On pages 402 and 403, toward the end of his discussion of how societies emerged from a state of war very similar to that described by Hobbes, Rousseau discusses how once the first society came into being, societies, or states, rapidly spread to the point that they covered the whole Earth, and every person was subject to a state. At this point, the societies themselves became like the people in the state of war, and Rousseau describes the even greater brutality of war between states than war between individual men... but he stops there.
I think it would be interesting to take this line of thinking farther. Rousseau's idea of societies as individual actors in a state of war is similar to the idea in international relations that the international system is an anarchy. However, Rousseau's state of war gave way to the "most thought-out project that ever entered the human mid," the creation of laws and society, and I think the same process can be seen in the international system.
Although there are a number of complications, most significantly the much greater natural inequalities between states than between people, we can see how states, beginning in the 19th century, have established norms and laws between them for the same reasons ("to protect the weak," "restrain the ambitious," etc.) and largely in the same manner (with the richest and most powerful states taking the lead) as Rousseau described individuals forming societies. Obviously this process is incomplete. What began with the Geneva Conventions and proceeded through the League of Nations and the United Nations has still not led to a single world society, but it has reduced warfare or at least changed the possible types of warfare, and it has at least instilled the idea that states do not have absolute liberty. If states behave as individuals do, and Rousseau was right about the progression from the state of nature to civil society, it stands to reason that all states might one day give way to one state. (And then, since Rousseau's a pessimist, to one despot.)
I too found this section very interesting, I agree with you that it seems as if society’s emerged from a state of nature that would be one similar to what Hobbes has argued. It seems that in doing that however we have compromised the state of nature that Locke portrayed if I am not mistaken in interpreting Rousseau’s writings. “…irretrievably destroyed natural liberty, established forever the law of property and inequality, changed adroit usurpation into an irrevocable right, and for the profit of a few ambitious men henceforth subjected the entire human race to labor, servitude and misery” (Pg. 402). This quote to me seems to provide evidence that the state of nature has changed because society now has altered the state of nature. It is sad to note that this change Rousseau believes will be negative for the majority of society and will only benefit the privileged few.
ReplyDeleteI don’t know if I believe the international system to be a complete state of anarchy but I do believe individual states behave in the same manners on the international stage as individuals might in a state of nature. If you think about it states and the people they represent require the same needs and wants just in different terms of magnitude. It all comes down to people needing resources to survive and competition of those resources. I can see how closely Rousseau believes states behave similarly to the state of nature described by Hobbes because on Pg. 403 Rousseau describes how the people threw themselves into states in order to avoid the SoN, just like in Leviathan.
This leads me to address your idea about the prospect one supranational government. It could certainly happen if all the factors we have discussed are indeed true in practice. If States really do behave like individuals and the state of nature on the international state is one that is similar to what Hobbes describes. Then it is only a matter of time before we see these little states huddle to the protection of the supranational “Leviathan” thereby forming one supranational government.
I think there are some interesting comparisons to be made between people and states. People certainly have basic needs that they have to have in order to survive (such as food, shelter, etc..), and individual states also have basic needs that they need to meet in order to survive (population, territory, resources, etc..). Much like how people in the state of nature compete with one another for the necessary resources needed to survive, if you were to view states in an international state of nature, you can see that they too are competing with one another for basic needs for successful statehood. The more you look into it, the more you can see that there are quite a few similarities between people in the state of nature and states in the state of nature. One difference that I see. and one that I think would be interesting to look into to more, is how resources for people in the state of nature are in some ways infinite(?), while resources for states in the state of nature appear to be more finite.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of a future international system where there will only be one state, I'm not sure totally sure if that will happen. If the international system were to coalesce together, it would probably be a strong union (like the EU) with the UN at the center. However, looking at past history, I think it is more likely that international system of states today actually breaks down into more states. The current state system which started in the 1600's started with the just a couple dozen states. Today, there are around 200 states. Big states, like the USSR, Ottoman Empire, and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, have all given way to a collection of smaller states. The reason for these states falling apart is due to a variety of reasons, but i don't see a reason why this upward trend in the number states will decrease anytime soon.