegel surprises his readers by saying that the state which has been recognized as an end in itself is a means of enlarging freedom of the individual. But it is only a logical jumble with which Hegel plays and at the end he proves that the freedom of the individuals lies in the complete obedience of the laws of the state. Hegel rejects Kant’s conception of Freedom “as negative, limited and subjective and individualistic.” For Kant Freedom consists in obeying the laws of Reason, which is determined by the Categorical Imperative of Duty. According to Hegel, Kant’s concept of freedom is negative because there is always the force of compulsion to obey the Categorical Imperative, it is limited because it takes little account of the relation in which the individual stands to the society as a whole, and lastly it is individualistic because the individual is regarded by Kant as an end in itself—everything else being a means to it. Kant nowhere holds that Freedom can be realized only through participation in social and political activities.
Hegel, on the other hand, emphasises that Freedom consists in “complete obedience to the laws of the state.” Hegel argues that the state is the Embodiment of Reason. The Laws of the state are the out- ward expressions of Reason. According to German Idealists, Freedom lies in the obedience of Reasons. Another argument put forward by Hegel is that the essence of Spirit which seeks to know itself is Freedom. The history of mankind is the history of the evolution of Spirit and hence of Freedom.
When the state is the embodiment—of freedom, all the individuals living under it are Free, with capital ‘F’. The individual realises Freedom to the extent to which he identifies himself with the Spirit or the Essence of Spirit. There are two wills existing side by side in the individual mind—Real will and Actual will. Real will represents the Rational will and takes care of the Interests of the community as a whole while the Actual will looks after the personal and private interest of the individual alone. According to Hegel, freedom for the individual consists in subordinating the Actual will to Rational Will. By serving the interests of the community alone, the individual can get the fulfillment of his personality. The impulsive will being very powerful, the individual himself cannot subjugate it without the help of the state. The only way to be free is the voluntary submission of the impulsive will to Reason which is expressed in the State. According to Hegel, the individual is free only if he identifies, voluntarily, willingly, and consciously with the laws of the state. If the individual obeys the State due to fear of punishment, he is no longer free. Hegel does not conceive of the Freedom in terms of the rights of the individuals. The state is omnipotent. The individuals do not possess any Rights against the State. He does not give any Rights of Speech, or
Expression or Association to the individual in conflict with the state. Whatever rights the individual may seem to be exercising, can be exercised only in the silence of Law or within the four corners of Law. The individual has no right against the state, but within the state.
In the state alone, man can find freedom, while without it, he is completely in subjection. In the history of mankind, at no time man was so free as in the German state of his time. Further, Freedom for the Individual, consists in subordinating the Actual Will to the Rational Will. But the Individual himself cannot do so without the help of the state. The only way, open to the individual is the voluntary submission to the more perfect expression of the Reason expressed in the State. According to Hegel, the individual is free only if he identifies himself consciously with the laws of the state. If the individual obeys the state due to the fear of punishment he is no longer free. Hegel does not conceive of Freedom in terms of the Rights of individuals. The state is Omnipotent. Individuals do not possess any Rights against the State. Whatever Right they possess, it is within the state. He does not assign any Rights e.g. Right to freedom of Speech, Expression or Press etc., to the Individuals.
Self Check Exercise
Q.1 Name some important books written by Hegel.
Q.2 According to Hegel, What is real?
Q.3 According to Hegel, who is the true giver of the real freedom to the individuals?
Q.4 Who said, “nothing short of the state is the actualization of freedom.”
Q.5 Fill in the blanks:

(i)   According to Hegel freedom consists in .....................

(ii)   Hegel argues that .................is the embodiment of reason/freedom.

(iii)    For Hegel, the history of mankind is the history of ........................

(iv)    Hegel said, 'freedom for the individual consists in subordinating the actual will to the .....................'.

13.4    Summary
Thus, according to Hegel, the state is the true giver of the real freedom to the individuals. In the state alone, man can fully raise his outward self to the level of his inward self of thought. Nothing short of the state is the actualization of freedom. He says that freedom consists in complete obedience to the laws of the state. State is the embodiment of freedom. In the state alone, man can find freedom, while without it, he is completely in subjection.

13.5    Glossary

•    Antithesis: A person or thing that is the direct opposite of someone or something else.

•    Consciousness : A person’s awareness or perception of something.

•    Jingoism: Extreme Patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.

•    Bourgeoisie : Means typical of fairly rich middle class people.

•    Guilds : An association of craftsmen or merchants formed for mutual aid and protection and for the furtherance of their professional interests.

•    Dialectical : Inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions.

13.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise

1.    Some of the important books written by Hegel are Phenomenology of Mind, Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Sciences, Outline of philosophy of Right and the philosophy of Spirit, Philosophy of law and philosophy of History.

2.    According to Hegel, the real is inherent in the apparent and both cannot be separated.

3.    State

4.    Hegel

5.   (i) Complete obedience to the laws of the state.

(ii)    the State.

(iii)    the evolution of spirit and hence of freedom.

(iv)    Rational will.

13.7    SUGGESTED READINGS

1.  G.W. Hegel, Philosophy of Rights, Trans : T.M Knox.

2.    Z.A Pelazynski, (ed.) The Political Philosophy of Hegel: Problems and Perspectives.

3.    V.R Mehta, Hegel and the Modern State: An introduction to Hegel’s Political Thought, New Delhi: Associated Publishing home, 1968.

4.    S.Hook, From Hegel to Marx. Studies in the intellectual development of Karl Marx, New York; The Humanities Press, 1958.

5.    S.A Avineri, “Hookʻs Hegel", Encounter, Nov., 1965.

6.    C.L. Wayper, Political Thought.

13.8    Terminal Questions

1.    “Freedom consists in complete obedience to the laws of the state.” Explain this statement from Hegelian viewpoint.

2.    Critically examine Hegel’s views on freedom.
*****
Unit-14Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831 A.D.) Part-II
STRUCTURE

14.1    Introduction

14.2    Learning Objectives

14.3    Hegel’s views about state and society
Self Check Exercise-1

14.3.1    Features or characteristics of Hegel’s State.
Self Check Exercise-2

14.4    Summary

14.5    Glossary

14.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise

14.7    Suggested Readings

14.8    Terminal Questions

14.1    Introduction
This unit is in continuation to the previous one. In the last unit, we tried to analyse Hegel’s views on individual freedom. In this unit, we will deal with his ideas about civil society and state.

14.2    Learning Objectives
After reading this unit, the students will be able to:

•    Know about Hegel’s views about civil society and state.

•    Differentiate between civil society and the state.

14.3    Hegel's Views about Civil Society and State
Like Plato, Hegel was also a great system builder in the history of political philosophy. He starts with certain set self-evident truths or premises, as they are generally called in political philosophy. One of such premises was that “what is rational is real and what is real is rational”. In common parlance this phrase would mean that what-ever exists is according to Reason and whatever is according to reason does exist. But Hegel was a great artist in abstraction. He used these two words in very deep, obscure and philosophical sense. The cardinal principle of Hegel’s philosophy was the theory of the gradual unfolding of the Absolute Reason or Spirit or Geist or Absolute Idea, through the dialectical process. The Reason gets its complete Self-Realization in the State. Thus according to Hegel the state was rational, or according to reason, nay perfect rationality, Reason embodied or Reason personified. As such the state is of the eternal and necessary essence of the Spirit. In other words, the state, as such, is rational. Now coming to the word “Real”, following Aristotle, Hegel had held that the true nature of a thing or Reality is known when it is fully developed—as a whole, in its entirety. The true nature of Reason or Reality is known when it gets complete fulfillment, in its entirety, in the state as a whole. Hence the state is Real. By an algebric theorem, now, we can prove that Real is Rational and Rational is Real. As the State=Rational, and the State=Real, hence the Real=Rational or vice versa. The state, according to Hegel, was the Embodiment of both Rationality and Reality which were
logically treated-as synonymous by Hegel. Here Hegel uses the word Real as meaning Fundamental or important. For Hegel, Real is not synonymous with ‘existent’. He understands by Reality that which is underlying and significant, not that which is empirical.
What exists is always momentary and to a large degree accidental, the mere surface manifestation of deep-lying forces which alone are real. Hegel rejects Fichte’s theory that only the ideal state is rational. According to Hegel all states are rational as they represent the consummation of the historical process of the un-folding of the Reason, and hence all states are worthy of our reverence and awe. It must be admitted that Hegel’s endeavour to idealise the actual state and to rationalise the existent state has a marked conservative effect, but it cannot be helped as this conclusion is the logical consequence of the theory of the Unfolding of the Reason or Spirit. What-ever has happened so far was necessary in the process of the unfolding of the Spirit. No event could take place unless it was ordained by and found necessary by Reason in its search for fulfillment. Hence events have taken place according to a rational plan. Whatever happens, happens because the Spirit or Reason needs it and whatever the Spirit needs is right and rational He also believed that the Real world is as it ought to be. Nobody can deny that the Real state (as it ought to be) must be rational. Following has own logic, he proved that all states were as they ought to be. Hence by a queer logic, he glorified the existing states and treated them as ideal and rational states which deserved obedience from their constituents. He adorned the state with such epithets as March of God (Absolute Reason) on earth and Embodiment of Reason.
Before we come to discuss the Features of Hegel’s state, it is necessary to see how the state, in a historical process, emerges out of the Family and ‘Civil (Bourgeoise) Society. As it has been narrated in earlier pages, for Hegel, the state was the synthetic product of the family (thesis) and the civil society (antithesis). According to Hegel the physical evolution of the Reason comes to an end with the emergence of man on the scene. But the social evolution goes on further.
In the above triad the Family represents unity, Civil Society represents Particularity and the State represents Universality. In his theory of historical evolution of the state from the family Hegel closely follows Aristotle’s logic. Man is by nature gregarious. He could not live alone. Hence in order to fulfill elementary needs of food, sex and primitive protection, men are naturally inclined to live in a family—a unity incorporating the rational idea of mutual love. The Family was the first and rudimentary institutional embodiment of the Spirit in its search for self-fulfillment. The family to a limited extent represents the rational and ethical order.
Hegel’s theory of family was conventional. There was nothing new about it. The family cannot fulfill all the complex needs of man, hence it is insufficient. The family is found to be too small for the adequate satisfaction of man’s wants. The family, “a unity incorporating the rational idea of mutual love is thus thesis from which Hegel begins his analysis of the state”.’
But the Family is inadequate to satisfy the multifarious needs and his multi-faced personality. In order to have a better fulfillment of their personality, the individuals by force of their nature develop a wider organisation, namely civil society or bourgeoise society in which they hope to lead ethical life. While the characteristic feature of Family is the unity based on love, the diversity based on “contract and competitive self-interest” is the basis of bouraeoise or civil society. A wide range of trade and industry is developed in bourgeoise
society. The diverse human needs are better satisfied in the civil society. To regulate properly the diverse interests and the rights of the individuals police force also comes into existence. But, according to Hegel, so far the state has not come into existence. Hegel distinguishes between the state and civil society. Though civil society performs more or less the same functions as the state, yet Hegel vehemently argues that state is different from and superior to the former. The property is the product of civil society. The civil society evolves laws, though they may not be, necessarily just laws.
While giving an account of civil society, Hegel gives an exhaustive narration of guilds and corporations, the estates and classes, the associations and local communities, by becoming whose members, the individuals learn to think not only of their own interests but also of the interests of the whole group to which they belong and thus develop social and cooperative instinct. In the words of Hegel, “But in developing itself independently to totality, the principle of particularity passes over into universality, and only there does it attain its truth and the right to which its positive actuality is entitled. “The civil society so depicted by Hegel is a state, but it is of an inferior sort. It is based on material needs of human beings “that are not wholly private and yet are primarily self-regarding...but it is some-what less selfish than the family...Civil society, in short, is a set of institutions with the function of educating the individual to the point where he sees that he can get what he needs only by willing what all men need. It is not a completely organic unity but rather a collection of self-subsisting particulars imperfectly conscious of their interdependency. Within it is only the promise of-true political life." (Wayper). The Hegelian Civil Society was The State in embryo, the state in the making, a kind of state, but not a completely developed one, as it could not embody fully what he calls Reason or Geist. Civil Society’s marked distinction is Competition, while that of the state is Co-operative Unity. The Civil Society does not represent that Organic, Universal and Rational Unity which the State Represents. In Civil Society also there are all the ingredients of the State, like the police, army, trading community, agriculturists. But they are all in such a frame of mind that they would seek their own interests in competition with others. The moment the members of the Civil Society start striving for the “Universal Interests” of the community gets converted into the State. It is almost psychological change in the minds of the constituents that will make the state out of the civil society.
The state is morally superior to civil society. But this moral superiority or psychological change is brought about by a class of devoted civil servants. The moment the individuals start identifying their interests with the interests of the community as a whole they will become an Organism. The wills of the Individuals become the Will of the State. The State becomes an Organism and an Objectified manifestation and personification of the individual wills. The state becomes a moral Person. The state is the successor, though, a morally superior successor of the civil society, in the evolution of mankind. But they can, in a given society, exist side by side. They are in fact mutually dependent. The civil society, even after the emergence of the state continues “to perform the commonplace business providing public services, administering the law, performing police duties and adjusting industrial and economic interests. The state may indeed direct and regulate them as need arises, but it does not itself perform them. Civil Society depends upon the state for intelligent supervision and moral significance. The state, however, depends upon civil society for the means of accomplishing the moral purposes which it embodies. But though mutually dependent, the two stand on distinct dialectical levels. The state is not a means but an end.” State is the
elimination of the process of human evolution. At different places Hegel has attributed to the states numerous high-sounding epithets such as “March of God on Earth”. “The Divine Idea as it exists on Earth”. “Spirit personified”, “Realized Ethical Idea.” The basic difference between the civil society and the state is that in the former, the individual is for himself the sole end, in himself, while in the latter, the state is the higher end for which the individual exists. This brings us to the Features of Hegel’s State.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 “What is rational is real and what is real is rational” whose statement is this?
Q.2 Who said. “State is a March of God on Earth?”
Q.3 Who said, “The state was the synthetic product of the family (thesis) and the civil society (antithesis)?"
Q.4 What is the basic difference between the civil society and the state?

