PERIYAR INSTITUTE OF DISTANCE EDUCATION

(PRIDE)

PERIYAR UNIVERSITY
SALEM - 636 011.

M.A. POLITICAL SCIENCE

FIRST YEAR
PAPER – II : WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT

1
Prepared by :
Dr. K.S. VIJAYA KUMAR
Associate Professor and Head
Department of Political Science &
Human Rights
Govt. Arts College (Autonomous)
Salem - 636 007.

2
 M.A. POLITICAL SCIENCE
FIRST YEAR
PAPER – II : WESTERN POLITICAL THOUGHT

SYLLABUS

UNIT –I
ANCIENT THOUGHT
Plato – Aristotle
UNIT - II
MEDIEVAL THOUGHT
St.Augustine – St.Thomas Aquinas – Machiavelli – Montesquieu
UNIT – III
CONTRACT THEORISTS
Thomas Hobbes – John Locke _ Jean Jacques Rousseau
UNIT - IV
IDEALISTS
Hegel - Green
UNIT - V
UTILITARIAN, INDIVIDUALIST & MARXIST
Jermy Bentham – J.S.Mill – Kar Marx
Books for Reference
1. Urmila Sharma, S.K.Sharma, Western Political Thought, Volume 1,
Atlantic Publishers&Dist, 2006
2. ShefaliJhaWestern Political ThoughtFrom Plato to Marx, Pearson
Education India, 2010.
3. V. Venkatarao, A History of Politica
4. lTheories. S. Chand & Co. Ltd. New Delhi, 2000.
5. Subrata Mukherjee and SushilaRamasamy, A History of political
thought: Plato to Marx Prentice hall of India, Pvt Ltd, 2002.
6. R.C.GuptaWestern Political Thought, Lakshmi Narain, Agra 2000.
7. S.Vijayaraghavan&R.Jayaraman, Political thought, Sterling publishers
Pvt Ltd, 1996.
8. Sabine. G. History of political Theory, Oxford and IBH Publishing Co.
New Delhi. 1973
9. PremArora and Brij Grover, Political Thought, Cosmos bookhieve (P)
ltd, New Delhi 2009

3
 INDEX

Unit SL
No: No Topics
1 Introduction to Political Thought

I Ancient Thought

2 Plato

3 Aristotle

II 4 Medieval Thought.St.Augustine
5 Thomas Aquinas
6 Machiavelli
7 Montesquieu
III Social Contract Theory
8 Thomas Hobbes
9 John Locke
10 Jean Jacques Rousseau
IV Idealists
11 Hegel
12 T.H.Green
V Utiitarian, Individualist&Marxist
13 Jermy Bentham
14 J.S.Mil
15 Karl Marx

4
 CHAPTER - 1
INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL THOUGHT
Structure
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Western Political Thought: Nature and Content
1.3 Significance of western political thought
1.4 Relevance of Western Political Thought
1.1 Introduction
Political thought begins when there is an awareness of the possibility of
attaining alternative political arrangements from the present one. Ever since
organised life began with the inventionof agriculture, slowly different forms of
political organisations began. Predominantly this form was monarchy but the
ancient Greek civilisation was marked by a remarkable variety of political
forms, reflected by Aristotle's study of 158 constitutions and elaboration of the
different typologiesof political systems. It is for the prevalence of wide
diversity and debate that western politicalthought begins with the Greeks and
continues till the present.
Political thought means the five following things:
a. Exposition of ideas, values and proposals for influencing policy,
changing it and revisingit drastically for total break and a new
beginning. The entire classical tradition of westernpolitical thought
provides a wide variety dealing with the above propositions.
b. Political theory deals with political structure and institutions like
dealing -with the theoriesof the state,division of power, legal
frameworks, various forms of representation and linkswith other social
sciences.
c. Political philosophy in the normative quest for what should be rather
than what is in a largemacro framework.
d. Political thought is a key component of the discipline of political
science providing it thebasic concepts and tools with which the other
sub-areas of the discipline are intrinsicallylinked.
e. Comparative studies of different kinds of political theories originating
and expanding with different civilisations like the western political
thought, Indian or Chinese political thought.
Political thought is the account of the political thoughts of a host of
political philosophers from beginning to the end. It is the sum-total of thoughts

5
on matters relating to politics, state and government as expressed through the
thinkers. It is historical in nature because it is described as history.
Political thought obtains data from politics. Politics introduces political
activities for discussion by the thinkers. Political thought on the other hand,
gives a direction to the activities concerningpolitics. Politics, during the Stuart
period in England, for example, becomes the basis on whichHobbes and Locke
build up their philosophies-Hobbes trying to prefer authority to freedom and
Locke, doing just the reverse, i.e.,, giving freedom, a predominant place to
authority. Marx,while analysing and studying capitalism and in the process
seeking to obtain more truth, andthereafter keeping in the medieval and early
history, was not only trying to know the functioning of the activities of
capitalism, but was also building a new vision of political thought,
creatinghistory in what is known as the materialistic interpretation of history.
Political philosophers areborn in a particular political atmosphere; they study
the atmosphere and in turn, build a new political environment, a new
philosophy.
Politics assumes political activities; political thought studies them,
seeks to know the objectivesof those activities and gives them a shape, a vision
and in the process, builds new concepts.Politics gives us the account of
political activities, political thought gives up political education, politics is
knowledge about the political conduct, and political thought that of the theories
ofpolitical conduct.
Political thought is the account, analysis, expression, and evaluation
ofthe philosophies of the philosophers of a political custom. It is a custom in
asdistant as it comes to us as a body of thought. It is the sum-total of what
stayson, and an accumulation of what is changed and what continues. It is
whatkeeps responding to our circumstances.
Political thought attempts to identify values and norms and createsthem
an inseparable part of a scrupulous political trend. Western politicalthought, if
we wish to identify its magic themes, evolves and revolvesapproximately
values such as liberty and libertarian, democracy anddemocratic custom,
equality and egalitarian.
Political thought is primarily the revise of the state. It studies
societyinsofar as society powers the state as political life and social life, though
self-governingis inter-dependent. Likewise, it focuses on economic
institutionsand procedure insofar it powers the political order and procedure. It
also takesinto consideration ethical questions for ultimately it is concerned with
apresently and good political order.

6
1.2 Western Political Thought: Nature and Content
It is impossible to imagine political thought of the West for that
matter,of any society without history, Political thought is related to politics, but
it ishistory that gives political thought its extremely foundation. We do not
meanto say that political thought can be studied without politics, but we
certainlywant to insist that we cannot revise political thought without
history,Understanding political thought in the historical context is, in
information,understanding political thought in the real sense.' A political
philosopher'spolitical philosophy emerges in the age of philosopher breaths. In
information,his political philosophy is an answer to the times the philosopher
lives in. Hisphilosophy cannot be separated from history of his times. No
political thinkerbuilds up his political philosophy without taking an explanation
of the age orhis times. To put the point in another sense, it may be said that a
politicalphilosopher is understood only in his milieu. Plato, though an idealist,
couldhardly be separated from his soil his classification of states depicted
theclassification as it prevailed then; his theory of education was drawn
heavilyfrom what lived in Athens and Sparta then. Machiavelli's whole
methodologydepicted his debt to history. Karl Marx went all the method to
advocate thematerialistic interpretation of history. The objective circumstances
of historyalways give the foundations on which the political philosophers have
builttheir philosophy.
Furthermore,we can understand the political philosophy of a
politicalthinker only in the historical context. A contextual revise is always a
safer method of understanding atext. A text without a context is a structure
without a base. Machiavelli isbetter understood in the context of renaissance.
Hobbes and Locke, with theirviews as separately as the north-south poles, can
be better studied in thebackground of the English civil war. Marx call is
understood in the light of therising capitalism of the European/ Western
society.It has grown and is rising, and in information, willand in information,
will always stay rising.It has grown in a typical method; each subsequent
philosophercondemns/criticizes the philosophy or political thoughts of an
earlierphilosopher, and in the procedure builds his own philosophy. Aristotle
did sowith Plato; Locke did so with Filmer; Bentham, with Blackstone; John
StuartMill, with Bentham; Marx did so with Hegel, Adam Smith, Proudhon.
Sowestern political thought has grown; it proceeds on polemics, it changes, but
itcontinues. It is continuing since the days of Plato and Aristotle. No wonder
ifthen it is said that all philosophy is a footnote to Plato. Plato and
Aristotlejointly gave the base on which stands the whole fabric of western
politicalthought; for political idealism and political realism are the two pillars
of thewestern political philosophy from where rise numerous other related

7
shades. Itis not easy to identify what the western political thought contains. The
effort,indeed, would be arbitrary. Though, major contents of the western
politicalthought can, for the sake of creation a point, be stated, to be:
 Political institutions and procedures;
 Political idealism and realism.
Western Political Thought, Political Institutions, and Political Procedures
Western political thought deals, mainly, with political institutions
andprocedures relating to them. If political theory deals with what is related to
oris relevant to politics, political thought, coming as it is, from the writings of
ahost of political philosophers deals with political power, i.e., wherein it
isvested and how it is exercised, and for what objects does it exist.The
politicalthinkers from the earlier days to the present times have dealt with
suchquestions relating to politics: Plato was more interested in the state as it
oughtto be than Aristotle who devoted all his power on the best practicable
state.
The ancient Roman theorists talked in relation to the nature and role of
law inadministration. With the medieval Church theorists, political power was
madeto work under the divine law, the divine law under the natural law, the
naturallaw under the eternal law.The early contemporary political theorists
wereconcerned with the supreme power. The contractualists were eager to
answerquestions as to how the state came into subsistence and as to why
people obeylaws.
Political philosophers have sought to understand the politicalinstitutions
of their times, have given them the meanings and, in doing so;have suggested
methods of altering them. Therefore, we may say that politicalthought deals
with institutions. Further more, and it is significant as well,subsequent
philosophers have after having suggested the changes in theinstitutions,
maintained stability, the political philosopher, to use Sabine'slanguages, is a
'connector', a 'realtor' who weaves the political fabric.
Western political thought is equally dominated, since the
beginning,with an interest in the political procedures as to how and why
political poweris applied. Indeed, political thought deals with political
institutions, but it isalso related to the working of political institution. 'The
political philosopherswere and are, primarily concerned not with what a state is
or what it does, butalso with how a state once entrusted with power, creates use
of it. In otherlanguages, political thought has been, beside with the revise of
politicalinstitutions, dominated with, if we want to provide it a word, the rule
of law,i.e., the procedure as to how the political power is put to use.

8
 The rule of law means that there has to be the law that rules the
people,and not the man that rules. It is a negation of the coercive, arbitrary,
andtotalitarian rule. It is a justification of power and its use. The rule of law, as
aconcept, has sure characteristics of its own: the law is to be
appliedimpersonally; it cannot be used as a means for attaining individuals
ends; itnecessity be applied indiscriminately, though it is an act of
scrupulouscircumstances, has to be self-governing from the particularities, it
forbidspeople to use coercive power in excess of others; it has to respond to
thecommon norms of society and equilibrium; it has to be in consonance
to'cause'.No contemporary politicalphilosopher, if any, should preach a system
without creation rule of law as thebase of society.
Western Political Thought, Political Idealism, and Political Realism
The two major streams beside with which the whole western
politicalthought keeps marching on are:
 Political idealism or as one may see political philosophy,
 Political realism, or as one may call it political science.
Plato symbolizes political idealism, and is rightly described as the
father of political philosophy; Aristotle symbolizes political realism, and
isextremely aptly described the father of political philosophy.
Philosophy and science have dominated the course of the
westernpolitical thought. For an extensive time in the history of the west,
philosophyruled political thought till in relation to the first half of the 19th
Century. Itwas then that science, owing mainly to the development made in
oilier socialsciences and the urge to create political phenomena relevant,
captured theattention of the political philosophers, especially throughout the
early yearsand the decades of 1950s- 1960s in United States. These debates
characterizednothing but the tussle flanked by philosophy and science, flanked
by idealismand realism.All political thought, as it has urbanized or evolved, has
tossedflanked by what it ought to be and what is and constantly moves flanked
bythe two stages.
1.3 Significance of western political thought
Western political thought, since its beginning from ancient Greece
hasdealt with diverse diversities of issues, and each philosopher has handled
themfrom his own angle. Indeed, the political philosophers have, at
times,disagreed on the solutions, but what is significant is the stability of the
issueswhich have captured their intentions. The major issues relating to politics
havebeen the concerns of political philosophers. Through attempting to
discoversolutions to these political issues, the political theorists have given the

9
westernpolitical thought not only a direction, but also a unity of thought
procedures.
The great custom of Western political theory from Plato to Hegel
dealsexhaustively with the major contradictions and dimensions of the
politicalprocedure. Their importance is exhibited through the information that
thoughthey were primarily concerned with the immediate troubles besetting
theirmodern situation, yet they were able to transcend their localism. In
theprocedure they were able to give a framework of analysis that would
enrichother eras as well through their penetrating insights and thoughtful
reflectionson perennial troubles of politics, power, power, legitimacy, equity,
and order.'They are masterpieces as they do not belong to any one civilization,
culture,or time but cherished through the whole humankind.
1.4 Relevance of Western Political Thought
It is the embodiment of the writings of numerous political philosophers.
These writings are works in the field of Political Science whichhave stood the
test of time. They have survived through ages because of theirintrinsic worth.
They remain motivating and instructive because of theirperennial themes,
sound comprehension, subtle approach, and profoundanalysis. They wield
great power, and are, basically, suggestive.
The works of political thought are outstanding not because they
areuniversally praised. In information, they are neither praised nor
denounced.Plato is rated extremely high through some like Barker, 'wilde,
Whitelieadwho go to the extent of saying that all subsequent philosophy is a
footnote toPlato, while others such as Popper, Crossman and winspear,
condemn him asfascist, totalitarian, and enemy of democracy. Machiavelli, to
take anotherinstance, has been denounced through Catholic writers such as
Butterfield, buthas been admired through secular scholars such as Allen,
Gramsci, and Wolin.These works on political thought flourish because they are
continuouslystudied, interpreted, and discussed; each subsequent reading
provides a newand fresh orientation.They are a great aid to thinking. It is in this
sense thatthey are suggestive. Plato does not impose his 'communisticdevices
foracceptance, but lie do stimulate our mind and reactivate it to think
otherpossible devices. They are not only suggestive, but are essentially
inspirational.
The great custom of Western political theory from Plato to Hegel
dealsexhaustively with the major contradictions and dimensions of the
politicalprocedure. Their importance is exhibited through the information that
thoughthey were primarily concerned with the immediate troubles besetting
theirmodern situation, yet they were able to transcend their localism. In

10
theprocedure they were able to give a framework of analysis that would
enrichother eras as well through their penetrating insights and thoughtful
reflectionson perennial troubles of politics, power, power, legitimacy, equity,
and order.They are masterpieces as they do not belong to any one civilization,
culture,or time but cherished through the whole humankind.
Model Questions
1. What is political thought?
2. Describe the nature of the western political thought.
3. Amplify the importance and relevance of western political thought.

11
 CHAPTER - 2
PLATO(427-347 BC)
Structure
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Life and works
2.3 Metaphysics
2.4 Philosophy
2.5 Theory of Forms
2.6 Epistemology
2.7 Theory of justice
2.8 Plato onEducation
2.9 Plato’s Theory of Communism
2.10 Ideal State
2.1 Introduction
Plato was a great Greek Political philosopher. He lived during 427 BC
to 347 BC. He was born in a noble family in Greece. He had royal blood in his
veins also. He was a follower of Socrates. He was the most well known
philosopher in the 5th century BC. By the execution of his master, Plato lost
faith in Democracy. He travelled all across the world and gave his philosophy
in the form of Dialogues or lectures. ‘The Republic’ was his famous work.
‘The Statesman’, and ‘The Laws’ were other famous works. It contained his
ideas about Justice, Knowledge, and Education etc. He raised the major
questions, “What is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong’? “What is the best educational
system”, “Who is an Ideal Man”? and “What are the qualities of a good
government”.
5th century BC was a period of great turmoil for the Greeks. The
security of city states was under threat from the Persians. It was the period of
Sophists also. They were freelance teachers. They taught logic and philosophy.
Their method of teaching was called rhetoric. It is a kind of question and
answer method. But only the rich could pay for it. The ancient Greek society
was very much influenced by Sophist teachers.
2.2 Life and works
Little can be known about Plato's early life and education, due to a lack
of surviving accounts. The philosopher came from one of the wealthiest and
most politically active families in Athens. Ancient sources describe him as a
bright though modest boy who excelled in his studies. His father contributed all
which was necessary to give to his son a good education, and, therefore, Plato

12
must have been instructed in grammar, music, gymnastics and philosophy by
some of the most distinguished teachers of his era.
The exact time and place of Plato's birth are not known, but it is certain
that he belonged to an aristocratic and influential family. Based on ancient
sources, most modern scholars believe that he was born in Athens or Aegina-
between 429 and 423 BCE. His father, Ariston, traced his ancestry to the early
kings of Athens. His mother, Pericitione,was a descendant of Solon, the
famous law giver of Athens. Plato's original name was Aristocles,which meant
the “best and renowned”. He was given the nick name 'Plato', derived from
platys,because of his broad and strong shoulders. He was known for his good
looks and charmingdisposition. He excelled in the study of music, mathematics
and poetry. He excelled in the study ofmusic, mathematics and poetry. He
fought in three wars and won an award for bravery. He metSocrates in 407 BC
at the age of 20 and since then was under his hypnotic spell. The trial
andexecution of Socrates in 399 BC proved to be a turning point in Plato's life.
In 386 BC on returningto Athens, Plato's friends gifted him a recreation spot
named after its local hero Academns. It washere that Plato established his
Academy which became a seat of higher learning and intellectualpursuits in
Greece for the next one hundred years. The academy was initially a religious
groupdedicated to the worship of Muses and its leader Apollo. The academy
concreticised the possibilityof a science of knowledge with which one could
reform the world. Plato saw in the academy atraining school for future
philosophic rulers'. As Taylor has beautifully commented the founding
ofAcademy is a turning point in Plato's life and in some ways the most
memorable event in the historyof European science. It was a permanent
institution for the pursuit of science by original research.
Plato spent the last years of his life at the academy, teaching and
instructing. He died in 347 BCwhile attending the wedding feast of one of his
students. Plato's works include the Apology ofSocrates, 22 genuine and 11
disputed dialogues, and 13 letters. Apology was an imaginative andsatirical
version of Socrates’ defence trail.
The Republic, the Statesman and the Laws were Plato's major works in
political philosophy. TheRepublic was collection of Plato's ideas in the field of
ethics, metaphysics, philosophy and politics.The Republic, concerning justice,
the greatest and most well- known work of Plato, was written inthe form of a
dialogue, a method of great importance in clarifying questions and establishing
truth. Itwas one of the finest examples of the dialectical method as stated and
first developed by Socrates.Though Socrates did not provide a theoretical
exposition of the method, he established a clear-cutpattern of dialectical