14.3.1    Features or Characteristics of Hegel’s State:—
The first and foremost characteristic of Hegel’s State is that it has divine origin. Here, of course, we should not confuse this feature with the Theory of divine right of the kings to rule. Divine origin of the state in Hegelian sense means that it is the “culmination of divinely guided growth of Absolute Idea or Reason or Geist”. It is, as if, the “March of God on Earth.” In order to trace the roots of the state, we don’t have to go about searching this-worldly or mundane things. Instead, we have to look to some super-natural or metaphysical phenomenon.
Secondly, Hegel’s state is an End in itself. Every other conceivable thing inside the state or outside it is a means to it. The state does not exist for the Individuals. The Individuals exist for the state. It is not the Individuals who have made the state, it is just the other way round. The persons living in the Civil Society were not the perfect individuals or Citizens. The rare and the final dignity of citizenship was bestowed upon the individual only after the state ushered into existence and made them moral and fit to be the constituents of the state. There can be “no spiritual evolution beyond the state, any more than there can be any physical evolution beyond man.”
Thirdly, the state is a whole which is far greater than the parts, i.e. the individuals which compose it. Their significance or importance is only due to the fact that they are members of the state. It implies that the individuals must obviously be completely subordinated to the state just as the organs of the human body are subordinate to human organism. It is not the individuals who have made the state; rather it is the state which has made the individuals citizens.
Fourthly, the state is unchecked by any moral law, for the state is itself the creator of morality. It is the state which has made the men moral. The individuals can never plead conscience or the moral laws against the state. Individual Conscience cannot tell us what is right and good for the community as a whole. The individual conscience must be informed by the tradition of community. The state is the best possible and the most appropriate interpreter of the wisdom of the past crystallized in the traditions or customs of the community. The state is above custom and morality. Hence whatever the state does is right. The interpretation of the traditions comes in the shape of laws of the state. This being the position, the laws of the state are always correct. According to Hegel, the state is infallible. In case of conflict between the state and the individual, the state is bound to be invariably correct and the individual invariably wrong.
Fifthly, the state is the true giver of the real freedom to the individuals. In the state alone man can fully raise his outward self to the level of his inward self of thought. Again, in the words of Hegel, "nothing short of the state is the actualization of Freedom”. The real Freedom, which is the product of the state manifests itself first- in law, secondly, in the rule of inward morality, and thirdly in the whole system of social institutions and influences that make for the development of personality. At a number of places Hegel surprises his readers by saying that the state which has been recognised as an end in itself is a means of enlarging freedom of the individual. But it is only a logical jumble with which Hegel plays and at the end he proves that the freedom of the individuals lies in the complete obedience of the laws of the state.
Sixthly, the State is the Interpreter of the Customs of the community which are indeed the “collective reason of the past”. The Interpretation comes in the shape of the Laws of the state. The state is the only fountain head of the laws of the states. It is the creator or Social Ethics. The state is the only organization which can tell us what is right and what is wrong.
Seventhly, the state is infallible. Whatever the state does is right. In case of conflict between the individual and the state, the latter is bound to be correct and the former wrong due to the moral authority of the state. The infallibility of the state was the most important tenet of the philosophy of Hegel. It is absolute in its relations with the individuals.
Eighthly, the state is not only absolute in its relations with its subjects, it is absolute in its relations with other states. The state, in its relation with other states is not bound by any rules at all. The highest law is its own welfare. There is no such things as International Law, according to Hegel, because the states obey it so long as it is conductive to their interests. The state is sovereign in the true sense of the term. The state is self-sufficient. No moral laws can govern the relations between the states.
Ninthly, war is not an absolute evil. On the other hand, it is a virtue in itself. It brings to the fore-front the noblest qualities in man. War is a virtuous activity. It aids the moral development of the individuals. Success in war justifies war, irrespective of the fact what sorts of means are used. The victorious in war is the true representative of the World Spirit. War is to Virtue what mother is to the child. War plays a great role in world history. In his words, “World History is the world court of Justice.” In a particular war it is the World Spirit which decides which of the contesting states is its true embodiment, ‘War is an instrument in the hands of the World Spirit to push through the development of the world on the lines of the Dialectic. Hence, according to Hegel, war is a sacred institution.
Tenthly, in Hegel’s state the individuals have no right to resist the commands of the state. They have not been given the right to resist as they are the creatures of the state. They are what the state has made them. The individuals are the organs of the organism—a body politic. Just as the parts of Human Body cannot revolt against the body, the individuals cannot resist the state on whatsoever ground. In this respect, Hegel is more totalitarian than Hobbes even as the latter allows the right to resist the state to his Individuals in certain contingencies.
Eleventhly, according to Hegel the best form of government is the constitutional monarchy of the type of Prussia of his time. It would be better if it is hereditary. Out of the three branches of the government, legislative is the Thesis or universal aspect. The Administrative wing is the Anti-thesis or particular aspect. The Monarch who represents the best in the two is the Synthesis. According to Hegel, sovereignty of the state resides in the Monarch and not in the people. The Administrative wing which includes the Judicial
functions is harmonised by the Monarch with the Legislative wing. Hegel had a dislike for the Parliamentary System of England. He denounced the Territorial Representation of the Individuals in the Parliament. He propounded Functional Representation in the legislative wing. The interests of classes should be the basis of Representation in the legislative wing.
These characteristics of the state of Hegel are applicable to an Ideal State—a state which exists only in Idea. But at numerous places Hegel, in so many words, identifies his ideal State with Prussia. According to Hegel, the Prussian state of his time had reached the apex of the development of human society according to the Dialectic formulae and no further development was possible. There was nothing higher and more perfect than the Prussian State and beyond it in the evolutionary Process.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Has Hegel faith in International Law?
Q.2 Which form of government is considered best by Hegel?
Q.3 Discuss Hegel’s views on War.
Q.4 Write any four features of Hegel’s State.

14.4    Summary
In conclusion, we can say that Hegel made valuable contributions to the development of Political thought. He grasped the connection between the morals and Politics; he propounded a theory of State which paved the way for the worst type of absolutism etc.
For a correct appreciation of Hegel, we must keep in mind the age to which he belonged. It was an age of anarchy and chaos. Germany was passing through travail of unification. A strong monarchy was perhaps a dire necessity. And even a casual glance into his writings will show us that for Hegel the state which embodies the highest system of right is not the whole system. Beyond the state there is a ‘hero’ and a ‘victim’ as also the sphere of philosophy, religion and art.
Even, if at times, he grants absolute powers to the king, these powers are justified on the ground that they enable individuals to realize their freedom. The vital difference between Hegelianism and totalitarianism is that while in the first the power is an expression of the rational will of the state, in the letter this will itself is the expression of power and derives its validity from the fact that it has been expressed by somebody in power. Hegel’s philosophy is thus far from Nazism and Fascism.
Thus the recognition that the state and society are the products of diverse needs and characters of the individuals, and that the state and society continue for the harmonization of individual interest with social interest, have been motivating forces even in modem liberal society. Indeed, deriving inspiration from Hegel and Kant, Green injected into modern liberal tradition, an organic complexion.

14.5    Glossary

•    Civil Society - The sphere of action that lies between the state and society that is made up of civil groups, civil society organizations, and non-governmental organizations.

•    Rudimentary - Relating to an immature, undeveloped, or basic form.

•    Infallible - incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.

14.6    Answers to Self Check Exercises
Self Check Exercise-1

1.    Hegel

2.    Hegel

3.    Hegel

4.    The basic difference between the civil society and the state is that in the former, the individual is for himself, the sole end in himself, while in the latter, the state is the higher end for which the individual exists. Civil Society’s marked distinction is competition, whereas that of the state is co-operative unity. State is superior to the civil society.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    No.

2.    The constitutional monarchy of the type of Prussia of his time. It would be better if it is hereditary.

3.    For Hegel war is not an absolute evil. On the other hand, it is a virtue in itself. It brings to the forefront the noblest qualities in man. War is a virtuous activity. It aids the moral development of the individuals. Success in war justifies war, irrespective of the fact what sorts of means are used. The victorious in war is the true representative of the world spirit. War is to virtue what mother is to the child. According to Hegel, war is a sacred institution. It plays a great role in world history.

4.   (i) State has divine origin. It is a ‘March of God on Earth.’

(ii)    Hegel’s state is an end in itself. Every other conceivable thing inside the state or outside it is a means to it. The state does not exist for the individuals, but the individuals exist for the state.

(iii)    The state is the true giver of the real freedom to the individuals.

(iv)    The state is infallible, whatever the state does is right.

14.7    SUGGESTED READINGS

1.   G.W. Hegel, Philosophy of Rights, Trans : T.M Knox.

2.   Z.A Pelazynski, (ed.) The Political Philosophy of Hegel: Problems and
Perspectives.

3.    V.R Mehta, Hegel and the Modern State: An introduction to Hegel’s Political Thought, New Delhi, Associated Publishing home, 1968.

4.    S.Hook, From Hegel to Marx. Studies in the intellectual development of Karl Marx, New York; The Humanities Press, 1958.

5.    S.A Avineri, “Hookʻs Hegel", Encounter, Nov., 1965.

6.    C.L. Wayper, Political Thought.

14.8    Terminal Questions

1.    Discuss Hegel’s views on civil society and State?

2.    “State is march of God on Earth” Hegel. Comment?

3.    According to Hegal, how civil society is different from that of the state.
*****
Unit-15Karl Marx (1818-1883 A.D.)
STRUCTURE

15.1    Introduction

15.2    Learning Objectives

15.3    Marx's Theory of Historical Materialism
Self Check Exercise-1

15.4    Marx's Theory of Alienation
Self Check Exercise-2

15.5    Summary

15.6    Glossary

15.7    Answers to Self Check Exercises

15.8    Suggested Readings

15.9    Terminal Questions

15.1    Introduction
No other modern political thinker has aroused greater controversy or exerted greater influence on posterity than Karl Marx. Indeed Marx had tremendous influence on the mind of men. Marxism has several facets; a political theory, an economic doctrine and philosophy. There is of course, a sense in which his thought was each one of these. And yet above all, his theories are related more to politics and action.
In a narrow and limited sense, Marx was a revolutionary thinker but he was also a humanist. The latter aspect has been largely ignored. Various reasons are responsible for this, in the first place, Marx in his later life had been more concerned about the revolutionary aspects of his thought. But equally, and perhaps more important, than that, has been the fact that the followers of his later thought have been more numerous, have aroused more controversies and have produced a number of revolutions. But we cannot miss the fact that his earlier thought was perhaps more important and of late has been becoming increasingly useful. In the context of recent existentialist thinking, contemporary critics and commentators of Marx have underlined the fact that Marx was one of the earliest thinkers to comprehend the phenomenon of alienation as a consequence of modern capitalism and industrial society. And in this context his earliest work, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844), has gained importance after having suffered obscurity for over a century. Marx was perhaps the first thinker to note that in the society which was then developing in Europe, man was being rapidly alienated from his work and from his social surroundings. Indeed these new interpretations of Marx are drawing a sharp distinction between the early humanist Marx and the later revolutionary Marx. Marx is not fully comprehensible except in the context of the earlier humanist Marx. Marx’s welcome of the Communist society, for instance, was deeply moral, implying the removal of injustices from a Society, which made these injustices possible.
Unfortunately, however, although this approach to the study of Marx would have been more objective, it has made little impact on the academic world which still tends to look exclusively to the later revolutionary Marx, it is for this reason that the revolutionary aspect of Marx needs to be seen within the frame-work of his philosophy.

15.2    Learning Objectives
After readings this unit, students will be able to

•    Examine the Marxian Theory of Historical Materialism, and

•    Understand his theory of Alienation.

15.3    Marx’s Theory of Historical Materialism
Historical Materialism is the extension of the principle of dialectical materialism to the study of social life and its evolution. It seems to explain social evolution in terms of certain permanent laws of social change. It is Marxian philosophy of history. It has in it the elements of historical study of the past and analytical account of the present social structure and prosperity, unfolding the future. In the words of Plemenatz, “Historical Materialism is the heart of Marxism.” Prof. G.D.H. Cole prefers to call it “the realistic interpretation of history.”
Sometimes Historical Materialism is taken by men like Vaughan as economic determinism but the one is not the same as the other. It is, however, surprising that Marx did not make any comprehensive statement about his Historical Materialism. The only satisfactory reference he made was in his book, ʻCritique of Political Economy', published in 1869. It is in the writings of Engels and his correspondence with Marx that more general treatment is found. Marx probably intended to deal with Historical Materialism comprehensively after the completion of Das Kapital, but he was not spared to do so as he died in 1883.
Another problem that hinders exposition of Historical Materialism is that earlier exposition to which reference is made by Marx and Engels is not always easy to reconcile with the later exposition given to it by Engels.
Historical Materialism is more or less a joint contribution of Marx and Engels. Each independently reached his conclusion in the early forties of the 19th century. Engels in his preface to the manifesto tells us that when he met Marx in 1848, Marx had already worked out a theory and put it before him. Similarly, Marx tells us that Engels independently had worked it out before he met him. This is also clear from Engel’s book, ʻThe History of Working Class in England.ʼ Materialistic Interpretation of history and Historical Materialism came as a reaction against the idealist interpretation of history. According to the Idealists, men work by virtue of ideal influences. Ideas and not matter are the ultimate reality which determine the course of history. Marx held that reality was in the other way wrong. History must be interpreted only in the light of economic development. According to Marx every social system has an inner unity of its own. Social, economic, cultural, and religious systems are all inter-linked by a common economic structure. The forms of life are merely different phases of the same core of reality.
Marx distinguishes between the essential and primary base of social structure and the secondary factors which take their birth in the materialising of the primary factors. In other words, he distinguishes between the fundamental and the super-structure of society. The latter is based upon the former and any change in the former necessitates a change in the latter. This fundamental structure is the foundation made of the methods of production of material means of life and of the relation of production. This relation constitutes the economic system or the economic structure of society. This is the primary factor which determines the superstructure of society. In Marx’s own words, “In the social production of material needs of life men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will; these relations of productions which correspond to a definite stage of the development of the material forces of production make the economic structure of society which is the real
foundation upon which arise the legal and political super-structure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The modes of production in material life determine the general character of social, political and spiritual processes of life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their (social) existence but rather it is their social existence that deter-mines their consciousness.”
Whenever changes occur in the modes or in the relation of production, the whole social pattern undergoes a change. These changes produce corresponding changes in ideas and institutions.
The state is the executive agency of the dominating class. It is the power that is employed by a dominant economic class to sustain the existing relations of production. State is the result of the class antagonism of society, corresponding to the modes of production. Society is always split into two major classes i.e. those who own the means of production and those who do not own the means of production (the haves and have-nots):
But those who had been dominating politically under the old methods of production are bound to resist. The conflict is inevitable. In the conflict, the new class that dominates the society economically is successful and when it comes into power it seeks to change the character of legal, political and moral institutions of a country so that they may be helpful in the maintenance of their domination.
Every system of production has given rise to two principal mutually hostile classes : free man and slave, patrician and plebian, lord and serf. Again Marx writes, “there is no history apart from the record of class-struggle.” Marx applies historical materialism to explain both the past history and future possible evolution. He distinguishes between five stages of production. The first primitive communal stage, slave stage, feudal stage, capitalist stage and socialist stage. Under the first, means of production are socially owned. Under the second the slaves work for their masters. Under the third the feudal lord potentially owns the serfs since the serfs can have, some property. Under the fourth, capitalist owns the means of production but not the labour though they are compelled to work for them. Under the fifth, which has not come into existence, workers themselves own the means of production. This will happen when capitalism reaches its fullest development but then it would be abolished because of its inherent contradictions. It may be noted that from the view point of production each of these stages represents an advance upon its predecessor. This being in accordance with the dialectical principle.
This application of Historical Materialism to the past history results in an interpretation of history which not only helps Marx in calling the capitalists, as reactionary element, and the working class the revolutionary in its present stage, but also argues that destruction of the present order is foredoomed as was the feudal stage. The victors of the struggle will be workers because the trend of future is with them. Materialistic conception of history thus enables Marx to introduce the element of prophecy.
Capitalist society will be replaced by the proletarian state and in the ultimate equilibrium the classless society would be established and dialectic history will pass into its final stage.
Appraisal: According to Edward Arcling, “The materialistic conception of history is the chief, the fundamental factor in the development of any nation or any society, is the economic factor— that is, the way in which the nation or the society produces and exchanges its commodities”.
However it is impossible to explain all historical movements exclusively in economic terms. The theory ignores the fact that human passions, sentiments, emotions, religion etc., also influence human activities. According to Russell, “Larger events in our political life are determined by the interaction of material conditions and human passions.” As a philosophical doctrine, the economic interpretation of history is incapable of universal application. According to Prof. Laski, “The insistence upon an economic background as the whole explanation is radically false”. He pointed out that Balkan nationalism could not be explained in the light of economic background only. Moreover, neither it is possible nor reasonable to bring the entire range of man’s motives and interests under a single factor called economic. Undoubtedly, economic factors influence human affairs but it is wrong to assume that they alone determine human affairs. According to Christopher Lord, “The materialist interpretation of history does not explain the decline of Rome or the outbreak of our recent wars. It is too rational to account for psychological movements like the advance of rationalism, too materialist to explain the power of ideas over the mind. Above all, it states that hitherto it has been impossible to control economic forces. It is, therefore, impossible, according to the communists, to plan capitalism; but apparently it is quite possible to plan socialism.”
In spite of some of these drawbacks of the theory, Joad is of the opinion that this very theory has brought Marx more lasting fame than any other theory. In his own words, “It would be difficult to over-estimate the influence of this theory on working class though it has played a much larger part than Marx’s theory of value in making his name venerated as the father of socialism. The secret of its attraction lies in the fact that it gives the working classes the assurance of being on the winning side”.
We may conclude in the words of Sabine: “Thus economics becomes for Marx a combination of history and analysis: analysis of the relations prevailing in any given system of production, supplemented by the history of the rise and development of that system.” Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Fill in the blanks:

(i)    Historical Materialism is a joint contribution of ....................and .................

(ii)    ‘The History of working class in England’ is a book written by .................

(iii)    According to Marx, ‘a change in the economic structure of society brings about a change in the ...................'
Q.2 “Historical Materialism came as a reaction against the Idealist interpretation of History.” Discuss.
Q.3 Which are five stages of production, according to Marx?

15.4    Marx’s Theory of Alienation
Karl Marx developed his theory of alienation in his early writings, particularly in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844). When he was in his mid twenties, he outlined the various ways in which human beings become alienated in their lives, particularly in the course of the labour process. According to Marx, human beings experience a loss of control over their lives and over the creations that constitute the basic institutions and processes of society, such as the state and work. This alienation or estrangement means that human beings have a sense of living in a world that is alien and hostile, and they experience that lives meaningless, unsatisfying and worthless. Ultimately human beings live in a way that is less than fully human; they are de-humanized.
Marx derived his theory of alienation from Hegel’s notion of alienation and his own critique of Hegel. For Hegel, alienation referred to the process of “Spirit” (Geist) externalizing itself in the creation of reality, but failing to grasp that the world was not something external to spirit. Spirit, through human consciousness, gradually comes to realize that the world is the creation of the spirit, and in so doing overcomes alienation. Marx moved away from this notion of alienation rooted in idealist philosophy. Following the line of thought developed by the young Hegelians and by Feuerbach in particular, Marx identified the problem of religions alienation where human beings create the notion of God and projected it on to our most essential features, we then give it an independent existence and bow down to worship this entity that is entirely our own creation. This process sees the externalization of our essential features and the fashioning of an alien entity out of them which then has a power over us.
In religions alienation, we become separated from our essential selves, and this occurs in an even more significant way in the labour process. Human productive activities are fundamental to us, not just as the way in which we produce our subsistence, but also as the way in which we develop and express our human potential. However, in a class society and in capitalism in particular, the process of production is a process by which individuals become alienated. First, individuals are alienated from what they produce. For example, a worker in a factory creates a product which is then sold by the factory owner when, where, to whom and at what price he sees fit. The worker has no control over the product that he has created. Secondly, an individual is alienated from the conditions of the work process, that is, he has no control over the process of production, does not own the tools of production and increasingly under capitalism has to perform dull, repetitive tasks requiring little imagination, skill or creativity. Thirdly, an individual is alienated from his,” species - being”, that is to say, he is unable to develop and express his essential human characteristics. Human beings, according to Marx, are essentially productive creatures and it is in the course of producing that distinguish with ourselves from animals. Unlike animals, human beings produce consciously, planning their actions and using imaginations and creativity. Human beings can exercise their will and not just act according to instinct, and they are also essentially social and cooperative, but all these characteristics are denied in the labour process in capitalism. The restrictions placed on us by a class society where the majority do not have free access to the means of production, where there is a highly specialized division of labour, and where control is exercised over our labour by bosses and impersonal market forces serve to prevent work from being enriching and fully human activity it should be.
In later years and especially in ‘Capital’ Marx stopped using the term ‘alienation' a term he used frequently in the 1840s and 1850s. In his attempts to redefine and reconfigure the concept of alienation as the central experience of Capitalist subjects, Marx amplified it with the Concepts of commodity fetishism and machine labour.
In short, Marx’s concept of Alienation informs us that under capitalism, the vast majority of the workers work in a way that does not engage their distinctively human properties. Rather than exercising their creativity, their ingenuity, the ability to respond to many varying challenges and situations, they produce in a dumb, repetitive, single-track fashion. They produce as animals do, rather than as humans should. Marx says that many of us feel human only when we are not working.
For Marx, the solution to the problem of alienation is communism; the overthrow of capitalism with the abolition of the division of labour and private property will make
dealienation possible. The individuals attain their freedom when they understand the operation of capitalism and how capitalist relations alienating humans.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Fill in the blanks:-

(i)    Karl Marx developed his theory of alienation in his early writings, particularly in the book .......................

(ii)    Marx derived his theory of alienation from ....................
Q.2 According to Karl Marx, why workers become alienated in a class society?
Q.3 For Marx, what is the solution to the problem of alienation?

15.5    Summary
In conclusion, we may say that in spite of a few flaws in Marxian doctrine, the creed has an appeal and it shall continue to have an appeal as long as there is misery and suffering. Prof. Wayper rightly points out, “for the power of his message, for the inspiration of his teaching and for his effect upon further developments, Marx can be sure of his place in any collection of the world’s great masters of political thought.”

15.6    Glossary

•    Synthesis: The combination of components or elements to from a connected whole.

•   Alienation: The state or experience of being alienated (isolation, detachment).

•  Revolution: A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a
new system.

15.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1

1.   (i) Marx and Engels

(ii)    Engels

(iii)    Super-structure

2.    Historical Materialism came as a reaction against the idealist interpretation of history. According to Idealists, men work by virtue of ideal influences. Ideas and not matter are the ultimate reality which determine the course of history. Marx held that reality was in the other way wrong. History must be interpreted only in the light of economic development. According to Marx, every social system has an inner unity of its own. Social, economic, cultural, and religious systems are all inter-linked by a common economic structure. The forms of life are merely different phases of the same core of reality.

3.    The five stages of production according to Marx are primitive communal stage, slave stage, feudal stage, capitalist stage and socialist stage.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.   (i) Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1844).
(ii) Hegel’s notion of alienation.

2.    In a class society, workers become alienated because.

(i)    They have no control over the process of production. A worker in a factory creates a product but it is then sold by the factory owner when, where to whom and at what price he sees fit.

(ii)    An Individual/worker is alienated from the conditions of the work process, that is, he has no control over the process of production, does not own the tools of production
and increasingly under capitalism has to perform dull, repetitive tasks requiring little imagination, skill or creativity.

(iii)    An individual is alienated from his ‘species being’, that is to say, he is unable to develop and express his essential human characteristics/properties.

3.    For Marx, the solution to the problem of alienation is to overthrow the capitalism and bring about communism.

15.8    Suggested Readings•    G. Lichteim, Marxism : A Historical and Critical Study, London, 1961.

•    Alex Callinicos, The Revolutionary Ideas of Karl Marx, Sydney: The Book Mark Publications, 2004).

•    S. Avineri, The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx, Combridge: The university Press, 1969.

•    R.M. Bhagat, Political Though: Plato to Marx, Jalandhar : New Academic Publishing Company, 1988.

•    Muhammad Iqbal Shah, Marx's Concept of Alienation and its Impact on Human Life.

15.9    Terminal Questions

1.    Critically examine Marxian theory of Historical Materialism?

2.    What is Marxian Theory of alienation?
*****
Block-IV Unit-16 Hannah Arendt (1906-1975 A.D.)
STRUCTURE

16.1    Introduction

16.2    Learning Objectives

16.3    Political Action


16.3.1    Theory of Action

16.3.2    Components of Action

16.3.3    Relationship between Action and Speech
Self Check Exercise-1

16.4    The 'Private', the 'Public' and the 'Social'
Self Check Exercise-2

16.5    Summary

16.6    Glossary

16.7    Answers to Self Check Exercise

16.8    Suggested Readings

16.9    Terminal Questions

16.1    Introduction
Hannah Arendt was one of the brilliant German born American political philosophers. She was bom in Germany. Her parents were secular Jews who were grown up in Russian Jewish homes. Hannah received her higher education at the University of Heidelberg where she earned her doctorate in 1929. But she was prevented from teaching in German universities because she was a Jew. With the rise of Nazism in Germany, Hannah became a political activist in 1933. Later she was arrested by Gestapo (the secret state police) for conducting research in anti-Semitic propaganda. On her release she escaped to Paris (Fiance) where she met several brilliant scholars. In 1941, she migrated to the United States where she attained American citizenship in 1951. In due course, she became an intellectual celebrity and succeeded to obtain professorial positions in American universities.              Hannah
Arendt’s most notable works include: The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951); The Human Condition (1958); On Revolution (1961/1965); Eichmann in Jerusalemʼ. A Report on the Banality of Evil (1963/1965); On Violence (1969); Crises of the Republic (1972); and The Promise of Politics (2005).
Hannah is particularly known for her analysis of the problems of human freedom and the various forms of power prevailing in the contemporary society. Her thinking is so original that it cannot be clubbed -with any one of the prevalent ideologies.
Hannah Arendt sought to identify several problems of the contemporary world, to analyse their causes, and to describe the deficiencies of the prevailing political systems. It may not be possible to revert to the past to overcome the present day problems. In any case, she thought that the further was open, as human beings had immense capacity to initiate new things. Human freedom is essential to facilitate the realization of this capacity. At the same
time it is not possible to predict the future course of human action or to control its direction. Given freedom, human beings will choose their own course of action according to their own judgement.

16.2    Leaning Objectives
After reading this unit, the learners will be able to:

•    Understand the views of Hannah Ardent about Political Action.

•  Explain her idea of the social.