13
reasoning for others to follow. He placed dialectics in the service of
ethics,defining virtue as a basis for traditional and moral transformation. The
discussion in the Republicwas conducted in a single room among Socrates. The
Republic in Greek means justice, and shouldnot be used or understood in this
Latin sense meaning the states or the polity' As has been rightlypointed out by
William Ebenstein, after twenty three hundred years the Republic “is still
match lessas an introduction to the basic issues that confront human being as
citizens”. No other writer onpolitics has equaled Plato in combining
penetrating and dialectical reasoning with poetic imageryand symbolism. One
of the main assumptions of the Republic is that the right kind of
governmentand politics can be the legitimate object of rigorous scientific
thinking rather than the inevitableproduct of muddling through fear and faith,
indolence and improvisation.
Platowas a philosopher in ClassicalGreece. He was also a
mathematician, student of Socrates, writer ofphilosophical dialogues, and
founder of the Academy in Athens, the firstinstitution of higher learning in the
Western world. Beside with his mentor,Socrates, and his student, Aristotle,
Plato helped to lay the foundations ofWestern philosophy and science.
He instituted the ‘Academy’ also. It was a great centre of learning
inEurope. It was considered as the first university in ancient Europe. He laid
thefoundation of Western Political Philosophy. He died at the age of 81.
Plato's greatest and most enduring work was his lengthy dialogue, The
Republic. The Republic discusses a number of topics including the nature of
justice, statesmanship, ethics and the nature of politics.Itwas one of the finest
examples of the dialectical method as stated and first developed by
Socrates.Though Socrates did not provide a theoretical exposition of the
method, he established a clear-cutpattern of dialectical reasoning for others to
follow. He placed dialectics in the service of ethics,defining virtue as a basis
for traditional and moral transformation. The discussion in the Republicwas
conducted in a single room among Socrates It is in The Republic that Plato
suggests that democracy was little more than a "charming form of
government."For Plato, the citizens are the least desirable participants in
government. Instead, a philosopher-king or guardian should hold the reigns of
power.
The Republic in Greek means justice, and shouldnot be used or
understood in this Latin sense meaning the states or the polity' As has been
rightlypointed out by William Ebenstein, after twenty three hundred years the
Republic “is still match lessas an introduction to the basic issues that confront
human being as citizens”. No other writer onpolitics has equaled Plato in

14
combining penetrating and dialectical reasoning with poetic imageryand
symbolism. One of the main assumptions of the Republic is that the right kind
of governmentand politics can be the legitimate object of rigorous scientific
thinking rather than the inevitableproduct of muddling through fear and faith,
indolence and improvisation.
Plato realized that the Athenian state, and along with it, Athenian direct
democracy, had failed to realize its lofty ideals. Instead, the citizens sent
Socrates to his death and direct democracy had failed. The purpose of The
Republic was something of a warning to all Athenians that without respect for
law, leadership and a sound education for the young, their city would continue
to decay. Plato wanted to rescue Athens from degeneration by reviving that
sense of community that had at one time made the polis great. The only way to
do this, Plato argued, was to give control over to the Philosopher-Kings, men
who had philosophical knowledge, and to give little more than "noble lies" to
everyone else. The problem as Plato saw it was that power and wisdom had
traveled divergent paths -- his solution was to unite them in the guise of the
Philosopher-King.
2.3 Metaphysics
"Platonism" is a term coined through scholars to refer to theintellectual
consequences of denying, as Socrates often does, the reality of thematerial
world. In many dialogues, mainly notably the Republic, Socratesinverts the
general man's intuition in relation to the knowable and what is real.While
mainly people take the objects of their senses to be real if anything is,Socrates
is contemptuous of people who think that something has to be graspable in the
hands to be real. In the Theaetetus, he says such people are"eu a-mousoi", an
expression that means literally, "happily without themuses". In other
languages, such people live without the divine inspiration thatprovides him,
and people like him, access to higher insights in relation to the reality.
Socrates's idea that reality is unavailable to those who use their senses
is what puts him at odds with the common man, and with common sense.
Socrates says that he who sees with his eyes is blind, and this idea is most
famously captured in his allegory of the cave, and more explicitly in his
description of the divided line. The allegory of the cave is a paradoxical
analogy wherein Socrates argues that the invisible world is the most intelligible
("noeton") and that the visible world ("(h)oraton") is the least knowable, and
the most obscure.
Socrates says in the Republic that people who take the sun-lit world of
the senses to be good and real are living pitifully in a den of evil and ignorance.
Socrates admits that few climb out of the den, or cave of ignorance, and those

15
who do, not only have a terrible struggle to attain the heights, but when they go
back down for a visit or to help other people up, they find themselves objects
of scorn and ridicule.
According to Socrates, physical objects and physical events are
"shadows" of their ideal or perfect forms, and exist only to the extent that they
instantiate the perfect versions of themselves. Just as shadows are temporary,
inconsequential epiphenomena produced by physical objects, physical objects
are themselves fleeting phenomena caused by more substantial causes, the
ideals of which they are mere instances. For example, Socrates thinks that
perfect justice exists (although it is not clear where) and his own trial would be
a cheap copy of it.
2.4 Philosophy
Plato often discusses the father-son relationship and the question of
whether a father's interest in his sons has much to do with how well his sons
turn out. In ancient Athens, a boy was socially located by his family identity,
and Plato often refers to his characters in terms of their paternal and fraternal
relationships. Socrates was not a family man, and saw himself as the son of his
mother, who was apparently a midwife. A divine fatalist, Socrates mocks men
who spent exorbitant fees on tutors and trainers for their sons, and repeatedly
ventures the idea that good character is a gift from the gods. Crito reminds
Socrates that orphans are at the mercy of chance, but Socrates is unconcerned.
In several of Plato's dialogues, Socrates promulgates the idea
that knowledge is a matter of recollection, and not of learning, observation, or
study. He maintains this view somewhat at his own expense, because in many
dialogues, Socrates complains of his forgetfulness. Socrates is often found
arguing that knowledge is not empirical, and that it comes from divine insight.
In many middle period dialogues, such as the Phaedo, Republic
and Phaedrus Plato advocates a belief in the immortality of the soul, and
several dialogues end with long speeches imagining the afterlife. More than
one dialogue contrasts knowledge and opinion, perception and
reality, nature and custom, and body and soul.
Several dialogues tackle questions about art: Socrates says that poetry is
inspired by the muses, and is not rational. He speaks approvingly of this, and
other forms of divine madness (drunkenness, eroticism, and dreaming) in
the Phaedrus (265a–c), and yet in the Republic wants to outlaw Homer's great
poetry and laughter as well. In Ion, Socrates gives no hint of the disapproval of
Homer that he expresses in the Republic. The dialogue Ion suggests
that Homer's Iliad functioned in the ancient Greek world as the Bible does

16
today in the modern Christian world: as divinely inspired literature that can
provide moral guidance, if only it can be properly interpreted.
2.5 Theory of Forms
The theory of Forms (or theory of Ideas) typically refers to the belief
that the material world as it seems to us is not the real world, but only an
"image" or "copy" of the real world. In some of Plato's dialogues, this is
expressed by Socrates, who spoke of forms in formulating a solution to
the problem of universals. The forms, according to Socrates, are archetypes or
abstract representations of the many types of things, and properties we feel and
see around us, that can only be perceived by reason. A form - whether it's a
circle, or a table, or a tree or a dog - is, for Socrates, the answer to the question,
'What is that?' Only understanding forms can lead to true knowledge.In other
words, Socrates was able to recognize two worlds: the apparent world, which
constantly changes, and an unchanging and unseen world of forms, which may
be the cause of what is apparent.
Plato uses a parable, a short informative story, to illustrate 'forms' and
the 'cave,' in his main work, The Republic (which first appeared around 380
BC).
The Allegory of the Cave
The dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon is probably fictitious and
composed by Plato; whether or not the allegory originated with Socrates, or if
Plato is using his mentor as a stand-in for his own idea, is unclear.
In the dialogue, Socrates asks Glaucon to imagine a cave, in which
prisoners are kept. These prisoners have been in the cave since their childhood,
and each of them is held there in a peculiar manner - they are all chained so
that their legs and necks are immobile, forced to look at a wall in front of them.
Behind the prisoners is a fire and between the fire and the prisoners is a raised
walkway, on which people can walk.
These people are puppeteers, and they are carrying objects, in the shape
of human and animal figures, as well as everyday items. The prisoners could
only see these flickering images on the wall, since they could not move their
heads; and so, naturally enough, they presumed the images to be real, rather
than just shadowy representations of what is actually real. In fact, Socrates
claimed, the images on the wall would be so real that the prisoners would
assign prestige among each other to the one who could recall the most detail
about the shapes, the order in which they appeared and which might typically
be found together or in tandem. Of course, Socrates would point out, this was
hollow praise, since in fact the images were not real.

17
 Then Socrates offered a twist in the plot - what if one of the prisoners
was to be freed and made to turn and look at the fire? The bright light would
hurt his eyes, as accustomed as he was to the shadows, and even in turning
back to the wall and its flickering images (which would be only natural), the
prisoner couldn't help but notice that they weren't real at all, but only shadows
of the real items on the walkway behind him.
If the prisoner was then taken from the cave and brought into the open,
the disorientation would be even more severe; the light of the sun would be
much more brilliant than the fire. But as his eyes adjusted, the newly freed
prisoner would be able to see beyond only shadows; he would see dimensions
and reflections in the water (even of himself). After learning of the reality of
the world, the prisoner now sees how 'pitiable' his former colleagues in the
cave really are. If he returned to the cave and rejoined them, he would take no
pleasure in their accolades or praise for knowledge of the shadow-figures; for
their own part, the prisoners would see him as deranged, not really knowing
what reality is and would say of him that he left the cave and returned with
corrupted eyes.
Plato's point is that, once we understand what reality is (the forms), it is
the job of the informed to lead the ignorant 'out of the cave' and into true
knowledge. This means, of course, that those who still are uninformed will
resist since, after all, the cave is all they've ever known. But, this doesn't
change the obligation of the enlightened philosopher to try (and keep trying) to
help his fellow citizens.
2.6 Epistemology
Many have interpreted Plato as stating—even having been the first to
write—that knowledge is justified true belief, an influential view that informed
future developments in epistemology. This interpretation is partly based on a
reading of the Theaetetus wherein Plato argues that knowledge is distinguished
from mere true belief by the knower having an "account" of the object of her or
his true belief. Many years later, Edmund Gettier famously demonstrated the
problems of the justified true belief account of knowledge. That the modern
theory of justified true belief as knowledge which Gettier addresses is
equivalent to Plato's is accepted by some scholars but rejected by others. Plato
himself also identified problems with the justified true belief definition in
the Theaetetus, concluding that justification (or an "account") would require
knowledge of differentness, meaning that the definition of knowledge
is circular. Later in the Meno, Socrates uses a geometrical example to expound
Plato's view that knowledge in this latter sense is acquired by recollection.
Socrates elicits a fact concerning a geometrical construction from a slave boy,

18
who could not have otherwise known the fact (due to the slave boy's lack of
education). The knowledge must be present, Socrates concludes, in an eternal,
non-experiential form.
In other dialogues, the Sophist, Statesman, Republic, and the
Parmenides, Plato himself associates knowledge with the apprehension of
unchanging Forms and their relationships to one another (which he calls
"expertise" in Dialectic), including through the processes of collection and
division. More explicitly, Plato himself argues in the Timaeus that knowledge
is always proportionate to the realm from which it is gained. In other words, if
one derives one's account of something experientially, because the world of
sense is in flux, the views therein attained will be mere opinions. And opinions
are characterized by a lack of necessity and stability. On the other hand, if one
derives one's account of something by way of the non-sensible forms, because
these forms are unchanging, so too is the account derived from them. That
apprehension of forms is required for knowledge may be taken to cohere with
Plato's theory in the Theaetetus and Meno.Indeed, the apprehension of Forms
may be at the base of the "account" required for justification, in that it offers
foundational knowledge which itself needs no account, thereby avoiding
aninfinite regression.
2.7 Theory of justice
The concept of justice is the most important principle of Plato's political
philosophy. The sub-title ofthe Republic, ‘Concerning Justice’ shows the extra
ordinary importance which Plato attached tojustice. Plato saw in justice the
only practical remedy of saving his beloved Athens from decay andruin. The
main argument in the republic is a sustained search after the location and
nature ofjustice. He discovers and locates the principle of justice with the help
of his ideal state.
Plato lived during the time when democracy in Athens was going
down.According to Plato, Justice is the only remedy to save the state. Justice is
part ofthe State. Justice is inseparable from the state. Justice resides in the
state.Justice means complete virtue. It means complete goodness. Justice
consists ofwisdom, courage, and appetite. It is the true condition of the
individual and thestate.
Platonic concept of Justice was not concerned with individual rights. It
hadnothing to do with the system of law or courts also. It was a kind of
moralprinciples for the individual and the state. It said that none should
interfere inthe affairs of others. Each person should mind only his own job. So
there shouldbe functional specialization in the State.

19
 There are two dimensions for Justice. One is the individual dimension
andthe other is the social dimension. At the individual level, justice means
havingthe true vocation in life. That means, a person of appetite should become
aworker. A person of courage should become a soldier. A person of wisdom
andphilosophy should become a philosopher. After that each person should
stick tohis station in life. It means specialization of function.
From the point of the society, justice means the division of the society
intothree classes. These classes represent the elements of rational, spirit and
appetite.Each class must mind its own job. They should not handle the function
of theother classes. This specialization leads to efficiency. Individuals in whom
the rational faculty was predominant would constitute the ruling classand the
virtue of such a soul was wisdom. This soul, a lover of learning had the power
tocomprehend the idea of good. Those in whom spirit was the predominant
quality were theauxiliaries or warriors and the virtue of such souls was
courage, implying the ability to hold on toone's convictions and beliefs in
adverse times. Together the rulers and soldiers would constitute the guardian
class.
Individuals whose souls were appetitive exhibited a fondness for
material things. They were loversof gain and money. They were the artisans,
the producing class. The quality of such an appetitivesoul was temperance,
though Plato did not see temperance as an exclusive quality of the artisanclass.
Though Plato took into account the role of spirit and appetite in human
behavior, he was convinced that reason must ultimately control and direct
emotions and passions.
Thus justice in the state meant that the three social classes (rulers,
warriors andproducers)performed the deliberative and governing, defense and
production without interfering with thefunctions of others. Justice was “one
class, one duty; every man, one work. Prof. Ernest Barker hasdefined the
Platonic theory of justice when he wrote that justice means ‘will to concentrate
on one'sown sphere of duty and not to meddle with the sphere of others".
According to Plato, the justice of the state is the citizen's sense of duty.
This conception of justicegoes against individualism because a man must not
think of himself as an isolated unit withpersonal desire. Plato's justice does not
embody a conception of rights but of duties though it isidentical with true
liberty. It is the true condition the individual and of the state and the ideal state
isthe embodiment of justice. The state is the reality of which justice is the idea.
According to Prof:Sabine, Plato visualized society as a system of services in
which each member both gives andreceives. What the state takes cognizance,

20
of is this mutual exchange and what it tries to arrange isthe most adequate
satisfaction of needs and the most harmonious inter change of services.
Platonic justice leads to functional specialization. From the point of
view of society justice meansself control on the of various classes of society
which makes each class mind its own function andnot interfere with the
functions of others. It also makes various members of each class stick to
theirown allotted functions and responsibilities within the calls and not
interferes with the function ofother individuals in the some class.
There is another dimension also for Platonic concept of Justice. The
twoupper classes of Philosophers and Soldiers cannot have personal family
andpersonal family life. They must mind only the affairs of the state. They
have notime to mind family matters.
Basic Principle of Theory of Justice
1. It means functional specialisation. In it each component of the state
performs the functions, it is best suited to perform, and justice can be
ensured in the society.
2. It implies non-interference. Only when no component of the state
interferes with the sphere of other’s duty that unity can be ensured
moreover, only by doing so a society can benefit from the work of an
individual.
3. It implies a principle of harmony. Three human virtue, viz., wisdom,
courage and temperance representing three classes are harmonized by
the justice.
Criticism of Platonic concept of Justice
1. Platonic concept of justice is only moral and not legal. There is no law
tomaintain justice in the state.
2. The concept of justice is practical only in the situation of a city state.
Itis not practical in other situations.
3. The elements of Reason, Spirit and Appetite are present in
allindividuals. So a particular individual cannot specialize in a
particularelement. For example, a Philosopher cannot possess the
elements ofSpirit and Appetite also.
4. The Philosopher King will become a despot because all the power
isconcentrated in him.
5. Communism of family and wives is not a practical idea. It is
againsthuman nature.

21
 6. For Popper “Open society and its enemies”, Platonic justice gives rise
to totalitarianism and ignores humanitarian principles like liberty,
equality etc.
2.8 Plato onEducation
According to Plato, education is the most important function of the
state.Department of education is the most important department of the
state.Education should be under the direct and strict control of the state. The
objectiveof education is to achieve goodness. It is to promote justice. It helps
individual tounderstand himself. It makes him harmonious with the society. To
achieve goodlife, education is important. Both men and women should have
education. Theyshould have the same kind of education also.
Plato attached more importance to education that either Aristotle or
other Greek thinkers did.He clearly saw that education was more than
acquiring of basic facts and ideas in one's childhoodand adolescence but he was
the first to propose an elaborate system of adult training and education.
Following his teacher Socrates, Plato had a belief in the dictum that virtue is
knowledge and formaking people virtuous, he made education a very powerful
instrument. Plato believed thateducation builds man’s character and it is
therefore a necessary condition for extracting man'snatural faculties in order to
develop his personalities. According to Plato, education promotes justiceand
enables a man to fulfill his duties. Education has the twin aim of enabling the
individual to realizehimself and of adjusting him harmoniously and usefully to
society.
The object of education is to turn the soul towards light. Plato once
stated that the main function of education is not to put knowledge into the soul,
but to bring out the latent talents in the soul by directing it towards the right
objects. This explanation of Plato on education highlights his object of
education and guides the readers in proper direction to unfold the ramifications
of his theory of education.
Plato was, in fact, the first ancient political philosopher either to
establish a university or introduce a higher course or to speak of education as
such. This emphasis on education came to the forefront only due to the then
prevailing education system in Athens. Plato was against the practice of buying
knowledge, which according to him was a heinous crime than buying meat and
drink. Plato strongly believed in a state control education system.
He held the view that without education, the individual would make no
progress any more than a patient who believed in curing himself by his own
loving remedy without giving up his luxurious mode of living. Therefore, Plato

22
stated that education touches the evil at the grass root and changes the whole
outlook on life.
It was through education that the principle of justice was properly
maintained. Education was the positive measure for the operation of justice in
the ideal state. Plato was convinced that the root of the vice lay chiefly in
ignorance, and only by proper education can one be converted into a virtuous
man.
The main purpose of Plato’s theory of education was to ban
individualism, abolish incompetence and immaturity, and establish the rule of
the efficient. Promotion of common good was the primary objective of platonic
education. Plato believed in a strong state-controlled education for both men
and women. He was of the opinion that every citizen must be compulsorily
trained to fit into any particular class, viz., ruling, fighting or the producing
class.Education, however, must be imparted to all in the early stages without
any discrimination. Plato never stated out rightly that education system was
geared to those who want to become rulers of the ideal state and this particular
aspect attracted widespread criticism.
Platonic system of education is systematic and progressive. It consists
of two main parts: Basic Education and Higher Education. The Basic
Education has three stages: First Sub Stage, Second Sub Stage and Third Sub
Stage.
The First Sub Stage is from birth to the age of six. At this stage, the
girls and boys are taught in the language which they can understand. They are
taught the basic facts of life. They are taught with the help of stories and
pictures. This is to develop the right kind of attitude.
The Second Sub Stage is from 6 to 18 years. At this stage, the children
are taught music and gymnastics. Music is meant for the soul. Gymnastics is
meant for the development of the body.
The Third Sub Stage is from 18 to 20 years. At this stage, men and
women are given compulsory military training. This is good for national
defense and protection.
Higher Education starts at the age of 20 and lasts till 35 years of age.
Higher Education also has two sub stages: from 20 to 30 and from 30 to 35. At
this stage, logic, mathematics, geometry, astronomy etc are taught. Only
students with aptitude and interest of science and philosophy are admitted for
higher studies. This kind of education makes people wise and intelligent. At the
age of 30, a test is given. Those who pass the test are taught up to the age of 35.
They are taught the art of dialectics. Those students who are very good are

23
taught up to the age of 50. They will become philosopher kings. They will rule
the state. For the Philosopher King, education is life-long. Plato’s Theory
Platonic scheme of education was progressive and systematic. Its
characteristics can besummarized as follows.
1. His educational scheme was state controlled compulsory and graded
one moving from lowerto higher levels of learning process.
2. It aimed at attaining the physical, moral, mental and intellectual
development of humanpersonality.
3. It is a graded process which consisted of different levels and stages
starting from 6 to 50years.
4. His scheme was particularly aimed at producing philosopher kings, the
rulers in his idealstate.
5. His educational plan aimed at preparing the rulers for administrative
statesmanship, soldiersfor military skill, and producers for material
productivity and finally.
6. His educational plans sought to bring a balance between the individual
needs and socialrequirements.
For Plato, the educational systems serves both to undergrid and sustain
the idea of political orderand to provide a ladder, so to speak up which those
who have the capacity can climb to escape thecontingencies and limitations of
political life. These two purposes, according to Plato, are notcontradictory.
Rather they support and sustain each other.
Criticism
Plato’s scheme of education was undemocratically devised in so far as
it ignored the producingclass completely .It was limited in nature and was
restrictive in extent by laying more emphasis onmathematics and logic than on
literature. The whole plan was unexpectedly and unduly expensive. It is further
criticized that Platonic scheme of education will create an ideal philosopher
more thanan ideal man of action. Plato does not sufficiently realize that
education should be relative to thecharacter of the individual.
2.9 Plato’s Theory of Communism
Plato’s concept of Communism is different from the modern
Communism.Plato’s Communism is meant only for the upper classes. The
Philosophers andSoldiers were the upper classes. Their work is the
administration of the State.They are the guardians. The elements of Reason and
Spirit are present in them.Their function is ruling. They have the political
power. At the same time, theworkers are engaged in economic activities.
Therefore, the workers have economicpower.

24
 But, according to Plato, political and economic power should
notconcentrate in the same hands. Therefore, the upper classes should not
haveeconomic power. They should not have private property. They cannot
haveprivate families also. They should not have land and houses of their own.
Theyshould live in large halls or barracks. They should live like a community.
Theyshould eat from a common mess. They are fully involved in the
administration ofthe State. They get a fixed salary. It is just enough to maintain
themselves foran year. So, according to Plato, only workers can have family
and privateproperty. Plato said that the family system and family feeling lead
to personalambitions. The ruling class should not have personal ambitions.
This isPlato’sidea of Communism.
In the Republic Plato devoted greater space andconsideration to
communism of family than to property. This was mainly because he had
perturbedby the negative emotions of hatred, selfishness and the envy that the
family encouraged. Platobelieved that conventional marriage led to women's
subordination, subjugation and seclusion. Herejected the idea of marriage as a
spiritual union based on love and mutual respect. However,marriage was
necessary to ensure the reproduction and continuation of the human race.
He,therefore, advocated temporary sexual union for the purpose of bearing the
children. He relievedwomen of child caring responsibilities. Once children
were born, they would be taken care of by thestate controlled unserious, which
would be equipped with well trained nurses. Except for thephilosopher ruler,
none would know the parentage of these children.Plato's argument for
communism of property and family was that the unity of the state demands
theirabolition. Prof. Sabine wrote thus: “The unity of the state is to secure;
property and family stand inthe way; therefore, property and marriage must
go”.
Comparison with modern communism.
There are similarities and difference between Platonic communism and
modern communism. Bothare alike in the sense that both ignore the
individuality of the citizens and are based on thesupremacy of the state which
absorbs the individual. Both are totalitarian covering various aspects ofthe life
of the individual. Both are based on the ignorance of the essentials of human
nature andhuman instincts. Further, both are calculated to eliminate
unregulated economic competition basedon individualism. Platonic
communism and modern communism meant to promote political unity
andsocial harmony and to develop the sense of social service.

25
 There are some fundamental differences between Platonic communism
and modern communism.Plato’s communism has a political objective - an
economic solution of a political ailment, Plato’scommunism is limited to only
two upper classes – the rulers and the auxiliaries while Marx’scommunism
applies to the whole society. As Prof. C.C. Maxey has rightly pointed out,
Plato's basisof communism is material temptation and it’s nature is
individualist while Marx' basis is the growth ofsocial evils, which result from
the accumulation of private property in addition to the abovedifferences,
Platonic communism is opposed to modern communism on some other points.
Plato'scommunism was calculated to prevent concentration of economic and
political power in the samehands; modern communism gives political power to
the producing class. Plato's communisminvolved abolition of private family
life and private property; modern communism intends to abolishprivate
property only.
Criticisms
1. Communism of wives and children is unrealistic and unhealthy. It
isagainst human nature and social security.
2. Wives and children are given only for the lower working class. It is
against natural law.
3. Marriage is not a mechanical process. It is a social institution. It is very
essential for the existence of the society. It cannot be turned into a
system for making children.
4. Plato’s concept of communism is unholy. It is against the idea of
civilization. To have children without family is against all civilized
ideas.
5. Plato's theory of communism is too idealistic, too utopian, too
imaginary and accordingly faraway from the realities of life. Some
critics have gone to the extent of criticizing Platonic communism as
half communism.
2.10 Ideal State
Plato’s concept of the ideal state is given in his book ‘The Republic’. It
also contains his ideas about ‘Justice’, ‘Education’, ‘Ideal Man’ and best form
of government. According to Plato, the State is like a human being. A human
being consists of three elements. They are called Reason, Spirit and Appetite.
Just like the individual, in the State also, there are three elements. They are
called the Philosopher, the Soldiers and Workers. Each one possessed a special
character or nature. Reason exists in the Philosopher. It means the ability to
think intelligently. Spirit exists in the Soldier. It means courage and valor.

26
Appetite exists in the Worker. It means great interest to work and produce
results immediately. Wisdom is the quality of the Philosopher. Courage is the
quality of the Soldier. Appetite is the quality of the worker.
There are certain reasons for the formation of the State. The first reason
for the formation of the state is economic motive. Everyone wants to satisfy his
food and other needs. So, there should be people doing economic activities.
The Workers are engaged in economic activity. Secondly, there is the need for
protection. The soldiers are engaged in protection of the state. Thirdly, there is
the need for government. The philosophers will take care of it.
Plato’s Philosopher is like a King. He is called the Philosopher King.
There is the rule of Philosophy through the Philosopher King. He is the head of
the State. The Philosopher King represents Reason. He is engaged in the
government of the state. The Philosopher King makes laws. But he is above
law. However, he is a true statesman.
Thus it can be seen that in the Platonic state, there is the system of
specialization of functions. It means that there is a special group of people to
take care of each function of the state like production, protection and
government.
Plato’s State is like an individual. All the individual elements like
Reason, Spirit and Appetite should be present in the state in the form of
Workers, Soldiers and Philosophers. Thus, the state reflects human nature. The
State is like a large individual. The state is individual writ large. The object of
the Ideal State is good life or goodness.Having outlined the details of an ideal
state, Plato examined other types of regimes, accounting for their decline and
decay. He listed four types of governments namely timocracy, oligarchy
democracy and despotism or tyranny.
The first of these forms of state is timocracy "based on ambition and
love of honor and war as represented by Crete and Sparta "so commonly
admired". The second is oligarchy or Plutocracy the rule of the wealthy, the
third is democracy, the rule of the people, the fourth, and most important
imperfect is despotism or tyranny, which develops inevitable out of the anarchy
of the democratic state. In each instance, Plato correlates a type of human
character with the form of govt. in which it is most reflected:
In his classification of forms of state, Plato considered democracy the
second worst type ofgovernment. His description of life in a democratic society
may be overdrawn, but remains to thisday the most incisive critique of
democracy.Democracy was characterized by license, wastefulness, insolence,
anarchy and democratic mangave more importance to his desire and appetites.

27
Quantity rather than quality was the maincriterion honoring all values on an
equal basis.
In the Statesman, Plato divided the states into lawful and unlawful
states, a classification thatAristotle adopted when he spoke of good and
perverted forms of government in his Politics. ForPlato, there were three law
abiding states, and their corresponding corrupt and lawless states. Therule of
one yielding monarchy and tyranny, the rule of a few, aristocracy and
oligarchy, and the ruleof many included moderate and extreme democracy. For
the first time, Plato conceded two kinds ofdemocracy, and made it the best of
the lawless states, though the west of law - abiding states.Both forms of
democracy were better than oligarchy and even monarchy, tacitly admitting
theimportance of popular participation and consent in the polity.
The salient features of Platonic Ideal state can be summarised as follows:-
1. Rule of Philosopher King: Plato’s state is ruled by the King who is a
philosopher. It is the rule of the Philosopher-King. It is the rule
ofknowledge and wisdom. Philosopher king is the embodiment of
wisdom andknowledge.
2. Equality of Men and Women: In Platonic State, there is equality of men
and women. Both men and women are equals. They have equal status in
society. Both men and women should have equal education also.
3. State controlled education system: The education system is under the
full control of the state. There is a complete scheme of education
promoted by the State. It is to promote social justice and individual
justice.
4. Functional specialization: There is complete functional specialization in
Platonic state. There is a class of people to perform each job. The
philosophers will take care of government. The soldiers will take care
of protection. The workers will take care of economic production.
5. Communism of wives and property: In platonic state, only the lower
class can have family and private property. For the upper classes of
soldiers and philosophers, there is only the communism of wives and
property. The children should be brought up by the state.
6. Control of art and literature: In Platonic state, there is control of art and
literature. Cheap and wrong ideas should not reach the people. People
should read only literature which is of high moral value and wisdom.

28
Criticism of Platonic Ideal State:
The following are some of the criticism of Platonic Ideal State:
1. Platonic state is a totalitarian state: The Platonic state is ruled by
thePhilosopher King. Therefore, it is a one man show. It is not a
democraticsituation. It leads to absolutism and totalitarianism.
2. Under-development of human personality: There is strict functional
specialization in Platonic State. The rulers should have the element of
reason only. The soldiers should have the element of spirit only. The
workers should have the element of appetite only. Therefore, it affects
the development of human personality.
3. Utopian State: The Platonic State is utopian. It is not based on reality.
The Philosopher King is neither a King nor a Philosopher. He is a
strange mix of authority and philosophy. The concept of communism of
wives and property is anti-human. It is against human nature.
4. Anti-democratic State: Plato’s state is anti-democratic. It is ruled by a
totalitarian king.
5. No education for lower classes: In Plato’s state, there is no opportunity
for education for the lower classes. But at the same time, for the upper
classes, the education goes up to the age of 50.
An assessment of Plato’s Political Philosophy
Plato was a revolutionary. His ideas were against the Greek concepts
ofdemocracy and society. His ideas and methods were very different from
theexisting ideas of the society. He inspired the later thinkers like Aristotle,
Cicero,Dante etc. His ideas were the first systematic concept about State and
society.His ideas on education were the first in the entire Europe. His ideas
about therule of the intellectuals gave importance to merit and knowledge. His
ideas onJustice brought the concept of justice into the forefront of the science
of politics.The most pioneering concept was that of the equality of men and
women.Hemoulded the concept of state in such a way that it paved the way
towards nationalism.
Summary
Plato was one of the prolific writers, a philosopher, of the ancient
Greece, born in 428/7 BCand died in 348/7 BC.His works have come to us in
the forms of dialogue which have anappeal to the educated, and an interest in
philosophy. He was a great political philosopher.Inhim, myth, metaphor,
humor, irony, paths and a rich Greek vocabulaly captivate those who read him
as his philosophy leads to the most pressing issues of the mind and reality.

29
Plato wasinfluenced by his teacher, Socrates, and by the then conditions of the
ancient Greek.
The theme of Plato's social and political thought, especially of the
Republic is that philosophyalone offers true power-it also is the way to
knowledge.The philosopher knows the forms,the ideals.He alone is fit to rule-
those who are guided by reason and knowledge alone shouldhave the
power.They alone are capable of establishing justice, to see that everyone
contributesto the best of his abilities, of maintaining the size and purity and
unity of the state.Theserulers, possessed with the element of gold, together with
man of silver and of copper, constitutethe ideal state.Justice, for Plato, lies in
each class (and in each individual in his own class)doing his own job.Plato
gives to these the classes education which each one needs.Plato,being a
perfectionist, does not take any chance and seeks to have a corruption free
administration.That is why he applies communistic devices on the guardians.
Plato's friends and foes are numerous.His admirers describe him as an
idealist and a philosopher,as also a teacher of all, his adversaries condemn him
as the enemy of open society, an antidemocratand a fascist.His contribution to
western political thought is without any parallel.He has given western political
thought a basis, a vision and a direction.
Model Questions
1. Critically examine Plato's Theory of Education.
2. Evaluate Plato's Theory of Justice is the light of the prevailing theories
of justice.
3. Discuss Plato's theory of ideal state.

30
 CHAPTER - 3
ARISTOTLE (384-322 BC).
Structure
3.1 Introduction
3.2 Life and Works
3.3 Theory of State
3.4 Aristotle on Constitutional Government
3.5 Aristotle on Revolution
3.6 Aristotle on Slavery
3.7 Aristotle on Family
3.8 Aristotle on Education
3.1 Introduction
Aristotle was born in 384 BC in Stagira in Greece. Aristotle was a
Greek philosopher and polymath, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander
the Great. His writings cover severalsubjects, including physics, metaphysics,
poetry, theater, music, logic,rhetoric, linguistics, politics, government, ethics,
biology, and zoology. Jointlywith Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle
is one of the mainlysignificant founding figures in Western philosophy.His
ethics,though always influential, gained renewed interest with the
contemporaryadvent of virtue ethics. All characteristics of Aristotle's
philosophy continue tobe the substance of active academic revise today.
Though Aristotle wroteseveral elegant treatises and dialogues it is thought that
the majority of his writings are now lostand only in relation to the one-third of
the original works have survived.
The fundamental difference between Plato and Aristotle led them
toinitiate two great streams of thought which constitute what is known as the
Western PoliticalTheory, From Plato comes political idealism; and from
Aristotle comes political realism. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is
the difference between philosophy and science.Plato was the father of Political
Philosophy; Aristotle, the father of Political Science; the formeris a
philosopher, the latter is a scientist; former follows the deductive methodology;
the latter,an inductive one.
3.2 Life and Works
Aristotle, whose name means "the best purpose," was born in Stagira,
Chalcidice, in 384 BC, in relation to the 55 km east of contemporary day
Thessaloniki. His father Nicomachus was the personal physician to
KingAmyntas of Macedon. Although there is little information on

31
Aristotle'childhood, he almost certainly did spend some time then in the
Macedonia.
Although not an Athenian, Aristotle lived in Athens for more than half
of his life, first as a student atPlato’s Academy for nearly twenty years and
later as the master of his own institution, the Lyceum,for about 12 years.
Lyceum was a public leisure centre, where Aristotle lectured tohis chosen
students in the mornings and to the general public in the evenings.From 335
BC till his death (322 BC) he devoted himself to research, teachingand
administrative duties in Lyceum. Lyceum was a public leisure centre, where
Aristotle lectured tohis chosen students in the mornings and to the general
public in the evenings.
His father was the personal physician to Philip of Macedon and
Aristotle was, for a time at least, the personal tutor of Alexander the Great. He
is regarded as the father of political science as he was the first to analyse,
critically and systematically the then existing constitutions and classify them.
His classification ofconstitutions is still used in understanding constitutions
comparatively. He regarded political scienceas the master science, for it studied
human beings in a political society implying that a human beingcan lead a
meaningful life only as a member of a state.
Although not an Athenian, Aristotle lived in Athens for more than half
of his life, first as a student atPlato’s Academy for nearly twenty years and
later as the master of his own institution, the Lyceum,for about 12 years. From
335 BC till his death (322 BC) he devoted himself to research, teachingand
administrative duties in Lyceum. Lyceum was a public leisure centre, where
Aristotle lectured tohis chosen students in the mornings and to the general
public in the evenings. ‘The Politics’ is hisgreat work.Aristotle’s basic ideas
were about origin, nature and purpose of state, bestform of government, best
form of state, revolution and slavery.
It is throughout this era in Athens from 335 to 323 BC when Aristotleis
believed to have composed several of his works. Aristotle wrote several
dialogues, only fragments of which survived. The works that have survivedare
in treatise form and were not, for the mainly part, planned for wide spread
publication, as they are usually thought to be lecture aids for his students.
Hismainly significant treatises contain Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean
Ethics, Politics, De Anima (On the Soul) and Poetics.
Aristotle not only studied approximately every subject possible at
thetime, but made important contributions to mainly of them. In physical
science,Aristotle studied anatomy, astronomy, embryology, geography,
geology,meteorology, physics and zoology. In philosophy, he wrote on

32
aesthetics,ethics, government, metaphysics, politics, economics, psychology,
rhetoricand theology. He also studied education, foreign customs, literature
andpoetry. His combined works constitute a virtual encyclopedia of
Greekknowledge. It has been suggested that Aristotle was almost certainly the
lastperson to know everything there was to be recognized in his own time.
Close to the end of Alexander's life, Alexander began to suspect
plotsagainst him, and threatened Aristotle in letters. Aristotle had made no
secret ofhis contempt for Alexander's pretense of divinity, and the king had
executedAristotle's grandnephew Callisthenes as a traitor. A widespread
custom inantiquity suspected Aristotle of playing a role in Alexander's death,
but thereis little proof for this.
Aristotle is said to have written about 150 philosophic treaties. His
works can be classified underthree heading:
1. Dialogues and other works of a popular character;
2. Collection of facts and materials from scientific treatment,
3. Systematic works. Among his writings of a popular nature. On the
polity of the Athenians isthe interesting one. The works on the second
group include 200 titles, most in fragments. Thesystematic treatises of
the third, group are marked by a plainness of style. Aristotle’s
politicaltheory is found mainly in the politics although there are
references of his political thought in theNichomachean Ethics. In the
words of Prof. William Ebenstiein, the “politics lacks the fire andpoetic
imagery of the Republic, but it is more systematic and analytical and
after twenty threehundred years it is still an introductory text book to
the entire fields of political science.’ In hiswritings Aristotle showed
much regard for popular opinions and current practices, for he
wasessentially a realist philosopher. His works are really on
justification of existing institutions likefamily, state and slavery or is
calculated to suggest remedies for the ills of the body politics of thecity
states.
3.3 Theory of State
According to Aristotle, man is asocial andpolitical animal. Man lives a
political life. Politics cannot be separated from thelife of man. Formation of the
State was a gradual process.
He finds the origin of the state in the innate desire of anindividual to
satisfy his economic needs and racial instincts. For the realisation of this desire
themale and female on the one hand and the master and slave on the other,
come together, livetogether and form a family, i.e., a household which has its

33
moral and social use. It is in thehousehold that the three elements originate and
develop which are essential to the building of astate, namely fellowship,
political organisation and justice.
According to Aristotle, sate is a natural community, an organism with
all the attributes of a livingbeing. Aristotle conceives of the state as natural in
two ways. First, he briefly delineates theevolution of social institutions from
the family through the village to the city state; in the historicalsense, the state is
the natural and final stage in the growth of human relations. However, the
stateis also considered by Aristotle to be actual in a logical and philosophical
sense: “The state is bynature clearly prior to the family and the individual,
since the whole is of necessity prior to the part”.
To meet his needs, hefirst formed the family. In the family, there are the
master, slave, male, and thefemale members. All of them come together in the
family. However, the familycannot meet all his economic needs. Therefore, he
forms a village. In the village,there are many families. But, the village cannot
meet all his needs. Therefore,man formed the state. The state is a kind of
community. But the state is thehighest form of community. It is above all
communities. The aim of state isgoodness. It aims at the highest good. It is the
perfect form of organisation. Itcame into being for the sake of life and
continues for the sake ofgood life. Man is a man only when he lives in a state.
Without the state, man cannotrealise his destiny. Thus it can be seen that
Aristotle presented an Evolutionary Theory of State. The state is the result of
an evolution. Family and village have developed into the state.
Natural formation of State:
Formation of State is natural. Family is basedon human nature. Just as
family is natural, the state also is natural. State isthe final development of the
family. State is the highest form of socialorganisation. State is the highest
organisation because it aims at the highestgoodness. It is the supreme
association. It is an association of associations. It covers all individuals and
associations. Individuals and associations havemeaning only when they are
parts of the state.
Organic Theory of State:
The state is organic in nature. The state is theresult of a growth. Just
like an organism, state consists of many parts. Theparts form the state. The
parts cannot separate from the whole. The parts haveno meaning without the
whole. Thus, the state embraces all the other humanassociations.