16.3    Political Action
‘The Human Condition’ is a major philosophical work of Arendt. Here she has given her theory of a political action. In this work, she has established that the most important function is participation in politics. Though she cannot be categorized as belonging to a particular school of thought, yet she can be projected as the scholar of ‘civic republicanism’. It represents those who emphasize on civil society activism and participation of people in political affairs.
In ‘The Human Condition’ she distinguished between the concepts ‘Political’ and ‘Social; and ‘Labour’ and ‘Work’ and between various forms of actions, and then discovers the implications of those distinctions. Her philosophy of political action, corresponding to the existence of a public realm, is broadly developed in this work. Arendt contends that, while human life always evolves within societies, the social-being part of human nature, political life, has been intentionally created by only a few of these societies as a space for individuals to achieve freedom through the construction of a common world. These theoretical categories which attempt to bridge the gap between ontological and sociological structures, are suddenly delineated. While Arendt refers labour and work to the realm of the “Social”. She favours the human condition of action as the “political” that is both existential and aesthetic. The human condition is primarily concerned with the problem of reasserting the politics as a valuable realm of human action, Praxis and the world of appearances.
Arendt debates that the Western philosophical tradition has devalued the world of human action which attends to appearances, subordinating it to the life of contemplation which concerns itself with essences and the eternal. In the human conition and successive works, the task Arendt undertook is to save action and appearances, and with it the common life of the political and the values of opinion, from the depredations of the philosophers. By thoroughly elaborating vita activa, she reinstates the life of public and political action to apex of human goods and goals.

16.3.1    Theory of Action
Action, according to Hannah, occurs between people, not between people and things or objects. She defines action as “the only activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter.”
Action

Action (Vita-Activa)

Thinking
(Vita-Contemplativa)
Hierarchy of Actions
Action
(Zoon Politikon)
Work
(Homo Faber)
Labour
(Animal Laboran)
According to Hannah Arendt, action is more important than thinking. She gives hierarchy of actions. Least important action is labour.
What is Labour?
Those actions which are performed to fulfill our basic needs. Man has no control, there is no freedom for man in this sphere. All animals perform this action. In this stage, man is animal Laboran.
Work:
Work comes in second place. It includes those actions like economic activities, professional actions etc. According to Arendt, man is builder of this world, when men perform this action, they make the world a place worth living. Man is Homo Faber. He is only partially free.
Action
Action is highest in the hierarchy. This is most important action. Only humans perform it. It is a sphere of complete freedom. It is participation in politics or political action. When man performs political action, he achieves ‘human conditions’. After all man is Zoon Politikon. It is the sphere of freedom of thought and action. It is therefore recognized as the ‘Public Realm’.
Analysis of Action
Only through action, a person reveals his identity, actualize the capacity for freedom and reaffirm the reality of this world.

16.3.2    Components of Action
There are two components of action: Freedom and plurality.

(i)    Freedom: She defines freedom as natality (Capacity to do something new).

(ii)    Plurality: Plurality further has two components; equality and diversity.

a)    Equality : Means sameness. Since all of us are humans, all of us are same or equals.

b)    Diversity: Though all of us are same, yet all of us are different. Everyone has capacity to do something new. It means everyone is irreplaceable. Thus, according to her, every life is precious. Any person can be the source of natality.
According to her plurality is important. We exercise our freedom, in presence of others rather than alone. Just like an artist need audience, as a humans to express ourselves, we need others. Plurality is a human condition, because on this earth men not man live.
Theme of Plurality and Freedom
Hannah Emphasises on people’s participation in politics, giving everybody freedom to express himself, recognizing the worth of each person. This shows that Hannah is a supporter of participative and deliberative democracy
Hannah Arendt’s Analysis of Human Activity
Type of Activity              Goal                        Status of the Activity
Labour                    Sustaining Life                    Means to an End :
Lowest Level
Work               Creating a Collective        Means to an End : Higher Level
Human World
Action              Attaining Freedom          End-in-itself : Highest Level
Arendt maintains that in the modern world, people have created so strong and nationwide organizations to look after their private interests that no scope is practically left to attend to the public issues. Economic and scientific progress has caused immense damage to introspective philosophy. People are so preoccupied with the problems of sheer survival that they have lost sight of the goal of creating a stable human world. In other words, people are now living at the levels of ‘labour’ and ‘work’; they have lost the capacity of thought and ‘action’.
These conditions have led to the emergence of a consumer society where culture is continuously pressed into the service of entertainment industry, and freedom of thought has been relegated to the background. In order to revive the freedom of thought, it is necessary to segregate the ‘public realm’ from the private domain so that the importance of public issues is no longer eclipsed by the dominance of private interests.

16.3.3 Relationship between Action and Speech
According to Hannah Ardent action is speech and speech is action. She means to say that there should be no difference in what we say and what we do. In the words of Hannah, “only where words and deeds have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds are not brutal. Where words are not used to hide, but to reveal.” Thus for Hannah Arendt “the action is the only activity that goes on directly between humans ….. corresponds the condition of plurality ….. this condition is not only condition sine qua non but condition per quam."
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 What is the main focus of Hannah Arendt in her Political Philosophy.
Q.2 According to Arendt what is the most important action of humans.
Q.3 Define Action, according to Hannah Arendt.
Q.4 What are components of action?
Q.5 In which book Hannah Arendt has given her theory of a political action.

16.4 The ‘Private’, the ‘Public’ and the 'Social'
According to Arendt’s perspective, the ‘Private’ domain was apolitical. This is the sphere of biological necessity associated with the maintenance of the household. In classical thought and practice, this ‘private’ place was governed, in hierarchical manner, by its head.
Private property also fulfilled a vital role. This arrangement was not simply about maintaining the ‘old sanctity of the hearth’. A privately owned home provided a hinterland, a place of retract from the retreat of the public and political world.
Arendt perceived a life confined to the ‘private’ sphere as existentially impoverished and denuded of wholeness. Hower, familial relations and interactions within the ‘Four walls” of the household were vital and it was essential to maintain the security of ‘darkness’ associated with this domain.
A characteristic of contemporary life, however, was that the ‘merciless glare of the public realm ….. floods everything in the private lives ….. so that the children no longer have a place of security where they can grow.’
Arendt maintained that according to classical thought and practice, the ‘public’ sphere was where politics occurred. Emerging from the ‘Private’, men were able to have a ‘second life’ forming relationships of equality and debating the affairs of the day with citizens bestowed with equal status. She conceded that this ‘equality’ was only afforded to an elite minority since this political realm had ‘very little in common’ with our more contemporary understanding of the concept. It meant ‘live among and to have to deal only with one’s peers, and it presupposed the existence of ‘unequal’s who …. were always the majority of the population in a city state.’ The public sphere was, therefore, the place where select coterie of individuals, speaking among their peers, performed and revealed themselves as persons of distinction, fulgent talent and unbridled excellence.
The term ‘public' signifies the world itself, in so far as it is common to all of us and distinguished from our privately owned place in it. The distinction between a private and a public sphere of life corresponds to the household and the political realms.
‘Society’ is the confusion of the public and private. She said, ‘the emergence of the social realm, which is neither private nor public, strictly speaking, is a relatively new phenomenon whose origin coincided with the emergence of the modern age, and which found its political form in the nation-state.’ Hence, the ‘social’ was form of administration which might be perceived as a ‘facsimile of one super human family’ called society. The emblematic mechanism of the ‘social’ was the modern bureaucracy, which under certain circumstances could conjure up the ‘most tyrannical’ forms of rule.
Arendt argued that the Marxist concept of a ‘class society’ was historically obsolete. Given the rise of a ‘mass society’ all the ‘various social groups had suffered the same absorption into one society with the ‘realm of the social’ encompassing and controlling all members with equal strength. Society had, in short, conquered the public realm and everyone. In ‘modern world’ or ‘mass societies’ the ‘private and the ‘public’ spheres were no longer discrete and separable spheres in that they constantly flowed ‘into each other like waves in a never resting stream.' The new ‘social realm’ had, in a relatively short time transformed all modern communities into societies of labourers and jobholders.
This new configuration generated a dull, deadening conformism; a world in which people were like ‘atoms, within a mass whose movements are predictable’. All that remained was the imperative to ‘produce, consume and pass away like animals’. Moreover, this ‘modern age’ was one in which there was a detectable and ‘growing world alienation’. In short, a ‘society of men’ who either lived in desperate lonely separation’ or were ‘pressed together into a mass’. Mass society was seen as nothing more than a kind of organized living’, ‘automatically’ established among human beings who had ‘lost the world once
common to all of them.’ The ‘Social’, thus was deeply problematic to her because it served to blur, even eradicate, the tidy differentialism she identified between the private and the public. Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Fill in the blanks.

(i)    According to Arendt’s perception, the ‘Private’ domain was .....................

(ii)    Society is the fusion of ......................
Q.2 Why ‘Social’ was problematic to Ardent.

16.5    Summary
Political writings of Arendt Triggered widespread debate among political scientists, sociologists and historians, who generated a wealth of inconsistent commentary on a variety of subjects; at the same time their influence has been proved unusual, extending even to the American Judicial System. Her promotion of politics to the zenith of human good and goals has also been defined, demoting as it does other modes of human action and self-realization to a subordinate status.

16.6    Glossary

•    Ontological : Relating to the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.

•    Praxis : Practice, as distinguished from theory.

•    Anti-Semiticism: Refers to the attitude embodying hostility towards Jews.

•    Vita Activa : Active Life

•    Homo Faber : Man the Maker; human beings are able to control their fate and environment as a result of the use of tools.

•    Zoon Politikon: The term was used by Aristotle for ‘political man’; the human being is a herd animal who tends to organize into groups with leaders, manages, rules and all other sorts of things that can be called ‘taking care of things for the group.’

•    Sine qua non: An essential condition; a thing that is absolutely necessary.

•    Per quam : As much as possible.

•    Apolitical : Not interested or involved in politics.

16.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    Hannah is particularly known for her analysis of the problems of human freedom and the various forms of power prevailing in the contemporary society.

2.    Arendt has established that the most important action of humans is participation in politics i.e. political action.

3.    According to Hannah Arendt, action occurs between people, not between people and things or objects. She defines action as “the only activity that goes on directly between men without the intermediary of things or matter.” Action is highest in hierarchy. Only humans perform it. It is sphere of complete freedom. It is participation in politics or political action.

4.    ‘Freedom’ and ‘plurality’ are two important components of action. Plurality further has two components, equality and diversity.

5.    ‘The Human Conditions’.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    (i) apolitical (ii) Public and Private

2.    The ‘social’ was deeply problematic to Ardent because it served to blur, even eradicate, the tidy differentialism she identified between the private and the public.

16.8    Suggested Readings

•    Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, Chicageo: University of Chicago, 1958.

•    Michael Gottsegen, The Political Thought of Hannah Arendt, SUNY
University Press, 1993.

•    O.P. Gauba, Western Political Thought, Mayur Paperbacks, 2016.

16.9    Terminal Questions

1.    Explain the views of Hannah Arendt on Political Action.

2.    Write a brief note on Hannah Arendit’s idea of the ‘Social’.
*****
Unit-17Jurgen Habermas (1929-)
STRUCTURE

17.1    Introduction

17.2    Learning Objectives

17.3    Theory of Communicative Action
Self Check Exercise-1

17.4    Public Sphere


17.4.1    Criticism
Self Check Exercise-2

17.5    Summary

17.6    Glossary

17.7    Answers to Self Check Exercises

17.8    Suggested Readings

17.9    Terminal Questions

17.1    Introduction
Born in Germany in 1929, Jurgen Habermas emerged as the most important German philosopher and socio-political theorist of the second-half of the 20th century. He is one of the world’s most influential living philosophers. He obtained his Doctorate from the University of Marburg in 1954. He is a known ‘Sociologist’ and ‘Philosopher’ in the tradition of ‘Critical Theory’ and ‘Pragmatism’. He is perhaps best known for his theories on ‘Communicative Rationality’ and ‘Public Sphere’ His speech disability made him think differently about the importance of communication. As a young teenager, he was impacted by World War II. His father was descanted as a Nazi sympathizer and Habermas himself was a leader of the German Jungvolk, which was a section of then Hitler Youth. He was brought up in a staunchy Protestant milieu. Habermas studied Philosophy and Sociology in the Frankfurt School under critical theorists Mark Horkheimer and Theodore Adorno. He began his career in the late 1950s as a part of the Frankfurt Institute for Social research. In 1962, his first major work appeared under the title, ‘The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere’. This classic work was based upon bourgeois public sphere. It gives a detailed account of the development of bourgeois public sphere in the 18th century and the transformation due to the influence of capital driven mass media. He has written and co-authored hundreds of books, articles, papers, speeches and chapters and is widely read and cited inside academia and beyond it. His major contributions encompass the fields of philosophy, Sociology, democratic theory, philosophy and Religion, Language, Jurisprudence, and historical and cultural analysis. In this chapter, we will discuss about his best known theories of ‘Communicative Action’ and ‘Public Sphere’.

17.2    Learning Objectives
The objective of this lesson is to familiarize the students to the Habermas’ theory of ‘Communicative Action’ and his notion of ‘Public Sphere’.