34
Functions of State:
Function of the state is the moral perfection of theindividual. It is like
an educational institution. State has the positive function ofpromoting good
life. It is an instrument of training the citizen in intellectual,moral, and physical
goodness.
State and Government:
Aristotle made a difference between State andGovernment. According
to him, the Government is only an instrument of theState. The Government and
the people in government can be changed easily. But,the State cannot be
changed easily. It can be changed only with the change in theconstitution,
which is not easy. According to him, the Government consisted ofonly a few
citizens while the State consisted of all the citizens.
Bases of formation of government:
According to Aristotle, a Governmentcan be formed on the basis of
birth, Wealth and Number. A Monarch is anexample of a Government based on
birth. If the successor of a Monarch is bad, itis not good for the State. A
government based on Wealth may not be politicallyand morally good. A
Government based on number is good because many peoplework on the
government. But it may not be able to solve difficult problemsbecause many
people are involved to solve a problem. Moreover, the power willcome to
concentrate in few hands.
The characteristic features of Aristotle's theory of state call be, briefly,
stated as under:
1. The state, for Plato, is a natural organisation, and not an artificial one.
Unlike Plato's idealstate, Aristotle's state is not structured or
manufactured, not a make, but is a growth,growing gradually out of
villages, villages growing out of families, and the families, outof man's
nature, his social instincts.The state has grown like a tree.
2. The state is prior to the individual. It is so in the sense, the whole is
prior to the past: "The state "AristotIe says, "is by nature clearly prior to
the family and the individual, since the whole is of necessity prior to the
past; for example, if the whole body be destroyed, there will be no foot
or hand, except in an equivocal sense, as we might speak of a stone
hand; for when destroyed the hand will be no better than that. But
things are defined by theirworking and power; and we ought not to say
that they are the same when they no longerhave their proper quality but
only that they have the same name."''The proof that the state is a
creation of nature, and prior to the individual, 'he continues is that the

35
 individual, whenisolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore, lie is like a
part in relation to the whole.But he who is unable to live in society, or
who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must either be a
beast or a god; lie is no part of a state."
3. The state is not only an association or union as Aristotle calls it, but is
an association ofassociations. The other associations are not as large as
is the state; they are specific, and, therefore, limited in their objective
and essence.The state, on the other hand, has general and common
purposes, and, therefore, has larger concerns as compared to any or
otherassociations.
4. The state is like a human organism.Aristotle is of the opinion that the
state, like thehuman organism, has its own parts, i.e., the individuals.
Apart from the state, he argues, the individuals have no importance, and
separated from the body, the parts have no life oftheir own.The interest
of the part of the body is inherent in the interest of the body-what
separate interest a hand has when away from the body. Likewise, the
interest of the individuals is inherent in the interest of the state.
5. The state is a self-sufficing institution while the village and the family
is not.The self-sufficient state is higher than the families and the
villages-it is their union. As a member of the family the individuals
become social.
6. The state is not, Aristotle says, a unity which it is for Plato. Plato seeks
to attain unitywithin the state. Aristotle too seeks to attain the unity, but
for him, it is unity in diversity. For Aristotle, the state is not a
uniformity, but is one that brings all the diversities together.
Aristotle's best practical state is according to Sabine what Plato called
second-best state.Aristotle's state is the best possible state, the best practicable.
Mcllwain sums up Aristotle’sbest possible state, saying: ""Aristotle's best
possible state is simply the one which is neither too rich nor too poor;secure
from attack and devoid of great wealth or wide expansion of trade or territory,
homogeneous, virtuous,secure from attack and devoid of great wealth or wide
expansion of trade or territory, homogeneous, virtuous,defensible, unambitious
community, self-sufficient but not aggressive, great but not large, a tightly
independent city devoted to the achievement of the highest possible measure of
culture and virtue, of well-beingdefensible, unambitious community, self-
sufficient but not aggressive, great but not large, a tightly independent city
devoted to the achievement of the highest possible measure of culture and
virtue, of well-being and true happiness attainable by each and by all."It is one
(i) which is a small city-state.(ii) whose territory corresponds to the population

36
it has;(iii) that is geographically located near the river and where good climatic
conditions exist; (iv) where the rule of law prevails, and (v) where
authority/power is vested in the hands of the rich.On the basis of his study of
158 constitutions, Aristotle has given a classification which became a guide for
all the subsequent philosophers who ventured to classify governments. For
him, the rule of one and for the interest of all is monarchy and its perverted
form is tyranny if sucha rule exists for the benefit of the ruler. The rule of the
few and for the interest of all is aristocracy, and its perverted form is oligarchy
if such few rule in their own interest. The rule of many and for the interest of
all is polity, and its perverted form is democracy if such a rule exists for those
who have the power.
Aristotle too refers to the cycle of classification monarchyis followed
by tyranny; tyranny by aristocracy;aristocracy, by oligarchy;oligarchy,by
polity;polity by democracy and democracy, by monarchy and so goes on the
cycle ofclassification.
3.4 Aristotle on Constitutional Government
According to Aristotle, Constitution is the arrangement of the offices of
thestate. But it is not just arrangement of offices. It also means who should
holdthese offices. The nature of the ruling class determines the nature of
theconstitution. The nature of the constitution determines nature of the
state.The constitution is not just a part of the state. It is the state itself.
Theconstitution is the way of life of its citizens. It is the inner character of the
people.Change in the constitution means change in the way of life of the
people.According to Aristotle, citizenship means participation in the functions
of thestate. These are sovereign functions.
There are three kinds of governments. The classification is based on
thenumber of people having power. The power may be vested in a single
person, in afew people or many people. Thus, there are
1. Monarchy -
If power is vested on a single person, it is called a Monarchy.
2. Aristocracy –
If power isvested on few people, it is called an Aristocracy.
3.Polity
If power is vested on manypeople, it is called a Polity.
These are normal forms of government.There are pervertedforms of
these governments also. They are called
1. Tyranny
Monarchy becomes tyranny whenthe rule is for him.

37
2. Oligarchy
Aristocracy becomes oligarchy when the rule is for a fewpeople.
3. Democracy
Polity becomes Democracy when it benefits only the poor.
Of all thedifferent types of government, Monarchy is the best form of
government.Monarchy has the highest virtue. Out of the perverted forms of
government, thedemocracy is the best. Democracy has social equality.
There are many problems with Polity or Democracy. If only the rich is
givenpower, they will oppress the poor. If only the poor is given power, they
willplunder the rich. Therefore, there should be a formula. Important offices
shouldbe given to the rich and the meritorious. The poor should be given only
someparticipation in the government. They should be selected through
elections,selections and commissions.
Aristotle's classification has become out-dated,for it cannot be applied
to the existing system.What lie calls the classification of states is,in fact, the
classification of government,for, likeall the ancient Greeks, he confuses
between the state and the government.
Aristotle on Best Possible State:
According to Aristotle, a good state should have the following
characteristics:
1. It should be stable. It means that the constitution is balanced.
2. It should be moderate. It means that the provision s of the constitution
should not be too harsh or too soft. It should not particularly favor a
certain class of people.
According to Aristotle Polity is most stable and most moderate. In
Polity, there is stability because the middle class dominated the other two
classes. Sothere is a balance. Stability is also determined by the following
factors.
a. Population: The number of population should not be too high or too
low.The quality of the population also should be good. The people
should bewell developed and healthy. He did not specify any particular
numberof people.
b. Size and location of State: The size and location should particularly
helpforeign trade. The location is such that it must help to
preventaggression from enemies.
c. Character of the people: The people should be patriotic and
intelligent.They should possess wisdom.

38
 d. Different classes in the State: In an ideal state there should be
artisans,agriculturists, warriors, well to do people, priests and
administrators.According to Aristotle, Artisans and agriculturists should
not be givenany citizenship. Slaves should be separated from the
citizens.
e. Education: Good education is essential for the good foundation of
theState. It will make men moral and good.
3.5 Aristotle on Revolution
Aristotle had put forwarded a detailed theory on Revolution and change
ingovernment. According to him, there are various kinds of revolutions. They
are asfollows:
1. A revolution that may change the constitution.
2. A revolution that may change the ruling people.
3. A revolution that may make an oligarchy more oligarchic or change
democracy into more democracy.
4. A revolution that may change just an institution in the government like
an office.
5. A revolution that may change just a set of people in the government.
Causes of Revolution
There are many causes for Revolution also. Themost general cause of
revolution is men’s desire for equality. The particular causes of revolution are
the love for gain, love for honor, fear, undue prominenceof some individuals in
public life, carelessness in granting office, and neglect ofchanges.
Causes of revolution can be summarised as follows:-
1. Unequal distribution of offices: when the various offices of the State
aredistributed unequally, it will lead to Revolution.
2. Misuse of Authority: When authority is misused, it causes revolution.
3. Injustice: If injustice is caused to the people, it will lead to Revolution.
4. Careless recruitment: if the recruitment to the offices of the state is
proper,it will lead to revolution.
5. Unwanted expenditure: unwanted and callous expenditure will
causerevolution.
6. Jealousy: Jealousy towards those in power can cause revolution.
7. Neglect of minor changes: if small changes are neglected, they will
grow outof proportion.

39
 8. Immigration from outside: if there is no control of immigrants from
outside the state, gradually it will cause revolution.
9. Use of force without reason: if the power of the state is used
irrationally,it might lead to revolution.
10. In democracies, the excesses of demagogues may cause revolution.
11. In Oligarchies, excessive rule of oligarchs may cause revolution.
12. In aristocracies, jealousy towards aristocrats may cause revolution.
Methods to prevent Revolution
There are many methods to preventRevolutions. Aristotle suggests a
number of useful methods to preventrevolution. They can be summarised as
follows:
1. The most important method to prevent revolution is to develop the
spiritof obedience to law. The people of the state should be educated on
thespirit of the constitution.
2. Small changes in the constitution should be carefully observed.
Thereshall be no sudden changes. The government should take care not
tochange the existing system all of a sudden.
3. Too much power should not concentrate in a person or group ofpersons.
Excessive authority should not concentrate on anyone.
4. Everyone should be considered while allotting public offices. No man
orclass of men should be left out. There shall be proper selection
system.The offices of the state should be filled by a proper selection
system.
5. There should be public control over financial administration. It
shouldbe open to public scrutiny.
6. Offices and honours should be awarded based on justice.
7. Minor events in the state should not be ignored. Minor issues can
turninto bigger problems.
8. Avoid outsiders: People from outside should not be entertained much
inthe State. They should be carefully watched. It should be seen that
theywill mix well with the population.
9. Gain confidence of the people: The most important method to
preventrevolution is to gain the confidence of the people.
3.6 Aristotle on Slavery
According to Aristotle, men want good life. To lead a good virtuous
life, manshould have all necessary things. Slave is a domestic servant to do all
the menial type of works in a family.

40
 Aristotle justifies slavery, which in fact, was the order of the day.He
writes: "For that some should rule and others be ruled is a thing not only
necessary,but expedient; from the hour oftheir birth, same are marked out for
subjection, others for rule." So foster rightly says: "In fact, Aristotle justifies
slavery on grounds of expediency".According to Barker: "Aristotle's
conception of slavery is more a justification of a necessity than a deduction
from disinterestedobservation of facts." Maxey is more clear than numerous
others in expressing Aristotle's justification of slavery. "Some persons, remarks
Aristotle, think slavery is unjust and contraryto nature, but he is of the opinion
that it is quite in accord with the laws of nature and theprinciples of
justice.Many persons, lie asserts, are intended by nature to be slaves; from the
hours of their birth they are marked for subjection.Not that they are necessarily
inferior instrength of body or mind, but they are of a servile nature,and so are
better off when they areruled by other man. They lack somehow the quality of
soul that distinguishes the freeman andmaster. Consequently it is just that they
should be held as property and used as other propertyis used, as a means of
maintaining life."
Aristotle assumes that nature is universally ruled by the contrast of the
superior and inferior: man issuperior to the animals, the male to the female, the
soul to the body, reason to passion. In all thesedivisions it is just that the
superior rule over the inferior, and such a rule is to the advantage of
both.Among men, there are those whose business is to use their body, and who
can do nothing better’and they are by nature slaves. Slavery is not only natural
it is necessary as well. If the masters donot tyrannise over the slave, slavery is
advantageous to both the master and the slave. Slavery isessential for the
master of the household because, without slaves he has to do manual work
whichincapacitates him for civic duties.Thus, slavery is good for the slave. He
gets some virtue by his attachment withthe Master. It enables him to share the
virtuous life of the master. The Slavebecomes part of the Household. Thus the
Slave becomes part of the state also.Aristotle proposed certain conditions also
for slavery. They can besummarised as follows:-
1. In the society, the inferior should always be subordinate to the superior.
In the State the Master is superior to the slave.
2. Inequality is a reality. Man is born superior and inferior. In the
naturalway. Man must accept it. All are not born equal.
3. Just like human body, in the society also, there are different
functions.Each function should be performed by different people. Some
functionsare superior and some other functions are inferior.

41
 4. Slavery provides leisure for the Master. It helps him to lead a good
life.He shares his good life with the Slave.
5. Without slavery, the Greek social system will come down.
6. Human perfection can be attained only with the help of Slaves.
Thosewith strong mind have only weak physical abilities. Those with
strongphysical abilities have weak minds.
7. Slaves should never be used for power or wealth.
8. Slaves are saved because of slavery. They can also lead a virtuous life
ina second hand manner. It is a question of virtue in a second
handmanner or no virtue at all.
3.7 Aristotle on Family
According to Aristotle, Family is a natural institution. It existed even
beforethe State. Without family, there is no State. It is the centre point of the
state.According to him, a familyis the primary unit of social life, which not
only makes society but also keeps it going.
Aristotle believed that family is one institution where an individual is
born, is nurtured, getshis identity, his name and above all attains intellectual
development. He asserts that family isthe primary school of social virtue where
a child gets lessons of quality such as cooperation,love, tolerance, and
sacrifice.It is not merely a primary association, but is a necessary actionof
society.If man is a social animal which Aristotle insists he is, family becomes
the extension of man's nature, the village, the extension of families; and the
state, an extension, and unionof families and villages.
Aristotle says, a family consists of husband, wife, children, slaves and
property.According to Aristotle, there are three kinds of relationships in a
family. Firstly, between husband and wife.Secondly, between parents and
children. Thirdlybetween slave and master. A head of family has three kinds of
relationshipswithin the household. But a ruler has only one kind of relationship
within theState. It is between the ruler and the subjects. Therefore, the family is
differentfrom state, not only in degree, but also in nature. Family does not
include theState. But the State includes the Family. Family is mainly to meet
elementary, physical and intellectual needs. The State is mainly to meet the
intellectualneeds. The State can control the Family. But the Family cannot
control the State.The family is not a biological contract. But it is a friendship
forever. It is anunconditional friendship. According to Aristotle, the eldest
male member mustrule the family.

42
 Aristotle's theory of property is based onhis criticism of Plato's
communism of property.Platothought of property as an obstacle in the proper
functioning of the state and, therefore, suggested communism for the guardian
class.But for Aristotle, property provided psychological satisfactionby
fulfilling the human instinct for possession and ownership..His chief complaint
againstPlato was that he failed to balance the claims of production and
distribution.In Plato'scommunism of property, those who produce do not obtain
the reward of their efforts, and those who do not produceget all comforts of
life.He wasof the opinion that property is necessary for one who produces it
and for that matter, necessary for all.
Professor Maxey expresses Aristotle's voice when he says:"Man must
eat, be clad, have shelter, and in order to do so, must acquire property.The
instinct to do so is as natural and proper as the provision nature makes in
supplying wild animals and the means of satisfying the needs of sustenance and
production”. Propertyis necessary, Aristotle says himself: "Wealth (property) is
a store of things, which are necessary or useful for life in the association of city
as household."
According to Aristotle: "Property is a part of the household and the art
of acquiring property is a part of managing the householdfor no man lives well,
or indeed live at all unlesshe is provided with necessaries." With regard to the
ownership of property, Aristotle referred to:
1. Individual ownership, and individual use, which is, for Aristotle, the
most dangerous situation;
2. Common ownership, and individual use, a situation which can begin
with socialism, butwould end up in capitalism, it is also not acceptable;
3. Common ownership and common use, a device invariably
impracticable.
4. Individual ownership and common use, a device generallypossible and
equally acceptable.
Aristotle says: "property ought to be generally and in the mainprivate,
but common in use."
Private property is essential and therefore, is justified, is what is
Aristotle's thesis, but it has to be acquired through honest means: "Of all the
means of acquiring wealth, taking interest is the most unnatural method."
Aristotle was also against amazing property.So he said: "To acquire too much
wealth (property) will be as gross an error as to make a hammer too heavy"

43
3.8 Aristotle on Education
Like his master Plato, Aristotle was very keen on education. The end of
the state, according to himis good life of the individuals for which education is
the best instrument. Education was meant to prepare the individual for
membership of the state and as such had a political as well as intellectualaim.
According to Aristotle, education must be adapted to the constitution of
the state and should becalculated to train man in a certain type of character
suitable to the state. To him, the building of aparticular type of character was
more important than the imparting of knowledge and thereforeproper
educational authority was the states and not the private individuals. Aristotle
was in favour of setting of state controlled educational institutions. However,
Aristotle’s view on education was lesscomprehensive and systematic compared
to his master, Plato.
Conclusion
Aristotle is known as the father of Political Science. Unlike
Plato’sRepublic, Aristotle’s works were measured in thinking and analysis,
reflecting the mind of a scientistrather than that of a philosopher. He regarded
as the father of political science because he wasperhaps the first political
thinker to analyse political institutions and behaviour systematically
andscientifically. He considered man as a social animal and the state as a
natural organisation whichexists not only for life but also for the sake of good
life.His systematic thinkingand presentation has made Politics a master
science. Aristotle was an originalthinker. He influenced many political
thinkers. Even in the middle ages inEurope, his theories and principles were
taught in the Universities. The study ofPolitical Science is incomplete without
the study of the philosophy of Aristotle.
Model Questions
1. Critically examine Aristotle's theory of state.
2. State and examine Aristotle's theory of slavery.
3. Discuss Aristotle's theory of justice and compare it with that of Plato

44
 CHAPTER - 4
MEDIEVAL POLITICAL THOUGHT
Structure
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Life and Work of St. Augustine
4.3 Civitas Dei versus CivitesTerrena
4.4 Justice and the State
4.5 State, Property, War and Slavery
4.6 Thought
4.7 Power
4.1 Introduction
Medieval Political Thought means the Political thought which
originated inthe medieval period. Medieval period means roughly from 5th
century AD to 15thcentury AD.In the medieval period in Europe, Christianity
influenced the society.It influenced political thought also. There was no
freedom of thinking. Allthoughts and actions should be according to the
teachings of the Church.Religion influenced normal secular life. In fact, it was
not the religion whichinfluenced the thoughts of people. But, it was the
religious leaders whoinfluenced people. They influenced the people for their
own benefit, and for thebenefit of the Church. They influenced people to
protect the position and wealthof the Church. In the name of God and religion,
they influenced the generalpublic. They said that the Church will decide
everything regarding their body aswell as spirit. According to them everything
including arts, literature and Political Thoughtshould be according to the Bible.
But the Holy Bible is not about arts orliterature or Political Thought. Then the
Church leaders said that they will guidethe people according to the Bible. They
interpretedthe Bible to increase theirwealth and power and to influence people.
They guided the people according totheir wishes, whims and fancies.
The Secularists were against this. They said that God had given
thefreedom to all people. It is the freedom to choose between good or bad. It
shouldnot be under the influence or fear of church people. Man must use his
freedom tounderstand the truth. They said that God does not want the help of
Churchpeople. Secularists wanted freedom of thought. They said that the
Church shouldlook after only the matters of spirit. They said that the King
should look afterworldly matter. Thus, there were a conflict between the
Secularistsand theChurch. The life of ordinary people became very bad. St.
Thomas Aquinas andDante Alighieri lived during this period of conflict