17.3    Theory of Communicative Action
The ‘Theory of Communicative Action’ is a two volume (1981) book by the philosopher Habermas in which the author continues his efforts of finding a way to ground “the social sciences in a theory of language” which had been set out in the logic of the social sciences. The theory of Communicative Action is Habermas’ magnum opus. It is a major
contribution to social theory with reflections on the basic concepts of social theory alongwith observations on the methodology of the social sciences, hypotheses about modernization as a process of societal rationalization. Habermas does not see social rationalization as a process that culminates in the loss of meaning and freedom in the world, but a potential for societal learning and human emancipation. He makes a distinction between communicative action and purposive rational actions. The former is ‘content oriented’, whereas the latter is ‘success oriented’ and goal oriented. The latter instrumental actions are appraised from the standpoint of efficiency with following the technical rules. They are strategic actions aiming at influencing others for the purpose of achieving some end. Communicative action constitutes an independent and distinct type of social action. The goal is not to influence others but to reach an agreement or mutual understanding about something in the world. The goal of the agent is subordinated to the goal of achieving a mutually co-operative process of interpretation of the life-worldly situation. The individuals with communicative action aim at understanding by relating their interpretations by three basic types of speech acts: constative, regulative and expressive. Habermas forms it as communicative rationality as it tries to criticize its own validity claims.
Habermas investigated how language influences human activity in the world, separating human action into two distinct types: labour and interaction. Human beings are creatures who live in a linguistic universe permeated with meaning, value and symbolism.
He argued that human interaction in one of its fundamental forms is ‘communicative’ rather than ‘strategic’ in nature, in so far as it is aimed at mutual understanding and agreement rather than at the achievement of the self-interested goals of individuals. Such understanding and agreement, however, are possible only to the extent that the communicative interaction in which individuals take part resist all farms of non rational coercion. The notion of an “ideal communication community” functions as a guide that can be formally applied both to regulate and to Critique concrete speech situations. Using this regulative and critical ideal, individuals would be able to raise, accept, or reject each other’s claims to truth, rightness and sincerity solely on the basis of the ‘unforced force’ of the better argument- i.e. on the basis of reason and evidence-and all the participants would be motivated solely by the desire to obtain mutual understanding. Although, the ideal Communication Community is never perfectly realized (which is why Habermas appeals to it as a regulative or critical ideal rather than as a concrete historical community), the projected horizon of unconstrained communicative action within it can serve as a model of free and open public discussion within liberal-democratic societies. Likewise, this type of regulative and critical ideal can serve as a justification of deliberative liberal-democratic political institution because it is only within such institutions that unconstrained communicative action is possible.
Liberal democracy is not a guarantee that communicative rationality will flourish. However, in modern capitalist societies, social institutions that ideally should be communicative in character-e.g. family, politics and education-have come to embody a merely ‘strategic’ rationality, according to Habermas. Such institutions are increasingly overrun by economic and bureaucratic forces that are guided not by an ideal of mutual understanding but rather by principles of administrative power and economic efficiency.
Habermas’s findings carried wide-ranging normative implications. In Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action, he elaborated a general theory of “discourse ethics” or “communicative ethics”, which concerns the ethical pre-suppositions of ideal communication that would have to be invoked in an ideal communication community. He
defended that unconstrained communication is guided by reasons that can be rejected or redeemed by speakers and hearers as true, right or sincere.
Habermas was criticized by both the post modern left and the neo-conservative right for his trust in the power of rational discussion to resolve major domestic and international conflicts. While some critics found his normative critical theory-as applied to areas such as education, morality, and law-to be dangerously Eurocentric, others decried its utopian radically democratic or left-liberal character.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 The ‘Theory of Communicative Action’ is a book written by ...................
Q.2 Distinguish between Communicative Action and Purposive Rational Action.
Q.3 Define Communicative Action.
Q.4 Why post modern left and neo-conservative right have criticized Habermas?

17.4    Public Sphere
The public sphere refers to a social space where individuals collectively engage in dialogue to identify societal challenges and, through this engagement, influence political decisions. In essence, a ‘public’ signifies matters that concern society as a whole. The public sphere acts as a shared platform accessible to all, where ideas and information circulate freely. It serves as an intermediary between the state and civil society, facilitating discussions on public affairs. This concept reflects a liberal democratic ideal, promoting participatory engagement in governance. The term was introduced by the German philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who analyzed the evolution of public opinion and its role within the framework of representative government in Western Europe. Habermas envisioned the public sphere, in its ideal state, as comprising private individuals who come together as a public body. These individuals collectively articulate the needs and concerns of society to the state. Historically, the development of the public sphere began in the 18th century, marked by the emergence of coffee houses, literary societies, and other forums for debate and discussion. These spaces allowed for the exchange of ideas, fostering critical reflection on governance and societal issues.
However, Habermas argued that by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this ideal began to erode. The rise of mass media, particularly the commercial press, shifted the focus from public discourse to profit-driven motives. As newspapers became tied to business interests, they increasingly served as instruments of manipulation rather than as facilitators of open, critical debate. In his critique, Habermas noted how private interests infiltrated the public sphere, undermining its capacity to function as a space for genuine democratic dialogue.
In his historical analysis, Habermas observed that prior to the 18th century, the concept of the public realm was closely aligned with public authority. Civil society was largely confined to private economic relations, such as commodity exchange and labor. The state, or the "sphere of public authority," operated through mechanisms of governance and control. However, Habermas conceptualized the public sphere as distinct from the state. Rather than being an extension of state power, it is a space where discourses can emerge that challenge or critique state actions. It is also separate from the economy, as it does not function through market transactions but through communicative interactions focused on deliberation and debate.
Importantly, Habermas emphasized that citizens within the public sphere engage not as representatives of private or commercial interests but as individuals concerned with matters of collective importance. Participation is voluntary and free from coercion, and it is through this collective discourse that public opinion is shaped. While the state exercises public power, legitimized by elections and formal democratic processes, it remains external to the public sphere. In this sense, the public sphere serves as a check on state authority by holding it accountable through public debate and opinion formation.
The concept of the public sphere is closely linked to the ideals of participatory democracy, where the formation of public opinion is not merely a theoretical exercise but a mechanism for political action and influence. It is seen as essential for democratic societies, providing a means for citizens to scrutinize and regulate the activities of the state, both informally through everyday discussions and formally through elections. Ideally, the public sphere enables democratic oversight and mediation between state institutions and civil society, ensuring that governance remains responsive to the will and interests of the public.

17.4.1 Criticism
Habermas dates the formation of the term of public sphere and public opinion back to the 18th century. Before the rise of the Bourgeoisie and the creation of bourgeoisie public spheres, the understanding of the term ‘public’ was quite different. Before that time the representation of authority through a lord was called ‘public’ referring to the public representation lords were seen as. This public representation was merely stating their authorities before the people than for the people they governed. By the end of the 18th century, the feudal powers of church and nobility diminished paving the way for the rise of a bourgeois society in Europe. With it the meaning of the world ‘public’ changed as well, ‘Public’ no longer described the representative court of a person and his authority. It came to mean the legitimizing regulations of an institutional system that held governing powers. Citizens were now subsumed under the state forming the public.
Nineteenth century saw an expanding public sphere with the growth of the media and technological development, literacy spread, increased working class and improved industrialization. Participation of alienated groups changed the ideologies of public discourse so also the content in the press changed. According to Jurgen Habermas, structural transformation of political public sphere was refeudalisation’ where the distinction of‘ Public’ and ‘Private’ could not be easily applied. As the bourgeois public sphere disintegrated, Habermas reflects on the ideology of the media providing a site for public participation and wonders whether the mass media having a great power could be harnessed for public good? Habermas is highly critical of media in public sphere and he calls it as pseudo-public-sphere and says that we have moved from culture-debating to a cultureconsuming public.
Habermas’ concept of ‘public sphere has been criticized by the other theorists of public sphere. John P Thomson, Professor of Sociology at the University of Cambridge, claims that the Habermas's notion of Public Sphere is old due to the proliferation of mass media. Michael Schudson, University of California, argues that more generally public sphere as a place of rational independent debate never existed. Nancy Fraser, Professor of Political Science and Philosophy says that these are multiple spheres and counter publics.
Although Habermas happens to be the central theorist of public sphere, where he says that once a person is idealised he is allowed to speak, interact and take Action in collective decision. According to him public sphere is an arena where ‘rational-critical argument’ takes place without violence, but there are many other theorists of public sphere who are critical of his argument. His student Oscar Negt and colleague Alexander Kluge argue that the bourgeois public sphere that Habermas refers to have no meaning in the times of the advanced structural changes and the media cartel.
Many defenders and critics of Habermas’s notion of the bourgeois public sphere fail to note that the thrust of his study is precisely that of transformation, of the mutations of the public sphere from a space of rational discussion, debate and consensus to a realm of mass cultural consumption and administration by corporations and dominant elites.
Habemias’s critics argue that he idealises the earlier bourgeois public sphere by presenting a rational discussion and debate when in fact certain groups were excluded and participation was thus limited. Oscar Negt and Alexander Kluge criticized Habermas’s neglect of Plebian and Proletarian public sphere.
Mary Ryan notes that not only did Habermas neglect Women’s public sphere but marks the decline of public sphere precisely at the moment when women were beginning to get political power and become actors.
In Kellner’s view, Habermas does not adequately theorise the nature and social functions of contemporary media and information, they are for him mere mechanism of transmitting messages, instruments that are neither an essential part of the economy nor polity.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Explain the Public sphere.
Q.2 According to Habermas, what makes the Public Sphere?
Q.3 What factors have contributed in the emergence of public sphere in the 18th century.
Q.4 Name some critics of Habermas’s public sphere.
Q.5 In view of Habermas, does press act as public sphere?

17.5    Summary
To sum up, ‘Communicative Action’ refers to a social activity that at least two of the main body take life-world as the background, language as a media, for the purpose of understanding the co-operative action and individual socialization.
Futher, Habermas’ Liberal model of public sphere holds a normative claim. It is an idealistic model of democracy which is shaped through structural changes of society that ended in a transformed understanding of the public sphere. How a public sphere should ideally be? As such, it does not actually exist in modern democracies that are industrially advanced, constituted as a social-welfare state and where massed of people are supposed to form public. Habermas himself had to admit that the participation of women and the inclusion of minorities is not guaranteed by his model relying on the circumstances of bourgeois society in the early 19th century.

17.6    Glossary

•    Discourse Ethics: is communicative ethics where the norms are deliberated in the society and validated.

•    Communicative Action: Habermasian theory of ideals with due emphasis on practices being deliberated in ideal speech situations with speech acts.

17.7    Answers to Self Check ExercisesSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    Jurgen Habermas.

2.    Habermas makes a distinction between communication action and purposive rational actions. The former is ‘content oriented’ whereas the latter is ‘success oriented’ and goal oriented.

3.    Communicative action constitutes an independent and distinct type of social action. The goal is not to influence others but to reach an agreement or mutual understanding about something in the world. The goal of the agent is subordinated to the goal of achieving a mutually co-operative process of interpretation of the life worldly situation.

4.    Habermas was criticized by both the post modern left and the neo-conservative right for his trust in the power of rational discussion to resolve major domestic and
international conflicts. While some critics found his normative critical theory-as applied to areas such as education, morality, and law-to be dangerously Eurocentric, others decried its utopian radically democratic or left-liberal character.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    The public sphere refers to a space in society where individuals gather to openly discuss and address societal issues, influencing political decisions. It serves as a common platform for the exchange of ideas and information, acting as a bridge between the state and the public on important matters. The concept was introduced by German philosopher Jürgen Habermas.

2.    According to Habermas, in its ideal form the public sphere is ‘made up of private people gathered together as a public and articulating the needs of society with the state.”

3.    A public sphere began to emerge in the 18th century through the growth of Coffee Houses, Literary and other societies.

4.    John P. Thomson, Michael Schudson, Nancy Fraser, Oscar Negt, Alexander Kluge, Mary Ryan, etc.

5.    No.

17.8    Further Readings

1.    T. McCarthy, The Theory of Communicative Action, Boston: Beacon Press, 1984/1987.

2.    J. Habermas, “The Public Sphere” in C. Mukerji and M. Schudson (ed.), Rethinking Popular Culture: Contemporary Perspective in Cultural Studies, Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp.398-404.

3.    Andrew Edgar, The Philosophy of Habermas, Montreal: McGill-Queen’s UP 2005.

4.    Thomas A McCarthy, The Critical Theory of Jurgen Habermas, Cambridge : MIT Press, 1979.

5.    Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action, Vol-I: Reason and Rationality of Society, T.McCarthy (Trans.), Boston: Beacon, 1984.

6.    Jurgen Habermas, The Theory of Communicative Action; Vol-II: Life World and System, T. McCarthy trans: Boston: Beacon.

17.9    Terminal Questions

1.    Evaluate the views of Jurgen Habermas on Communicative Action.

2.    Write a detailed note on Habermas’ concept of Public Sphere.
*****
Unit-18John Rawls (1921-2002 A.D.) Part-I
STRUCTURE

18.1    Introduction

18.2    Learning Objectives

18.3    Rawls Theory of Justice


18.3.1    The Problem of Justice

18.3.2    Methodology
Self Check Exercise-1

18.3.3    Principles of Justice

18.3.4    A critical Appraisal
Self Check Exercise-2

18.4    Summary

18.5    Glossary

18.6    Answers to Self Check Exercises

18.7    Suggested Readings

18.8    Terminal Questions

18.1    Introduction
John Rawls is a contemporary American philosopher whose theory of justice led to the revival of interest in political philosophy in modem times. He is regarded as the first original theorist of justice since the times of Plato and Aristotle, ancient Greek philosophers. Since Rawls published A Theory of Justice (1971), many brilliant scholars were inspired to write on the problem of justice, and all of them weaved their argument around Rawls’s position on this issue. Rawls himself developed his thinking in the liberal tradition, and followed the methodology of the social contract — particularly John Locke’s (1632-1704) version of this theory — to arrive at the principles of justice. His theory of justice as fairness envisions a society of free citizens holding equal basic rights, enjoying equal opportunities of advancement, and cooperating to achieve a common goal. His theory of political liberalism focuses on the legitimate use of political power in a democracy. He strives to show that although free institutions allow for diversity of worldviews, yet they are capable of achieving an enduring unity. His writings on the law of peoples seek to extend the known principles of justice to the global sphere in order to achieve global justice.
Rawls was the son of a prominent lawyer. He studied at Princeton and Oxford and graced the faculty at Harvard for over three decades. His major works include A Theory of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), The Law of Peoples (1999) and Justice as Fairness (2001).

18.2    Learning Objectives
After going through this lesson, the students will be able to:

•    Elucidate John Rawls’ theory of Justice and

•    Make a critical evaluation of Rawls theory of Justice.

18.3    Rawls’ Theory of Justice
John Rawls, in his celebrated work A Theory of Justice (1971), asserted that a good society is characterized by a number of virtues. Justice is the first virtue of a good society. In other words, justice is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of a good society. Those who argue that justice should not be allowed to come in the way of social advancement and progress run the risk of causing the moral degradation of society. In a just society, justice is established as the foundation of social structure. Hence all political and legislative decisions should be designed to fulfill the requirements of justice.