45
between the Church andSecular people. They wanted to separate religion from
politics.
The important features of the period can be summarised as follows:-
1. Institution of Monarchy: Monarchy was considered as the best form
ofgovernment. Divine origin of kingship was generally accepted. King
wasconsidered as the agent of God on earth. A Monarch could be
hereditary, elected or nominated by the grace of God.
2. Spread of Universalism: Universalism was preached during this
period.People believed in the existence of a universal society. The
fundamentalfeature of Universalism is the belief and faith in the
spiritual salvation ofhuman kind as a whole.
3. Co existence of temporal and spiritual authorities: Both temporal
andspiritual authoritiesco existed. Emperor was a worldly agent and
thePope was considered as a spiritual agent. Both of them co existed
withcertain level of competition as well as co operation. Both
wereconsidered as un avoidable for the society.
4. Scholasticism and the study of Pre Christian values: Pre-
Christianconcepts like Aristotelianism were studied by scholars. The
clout of Papacy increased considerably.
5. Competition of Church and the empire: During this period, theChristian
Church increased its influence in the society and it becamesomething
parallel to the Monarchy wielding almost equal powers if notmore. The
church considered themselves as superior as the Pope wasconsidered as
the representative of God on earth. He could use hispower to
excommunicate the king also. On the other side, the Kingconsidered
himself as the representative of God on earth having powerto rule.
6. Source of Law: In the middle ages, the Law was something personal
andhabitual. It was never national or territorial. Nobody knew the origin
oflaw. Everybody accepted it as it is. Nobody questioned it. They
wereconsidered permanent and eternal.
7. Absence of the concept of sovereignty: There was no concept
ofSovereignty in the middle ages. People followed the moral order.
Churchauthority and the authority of the king co existed. Both these
checkedeach other. There was no concept of a sovereign authority
which wassupreme in internal or external matters.
8. Feudalism: The fundamental characteristics of the social order of the
middle ages was Feudalism. It affected all the people or classes.
Feudallords owned large tracts of land which they gave to the tenants

46
 forcultivation. The terms and conditions were fixed by the Land
lordaccording to his whims and fancies. Perhaps the only working class
wasthe farmers and laborers. The brunt of economic production fell
solelyon the shoulders of the workers. The other classes remained
exploitativein nature.
9. Theory of two swords: In the middle ages, the church fathers
putforward a theory that the human life consists of a combination
ofspiritual and temporal aspects. The spiritual aspect should be
lookedafter by the church. The king can look after only the temporal or
worldlyaspects. Out of these two, the spiritual aspects are superior in
nature.The principal idea behind this concept is the biblical verses
“Renderunto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the
things thatare God’s”. The church taught that the soul is superior to the
body.
ST. AUGUSTINE
4.2 Life and Works
Augustine (Aurelius Augstinus) was born in 354 AD at Thagaste,
nowAlgeria. He finished his higher education at Carthage, the capital of
RomanAfrica. His mother professed Christianity but the boy did not discover
solacein the Christian doctrine and gave his adhesion to a domestic cult
describedManichaeanism. But within a few years he broke with it and became
a convertto Christianity under the inspiration of St. Ambrose, the Bishop of
Milan,Returning to North Africa from Italy after his conversion he devoted his
life toteaching and writing. He became the Bishop of Hippo and lived a
monasticlife. He died in 430 AD.Augstine's mainly well-known writings are
Civitas Dei and theConfessions. The Civitas Dei was written to refute the
charge that Christianitywas responsible for the fall of Rome in 410 AD at the
hands of Visigothsunder Alaric. The Confessions recount Augustine's early life
of pleasure andindulgence and depicts his spiritual pilgrimage with great
philosophic depthand emotional intensity.
4.3 Civitas Dei versus CivitesTerrena
Augustine's answer to the critics of Christianity was in the form
ofenunciation of an evangelical eschatology presenting history as a
constantthrash about flanked by the good and evil culminating in the ultimate
victoryof the good. Man's nature is twofold-he is spirit and body. Through
virtue ofthis dual nature lie is a citizen of two municipalities, the Divine
Municipalityon behalf of heavenly peace and spiritual salvation and the
earthlymunicipality centered on appetite and inclinations directed towards
mundaneobjects and material happiness. "Two loves have created two

47
municipalities: love of self, to the contempt of God the earthly municipality;
love of God, tothe contempt of self, the heavenly."The Divine Municipality,
the Kingdom ofGod on earth, which was first embodied in the Hebrew nation
is symbolizedthrough tile Church and the Christianized Empire. The earthly
municipality isthe Kingdom of Satan exemplified in pagan empires. The pagan
empires areephemeral based as they are on the transient and mutable
characteristics ofhuman nature. Only the Christian state can withstand the
vicissitudes ofhistory and lead man to blessedness and eternal peace.No visible
churchis totally free from evil and no state is absolutely satanic. "The
onlyfoundation and bond of true municipality", says Augustine in one of
hisletters, "is that of faith and strong concord, when the substance of love
isuniversal good, which is, in the highest and truest character, God himself,
andmen love one another, with full sincerity, in Him, and the ground of their
lovefor one another is the love of Him from whose eyes they cannot conceal
theSpirit of their love". "And these two municipalities, and these two loves,
shalllive jointly, face through face, and even intermix, until the last winnowing
andthe final separation shall come upon the earth on the Day of Judgment."
4.4 Justice and the State
A significant question closely related to the distinction flanked by
thetwo municipalities is the connection flanked by justice and commonwealth,
orres publica. Augustine refers to Cicero's view that the substance of the state
isthe realization of justice and himself says that people without law and
justiceare nothing but group of robbers. But he also contends that only a
Christianstate can be presently, for one cannot provide to man his due without
giving toGod what is due to Him. Love of man cannot be real without love of
God.
Augustine’s comment on Cicero on this point has led some noted
scholars likeA.J. Carlyle and J.N. Figgis to conclude that just as to Augustine
justice is notan essential characteristic of the state.It would appear that the
political theory of St. Augustine is materiallydissimilar in many characteristics
from that of St, Ambrose and other Fathers,who symbolize the ancient custom
that justice is the essential excellence, as itis also the end, of the state.The
argument is that since just as to Augustineonly a Christian State can be really
presently, a complete identification of stateand justice would disqualify all pre-
Christian states to be described states inany sense.
But this is certainly not a correct interpretation of St. Augustine's views.
The argument is that since just as to Augustineonly a Christian State can be
really presently, a complete identification of stateand justice would disqualify
all pre-Christian states to be described states inany sense.

48
 But this is certainly not a correct interpretation of St. Augustine'sviews.
McIlwain and Sabiae have rightly taken exception to the interpretationof
Augustine's point, quite in consonance with his unwillingness to identifythe
earthly stale with the kingdom of Satan. Though only a Christian state callbe
presently in the absolute sense of the term, one cannot but attribute a typeof
relative justice to the non-Christian, or pre-Christian, states which seemafter
the worldly require of man and give means and opportunities for thefarming of
spiritual life. The distinction flanked by absolute justice andrelative justice
enables us to evaluate the states just as to the proportion inwhich they embody
these two characteristics, always remembering: "Not fromman but from above
man, proceeded that which make a man live happily."
What Augustine's criticisti1 of Cicero amounts to be: "though a people
may bea people without confessing the true God, no people can be a good
peoplewithout that confession".
4.5 State, Property, War and Slavery
Augustine does not regard the state asnatural, though just as to him man
has an innate disposition for social life.State as a repressive institution, as an
instrument of coercion for enforcingorder and peace is the product of sin and it
was not establish in the primal stateof innocence before the 'Fall' of man.This
view of the statethrough no means implies that we have no moral duty of
political obedience.Though the state is the result of sin, it is also a divine
remedy for sin. Even theChristian subjects of a pagan king are under bounden
duty to obey their ruler.
St. Augustine had no doubt that powers that be are ordained of Godand
even a wicked and sinful ruler has a right to full obedience. Any one whoresists
"duly constituted power" resists "the ordinance of God." So extensiveas the
rulers do not force their subjects into impiety and a conduct whichviolates
spiritual injunctions and the will of God, they should be obeyedwithout
reservation.
Though on the whole St. Augustine, like all Christian thinkers of
histime, whispered in the doctrine of the Two Swords and the independence
ofthe church and the state in their respective spheres, he was firmly of the view
that heresy was a deadly sin and the state has a right to suppress it. Thelocation
of St. Augustine on religious toleration and freedom of consciencewas not
without contradiction. The argument offered through him proved aweapon in
'hands of Inquisitionists later on.
In relation to the property and slavery, Augustine's view marked a
cleardeparture from Aristotle's. Both property and slavery, just as to the saint,

49
arecontrary to original human nature. But they become necessary in the
actualcondition of the fallen man.
In the natural condition property is held in general. After the 'Fall',
inview of man's avarice and instinct of self-possession it becomes
approximatelyimpossible for general ownership to work satisfactorily.
Therefore statemanage and organization become necessary. In the languages of
A.J. Carlyle:"Private property is so practically the creation of the state, and is
defined,limited and changed through the State." But while the legal right to
privateproperty is recognized through the Fathers, "as an appropriate and
necessaryconcession to human infirmity… the institution cannot override the
naturalright of a man to obtain what lie needs from the abundance of that which
theearth brings forth".
Augustine's views on war and slavery are also explicated in the
contextof the sinful condition of man after Adam's Fall. In the ideal
circumstances ofidyllic in1locence and eternal peace, war would be
unthinkable but in thepresent state of strife and insecurity war becomes a
necessity, even from tilemoral and religious point of view, the state necessity
wage war to protect theEmpire and to destroy the heretics. St. Augustine, as
against the earlyChristians, approves of military service for the Christians. He
lays the base forthe theory of "presently war" which was urbanized through
medieval thinkers.Like war, enslavement of man through man is also not
strictly in accordancewith Eternal law. But it is also justified through what
Troeltsch calls theAugustinian doctrine of "relative natural law". It is both a
punishment and acorrective for the sinful act of men. St. Augustine's views on
slavery areopposed to Aristotle's; they are more akin to Stoicism customized in
the lightof Christian theology, that is, the notion of the fall of man.
4.6 Thought
Anthropology
Augustine was one of the first Christian ancient Latin authors
withextremely clear anthropological vision. He saw the human being as a
perfectunity of two substances: soul and body. In his late treatise On Care to
Be Hadfor the Dead, part 5 (420 AD) he exhorted to respect the body on the
groundsthat it belonged to the extremely nature of the human person.
Augustine'sfavorite figure to describe body-soul unity is marriage: carotua,
coniunxtua— your body is your wife. Initially, the two elements were in perfect
harmony.
After the fall of humanity they are now experiencing dramatic combat
flankedby one another. They are two categorically dissimilar things. The body
is athree-dimensional substance composed of the four elements, whereas the

50
soulhas no spatial dimensions. Soul is a type of substance, participating in
cause,fit for ruling the body. Augustine was not preoccupied, as Plato and
Descarteswere, with going too much into details in efforts to explain the
metaphysics ofthe soul-body union. It suffices for him to admit that they are
metaphysicallyseparate; to be a human is to be a composite of soul and body,
and that thesoul is superior to the body. The latter statement is grounded in
hishierarchical classification of things into those that merely exist, those that
existand live, and those that exist, live, and have intelligence or cause.
Like other Church Fathers such as Athenagoras, St. Augustine
"vigorously condemned the practice of induced abortion" as a crime, in
anystage of pregnancy, although he accepted the distinction flanked by
"shaped"and "unformed" foetuses mentioned in the Septuagint translation of
Exodus. , a text that, he observed, did not classify as murder the abortion ofan
"unformed" foetus, since it could not be said with certainty that it hadalready
received a soul.
Astrology
Augustine'scontemporaries often whispered astrology to be an exactand
genuine science. Its practitioners were regarded as true men of learning and
described mathemathici. Astrology played a prominent part in Maniche and
octrine, and Augustine himself was attracted through their books in hisyouth,
being particularly fascinated through those who claimed to foretell thefuture.
Later, as a bishop, he used to warn that one should avoid astrologerswho
combine science and horoscopes. Just as to Augustine, they were notgenuine
students of Hipparchus or Eratosthenes but "general swindlers":
Creation
In "Municipality of God", Augustine rejected both the immortality ofthe
human race proposed through pagans, and modern thoughts of ages
thatdiffered from the Church's sacred writings. In "The Literal Interpretation
ofGenesis" Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was
createdsimultaneously through God, and not in seven calendar days like a
literalexplanation of Genesis would require.Separately from his specificviews,
Augustine recognizes that the interpretation of the creation story ishard, and
remarks that we should be willing to change our mind in relation toit as new
information comes up.
Teaching Philosophy
Augustine is measured an influential figure in the history of
education.A work early in Augustine's writings is De Magistro(the Teacher),
whichcontains insights in relation to the education. Though, his thoughts
changed ashe establishes better directions or better methods of expressing his

51
thoughts. Inthe last years of his life Saint Augustine wrote his "Retractationes",
reviewinghis writings and improving specific texts. Henry Chadwick believes
anaccurate translation of "retractationes" may be "reconsiderations".
He introduced the theory of three dissimilar categories of students,
andinstructed teachers to adapt their teaching styles to each student's
individuallearning approach. The three dissimilar types of students are the
student whohas been well educated through knowledgeable teachers; the
student who hashad no education; and the student who has had a poor
education, but believeshimself to be well educated. If a student has been well
educated in a widediversity of subjects, the teacher necessity be careful not to
repeat what theyhave already learned, but to challenge the student with
material which they donot yet know thoroughly. With the student who has had
no education, theteacher necessity be patient, willing to repeat things until the
studentunderstands, and sympathetic. Perhaps the mainly hard student, though,
is theone with an inferior education who believes he understands something
whenhe does not. Augustine stressed the importance of showing this kind of
studentthe variation flanked by "having languages and having understanding,"
and ofhelping the student to remain humble with his acquisition of
knowledge.Augustine introduced the thought of teachers responding positively
to the questions they may receive from their students, no matter if the
studentinterrupted his teacher. Augustine also founded the restrainedapproach
ofteaching. This teaching approach ensures the students' full understanding of
aconcept because the teacher does not bombard the student with too
muchmaterial; focuses on one topic at a time; helps them discover what they
don'tunderstand, rather than moving on too quickly; anticipates questions;
andhelps them learn to solve difficulties and discover solutions to troubles.
Anothermajor contribution of Augustine to education is his revise on
thestyles of teaching. He claimed there are two vital styles a teacher uses
whenspeaking to the students. The mixed approachcomprises intricate
andsometimes showy language to help students see the beautiful artistry of
thesubject they are learning. The grand approachis not quite as elegant as
themixed approach, but is exciting and heartfelt, with the purpose of igniting
thesimilar passion in the students' hearts. Augustine balanced his
teachingphilosophy with the traditional Bible-based practice of strict discipline.
4.7 Power
Augustine is measured through contemporary historian Thomas
Cahillto be the first medieval man and the last classical man. In both
hisphilosophical and theological reasoning, he was greatly influenced
throughStoicism, Platonism and Neo-Platonism, particularly through the work

52
ofPlotinus, author of the Enneads, almost certainly through the mediation
ofPorphyry and Victorious (as Pierre Hadot has argued). Although he
laterabandoned Neo-Platonism, some thoughts are still visible in his early
writings.
His early and influential writing on the human will, a central topic in
ethics, would become a focus for later philosophers such as Schopenhauer,
Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche. In addition, Augustine was influenced throughthe
works of Virgil (recognized for his teaching on language), Cicero (recognized
for his teaching on argument), and Aristotle (particularly hisRhetoric and
Poetics).
Thomas Aquinas was influenced heavily through Augustine. On
thetopic of original sin, Aquinas proposed a more optimistic view of man
thanthat of Augustine in that his conception leaves to the cause, will, and
passionsof fallen man their natural powers even after the Fall. Augustine's
doctrine ofefficacious grace establish eloquent expression in the works of
Bernard ofClairvaux; also Reformation theologians such as Martin Luther and
JohnCalvin would seem back to him as their inspiration.
Philosopher Bertrand Russell was impressed through
Augustine'smeditation on the nature of time in the Confessions, comparing it to
Kant'ssubjective theory of time, which has been widely accepted since
Kant.His meditations on the nature of time are closely connected to
hisconsideration of the human skill of memory.
Conclusion
Augustine contended that a person's true end was beyond history.
Human history could beunderstood as consisting of good and bad events the
ultimate meaning of which was unfathomable to human beings but graphed by
God. Beyond the outward flux was the hidden historical drama of sin and
redemption which only time could resolve in due course. No earthly state as a
result could eternally guarantee security from internal and external attack. The
classical politicaltraditions of Greece and Rome were wrong and egotistical in
contending that human fulfillment came with citizenship in a rational and just
state. This could not be attained.
Augustine believed that God ordained government even though human
history narrated a list ofdestructive wars. The classical tradition's belief in the
rationality of human beings and in hiscapacity for rational and just government
was naive. Because of Adam's sin, the human beingwas forever a victim of
irrational self-love and of lack of self-knowledge and self-control. Government
was instituted with divineauthorisation for preservation of relative world peace
and not as a means of human fulfillment. Governments could exist without

53
justice but thatwould mean that they were large-scale bands of thieves seeking
peace through arbitrarydomination and force. A good Christian State ought to
be just.
Augustine did not advocate the establishment of a theocracy in the
world. Instead he described,the sanctified role of the priests playing a crucial
role in good government to remedy the corrupt nature of human beings, a
corruption believing any hope for rational self-improvement. Augustine argued
that the whole human race after Adam's sin could not escape its consequences
and wereincapable of any act of pure good. Although human beings were
naturally social they could still choose wrongly and if they chose well it was
because of divine grace and help. Strict justicewould condemn most persons to
hell. Believing in faith and in God's mercy Augustine interpreted the Bible as
denoting that God had chosen a small number of souls for salvation through
allunfathomable decree of predestination superior to any merit or act historical
persons might perform.
Augustine developed his theory of grace in course of a debate with tile
British monkPelagius. He held that God knew about Adam's sin. Moral evil in
the world was a result of a conscious decision to abuse free will. However,
human history and society would always contain ungovernable elements of
conceit and desire that made governments, even tyrannical governments
necessary. It was with divine grace that governments were instituted in order to
ensure civilpeace and order. In interpreting Cicero's republican theory of
government Augustine contended that a just commonwealth consisted of a
rational multitude united by a common love of God rather than a common love
of material well being of the social order. Cicero's Rome broughttogether
people for material reasons rather than spiritual ones. For Augustine a true state
was a true church.
Augustine contended that a secular state was a moral entity and that
states could choose to do what was morally right as well as what was morally
wrong. The Christians desirous of a secular state ought to assume responsibility
for maintenance of civil peace. They have duties towards the state and assume
public responsibilities including the need to fight a just war. A just warhad to
be fought in order to secure a just state. Since no earthly state was entirely just
it was not possible to realise a Christian utopia in history.
Christianity while affirming equality among human beings loathed the
female body and looked upon the ideal woman as one who is chaste, modest,
silent and obedient. The early Christiantexts "insisted that all persons-father-
husband, mother-wife, children, and finally, slaveswere to be maintained in a
fixed, hierarchical social order, all subordinated to each other and,finally, all

54
were to be subject in fear to God the Father and Lord (dominus meaning 'slave
owner') as his. Children and slaves".(Shaw: 1994:24).Within the Church,
women not onlyoccupied separate places from those of men and were also
ranked depending whether they werematrons, virgins, widows or young girls.
Gradually they were made to wear a veil as a symbol of submission to the
'head' of the household and God the Father. All these measures had one aim "a
purposefully imposed inconspicuousnesssilence". Christianity placed
tremendous importance on virginity and was hostile to remarriage and divorce.
It glorified widowhood.
St. Augustine dismissed the female as inferior for her weaker body,
which she would be ableto transcend in the universal community united in
one's love for God. In The City of God, liedivided human beings into two
communities, one focusing on woman and the other on God.Like Cicero he
defined thecivitasas a group of men joined in their agreement about
themeaning of ius, right. While Cicero looked to the republic of Rome as the
expression of ius,for Augustine a community was unified by love of God or
civitasdeior the love of self, civitashominum. Both the civitateswere by
citizens.
In the City of Men the individuals were concerned with this world. It
was one of deceit,ambition and vice, and one of slavery, hierarchy and
repression.In the City of God the individualswere concerned with their love for
God and they aspired for complete happiness. There was no need for political
institutions for there was no inequality and hierarchy. It was here that
thefemale could become a pall; of a community for when oriented towards God
she became an equal to the male. When identified with the body the female
reflected carnality arid was considered as sin.
Augustineemphasised virginity and chastity in sexual matters. He
debarred widows from remarrying.In marriage one succumbed to the
temptations of one's soul and was distracted from the love of God. Ideally
marriage ought to be based on continence. In the City of Godwhen the soul
found its spiritual meaning the female had no functions within the households.

Augustine's theory helped subsequent ages to develop a doctrine of the

Church as a perfect society with powers necessary to any self-sufficient
community regarding property andgovernance. Implying in principle that it
was not possible to attain salvation outside the church.Augustine roused
support for the idea of papal monarchy during the medieval times. Although he
did not subscribe to the idea of two distinct demarcated spheres-civil and
ecclesiasticalyethis theory was used to justify a two-sword theory of world

55
rule, spiritual and temporal, pope and emperor. He did not support. The idea
that the state oughtto be subordinate to the church for viewed the state as
adistinct institution.It was not a secular wing of the church though the church
could advise it.
Augustine has influenced several contemporary-day theologians and
authors such as John Piper. Hannah Arendt, an influential 20th century political
theorist, wrote her doctoral dissertation in philosophy on St. Augustine, and
sustained to rely on his thought throughout her career. In his autobiographical
book Milestones, Pope Benedict XVI, claims St. Augustine as one of the
deepest powers in his thought.

56
 CHAPTER - 5
THOMAS AQUINAS
Structure
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Concept of Nature
5.3 Classification ofGovernment
5.4 Functions of Governments
5.5 Concept of Sovereignty
5.6 Concept of supremacy of the Church
5.7 Aquinas on Law
5.1 Introduction
Thomas Aquinas, O.P. (1227-1274), also Thomas of Aquinor Aquino,
was an Italian Dominican priest, and an immensely influentialphilosopher and
theologian in the custom of scholasticism, within which he isalso recognized as
the "Dumb Ox", "Angelic Doctor", "Doctor Communis",nd "Doctor
Universalis".
Thomas Aquinas was born in Sicily in a noble family.He was attracted
to the Dominican order of priests of theCatholic Church. He lived during a time
when the churchdeveloped into a large spiritual organisation. Feudalismalmost
started to decline and nationalism started to develop.Aristotelianism,
Scholasticism and nationalism were the keyfeatures of the times. The church
needed someone who willamalgamate the teachings of the church with the
risingnationalism and intellectual endeavor. Thomas Aquinas did exactly that.
He was able to provide a sensible combination of the variousaspirations of the
people of his times without compromising their positions. Hewas influenced
not only by Christian teaching, but also by Aristotle, stoics andCicero. “Summa
Theologica” was his famous work.
The methods followed by Thomas Aquinas was very similar to that of
Greekthinkers. He posed a basic question and explained it. Presented it with
variousoptions and described the problems with each answer. The solution was
alwaysbased on the Christian philosophy and values. Finally, he would reach at
his ownconclusion to the problems.
St. Thomas Aquinas is known for his Theory of Law and Justice. He
wasthe greatest European philosopher of the middle ages. He was a great
leader ofthe Church also. He was a declared Saint.He was born in noble family
inSicily. Thomas Aquinas was very close to Kings and Popes. Thus he was
veryclose to both spiritual authority as well as secular authority. During his

57
times,the Pope had power over spiritual aspects as well as administration of the
country.
The Political Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas was a combination of
1.Scholasticism2.Philosophy of Aristotle and 3.Universalism.
Scholasticism is the intellectual tradition of 13th century Europe. It had
two characteristics. Firstly, it held that the Church is infallibleand
unquestionable. Secondly, ittried to combine Faith and Reason. It wanted to
combine both TheologyandScience.According to Scholasticism, all branches of
Science must be in tune withTheology. The Roman Empire must be ruled
according to the wishes of the Pope.If there is a conflict between the Holy
Roman Empire and Pope, the Pope should win. Universalism is the Christian
concept that all human souls will be saved Salvation is for all. All the three
streams of Scholasticism, Aristotelianism andUniversalism converged in
Aquinas. Therefore, Aquinas is called ChristianizedAristotle or Sainted
Aristotle of the middle ages.
St. Thomas as representative of Middle Ages
The intellectual traditionof middle ages can be summarised as
Scholasticism. It was a grand combinationof Philosophy and Theology.
Aquinas was a follower of Scholasticism. However,he gave prominence to
Theology than Philosophy. He gave importance to religion,which according to
him was above every other concept. Therefore, Aquinas saidthat in case of a
conflict between the church and the state, the church shouldwin. According to
Aquinas, Monarchy is the best form of government. However,the monarch is
bound by the laws of land as well as the divine law. He is notabove divine law.
These were fundamental characteristics of the middle ages.
5.2 Concept of Nature
Aquinas was of the opinion that there is a highernature beyond this
worldly nature. He differed from Aristotle in this respect. ForAristotle, this
world was final and definite. According to Aquinas, this world isonly
superficial and only a passing stage of the life of man.
Nature of man
Aquinas followed the Aristotelian principle that man is asocial animal.
Man cannot live without a society around him. Therefore, the stateis something
natural to man. It is embedded in his nature. It is not somethingartificial. He
did not follow the idea that state is the result of fall of man becauseof his sins.
Nature of Society
The ultimate objective of the state is good life throughco existence and
mutual help and service. His idea was similar to the Aristotelianconcept of the

58
purpose of State. The purpose of the State is promotion of good lifeand
happiness. But there was a fundamental difference between Aristotle and
St.Thomas Aquinas in this respect. Aristotle based his idea on a society which
ispurely secular in nature. But according to Thomas Aquinas, the society is one
inwhich both the secular and spiritual authorities co existed sided by side.
Thatwas the need of the times of Aquinas.
Nature of State
Aquinas agreed with Aristotle that man is a social animal.Man became
perfect in the state. The world is not created because of Man’s sin. Itwas not
created when Man was sent out of the Garden of Eden. The state is notthe
product of human sin. But it is a positive product. It is the embodiment
ofReason. The state is necessary to provide the conditions of good life. While
sayingthis, Aquinas also says that the Church also is necessary to secure the
eternalgood. He says that the Church is the highest human institution. It is not
therival of the state. But, the Church is the completion and perfection of the
State.The ultimate purpose of the State is to help people to lead a happy and
good life.The state makes them moral in that way. It makes men virtuous. The
state wasnot a necessary evil the purpose of the State is not just maintenance of
law andorder. It is something beyond that. It is a great social organisation
which coversall aspects of life. However, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, the
Church is superior to the State.
5.3 Classification ofGovernment
Aquinas did not consider any form ofgovernment as truly and
absolutely good. It depends on the functions it perform.It is the question of the
level of virtue and goodness promoted by the rule. In theclassification of
governments, Aquinas followed Aristotle. He believed in thenormal forms of
Monarchy, Aristocracy, and Democracy and their pervertedforms.
5.4 Functions of Governments
According to Aquinas, a good government isthe one which promotes
goodness, happiness and virtue of the people. It mustprovide the people with
good administration, promote justice, provide goodamenities for the citizen and
protect the people. The ultimate objective ofgovernment is the promotion of
moral welfare of the people. The following is anenlistment of the functions of a
good government as according to St. ThomasAquinas:
1. Promote unity.
2. Promote common goodness instead of individual goodness.
3. To remove hindrances to good life of the citizens.
4. Look after the poor.

59
 5. Promote right living and virtuous life.
6. Promote peace and happinessand the conditions for the same.
7. Protection and defense of the citizens.
8. Maintenance of civic amenities like roads and bridges.
9. Maintain a just tax regime.
10. Introduce and maintain a sound system of coinage, weightage and
measures.
11. To reward and promote those who do good.
5.5 Concept of Sovereignty
Aquinas’s concept of sovereignty is worth special mention because he
gave importance to the people. He said that from a political angle of view, the
source of sovereignty is the people from the theological point ofview, the
source of sovereignty is nothing but God. According to him, sovereigntyis
indivisible. It is the source of positive law. A sovereign cannot give a bad law.
5.6 Concept of supremacy of the Church
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the state and the church should work
in co-operation with each other. However, the church is supreme over the state.
The church has authority in spiritual matters also while the state has authority
only in worldly matters. In the event of a conflict between the church and the
state, the former must prevail. The church can even excommunicate a prince.
The state must work under the guidance of the church. However, this authority
is quite indirect rather than direct. The interference of the church in the matters
of the state should be the minimum. The ruler is subject to the authority of the
State only to a limited extent.
Concept of Ethics
Aquinas borrowed a lot from Aristotle in this respect also. But there
was a fundamental difference between the two. For Aristotle, ethics concerned
with worldly life. But for Aquinas ethics is concerned withsalvation and the
ultimate spiritual happiness which can be achieved through agood worldly life.
Concept of Faith and Reason
According to Aquinas, faith and reason are equally important. Both
these powers emanate from God. Therefore they are divine. But out of the two
faith is more important. This concept of amalgamation of both these
antagonistic concepts into one is a great achievement of St. Thomas Aquinas.
5.7 Aquinas on Law
According to Aquinas, there are four kinds of laws. They are

60
1. Eternal Law
Eternal Law is the Mind of God. It is the reason existing in the mind of
God. The whole universe is governed according to it. Eternal Law regulates the
heavenly and earthly spheres. It controls animate and inanimate worlds.
2. Natural Law
Natural Law is the reflection of the divine law in the world. It is
reflected in human beings. Because of Natural Law, men want to live in a
society with others.
3. Divine Law
Divine Law consists of direct revelation by God through saints or
through Bible.
4. Human Law.
Human law is made from Natural Law. It is made according to Natural
Law. It is subordinate to Natural Law. Human Law is not in conflict with
Natural Law. Human Law is based on human reason. It made for the common
good. Human Law is published for the knowledge all people.
Concept of Monarchy
According to Thomas Aquinas, Monarchy is the best form of
government. Only monarchy could promote unity. It is natural that the superior
must rule over the inferior. It is also good for the inferior to be ruled by the
superior. This is the reason why Aquinas supported slavery to some extent. The
ultimate function of Monarch is bringing virtuous life and happiness to the
people. It is his duty to provide the people with peace and order and all
material well being for the attainment of a happy life. The Monarch is under
the supreme guidance of the natural law. In case of a conflict between the
Monarch and Papacy, it should be the later which must win.
Concept of Slavery
Aquinas supported slavery on the ground that the superior must rule
over the inferior. But there is a fundamental difference between Aristotle and
Aquinas in the case of support for slavery. Aquinas supported slavery on
certain religious grounds also. According to him, it is a remedy to wash off
sins. By saying so, Aquinas took a careful position not to disturb the then social
set up.
Estimate of St. Thomas Aquinas:
Thomas Aquinas was a true representative of the middle Ages. Within
the intellectual confinement of the Church, he could remain a liberal thinker.
His contribution to political thought and the then society was multifaceted.

61
Aquinas is best known for his classification of Laws. The contribution of St.
Thomas Aquinas can be summarised as follows:
1. Idea of Democracy: Aquinas said that the ultimate authority of the
sovereign comes from the people, viewed from a political angle. Knowingly or
unknowingly, St. Thomas Aquinas was paving the seeds of Democracy.
2. Idea of Welfare State: According to Aquinas, the functions of the state
weregood and virtuous life. It was expected to provide the citizens with
allamenities, which would help them to lead a happy life.
3. Revival of Aristotelianism: With St. Thomas Aquinas, the principles of
Aristotlebegan to be re read in the west. It was re discovery. It was a new
beginninglong lost during the dark ages perpetrated by the church. By doing
so,Aquinas was correcting a mistake of the ages. Political philosophy could
moveforward there forth.
4. Revival of Scholasticism: The best part of Scholasticism was that it was a
combination of faith and reason. It brought reason at par with faith. It became
easy of the later thinkers to drop faith in favour of reason in their thinking
towards a secular and egalitarian society and state. Aquinas built the
foundation for that.
5. Ideas of Constitutional Government: Aquinas revived the concept of a
state and government based on a definite constitution. Ideas of a constitution
were long lost with Aristotle. Aquinas revived the concept without
antagonising the powerful church entities.
6. Classification of Laws: The classification of the Laws was the classical
example of the diplomatic moves by Aquinas to bring up human and natural
law at a time when Papacy was at its powerful best. He did that in a systematic
manner.
7. Basis of State: Unlike the belief of the Church, Aquinas said that the state is
not the result of the fall of man. He did not follow the principles of contractual
origin also. He said that it is a natural institution for the welfare of the people.
8. Reconciliation of the church and the State: This is the most significant
contribution of St. Thomas Aquinas. He could strike a balance between the
Church and the State in a manner characteristic of his philosophy. By doing so,
he did not antagonize the people of the Church. He in fact lifted the concept of
a secular and constitutional state.
St. Augustine was the greatest Christian philosopher of the early middle
ages and St. Thomas Aquinas of the late medieval period in Europe. St.
Augustine reinterpreted and transformed the tradition of Plato, Aristotle,
Cicero and Plotinus with the idea of dual nature of a man with a body and soul,

62
both of which should be given equal importance. Though he did not regard the
state as natural, it did not imply that there is no moral duty of political
obedience on part of the citizens.
St, Thomas Aquinas brought together different strands of thought-
Aristotelian, Roman, Patristic, Augustinian and Jewish to integrate them into
an organic whole under the rubric of Christian philosophy. St. Thomas thought
that faith does not contradict reason, but complements it. It is reaffirmation of
reason rather than its denial. He agreed with Aristotle that the state is natural
and claimed that it is not the highest institution. Hechristianised Aristotle's
theory and broughtit to line with Augustine's religious philosophy. But he
rejected many of the accepted dogmas of Christian theology and did not accept
Augustine's view on slavery and property.
Summary
St. Augustine was the greatest Christian philosopher of the early middle
ages and St. Thomas Aquinas of the late medieval period in Europe. St,
Thomas Aquinas brought together different strands of thought-Aristotelian,
Roman, Patristic, Augustinian and Jewish to integrate them into an organic
whole under the rubric of Christian philosophy.St. Thomas thought that faith
does not contradict reason, but complements it, is reaffirmation of reason rather
than its denial.He agreed with Aristotle that the state is natural and claimed that
it is not the highest institution.Hechristianised Aristotle's theory and brought it
to line with Augustine's religious philosophy.But he rejected many of the
accepted dogmas of Christian theology and did not accept Augustine's view on
slavery and property.
Model Questions
1. What were St. Thomas Aquinas' views on the relations between faith
and reason?
2. In what ways were St. Augustine's views different from those of St.
Thomas Aquinas?

63
 CHAPTER - 6
MACHIAVELLI
Structure
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Machiavelli and his times
6.3 Method of Machiavelli
6.4 Church vs. state controversy
6.5 Impact of renaissance
6.6 Machiavelli on Human nature
6.7 Attitude towards Religion
6.8 The Prince
6.9 Separation of Politics from Ethics and Religion
6.10 Machiavelli’s Classification of Forms of Government
6.11 Political realism
6.12 Assessment of Machiavelli
6.1 Introduction
Machiavelli is known as the father of modern political science. He
wasan Italian historian, politician, diplomat, philosopher, humanist and
writerbased in Florence throughout the Renaissance. He is a transitional
figurestanding midway between the medieval and modern political thought. He
was a historian who laidthe foundations of a new science of politics by
integrating contemporary history with ancient past.He commanded a sinister
reputation as no other thinker in the annals of political theory. He was for
several years anofficial in the Florentine Republic, with responsibilities in
diplomatic andmilitary affairs. He was a founder of contemporary political
science, and morespecifically political ethics. He also wrote comedies, carnival
songs, andpoetry. His personal correspondence is renowned in the Italian
language. Hewas Secretary to the Second Chancery of the Republic of Florence
from 1498to 1512, when the Medici were out of power. He wrote his
masterpiece, ThePrince, after the Medici had recovered power and he no
longer held a locationof responsibility in Florence. His moral and ethical
beliefs led to the creationof the word Machiavellianism which has since been
used to describe one ofthe three dark triad personalities in psychology.The
initialreaction to Machiavelli’s writing was one of shock and he himself was
denounced as an inventor ofthe devil. This was because Machiavelli sanctioned
the use of deception, cruelty, force, violenceand the like for achieving the
desired political ends. Spinoza regarded him as a friend of the peoplefor having

64
exposed the Prince. Montesquieu regarded him as a lover of liberty, an image
that emerged in the Discourses and not from the Prince.
6.2 Machiavelli and his times
Machiavelli, (Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli) (1469 - 1527) was
born in Italy in 1469. He was the third child in a family that was neither rich
nor aristocratic, but well connected with the city’s famed humanistic circles.
Florence was economically prosperous but suffered a long period of civil strife
and political disorder. His father Berando, a civil lawyer, held several
important public appointments. Besides his legal practice, Bernado also
received rents from his land, making his family financially comfortable’
Bernado took considerable interest in the education of his son. At the age of 29,
Machiavelli entered the public service in the government of Florence.Later he
was sent on a diplomatic mission to severalforeign countries where he acquired
firsthand experience of Political and diplomatic matters.Although not
employed on the highest level of policy making, he was close enough to the
innercircles of the administration to acquire firsthand knowledge of the
mechanics of politics. In 1512, helost his job when the republican government,
based on French support was replaced by the absoluteregime of the Medici,
who has been restored to power with papal help. Machiavelli was accused
ofserious crimes and tortured, but he was found innocent and banished to his
small farm nearFlorence. It was in such enforced leisure that he wrote the
Prince (1513). The book was dedicatedto the Medici family, Lorenzo II de
Medici (1492-1519), Lorenzo the Maginificient’s grandson.
Machiavelli lived during a period when muchchaos and confusion
prevailed in Italy. The country was in fragments. There wereconstant conflict
between the Pope and the Emperor. Pope was more a dis-unifying factor rather
than a unifying factor. There was no central authority tocommand the rule of
the state. At the same time, feudalism was on a downhilltrend due to
advancement in economic production. It was the period ofRenaissance. In
almost all fields of human thinking, there were freedom ofspeech and
expression. Reason was taking charge of faith. Reason and faith gotseparated
from each other. Men wanted to separate his temporal life from that ofspiritual
life. Materialism was another characteristic of his times. Renaissancereplaced
spiritualism with materialism. Individual became the centre of humanthought.
Renaissance is a special period in European History. In this period,
peopleunderstood that it is possible to think freely. They realized that it is
possible tothink without the help of Church. They also realized that it is
possible to thinkbeyondchurch teachings. People believed that Nature must be
viewed fromthe point of view of Reason. They started thinking that Nature