18.3.1    The Problem of Justice
According to Rawls, the problem of justice consists in ensuring a just distribution of primary goods which include rights and liberties, powers and opportunities, income and wealth, means of self-respect and so on. Rawls described his theory as the theory of pure procedural justice. It means that once certain principles of justice are unanimously accepted, the distribution resulting from their application will be necessarily just. Rawls severely criticized those theories of allocation which ignore the moral worth of individual for the attainment of any predetermined goals. He particularly attacked utilitarianism because in calculating the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ it does not care if it leads to extreme hardship to any particular individual. For instance, one might imagine a state of affairs in which the maximum amount of happiness would be produced and its distribution to a maximum number of people achieved by the enslavement of a minority. Rawls has brilliantly argued that you cannot compensate for the sufferings of the distressed by augmenting the joys of the prosperous.
Within the utilitarian school, J.S. Mill (1806-73), English philosopher, showed his inclination toward individualism on two important points; (a) While Jeremy Bentham (17481832), the founder of utilitarianism, had only recognized quantitative differences between pleasures. Mill highlighted the significance of qualitative differences between pleasures, and thereby recognized the value of individual preferences; and (b) In the sphere of liberty— particularly the liberty of thought and expression, Mill argued that each individual’s opinion is as valuable as any others, and thereby recognized the value of individual thinking. On these two points, Mill sought to discover the moral worth of individual behind the crude formula of ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’. John Rawls’s attack on utilitarianism was directed precisely to restore the moral worth of individual in determining the allocation of social-economic advantages in society. So it will not be out of place to assert that J.S. Millʼs departure from crude utilitarianism was brought to its logical conclusion in John Rawlsʼs theory of justice.

18.3.2    Rawls’s Methodology
Rawls evolved a unique methodology for arriving at a unanimous procedure of discovering the principles of justice. Following the tradition of the ‘social contract’, Rawls envisaged an ‘original position’ by abstracting the individuals from their particular social and economic circumstances. These individuals are symbolically placed behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ where they are supposed to be deliberating as rational agents. They are totally unaware of their wants, interests, skills and abilities as well as of the conditions which lead to discrimination and conflict in society. But they have an elementary knowledge of economics and psychology, and are also endowed with a ‘sense of justice’. Each individual wants to maximize his or her well-being, without being envious. They are self-interested but not egoists. They are not prepared to take a risk or resort to gambling. According to Rawls, in such a state of uncertainty the rational negotiators will choose the least dangerous path. In
other words, each individual will hypothetically place himself or herself in ‘the least advantaged position while recommending the criteria of allocation of the primary goods. Hence each of them will demand greatest benefit for the least advantaged.
The conventional theory of the social contract was designed to ascertain the source of political authority as well as the grounds and limits of political obligation. It is a philosophical question; its answer can be found only through logical procedure, and not through empirical investigation. So the exponents of this theory sought to visualize a condition when people lived without a civil society. This hypothetical condition was described as the ‘state of nature’. Then they speculated the reasons which led people to the decision to relinquish the state of nature and enter into civil society. Finally, they conjectured the terms and conditions on which people agreed to live together in civil society.
When people set up civil society, it is relatively a simple matter. In the state of nature, all men are similar by nature; they are placed in similar conditions; they have a similar objective (e.g. self-preservation, punishing offenders, or overcoming the scarcity situation); and they have a similar expectation from civil society. So in civil society each one is placed under identical political obligation. But inquiry into the principals of justice is a complex issue. Different people for whom justice is sought, are endowed with differential capabilities; they come from a wide variety of social-cultural-economic political backgrounds; they are very sensitive to the treatment meted out to them in the social set-up. One cannot start one’s argument from a simplistic hypothesis like that of the ‘state of nature’. So Rawls visualizes the men — rational negotiators who are qualified to deliberate on the principles of justice (not merely natural men in a state of primitive simplicity) — placed in the ‘original position’, deliberating behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. They must be ‘abstracted’ from their particular situations to enable them to determine the ‘rules of justice’ which are thoroughly impartial, and which are thought to be acceptable to everyone. In short, Rawls’s hypothesis of the original position is designed “to combine into one conception the totality of conditions which we are ready upon due reflection to recognize as reasonable in our conduct towards one another” (A Theory of Justice: 1971). Since the principles of justice are to be determined by ‘rational negotiators’, they exercise ‘rational choice’ in adopting these principles. It is also important to note that the conception of the ‘original position’ reflects the image of “a democratic society wherein persons regard themselves as free and equal citizens”. In a nutshell, investigators of the principles of justice are endowed with a general wisdom but they are ignorant about their particular conditions.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Who is the author of the book ‘A Theory of Justice’?
Q.2 According to Rawls, what is the problem of Justice?
Q.3 Why Rawls has described his theory of justice as the theory of pure procedural justice?

18.3.3    Principles of Justice
According to John Rawls, when individuals engage in a hypothetical negotiation under fair conditions, they will collectively endorse three fundamental principles of justice, prioritized in a specific order. First is the principle of equal basic liberties, which ensures that everyone enjoys the broadest set of freedoms compatible with an equal freedom for others. These liberties encompass political rights, freedom of speech, religious freedom, and
equal treatment under the law. Rawls emphasizes that individual freedoms cannot be sacrificed for other social or economic advantages.
The second principle focuses on fair equality of opportunity, guaranteeing that all individuals have an equal chance to attain desirable positions and offices, regardless of their social background. Access to opportunities should not be hindered by arbitrary factors like family wealth or status.
Lastly, Rawls introduces the difference principle, which allows for unequal distribution of resources or rewards only if such inequalities improve the situation of society’s least advantaged members. For instance, granting greater rewards to those with exceptional talents or work ethic is justifiable if their contributions lead to tangible benefits for those who are worst off. Once these principles are met, considerations of efficiency and merit—such as allocating roles based on ability—are legitimate, but only to the extent that they contribute to improving conditions for the least privileged in society.
Here Rawls introduces the idea of the chain connection which implies that in order to strengthen a chain, we should start with strengthening its weakest link, and then repeat the process by identifying the weakest link on each occasion. As Norman Barry (An Introduction to Modern Political Theory; 1989) has elucidated: “Rawls ...argues that a ‘chain connection’ operates between the best and the worst off and that a rise in the expectations of the best off will have effect of raising everybody else’s expectations, throughout the system.” The justifiability of any special concessions, subsidies or protection depends on the empirical facts whether or not such benefits filter down ultimately to help the neediest. As Samuel Gorovitz has significantly observed: “Rawls ...is clearly a redistributionist in that he takes the proper function of government to include not merely the maintenance of a social order, but the achievement of distributive justice by placing the highest social value on the needs of the neediest.”

18.3.4 A Critical Appraisal
Rawls’s theory of justice has faced criticism from collectivist perspectives. They argue that his framework ultimately justifies the existing capitalist system by suggesting that allowing the wealthy to accumulate more wealth can indirectly benefit the poor. Even with strict enforcement of fair equality of opportunity, significant disparities between rich and poor would persist. Critics contend that minimal improvements for the disadvantaged could be used to legitimize extensive socio-economic inequalities.
Some critics argue that identification of the most disadvantaged sections is very difficult. If income and wealth are treated the sole criteria for identifying such sections, how shall we compensate those who lack ability or who suffer from emotional insecurity?
Marxists contend that Rawls has tried to determine the principles of justice in a hypothetical condition where people deliberate behind a ‘veil of ignorance’. Any deliberations without the knowledge of prevailing social and economic conditions are meaningless. Moral systems should always be analysed in the light of class relations and the patterns of ownership of private property.
Libertarians argue that Rawls has sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality. Why should we force the meritorious and industrious to work for the benefits of the most disadvantaged sections? Moreover, enterprising persons must take risks for their advancement in life. Rawls’s negotiators are not prepared to take risk. How would they promote social progress?
Communitarians point out that Raws’s political philosophy does not grade any conception of good life as superior or inferior to other. This ethical neutrality evades the opportunity of the pursuit of the common good.
On closer analysis, these diverse critiques seem to be based on biased interpretations of Rawls’s theory of justice. In fact, Rawls has tried to combine different value systems in order to arrive at his theory of justice. Some tenets of these value systems are thought to be incompatible with each other. Any attempt to combine them must yield a complex model. This applies to the present case also. Indeed, Rawls’s theory of justice represents the convergence of libertarianism, egalitarianism and communitarianism.
In the first place, Rawls is a libertarian because his conception of men negotiating in the ‘Original position’ envisages a situation where each of them is trying to maximize his self-interest. This conforms to libertarian a point of view. Secondly, his first principle of justice accords priority to liberty which cannot be compromised for any other benefit.
Then Rawls is an egalitarian because he concedes ‘equal' liberty for all. Further, he insists that social-economic inequalities can be allowed only if they satisfy the condition of fair equality of opportunity for all. In other words, he accepts equality as the cardinal principle, and insists that only inequalities shall be required to be justified. Again, he rules that any reward for merit and effort must satisfy the condition that it yields greatest benefit to the least advantaged. Why should the meritorious accommodate the interests of the least advantaged? Here Rawls invokes the principle of the ‘chain connection’ operating between different individuals. More meritorious enjoy the benefits of their merit in association with the less meritorious lot. A chain is no stronger than its weakest link. Rawls shows that society can be strengthened by strengthening its weakest parts successively. The idea of ‘chain connection’ brings Rawls very close to the image of a communitarian.
It is true that Rawls contemplates to retain the capitalist system on some specified conditions. However, it should not be forgotten that once these conditions are fulfilled, the capitalist system is bound to assume a new humane look. In fact, Rawls has discovered a method for making procedural justice an instrument of meeting the requirements of substantive justice. By insisting on the emancipation of the least advantages on priority basis, he has advanced the principle of moral individualism which prevents the better-placed members of the backward classes from taking undue advantage of their class position.
Self Check Exercise-2
Q.1 Discuss the three principles of justice, as propounded by John Rawls.
Q.2 Explain the idea of the chain connection.
Q.3 Why Libertarians have criticized John Rawls’s theory of Justice.

18.4    Summary
John Rawls’ theory of justice has had a profound role in defining justice in one of the closest ways possible. Though it is near impossible to come across a real life circumstances supporting the hypothetical situation illustrated by him, Rawls has succeeded in elucidating the concept of justice as fairness to a great extent. Most importantly, his theory sheds light on the rights and liberties of minorities, which utilitarianism failed to do.

18.5    Glossary

•    Libertarianism: Refers to a contemporary principle of politics which seeks to remove all impediments in the way of individuals' liberty as the basic principle of public policy. It rejects welfare state and treats free market economy as an essential
condition of liberty. It stands for minimum intervention of the state in mutual dealings of individuals.

•    Communitarianism : Is a philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the community. Its philosophy is based upon the belief that a person’s social identity and personality are largely molded by community relationship.

•    Egalitarianism: The doctrine that all people are equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities.

•    Moral Individualism: A philosophical principle which regards individual as an end-in-itself endowed with ‘dignity’. No wordly thing can be treated as more valuable than a human being.

18.6    Answers to Self Check ExerciseSelf Check Exercise-1

1.    John Rawls.

2.    According to Rawls, the problem of justice consists in ensuring a just distribution of primary goods which include rights and liberties, power and opportunities, income and wealth, means of self respect and so on.

3.    Rawls has described his theory of justice as the theory of pure procedural justice. It means that once certain principles of justice are unanimously accepted, the distribution resulting from their application will be necessarily just.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    See Section 18.3.3

2.    Rawls presents the concept of a chain connection, suggesting that to make a chain stronger, we should focus on reinforcing its weakest link each time, continually addressing the next weakest point as we go.

3.    Libertarians contend that Rawls prioritizes equality at the expense of individual liberty. They question why those who are talented and hardworking should be compelled to support the less advantaged. Additionally, they argue that progress depends on individuals willing to take risks, something Rawls’s hypothetical negotiators—focused on minimizing risk behind the veil of ignorance—are unlikely to encourage. This risk aversion, libertarians claim, could hinder innovation and social advancement.

18 .7 Suggested Readings

1.    N. Daniels (ed.) Reading Rawls: Critical Studies on John Rawls', A theory of Justice, New York: Basic Books, 1989.

2.    C. Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessment of Leading Political Philosophers,
4 Vol, London : Routledge, 2003.

3.    John Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971.

4.    O.P. Gauba, Western Political Thought, Mayur Paper Back, 2016.

18.8 Terminal Questions

1.    Critically evaluate John Rawls’ Theory of Justice.

2.    What does the ‘veil of ignorance’ in John Rawl’s theory of justice mean?
*****
Unit-19John Rawls (Part-II)
Structure

19.1    Introduction

19.2    Learning Objectives

19.3    Rawls concept of Political Liberalism
Self Check Exercise

19.4    Summary

19.5    Glossary

19.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise

19.7    Suggested Readings

19.8    Terminal Questions

19.1    Introduction
Rawls’s Political Liberalism (1993) seeks to introduce structural changes envisioned in his previous book Theory of Justice (1971). Political Liberalism is not a natural sequence of Theory of Justice, but a revision of specific points raised in it. At that time, Theory of Justice was widely criticized by libertarians and communitarians, and even Rawls understood that he had not addressed the complex political issues which were missing in the Theory of Justice. Therefore, Political Liberalism is an attempt to compensate for the shortcomings evident in Theory of Justice as well as to respond to some critics.

19.2    Learning Objective
After reading this unit, the learners will be able to comprehend John Rawls' concept of ‘Political Liberalism’.