65
should not beviewed from the point of view of Religion. Nature is not a matter
of faith. It is amatter of Reason. Man must be able to think with the brain
which God had givenhim. So it was a time of Freedom of Thought. Free
thinking was supported in allmatters of human life. It became possible to think
free in all matters of life. So itbecame possible to think in the matters of
Politics also. That means, it becamepossible to think about political matters
without the help of religion. Thus, Political thinking became Secular.
Machiavelli became a champion of freethinking in Political Thought.
Actually, Machiavelli lived in the end of medieval age and the
beginning ofModern Age. With him, middle Ages came to an end and political
philosophyentered a new phase. His thinking was modern. In the middle Ages,
peoplethought mainly about Spirit, Salvation and God. The centre of human
thought was God and the Church. But in the Renaissance period, Man became
the centreof human thought. People began to think about what is good for Man;
and notwhat is good for God. They began to concentrate on this world and not
heavenand salvation. People wanted to improve their life. They wanted to
enrich theirpersonality. They wanted to enjoy the beauty of nature and this
world. Theystopped dreaming about the beauty of heaven.
As a result of freethinking, Nationalism and Individualism were born.
Nationalism means a thinking that each person belongs to a particular
Nationality. Thus Nationality is a part of the personality.Individualism
meansthat the individual is the centre and not his religion or caste. Individual is
identified as a single person and not as a member of a community or caste
orreligion. Individualism also taught that human thinking is not for the success
ofa religion or caste; but it is for the success of the individual. Thus
Individualismand Nationalism meant national success and individual success.
It means Powerfor the individual and the Nation and not his religion or caste.
Individuals wereunited by their nationality and not by their religion or caste.
6.3 Method of Machiavelli
Machiavelli was a follower of Aristotle. Machiavelli started at the point
in which Aristotle stopped. He freely used the various concepts of Aristotle.
Machiavelli followed Reason. His method was based on scientific observation.
He tried to learn from history and the past. It is called Historical Method. He
studied contemporary politics. On the basis of it, he formed theories. He
proved his theories on the basis of history. He based his thinking on truth and
reality. It is called Realism. It is not based on philosophy. He was more
interested in the actual working of the government. He was interested in the
protection and preservation of the state. He was not worried about the
excellence of the Constitution. He believed that there is no point in having an

66
excellent Constitution, if it does not protect the State. He also viewed state
affairs from the standpoint of the ruler. The ruled people were only secondary
to Machiavelli. Above all, he said that there is only one sword to rule the
nation. That is the sword of Secularism. He did not allow religion in politics.
He did not want religion to rule the state.
6.4 Churchvs. state controversy
Middle Ages roughly mean the period between the Gregorian
movement of the 11th century and thebeginning of the protestant reformation
movement. Medieval political theory was dominated by theideal of unity as
taught by the ancient Roman Empire. There was a general belief in a
centralizedsecular power and a centralized ecclesiastical power. Even the state
and the Church were fusedinto one system and represented two different
aspects of the same society. The function of theuniversal empire was to help
the growth of a universal church. When the struggle between papacyand the
Holy Roman Empire broke out, the defenders of both quoted scriptures in
support of theirclaims.
In the days when the Roman Empire adopted Christianity, the emperor
was the head of both thestate and the church; but the church grew more and
more strong and began to exercise the right ofexcommunication. This right of
excommunication was a powerful weapon in the hands of thechurch. Thus
ecclesiastical authority began to interfere with and control secular authority.
When theHoly Roman Empire was created, no attempt was made to define the
relations between the emperorand the pope. It was impossible to determine
whether the emperor derived his authority immediatelyfrom God or
immediately through the pope.
The clash between the two began in the 11th century with the reforms of
Gregory VIII who decreedthat ‘no ecclesiastic should be invested with the
symbols of office by a secular ruler under penalty ofexcommunication’. This
decree led to a conflict between emperor Henry IV and Gregory. Thiscontest
between the papacy and the empire lasted for about two centuries when at last
the papacycame out victorious as the unrivalled head of western Christendom.
The papacy was strongest in the13th century under Innocent III. By the
14thcentury the king had become strong, and feudalism, themain support of the
church, had become somewhat weakened.
6.5 Impact of renaissance
Machiavelli was very much a creature of the Renaissance, his native
city of Florence being then thecentre of Italian Renaissance. As mentioned
above, in the Middle Ages, the church and the statewere closely interrelated;
the church on the whole dominated the state and profoundly influencingthe

67
political philosophy of the latter. The Renaissance impelled men to reexamine
things from otherthan clerical point of view. It was possible now to formulate
political theories on a purely secular basis and Machiavelli is the chief
exponent of this schools of thought.
Renaissance ushered in rationalism which viewed God, man and nature
from the stand point ofreason and not faith. The international conflict,
following geographical discoveries, produced theconcepts of nationalism and
nation- state which went against medieval universalism in church andstate. The
most important discovery of the Renaissance- more significant than any single
work of artor any one genius was the discovery of man. The Renaissance goes
beyond the moral selfhood ofstoicism, the spiritual uniqueness of Christianity,
the aesthetic individuality of the ancient Greeks,and views man in his totality.
Displacing God man becomes the centre of the universe, the value ofthis new
solar system are inevitably different from those of the God centered universe.
The Renaissance signified a rebirth of the human spirit in the attainment
of liberty, self-confidenceand optimism. In contradiction to the medieval view,
which had envisaged the human being as fallenand depraved in an evil world
with the devil at the centre, the Renaissance captured the Greek idealof the
essential goodness of individual. This return to a pre- Christian attitude towards
humans, godand nature found expression in all aspects of human endeavour
and creativity. The Renaissancesignaled the breakdown of a unified Christian
society. Among the centers of Renaissance, Florencewas always first, reaching
its climax in Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519), who most perfectlyrepresented
and lived, the Renaissance ideal of universal man.
6.6 Machiavelli on Human nature
According to Machiavelli, human nature isnot good. But it is bad.
According to him, man is “ungrateful, fickle,deceitful, cowardly and
avaricious”. They are originally irrational. Theydo not think based on reason.
They work according to their emotions. They areemotional beings. They are
not rational beings. There is only one method tocontrol them. It is through
emotions. They can be controlled only through Fear.Fear is the dominating
element in man. Therefore, a King or a Prince must makeuse of the Fear to
control people. The people must fear a Prince. The Prince mustrepresent fear.
Machiavelli’s concept of Human nature is given in his famous work
‘ThePrince’. It can be summarised as follows:
1. Human nature is essentially not good. Man, by nature is selfish. He is
selfcentered. He is greedy. By nature, men love property and material
objectsthan his own people and other human beings. Machiavelli said
that peoplecan forget their ancestors but not their property.

68
 2. Man always remains unsatisfied because he is always greedy.
3. Human beings are always aggressive. He is interested in acquire more
andmore. His greed never ends.
4. By nature, human beings work against collective interests because he
isselfish.
5. By nature human beings are ambitious. They very fast get tired of the
oldand seeks things new and things which caters to his fancy.
6. Human beings generally want liberty.
Machiavellian view on human nature is always criticized for its
inability to set the other side of the picture. He had depicted only one side of
human nature. Itmay be true that there may be bad elements in his behaviour.
But that is not thefinal. There is always the other side. He failed to explore the
human nature fromits entirety.
6.7 Attitude towards Religion
The novelty in Machiavelli’s writings was his attitude towards religion
and morality, whichdistinguished from all those who preceded him. He was
scathing in his attack on the church and itschurch for their failure to provide
moral aspiration. He wrote thus: We Italians then owe to theChurch of Rome
and her priests our having become irreligious and bad, but we owe her a
stillgreater debt and one that will be the cause of our ruin, namely that the
church has kept and stillkeeps our country divided.
Machiavelli was anti- church and anti clergy, but not anti religion. He
considered religion asnecessary not only for man’s social life but also for the
health and prosperity of the state. It wasimportant within a state because of the
influence it wielded over political life in general. Machiavelli’sattitude towards
religion was strictly utilitarian. It was a social force; it played a pivotal role
becauseit appealed to the selfishness of man through its doctrine of reward and
punishment, therebyinducing proper behaviour and good conduct that was
necessary for the well-being of a society.Religion determined the social and
ethical norms and values that governed human conduct andactions.
According to William Ebenstein, Machiavelli’s views on morals and
religion illustrate his beliefin the supremacy of power over other social values.
He has so sense of religion as a deep personalexperience, and the mystical
element in religion - its supernatural and supranational character isalien to his
outlook. Yet he has a positive attitude toward religion; albeit his religion
becomes a toolof influence and control in the hands of the ruler over the ruled.
Machiavelli sees in religion the poorman’s reason, ethics, and morality put
together and ‘where religion exists it is easy to introducearmies and discipline’.

69
 The role of religion as a mere instrument of political domination,
cohesion and unity becomes evenclearer in Machiavelli’s advice that the ruler
support and spread religious doctrines and beliefs inmiracles that he knows to
be false. Machiavelli’s interest in Christianity is not philosophical ortheological
, but purely pragmatic land political. He is critical of Christianity because “it
glorifiesmore the humble and contemplative men than the men of action”,
whereas the Roman paganreligion defied only men who had achieved great
glory, such as commanders of republics and chiefsof republics’ Machiavelli
argues that “Christianity idealises humility, lowliness, and a contempt
forworldly objects as contrasted with the pagan qualities of grander of soul,
strength of body, and otherqualities, that render men formidable”.
Concerning the church, Machiavelli preferred two main charges. First,
he states that theItalians have become’ irreligious and bad’ because of the evil
example of the court of Rome’. Thesecond and more serious accusation is that
the church ‘has kept and still keeps our country divided’.He goes on to say that
the sole cause of Italian political disunity is the church. Having acquired
jurisdiction over a considerable portion of Italy “she has never had sufficient
power or courage toenable her to make herself sole sovereign of all Italy”.
Machiavelli distinguished between pagan and Christian moralities, and
chose paganism. Hedid not condemn Christian morality, nor did he try to
redefine the Christian conception of a good person. He dismissed the Christian
view that an individual was endowed with a divine element and a supernatural
end. He also rejected the idea of absolute good. He observed: Goodness is
simply that which sub serves on the average or in the long run, the interests of
the mass of individuals. The terms good and evil have no transcendental
reference. They refer to the communityconsidered as an association of
individuals and to nothing else.
Though Machiavelli was critical of Christianity, he retained the basic
Christian views on thedifferences between good and evil. For instance, he
regarded murdering one’s co-citizens, betrayingone’s friends, disloyalty and
irreligiousness as lack of virtue not entitled to glory. Machiavelli wasclear that
Italy needed a religion similar to one that ancient Roman had, a religion that
taught toserve the interest of the state. He was categorical that Florentines
needed political and militaryvirtues which Christian faith did not impart.
Machiavelli’s attitude to religion and morality made him highly
controversial. Strausscharacterized him as a teacher of evil. Prof. Sabine saw
him as being amoral. It is beyond disputethat Machiavelli separated religion
from politics and set the tone for one of the main themes of modern times,
namely secularization of thought and life. Though conscious of the importance

70
of religion as a cementing force in society, he was hostile towards Christianity
and looked upon the Roman Catholic Church as the main adversary. He
espoused hostility towards religion, considering he was writing in Italy prior to
the Reformation.
6.8 The Prince
Machiavelli’s book ‘Prince’ is not an academic work. It is not abook of
Political Science also. But it is a book of practical politics. It is a memorandum
on the art of government, is pragmatic in character and provides technique of
the fundamental principles of statecraft for a successful rulership.Itdeals with
the machinery of the government which the successful ruler could make use
of.The Wholeargument of the Prince is based on the two premises borrowed
mainly from Aristotle.One of these is that the State is the highest form of
human association and the most indispensable instrument for the promotion of
human welfare, and that by merging himself in the state theindividual finds his
fullest development, that is, his best self.
It says thatState is the highest form of human organisations. It is above
all other humanorganisations. It is unavoidable for the welfare of people. It is
ruled by a Princewho is rational. A Prince must have the qualities of a lionin
organizing attacks. He should have the qualities of a fox in diplomaticmatters.
He is not hated. He should be only feared. He must be free fromemotional
disturbances. But he must take advantage of emotional disturbance ofpeople.
He is a calculating opportunist. He must oppose evil by evil. He must beready
to sin for the sake of the state. Dishonesty is the best policy for the Prince.
The fundamental principle of the Prince is that the State is the
highestassociation. It reflects the national character. Nobody is above the state.
The lawof the state expresses the character of the state.
A successful Prince should always try to make himself popular among
thepeople. He should be like a father figure to all his subjects. He must
commandthe respect of the citizens. He must ensure economic prosperity of the
subjects.He must plant spies all over. Any dissention against him should be
taken intoconsideration seriously. Conspirators should be thoroughly punished.
There shallbe strict law and order in his state.
According to Machiavelli, the Prince is above laws. He is above all
codesand conducts. He need not watch for the morality and immorality of his
actions.He is bothered only about the end results. The means is not an issue for
him.While selecting the officials, the Prince should be careful to avoid
flatterers. This is the greatest challenge to a Prince. To differentiate between
those who flatterand those who present facts is difficult. He must also take
steps to keep the royalmatters as secret.

71
 A Prince must take the advice of wise people around him. He should
notlisten to all alike. A successful Prince must abstain from personal property
and women.These two things can take away his interest in the administration of
the state.He must be able to sin for the unity and integrity of the state.
A Prince must also be able to exploit the religious feelings of the people
forthe safety and security of the nation. He must also be able to get the
sympathy ofthe people.
A Prince must be able to obtain the opinion of his people on
variousmatters. He must create a feeling in men that the rule is for them. He
must makeuse of various methods of propaganda to spread the message.He
must not allow himself to be weighed down by any consideration of justice or
injustice, good or bad, right or wrong, mercy or cruelty,honour or dishonour in
matters of the state.
He must appear very cooperative to his friends. He must also realize
thatthere are no permanent friends or permanent enemies.
According to Maclliavelli state actions were not to be judged by
individual ethics.He prescribes double standard of conduct for statesmen and
the private citizens.
The ruler is the creatorof law as also of morality, for moral obligations
must ultimately besustained by law and the ruler, as the creator of the state, is
not only outside the law, but if thelaw enacts morals, lie is outside morality as
well.There is no standard to judge his acts except the success of his political
expedience for enlarging and perpetuating the power of his state. Itwill be the
ruin of the state if the ruler's public actions were to be weighed down by
individualethics, especially those which relate to internal and external security.
Therefore, public and private standards were difficult. It was always wrong for
an individual to commit crime, even to lie, but sometimes good and necessary
for the ruler to do so in the interest of the state.Similarly, it is wrong for a
private individual to kill, but not for the state to execute someoneby way of
punishment. The state hangs a murderer because public safety demands it,
Publicconduct, in fact, is neither inherently good nor bad. It is good if its
results are good. A citizenacts for himself and as suchis also responsible for his
action, whereas the state acts for all, and therefore, same principles of conduct
could not be applied to both. The state has no ethics. It is a non-ethical entity.
The state being the highest form of human association has supreme
claim over men's obligations.This theory of Maclliavelli gives supreme
importance to the law given in society. The ruler,in order to prove this claim,
must atthe same time embrace every opportunity to develop hisreputation. He
must keep people busy with great enterprises, must surround all his actions

72
with an air of grandeur,and must openly participate in the affairs of
neighbouring states.Besides,he must also pose as the patron ofart, commerce
and agriculture and should refrain fromimposing burdensome taxation. To
Machiavelli, the justice of state was in the interest of the sovereign and the
safety of state was the supreme law.
One of the most important characteristics of Machiavelli's philosophy in
the case of Prince was that he should aim at acquisition and extension of his
princely powers and territories. If he failsto do this, he is bound to perish.For
this he should always regard his neighbouring states as enemies and remain
always prepared to attack them at some weak moments of theirs. For this he
must have a well trained citizens' soldiery.A good army of soldiers are in
reality the essenceof princely strength. A Prince must realize the importance of
a strong army for the state. Nonation can survive without a powerful army. He
can only do so if enough financeis available to him. But the real strength of the
army resides in the patriotism ofpeople.
6.9 Separation of Politics from Ethics and Religion
One of the major contributions of Machiavelli is that he separated
religion from politics and set thetone for one of the main themes of modern
times, namely secularisation of thought and life. Machiavelli criticised the
church of his day precisely for political and not religious reasons. He
recognised that the existence of the papal state and its ceaseless struggle to
dominate politicalaffairs was a primary cause of Italy’s inability to unite into
one political unit.
Machiavelli believed in Secularism. To Machiavelli, the Church is only
adepartment or section of the state. The Church is not independent of the
State.The Church has a place within the state. The place of Church is not above
orbeside the State. Religion is only a social force which is working within the
state.Religion cannot be above the State. Ethics also is like this. Ethics cannot
beabove the State. It is a force working within the State.
6.10 Machiavelli’s Classification of Forms of Government
Machiavelli’sclassification of the forms of government is rather
unsystematic. The treatmentof government in his two major works is
significantly different; rather inconsistent andcontradictory to each other. The
'Prince deals with monarchies or absolute governments, whilethe 'Discourses'
showed his admiration for expanded Roman Republic.In both forms his
emphasis is on thecardinal principle of the preservation of the state as distinct
from its foundings, depends uponthe excellence of its law, for this is the source
of all civic virtues of its citizens.Even in amonarchy the prime condition or
stable government is that it should be regulated by law. Thus, Machiavelli

73
insisted upon the need for legal remedies against official abuses in order to
preventillegal violence.
Machiavelli never erected his belief in the omnipotent law giver into a
general theory of absolutism. Both the books present aspects of the same
subject - the cause of the rise and decline of states and the means by which
statesmen could make them permanent. This corresponds to twofold
classification of states or form of government.The stability and preservation of
the state is the prime objective of theruler.Machiavelli favoured a gentle rule
wherever possible and the use of severity only in moderation. Hebelieved
explicitly that government is more stable where it is shared by many.He
preferred election to heredity as a mode of choosing rulers. He also spoke for
generalfreedom to propose measures for the public good and for liberty of
discussion before reachinga decision.He, in his 'Discourses' expressed that
people must be independent and strong because there is no way lo make them
suitable without giving them the means of rebellion. He had a high opinion
both of the virtue and the judgement of an uncorrupted people as comparedto
those of the prince.These observations only show the conflicting and
contradictoryideas of Machiavelli's philosophy; on one hand he advocates an
absolute monarchy and on the other shows his admiration for a republic.
As Sabine remarks: "His judgement was swayed by two admirations-for
the resourceful despot and for the free, self-governing people-which werenot
consistent. He patched the two together, rather precariously, as the theories
respectivelyof founding a state and of preserving it after it is founded. In more
modern terms it might be said that he had one theory for revolution and another
for government. Obviously, he recommended despotism mainlyfor reforming a
corrupt state and preserving its security. However, he believed, that state can
be madepermanent only if the people are admitted to some share in the
government and if the prince conducts the ordinary business of the state in
accordance with law and with a due regard for the property and rights of his
subjects. Despotic violence is a powerful political medicine, needed in corrupt
states and for special contingencies, but it is still a poison which must be used
with the greatest caution.
6.11 Political realism
Machiavelli is regarded as the father of modern political science and the
first realist in westernpolitical thought. He was a student of practical and
speculative politics. A realist in politics he caredlittle for political philosophy
as such. His writings expound a theory of the art of government ratherthan a
theory of the state. He was more concerned with the actual working of the
machinery ofgovernment than the abstract principles of the state and its