19.3    Rawls’s concept of Political Liberalism
Rawls’s Theory of Justice was a blend of moral and political philosophy; they complemented each other. Yet, in Political Liberalism there is a clear distinction between the two. The notion ‘political’ was separated from ‘moral’ and Rawls put the former in the epicenter of the concept of ‘political liberalism’. Citizens as moral persons have different conceptions of what is good, but in the public sphere - which lies in the political domain they cannot impose their conceptions of good as common. Questions and problems of social inequality and distribution of goods are neglected, and citizens affirming different philosophical, moral and religious comprehensive doctrines are in the centre of the political sphere. Rawls’s Theory of Justice, through the two principles of justice, has affirmed a comprehensive doctrine applied to the whole society. Modern democratic societies are made of pluralism of very heterogeneous comprehensive doctrines. They are comprehensive because they determine a wide sphere, ranging from the establishment of norms, customs and systems of values, to the manner in which social, economic and political systems work.
The aim of the conception of political liberalism is to regulate pluralistic coexistence of comprehensive doctrines, including the elimination of the possibility that one comprehensive doctrinal system shall prevail over the other, as well as to impose its inner logic to be born as one potentially repressive unifying social-political system neglecting different philosophical, moral and religious differences. The model that is sought after is the establishment of a political concept of justice which means that none of the aforementioned doctrines is going to be generally applied to the whole society, but only where the
overlapping consensus will be achieved. In this overlapping consensus, different reasonable comprehensive doctrines will coexist by accepting the political principle of justice.
Accordingly, the very basis of political liberalism consists of the political concept of justice as fairness that is implemented as a basic structure of a society. The basic structure of a society is limited to only political, economic and social aspects of an individual’s life rather than individual’s whole life, and therefore it should guarantee fair relations among different citizens who are considered to be free and equal, and who recognize a society as a system of cooperation and collaboration among different individuals and groups.
Political concept of justice as fairness does not generally affirm any doctrine as society’s common good and system of values that should be supported by all citizens - rather, it guarantees pluralism and freedom in choosing different life concepts of good which spring from moral, religious and philosophical doctrines. The central issue and question which the concept of political liberalism seeks to resolve is the question ‘How is it possible that there is a well-ordered and stable society that makes pluralism of different opposing comprehensive doctrines?’
In examining this issue, Rawls’s starting point is the premise of a democratic society and conception of personality, that is, a citizen who is free and has the same rights and freedoms in comparison with other citizens. Every person is free on the basis of two moral powers: sense of justice and specific conception of good. When addressing the sense of justice, Rawls has in mind the political conception of justice as fairness. Based on such viewpoint, individuals are capable of perceiving society as a field of social cooperation among different citizens having different conceptions of good. On such a premise, we arrive at the notion ‘reasonable’ which is supposed to become the main virtue of an individual and the concept of justice itself, affirmed by free individuals. At this stage Rawls makes a difference between reasonable and rational. As was stated, reasonable refers to a fair system of social cooperation among free and equal citizens able to obey the rules of interrelationship in accordance with the political concept of justice. But, rational is referred and applied to a citizen as an autonomous person. Such a citizen has his/her own goals and interests that he/she can change over time or can strictly obey. His/her goals and interests are different conceptions of good which spring from different moral, religious and philosophical doctrines.
Rational is applied to the private sphere in which an individual has diverse convictions, while reasonable represents a sphere of public and political which cherishes rules of cooperation, tolerance and social pluralism in accordance with ‘public reason’.
Public domain should be free from the influence of comprehensive doctrines and it should represent a place of movement of diverse comprehensive doctrines out of which none should be dominant or privileged, that is, the place where the rule of fair system of cooperation applies. A fair system of cooperation means exactly the congruence of rational and reasonable: if an individual acted only reasonably, he/she wouldn’t have his/her own goals that would be affirmed in the system of social cooperation. If he/she was only rational, then he/she wouldn’t be able to accept the virtue of reasonable in order to preserve the socialpolitical system and confirm the loyalty to the constitutional regime guaranteeing freedom and equality on condition of fair cooperation.
Hence, comprehensive doctrines must be reasonable and they must embrace the principle of pluralism and fair cooperation. Doctrines which are comprehensive but not embracing their reasonability threaten to erode the principle of democratic institutions and
well-ordered society. Doctrines that are imposed as universal social values, according to Rawls, are anticipated as threats and must be eliminated from the overlapping consensus. The overlapping consensus contributes to the prevention from potential conflicts of comprehensive doctrines. Accordingly, a concept of political justice bearing overlapping consensus is viewed as ethically neutral because it does not approve the universal conception of good.
The idea of overlapping consensus is an inevitable part of political liberalism, and political conception of justice as fairness has been reached with overlapping consensus. It is a guarantee of social stability and integration because it assumes that it will be affirmed by reasonable individuals protecting the rules of the game within which every-body is guaranteed the primacy of equal rights and freedoms. Rawls viewed social integration and stability as the amalgamate of the conception of good and principle of justice. Later on, Rawls changed his view and turned towards the overlapping consensus which supports only the conception of justice, while the issue of good remained reserved for the sphere of an unpublic or private identity. The overlapping consensus should contribute to the creation of common goal reflected in the maintaining of fair institutions. By supporting the conception of justice through the overlapping consensus, different contrasting comprehensive moral, philosophical and religious doctrines treasure their independence which is in line with the conceptions of good. Accordingly, by reaching the overlapping consensus, a society is stable and well-ordered because it is based only on acceptance of the common conception of justice, instead of the mixture of justice and good, because the accepted argument is that there are different conceptions of good. The overlapping consensus represents only political conception of justice which applies to all and cannot be identified as comprehensive doctrine which is applied to a particular social group or individual harboring their own scale of values. On the one hand, the overlapping consensus is by value neutral, but on the other it allows the affirmation of different values provided that all fair rules based on the conception of justice be obeyed.
Ensuring social stability find well-ordered society is not a matter of pure compromise - or modus vivendi as referred to by Rawls - between different comprehensive doctrines. The overlapping consensus embodies much more than modus vivendi, because modus vivendi has a temporary effect and reaches social stability in a specific moment which is really dependent on external circumstances. When external changes occur, modus vivendi is disturbed. In such case one comprehensive doctrine threatens to disturb social stability and to impose domination over other conflicting doctrines. On the other hand, the overlapping consensus can be developed from modus vivendi, but it is essential that the overlapping consensus makes a society stable even when external changes take place. For example, if one religious group was to outnumber other religious groups, it would disturb a fragile modus vivendi and establish the universal conception of good. But, when the overlapping consensus is in question, a religious group - even one large in number - would reasonably accept the principle of justice establishing a system of social balance and neutralizing unilaterally imposed universal conception of good.
Neutralization of the universal conception of good is also based on the conception of good, but of good that articulates ethical neutrality in the form of justice as a fair system of cooperation. Citizens are free to express their interests and goals in line with their own conception of good, but, they must respect other citizens’ interests and goals which differ in conception of good. In contrast to Theory of Justice, which has affirmed comprehensive
doctrine in form of acceptance of two principles of justice, in Political Liberalism Rawls rejects such a view and accepts the political conception of justice which contains pluralism of different and incompatible yet reasonably comprehensive doctrines.
Political liberalism - representing a political conception of justice guaranteed by the overlapping consensus - involves a key element ‘pubic reason’. Public reason is very important for the concept of political liberalism because it provides guidelines and rules through which criteria for evaluation of principles of justice are reviewed. Public reason refers to all citizens who have the opportunity to debate freely and publicly within the political conception of justice. It guarantees constitutional principles which legitimize social order involving political and civil rights, including everything that is necessary for a society to be perceived as a system of cooperation among free and equal citizens. It is highly important that the idea of public reason does not neglect comprehensive doctrines - it should assume them - but also reject any other doctrine that is not compatible with the rules of a democratic society. Public reason is applied to the issues in public forums that cover a spectrum ranging from the association of civil society to all levels of power, with judicial power being the most important but not the ultimate interpreter of public reason. The idea of public reason is complementary to the ideas of political justice and the overlapping consensus, which legitimize pluralism of different conceptions of good based on reasonability.
Rawls makes a clear distinction between his ‘political liberalism’ and ‘comprehensive liberalism’ associated with classical liberals Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill. The ideas of autonomy and tolerance were in the focus of classical liberals. Autonomy includes a person free from external force, free to choose his conception of good and question conceptions of good which he previously adopted. On the other hand, tolerance meant that those people respecting other people’s freedom and that they autonomously chose their goals.
It would be ideal that in a well-ordered society autonomy and tolerance were the highest social values that should be adopted by all citizens. However, Rawls is aware of another fact: there are individuals and groups who simply do not want to be autonomous. They have accepted specific moral, philosophical or religious doctrine offered by the conception of good; they are by no means willing to question it, let alone reject it. Political liberalism is based on equal freedoms and rights extended to all individuals in a society - this is as far as Rawls goes - because the potential linking freedom to autonomy would mean denial of the right of some individuals or groups to reject the idea of autonomy related to their personal identity. Freedom of choice can mean choice to reject autonomy. According to Rawls, it is quite legitimate that some people reject autonomy. But, when it concerns the public sphere, individuals should acknowledge the autonomy of other people, that is, they must be tolerant to social differences. That means that Rawls has rejected the social conception of good according to which all people should be liberals because that carries potentially totalizing effects towards those having different conceptions of good, which assume the rejection of autonomy.
Such reduced political liberalism offers an answer to the critique addressed to Rawls by the communitarians who criticized liberal autonomy which disturbs unity and values of a group within a society. Rawls accepted this view by claiming that there are really individuals and groups who do not respect autonomy. Political conception of justice as fairness refers only to the basic structure of society harboring principles of tolerance and reciprocity among citizens. It is not applied further than the basic structure because that would imply entering
the private sphere that allows existence of different conceptions of good. Affirmation of comprehensive conceptions of good is allowed only in private life, but in public life those differences should follow rules of justice as fairness.
Another communitarian critique addressed to Rawls was that his well-ordered society in Theory of Justice is non historical and out of context. In Political Liberalism Rawls shows how the principles of justice have developed from the political culture cultivated in democratic societies. In time, different doctrines adjusted to a democratic society have become tolerant to one another. As an example Rawls takes violent conflicts between Catholics and Protestants who have eventually accepted rules of religious tolerance. Political concept of justice as fairness does not spring from intuitive ideas behind the veil of ignorance, but from real historical foundation which over a long period of time caused different, contrasting doctrines to accept the idea of fair political cooperation.
Rawls’s well-ordered society, based on political liberalism assuming political conception of justice, fully rejects the idea of political community. Political community is established on specific conception of good, which is suppressed by the pluralism of different conceptions of good. Rawls claims that, even if such community was established on the liberal principle of autonomy, it should be rejected. Rejection of common conception of good does not mean the denial of common goals which citizens share while maintaining fair political institutions. Common goals must be separated from the common conception of good, and it is necessary that these two terms differ from each other. Justice as fairness is free from the impact of comprehensive doctrines, but it is not free from the idea that citizens support institutions enabling fair cooperation among different doctrines. Justice as fairness enables citizens to follow their life goals in line with their own conception of good which cannot aspire to become a dominant social doctrine.
Concept of political liberalism is getting close to classical republicanism, because the political conception of justice as fairness strives to achieve a common goal which is the preservation of institutions of the basic structure which guarantee freedom and equality of citizens. Classical republicanism also means civil participation aiming to contribute to the affirmation of the basic rights and freedoms that are in line with the different individuals’ conceptions of the good. In this way the civil virtues that are in congruence with the virtue of reasonable of the Rawls’s political liberalism are encouraged. What Rawls disapproves of and refuses is a form of ‘humane republicanism’ which advocates participation in political life based on substantial reasons having perfectionistic goal, that is, achieving common good in accordance with specific moral, religious or philosophical doctrine.
Finally, it is important to remember that Rawls, when he was writing political liberalism, had in mind a democratic society with a stable constitutional regime that can be legitimized through the political principle of justice and everything that comes with it. The issue of confronting comprehensive doctrines can be transcended by accepting elements of justice which are encouraged by the existence of the overlapping consensus and use of public reason. They guarantee free existence of pluralism of reasonable comprehensive doctrines out of which none can be dominant. Rawls is aware of the non-liberal character of specific individuals or groups in a society, and of the fact that they are accepted as such unless they jeopardize the basic structure of a society and the manner in which a social-political system works.
Self Check Exercise

1.    What was Rawl’s purpose to write “Political Liberalism.”

2.    What is overlapping consesus?

3.    What is the central issue and question of political Liberalism?

4.    How Rawls has differentiated between ‘Reasonable’ and ‘Rational’ in his concept of Political Liberalism?

5.    Explain ‘Public Reason.’

19.4    Summary
Rawls' “political liberalism’ is an attempt to compensate for the short comings evident in the theory of justice as well as to respond to some critics. The aim of the conception of political liberalism is to regulate pluralistic co-existence of comprehensive doctrines, as well as to impose its inner logic to be born as one potentially repressive unifying social-political system neglecting different philosophical, moral and religious differences.

19.5    Glossary

•    Pluralism: Pluralism as a political philosophy is the recognition and affirmation of diversity within a political body, which is seen to permit the peaceful coexistence of different interests, convictions, and lifestyles.

•    Modus Vivendi : “Mode of Living” or “Way of Life” ; arrangement that allows conflicting parties to co-exist in peace.

19.6    Answers to Self Check Exercise

1.    Rawl’s Political Liberalism (1993) seeks to introduce structural changes envisioned in his previous book ‘A Theory of Justice’ (1971). Political Liberalism is not a natural sequence of A Theory of Justice, but a revision of specific points raised in it. At that time, Theory of Justice was widely criticized by Libertarians and communitarians, and even Rawls understood that he had not addressed the complex political issues which were missing in the theory of Justice. Therefore, Political Liberalism is an attempt to compensate for the shortcomings evident in ‘Theory of Justice’ as well as to respond to some critics.

2.    In overlapping consensus different reasonable comprehensive doctrines will co-exist by accepting the political principle of Justice.

3.    The central issue and question which the Political Liberalism seeks to resolve is the question ‘How is it possible that there is a well-ordered and stable society that makes pluralism of different opposing comprehensive doctrines.’

4.    Rawls makes a difference between reasonable and rational. Rational is applied to the private sphere in which an individual has diverse convictions, while reasonable represents a sphere of public and political which cherishes rules of co-operation, tolerance and social pluralism in accordance with ‘public reason’. A fair system of co-operation means exactly the congruence of rational and reasonable.

5.    Public reason refers to all citizens who have the opportunity to debate freely and publically within the political conception of justice. It guarantees constitutional principles which legitimize social order involving political and civil rights, including everything that is necessary for a society to be perceived as a system of co-operation among free and equal citizens. Public reason is applied to the issues in public forums that cover a spectrum ranging from the association of civil society to all levels of power, with judicial power being the most important but not the ultimate interpreter of public reason.

19.7    Suggested Readings

1.    C. Kukathas (ed.), John Rawls: Critical Assessment of Leading Political Philosophers, 4 Vol, London : Routledge, 2003.

2.    John Rawls, Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.

19.8    Terminal Questions

1.    Examine John Rawls’ concept of Political Liberalism.

2.    How ‘Political Liberalism’ answers the critique of ‘A Theory of Justice.’
*****
Unit-20Paul Michel Foucault (1926-1984 A.D.)
Structure

20.1    Introduction

20.2    Learning Objectives

20.3    Genealogy of Power and its Relation to Knowledge and Truth


20.3.1    Foucault's Triangle of Power
Self Check Exercise-1

20.4    Discipline : The New Modality of Power
Self Check Exercise-2

20.5    Summary

20.6    Glossary

20.7    Answers to Self Check Exercises

20.8    Suggested Readings

20.9    Terminal Questions

20.1    Introduction
Paul Michel Foucault was a French philosopher, historian, writer, political activist and literary critic. Foucault’s theories primarily address the relationship between power and knowledge and how they are used as a form of social control through societal institutions. Foucault was born on 15th October 1926 in the provincial town of Poitiers, France. HE hailed from an Educated, affluent family that was also well connected. Both his parents were ambitious for their children and not shy about using their connections to help their offspring. Foucault did very well at studies. He earned his doctorate in 1961. He got an opportunity to teach in various universities like Lille, Prestigious ENS Institute, University of Clermont-Ferrand Tunisia, Vincennes, Paris, California, Berkeley, etc. He also undertook a series of foreign assignments. He wrote a series of path breaking books-from ‘Madness and Civilization’ to 'Birth of a Clinic'; from ‘The Order of the Things’ to ‘the Archaeology of knowledge’; from ‘Discipline and Punish’ to the multivolume and incomplete ‘History of Sexuality’. He was one of the most cited figure of 20th century across the humanities and social sciences. Foucault died in Paris from complications of HIV/AIDS.

20.2    Learning Objective:
After reading this unit, the students will be able to explain Foucault’s understanding of Genealogy of power; its relation to knowledge and truth; and his triangle of power.

20.3    Genealogy of Power and its Relation to knowledge and Truth
Foucault’s early works are dedicated to the “archaeology of knowledge.’ His most Michel Foucault’s critical interventions around the late 1970s, particularly evident in Discipline and Punish (1979) and his subsequent works, signal a profound rethinking of the concept of power. His analysis shifts away from traditional frameworks that treated power as something merely held by sovereigns or elites. Instead, Foucault proposes an intricate, dynamic understanding of how power operates in conjunction with knowledge and truth, emphasizing its pervasive and productive nature. Rethinking Power: Foucault’s Critique of Historical Approaches
Foucault contends that historical inquiry has generally overlooked the mechanisms and strategies through which power functions. While traditional historiography has focused on
prominent figures—kings, generals, and other individuals who visibly wielded power— alongside analyses of economic structures and institutional histories, it has often failed to scrutinize the nuanced operations of power itself. According to Foucault, this oversight has led to a superficial understanding of power, ignoring its deeper, more diffuse workings within society.
Power and Truth: A False Dichotomy
One of Foucault's central concerns is the persistent separation of power and truth in Western humanist thought. He challenges the prevailing notion that those in power are inherently removed from the pursuit or discovery of truth. Humanism, he argues, has traditionally maintained that truth can only be found outside the realm of power—by philosophers or thinkers who remain untouched by the corrupting influences of governance and authority. Foucault seeks to dismantle this myth, following Nietzsche’s insight that behind every pursuit of knowledge lies a struggle for power. Rather than existing in opposition, power and knowledge are deeply entangled; each shapes and sustains the other.
Traditional Models of Power: Foucault’s Critique
Foucault identifies two dominant schemas that have historically shaped conceptions of power in the West:

1.    The Contract-Oppression Schema (Economistic): This model conceptualizes power in legalistic terms, where power is imagined as a right that individuals can possess and transfer. Within this framework, political power is seen as the result of a contractual agreement among individuals who cede their personal power to establish sovereignty.

2.    The War-Repression Schema (Domination-Repression): This framework perceives power primarily as a force of repression and domination. Drawing on Wilhelm Reich, it posits that the mechanisms of power work through the suppression of desire and freedom. Nietzsche’s perspective, which sees power as the contestation and struggle between forces, also informs this model.
While Foucault acknowledges the contributions of these theories, he argues that they are insufficient. They reduce power to either an oppressive force or a commodified legal right, overlooking its more pervasive and generative dimensions.
Power as Productive: Foucault’s Radical Reinterpretation
Foucault’s major intervention lies in reconceptualizing power not simply as repressive but as fundamentally productive. He asserts that power does not merely limit or constrain but actively shapes desires, forms of knowledge, and social practices. If power were only repressive, he argues, it would be inherently fragile. Its resilience comes from its capacity to generate knowledge and truth, thus embedding itself in the very fabric of society.
Moreover, Foucault dismisses the idea of power as a singular, substantive entity. Power is not a thing that one can possess; it exists only through relations—networks of interaction that are organized, hierarchical, and coordinated to varying degrees. It is always relational, exercised rather than owned, and operational within specific contexts shaped by historical and institutional frameworks.
Power vs. Violence: Key Distinctions
Another critical distinction Foucault draws is between power and violence. While violence acts directly upon bodies or objects—breaking, destroying, or eliminating possibilities— power requires the recognition and agency of its subjects. In a power relationship, individuals
remain capable of action, decision, and resistance, making power a dynamic field of possibilities rather than a unilateral imposition.
The Nexus of Power, Knowledge, and Truth
Foucault’s theory of power-knowledge challenges the conventional notion that truth exists independently of power structures. He contends that truth is historically and culturally produced within regimes of power. Truth is both a product of power and a mechanism that sustains and extends it. As such, systems of knowledge are never neutral but are shaped by the power relations that define their production and dissemination.
Foucault’s Methodology: The “How” of Power
Rather than asking what power is or why it exists, Foucault focuses on how power functions in specific contexts. He refuses to take the existence of power as a given, instead investigating the practical techniques and rationalities through which it is exercised. This methodological approach allows him to uncover the complex ways power operates in everyday life, beyond its traditional association with state or legal authority.
Foucault proposes that any concrete analysis of power must consider several key elements:

•    The differentiations that enable one individual or group to influence the actions of others.

•    The objectives pursued through these actions.

•    The instruments and techniques employed in the exercise of power.

•    The forms of institutionalization that stabilize and regulate power relations.

•    The degrees of rationalization that underpin these practices.
Power and Freedom: A Political Task
Ultimately, Foucault’s analyses do not aim to naturalize existing power relations or present them as inevitable. Instead, he views the study of power as a political task, one that examines how freedom can be negotiated within fields of power. His work reveals how modern Western societies are structured by complex, often invisible networks of power relations, and why it is essential to critically engage with them.

•    Genealogy of Power
Foucault moved from archaeology to genealogy to understand the power relations. Genealogy means genes.

-    Genealogy is a very distinctive type of intellectual history, “a way of linking historical contents into organized and ordered trajectories’ that are neither the simple unfolding of their origins nor the necessary realization of their ends.”

-    Archaeology sought to examine the role of discourse in the production of knowledge.

-    Genealogy articulates the dependence of the production of knowledge on relationship of power.

-    This concept was originally used by Friedrich Nietzsche.

20.3.1    Foucault’s Triangle of Power
According to Michel Foucault, there are three main types of power. These are

1.    Sovereign Power: It is a traditional form of power that involves obedience to the law of central authority figure. Sovereign power is exercised through physical punishment and rewards.

2.    Disciplinary Power: This type of power is exercised through surveillance and knowledge. Foucault argues that disciplinary power gradually took over from sovereign power in the
eighteenth and nineteenth century. For example surveillance through CCTV cameras in modern times.

3.    Bio-power: The power to make live (in certain ways and forms) and let die. Through this power the life and biology of individuals is controlled. Foucault maintained that bio-power has become the most influential power mechanism: for example the system of Aadhaar card in India which contains personal information, finger prints, etc.
Self Check Exercise-1
Q.1 Fill in the blanks

(i)    ‘The Archaeology of Knowledge’ is a book written by .................

(ii)    Instead of focusing on ‘What’ and ‘Why’ with regard to power, Foucault concentrated mainly on .......................

2 . According to Foucault, traditionally what are two models/schemes of understanding power?

3 . Describe the inter connection between power and knowledge/truth according to Foucault.

4 . Name the three main types of power, according to Foucault.

2 0.4 Discipline: The New Modality of Power
Michel Foucault argues that from the eighteenth century onwards, a distinctive form of power emerges, which he terms "discipline." This modality differs markedly from earlier forms of power based on sovereignty or law. Foucault traces the lineage of this modern power to the Christian pastoral tradition, which was fundamentally concerned with the spiritual salvation of individuals. However, in its modern incarnation, this pastoral power undergoes significant transformations.
Unlike its earlier focus on salvation in the afterlife, modern pastoral power redirects its objectives toward securing the well-being of individuals in this world. It prioritizes health, safety, economic security, and other worldly concerns as its primary aims. Additionally, the role of those who exercise pastoral authority expands considerably in modern society, extending beyond religious leaders to include a wide range of state officials, administrators, and experts. These figures take on responsibility for managing both populations and individual lives, furthering the reach and complexity of disciplinary power.
A key feature of this modern form of power is its investment in producing knowledge about human beings. Foucault highlights a dual focus on populations as collective entities and individuals as distinct subjects. This accumulation of knowledge enables more effective governance and regulation, but it also raises critical questions about the relationship between power and truth.
Foucault’s work moves from the method of archaeology to that of genealogy to examine these power relations more critically. He proposes genealogy as a tool for resistance, particularly for what he calls the "specific intellectual"—an individual embedded in particular social and professional contexts. Genealogy, in Foucault’s view, is emancipatory because it seeks to recover marginalized or suppressed forms of knowledge—what he describes as "local, discontinuous, disqualified, illegitimate knowledges." These subjugated knowledges are positioned in opposition to dominant discourses that claim universal truth and scientific authority but often serve to homogenize and control.
The genealogical method challenges these dominant structures by revealing how they filter, rank, and validate knowledge according to arbitrary standards that reinforce existing
hierarchies. For Foucault, the task of the intellectual is to disentangle truth from the hegemonic social, economic, and cultural systems within which it currently functions.
Regardless of one’s stance on Foucault’s specific claims about power, knowledge, and truth, his analysis undeniably offers a novel framework for understanding modern social relations. His insights have had far-reaching influence, shaping scholarly debates and inspiring new forms of political practice around the world.
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    According to Foucault, from 18th century onwards which new modality of power comes to the fore.

2.    According to Foucault, what is the task for modern intellectuals?

2 0.5 Summary
Foucault’s concept of ‘power/knowledge’ highlights the idea that power is shaped by accepted forms of knowledge, scientific understanding, and notions of truth. He argues that truth is not absolute but produced within specific constraints and power relations. For Foucault, power is a productive force that both creates knowledge and is reinforced by it.

2 0.6 Glossary

•    Genealogy : The study and tracing the line of descent.

•    Cartesian Poele: Those who keep their distance from power, who are in no way implicated in tyranny.

•    Postoral: Appropriate to the giving of spiritual guidance.

•    Subaltern: A subaltern is some one with a low ranking in a social, political, or other hierarchy; Who has been marginalized or oppressed.

•    Hegemony: Dominance, especially by one state or social group over others.

20.7 Answers to self check Exercises:Self Check Exercise-1

(i)    Paul Michel Foucault.

(ii)    The ‘how’ of power.

2.    According to Foucault, traditionally power has been analyzed through two schemas: i) The economistic “Contract-oppression schema,” and ii) The domination-repression or war-repression schema

3.    Foucault claims that “Truth isn’t outside power, or lacking in power .......Truth is a thing of this world: it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraints.
Further, Foucault asserts that ‘truth” is linked in a circular relation with systems of power which produce and sustain it, and to effects of power which it induces and which extend it.” Power produces knowledge.

4.   (i) Sovereign Power (ii) Disciplinary Power and (iii) Bio-Power
Self Check Exercise-2

1.    Discipline

2.    The task for the modern intellectuals, according to Foucault is to ‘disengage the power of truth from the forms of hegemony, social, economic, and cultural, within which it operates at the present time.’

20.8    Suggested Readings:

1.    M. Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, New York: Pantheon, 1972.

2.    M. Foucault, The Order of Things, London: Tavistock, 1970.

3.    M. Foucault, Prison Talk, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writings 1972-77 (Ed.) Colin Gordon (Trans.) Colin Gorden et al; New York, Pantheon, 1980.

4.    M. Foucault, Truth and Power. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and other writings. 1972-77 (Ed.), Ibid.

5.    M. Foucault, The Subject and Power, Power : Essential works of Foucault 195483, III (Ed) James D. Faubian (Trans.) Robert Hurley et al., London: Penguin Books, 1994.

20.9    Terminal Questions

1.    Explain What Foucault means by Power?

2.    Clarify how Power and Knowledge/Truth are inextricable and mutually constitutive for Foucault.
*****
176