74
constitution. As Prof. C.C Maxey hasrightly pointed out ‘his passion for the
practical as against the theoretical undoubtedly did much torescue political
thought from the scholastic obscuratism of the middle ages.’
Machiavelli was the first to state and systematically expose the power
view of politics, laying downthe foundations of a new science in the same way
as Galileo’s Dynamics became the basis of themodern science of nature.
Machiavelli identified politics as the struggle for the acquisition,maintenance
and consolidation of political power, an analysis developed by Thomas Hobbes
andHarrington in the 17th century, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in
the 18th century ParetoMosca and Robert Michels in the 19th century, and
Robert A Dhal, David Easton, Hans J.Morgenthau Morton A Kaplan etc in the
20th century.
Machiavelli’s writings do not belong to the domain of political theory,
He wrote mainly of themechanics of government, of the means by which the
states may be made strong, of the policies bywhich they can expand their
power and of the errors that lead to their decay and destruction. Prof.Dunning
called Machiavellian philosophy as “the study of the art of government rather
than a theoryof state”.
The Prince of Machiavelli is the product of the prevailing conditions of
his time in his country,Italy. As it is not an academic treatise or value oriented
philosophy; it is in real sense real politik. Itis a memorandum on the art of
government, is pragmatic in character and provides technique of
thefundamental principles of states craft for a successful ruler. It deals with a
machinery of government which the successful ruler can make use of it.
The two basic means of success for a prince are the judicious use of law
and physicalforce. He must combine in himself rational as well as brutal
characteristic, a combination of lion andfox. The ruler must imitate the fox and
lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from the traps and thefox cannot
defend himself from wolves”. A prudent ruler, according to Machiavelli, ought
not to keepfaith when by doing so it would be against his interest and when the
reasons which made him bindhimself no longer exist.
Like other realists after him, Machiavelli identifies “power politics with
the whole of politicalreality” and he thus fails to grasp that ideas and ideals can
become potent facts in the struggle forpolitical survival. In the wards of
William Ebenstein, Machiavellian realists are usually realistic andrational in
the choice of means with which they carry out their schemes of aggrandisement
andexpansion. Because Machiavelli was interested only in the means of
acquiring, retaining andexpanding power, and not in the end of the state, he
remained unaware of the relations betweenmeans and ends. Ends lead to

75
existence apart from means but are continuously shaped by them.As one
examines the references to rulers in the Prince more closely, one finds that
Machiavelli wasnot interested in all forms of state or in all forms of power.
What fascinated him above all was thedynamics of illegitimate power; he was
little interested in states whose authority was legitimate butwas primarily
concerned with “new dominions both as to prince and state”. He realised that
there is nothing more difficult to carry out nor more doubtful of success, nor
more dangerous to handle, thanto initiate a new order of things. His primary
concern with founders of new governments and stateilluminates his attitude on
the use of unethical means in politics. Thus, Machiavelli was littleinterested in
the institutional framework of politics.
6.12 Assessment of Machiavelli
Machiavelli’s political theories were not developed in a systematic
manner; they were mainlyin the form of remarks upon particular situations.
According to Prof. Sabine, the ‘character ofMachiavelli and the true meaning
of his philosophy have been one of the enigmas of modern history.
According to Machiavelli, “a state must eitherexpand or expire”. If a
State does not expand.It will expireor cease to exist.Roman state is the best
example. Its policy of expansion is ideal. It can be seenthat Machiavelli had
very strict idea about the State. The State should bepowerful without any
principles or ethics. “Machiavellianism” had become a byword for
“unscrupulousness”. It is about how to preserve a State. He was aPolitical
Realist and not a Political Philosopher. His concept of State is based onreality
and not on principles. His State theory is about practical politics and notabout
principles of politics.Machiavelli totally separated religion from politics. He
stood for a Secularstate. He rejected Papacy and Holy Roman Empire. He
thought of a Nation Statewith its own population, territory, sovereignty and its
own government.The contribution of Machiavelli to the Science of Politics can
besummarised as follows:-
European Chanakya:
Machiavelli can be considered as a EuropeanChanakya. Thought not
adept and brilliant as Chanakya, Machiavellicould live up to his age and
expectations in Europe.
Nationalism:
Machiavelli can be considered as a symbol of nationalism.The
emerging nationalist feelings of Europe found a theorist in him.

76
Foundation of State:
As according to Machiavelli, the foundation of theState is not divine
intervention. But it is embedded in the nature ofpeople.
Secularism:
The principles of Machiavelli were targeted towards thecreation of a
secular society. He wanted to separate religion frompolitics.
Public and Private Morality:
In Machiavelli, there is a distinctionbetween public and private
morality.
Negating ‘Natural Law’:
Machiavelli refuted the principle of natural law.According to him, law
is the positive code created by a ruler. There isnothing like natural or eternal or
divine law.
Concept of Sovereignty:
According to Machiavelli, sovereignty is bothinternal and external in
character. This concept went well with theconcept of nationalism.
Historical Method:
Machiavelli is known for the introduction ofHistorical Methods in the
art and science of Politics.
Psychological Method:
Machiavelli is also known for employingpsychological methods in the
governance of the state.
Concept of Nation-State:
A state based on nationalism was thepioneering concept by Machiavelli
which is being followed even today.
Conclusion:
Machiavelli was a true child of renaissance. He assimilated the
politicalaspirations of his times and converted into a coherent and acceptable
theorypaving the way towards a Nation state system based on secularism
andindividualism. His concepts and principles may not be always plausible; but
noone can deny his role in the particular juncture in the transformation of
theEuropean world. He filled a great gap in the theory and practice of politics
inEurope.Machiavelli is regarded as the father of modern political theory and
political science. Apartfrom theorising about the state he also given meaning to
the concept of sovereignty. Machiavelli’simportance was in providing an
outlook that accepted both secularisation and a moralisation ofpolitics.

77
Model Questions
1. In what way does Machiavelli's works reflect his times?
2. Enumerate the main features of Machiavelli's thoughts on politics
andforms of government.

78
 CHAPTER - 7
BARON DE MONTESQUIEU
Structure
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Life and works
7.3 Forms of Government
7.4 Theory of separation of powers.
7.5 Liberty
7.6 Climate and Geography
7.7 Commerce
7.8 Religion
7.1 Introduction
Charles Louis de Secondat was born in Bordeaux, France, in 1689 to a
wealthy family. Despite his family's wealth, de Decondat was placed in the
care of a poor family during his childhood. He later went to college and studied
science and history, eventually becoming a lawyer in the local government. De
Secondat's father died in 1713 and he was placed under the care of his uncle,
Baron de Montesquieu. The Baron died in 1716 and left de Secondat his
fortune, his office as president of the Bordeaux Parliament, and his title of
Baron de Montesquieu. Later he was a member of the Bordeaux and French
Academies of Science and studied the laws and customs and governments of
the countries of Europe. He gained fame in 1721 with his Persian
Letters, which criticized the lifestyle and liberties of the wealthy French as well
as the church. However, Montesquieu's book On the Spirit of Laws, published
in 1748, was his most famous work. It outlined his ideas on how government
would best work.He is famous for his articulation of the theory ofseparation of
powers, which is implemented in many constitutions throughout the world. He
did more than any other author to secure the place of the word despotism in the
political lexicon.
Montesquieu believed that all things were made up of rules or laws that
never changed. He set out to study these laws scientifically with the hope that
knowledge of the laws of government would reduce the problems of society
and improve human life. According to Montesquieu, there were three types of
government: a monarchy (ruled by a king or queen), a republic (ruled by an
elected leader), and a despotism (ruled by a dictator). Montesquieu believed
that a government that was elected by the people was the best form of
government. He did, however, believe that the success of a democracy - a

79
government in which the people have the power - depended upon maintaining
the right balance of power.
Montesquieu argued that the best government would be one in which
power was balanced among three groups of officials. He thought England -
which divided power between the king (who enforced laws), Parliament (which
made laws), and the judges of the English courts (who interpreted laws) - was a
good model of this. Montesquieu called the idea of dividing government power
into three branches the "separation of powers." He thought it most important to
create separate branches of government with equal but different powers. That
way, the government would avoid placing too much power with one individual
or group of individuals. He wrote, "When the [law making] and [law
enforcement] powers are united in the same person... there can be no liberty."
According to Montesquieu, each branch of government could limit the power
of the other two branches. Therefore, no branch of the government could
threaten the freedom of the people. His ideas about separation of powers
became the basis for the United States Constitution.
Despite Montesquieu's belief in the principles of a democracy, he did
not feel that all people were equal. Montesquieu approved of slavery. He also
thought that women were weaker than men and that they had to obey the
commands of their husband. However, he also felt that women did have the
ability to govern. "It is against reason and against nature for women to be
mistresses in the house... but not for them to govern an empire. In the first case,
their weak state does not permit them to be preeminent; in the second, their
very weakness gives them more gentleness and moderation, which, rather than
the harsh and ferocious virtues, can make for a good environment." In this
way, Montesquieu argued that women were too weak to be in control at home,
but that there calmness and gentleness would be helpful qualities in making
decisions in government.
7.2 Life and works
Montesquieu was born at the Château de la Brede in the southwest of
France, 25 km south of Bordeaux.His father, Jacques de Secondat, was a
soldier with a long noble ancestry. His mother, Marie Françoise de Pesnel, who
died when Charles was seven, was an heiress who brought the title of Barony
of La Brede to the Secondat family.After the death of his mother he was sent to
the Catholic College of Juilly, a prominent school for the children of French
nobility, where he remained from 1700 to 1711.His father died in 1713 and he
became a ward of his uncle, the Baron de Montesquieu.He became a counselor
of the Bordeaux Parliament in 1714. In 1715 he married Jeanne de Lartigue,
aProtestant, who eventually bore him three children. The Baron died in 1716,

80
leaving him his fortune as well as his title, and the office of Presidentà
Mortimer in the Bordeaux Parliament
Montesquieu's early life occurred at a time of significant governmental
change. England had declared itself constitutional in the wake of its Glorious
Revolution (1688–89), and had joined with Scotland in the Union of 1707 to
form the Kingdom of Great Britain. In France the long-reigning Louis
XIV died in 1715 and was succeeded by the five-year-old Louis XV. These
national transformations had a great impact on Montesquieu; he would refer to
them repeatedly in his work.
Montesquieu withdrew from the practice of law to devote himself to
study and writing. He achieved literary success with the publication of
his Lettrespersanes (Persian Letters, 1721), a satire representing society as
seen through the eyes of two imaginary Persianvisitors to Paris and Europe,
cleverly criticizing the absurdities of contemporary French society. He next
published Considérationssur les causes de la grandeur des Romains et de
leurdecadence (Considerations on the Causes of the Grandeur and Decadence
of the Romans, 1734), considered by some scholars, among his three best
known books, as a transition from The Persian Letters to his master work. De
l'Esprit des Lois (The Spirit of the Laws) was originally published
anonymously in 1748. The book quickly rose to influence political
thought profoundly in Europe and America. In France, the book met with an
unfriendly reception from both supporters and opponents of the regime. The
Catholic Church banned l'Esprit – along with many of Montesquieu's other
works – in 1751 and included it on the Index of Prohibited Books. It received
the highest praise from the rest of Europe, especially Britain.
Montesquieu was also highly regarded in the British colonies in North
America as a champion of liberty (though not of American independence).
Political scientist Donald Lutz found that Montesquieu was the most frequently
quoted authority on government and politics in colonial pre-revolutionary
British America, cited more by the American founders than any source except
for the Bible.
Following the American revolution, Montesquieu work remained a
powerful influence on many of the American founders, most notably James
Madison of Virginia, the "Father of the Constitution". Montesquieu's
philosophy that "government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of
anotherreminded Madison and others that a free and stable foundation for their
new national government required a clearly defined and balanced separation of
powers.

81
 Besides composing additional works on society and politics,
Montesquieu traveled for a number of years through Europe including Austria
and Hungary, spending a year in Italy and 18 months in England where he
became a freemason, admitted to the Horn Tavern Lodge in Westminsterbefore
resettling in France. He was troubled by poor eyesight, and was
completely blind by the time he died from a high fever in 1755. He was buried
in the Église Saint-Sulpice, Paris.
7.3 Forms of Government
Montesquieu holds that there are three types of governments:
republican governments, which can take either democratic or aristocratic
forms; monarchies; and despotisms. Unlike, for instance, Aristotle,
Montesquieu does not distinguish forms of government on the basis of the
virtue of the sovereign. The distinction between monarchy and despotism, for
instance, depends not on the virtue of the monarch, but on whether or not he
governs "by fixed and established laws. Each form of government has a
principle, a set of "human passions which set it in motion"; and each can be
corrupted if its principle is undermined or destroyed.In a democracy, the
people are sovereign. They may govern through ministers, or be advised by a
senate, but they must have the power of choosing their ministers and senators
for themselves. The principle of democracy is political virtue, by which
Montesquieu means "the love of the laws and of our country"including its
democratic constitution. The form of a democratic government makes the laws
governing suffrage and voting fundamental. The need to protect its principle,
however, imposes far more extensive requirements. On Montesquieu's view,
the virtue required by a functioning democracy is not natural. It requires "a
constant preference of public to private interest" it "limits ambition to the sole
desire, to the sole happiness, of doing greater services to our country than the
rest of our fellow citizens"; and it "is a self-renunciation, which is ever arduous
and painful”. Montesquieu compares it to monks' love for their order: "their
rule debars them from all those things by which the ordinary passions are fed;
there remains therefore only this passion for the very rule that torments them.
... the more it curbs their inclinations, the more force it gives to the only
passion left them" To produce this unnatural self-renunciation, "the whole
power of education is required" A democracy must educate its citizens to
identify their interests with the interests of their country, and should have
censors to preserve its mores. It should seek to establish frugality by law, so as
to prevent its citizens from being tempted to advance their own private interests
at the expense of the public good; for the same reason, the laws by which
property is transferred should aim to preserve an equal distribution of property

82
among citizens. Its territory should be small, so that it is easy for citizens to
identify with it, and more difficult for extensive private interests to emerge.
Democracies can be corrupted in two ways: by what Montesquieu calls
"the spirit of inequality" and "the spirit of extreme equality". The spirit of
inequality arises when citizens no longer identify their interests with the
interests of their country, and therefore seek both to advance their own private
interests at the expense of their fellow citizens, and to acquire political power
over them. The spirit of extreme equality arises when the people are no longer
content to be equal as citizens, but want to be equal in every respect. In a
functioning democracy, the people choose magistrates to exercise executive
power, and they respect and obey the magistrates they have chosen. If those
magistrates forfeit their respect, they replace them. When the spirit of extreme
equality takes root, however, the citizens neither respect nor obey any
magistrate. They "want to manage everything themselves, to debate for the
senate, to execute for the magistrate, and to decide for the judges". Eventually
the government will cease to function, the last remnants of virtue will
disappear, and democracy will be replaced by despotism.
In an aristocracy, one part of the people governs the rest. The principle
of an aristocratic government is moderation, the virtue which leads those who
govern in an aristocracy to restrain themselves both from oppressing the people
and from trying to acquire excessive power over one another. In an aristocracy,
the laws should be designed to instill and protect this spirit of moderation. To
do so, they must do three things. First, the laws must prevent the nobility from
abusing the people. The power of the nobility makes such abuse a standing
temptation in an aristocracy; to avoid it, the laws should deny the nobility some
powers, like the power to tax, which would make this temptation all but
irresistible, and should try to foster responsible and moderate administration.
Second, the laws should disguise as much as possible the difference between
the nobility and the people, so that the people feel their lack of power as little
as possible. Thus the nobility should have modest and simple manners, since if
they do not attempt to distinguish themselves from the people "the people are
apt to forget their subjection and weakness". Finally, the laws should try to
ensure equality among the nobles themselves, and among noble families. When
they fail to do so, the nobility will lose its spirit of moderation, and the
government will be corrupted.
In a monarchy, one person governs "by fixed and established laws”.
According to Montesquieu, these laws "necessarily suppose the intermediate
channels through which (the monarch's) power flows: for if there be only the
momentary and capricious will of a single person to govern the state, nothing

83
can be fixed, and, of course, there is no fundamental law". These 'intermediate
channels' are such subordinate institutions as the nobility and an independent
judiciary; and the laws of a monarchy should therefore be designed to preserve
their power. The principle of monarchical government is honor. Unlike the
virtue required by republican governments, the desire to win honor and
distinction comes naturally to us. For this reason education has a less difficult
task in a monarchy than in a republic: it need only heighten our ambitions and
our sense of our own worth, provide us with an ideal of honor worth aspiring
to, and cultivate in us the politeness needed to live with others whose sense of
their worth matches our own. The chief task of the laws in a monarchy is to
protect the subordinate institutions that distinguish monarchy from despotism.
To this end, they should make it easy to preserve large estates undivided,
protect the rights and privileges of the nobility, and promote the rule of law.
They should also encourage the proliferation of distinctions and of rewards for
honorable conduct, including luxuries.
A monarchy is corrupted when the monarch either destroys the
subordinate institutions that constrain his will, or decides to rule arbitrarily,
without regard to the basic laws of his country, or debases the honors at which
his citizens might aim, so that "men are capable of being loaded at the very
same time with infamy and with dignities" The first two forms of corruption
destroy the checks on the sovereign's will that separate monarchy from
despotism; the third severs the connection between honorable conduct and its
proper rewards. In a functioning monarchy, personal ambition and a sense of
honor work together. This is monarchy's great strength and the source of its
extraordinary stability: whether its citizens act from genuine virtue, a sense of
their own worth, a desire to serve their king, or personal ambition, they will be
led to act in ways that serve their country. A monarch who rules arbitrarily, or
who rewards servility and ignoble conduct instead of genuine honor, severs this
connection and corrupts his government.
In despotic states "a single person directs everything by his own will
and caprice". Without laws to check him, and with no need to attend to anyone
who does not agree with him, a despot can do whatever he likes, however ill-
advised or reprehensible. His subjects are no better than slaves, and he can
dispose of them as he sees fit. The principle of despotism is fear. This fear is
easily maintained, since the situation of a despot's subjects is genuinely
terrifying. Education is unnecessary in a despotism; if it exists at all, it should
be designed to debase the mind and break the spirit. Such ideas as honor and
virtue should not occur to a despot's subjects, since "persons capable of setting
a value on themselves would be likely to create disturbances. Fear must
therefore depress their spirits, and extinguish even the least sense of ambition".

84
Their "portion here, like that of beasts, is instinct, compliance, and
punishment"and any higher aspirations should be brutally discouraged.
Montesquieu writes that "the principle of despotic government is
subject to a continual corruption, because it is even in its nature corrupt". This
is true in several senses. First, despotic governments undermine themselves.
Because property is not secure in a despotic state, commerce will not flourish,
and the state will be poor. The people must be kept in a state of fear by the
threat of punishment; however, over time the punishments needed to keep them
in line will tend to become more and more severe, until further threats lose
their force. Most importantly, however, the despot's character is likely to
prevent him from ruling effectively. Since a despot's every whim is granted, he
"has no occasion to deliberate, to doubt, to reason; he has only to will". and has
no interest in actually governing his people. He will therefore choose a vizier to
govern for him, and retire to his seraglio to pursue pleasure. In his absence,
however, intrigues against him will multiply, especially since his rule is
necessarily odious to his subjects, and since they have so little to lose if their
plots against him fail. He cannot rely on his army to protect him, since the
more power they have, the greater the likelihood that his generals will
themselves try to seize power. For this reason the ruler in a despotic state has
no more security than his people. For this reason he is never forced to develop
anything like intelligence, character, or resolution. Instead, he is "naturally
lazy, voluptuous, and ignorant “For this reason he is never forced to develop
anything like intelligence, character, or resolution. Instead, he is "naturally
lazy, voluptuous, and ignorant"
Second, monarchical and republican governments involve specific
governmental structures, and require that their citizens have specific sorts of
motivation. When these structures crumble, or these motivations fail,
monarchical and republican governments are corrupted, and the result of their
corruption is that they fall into despotism. But when a particular despotic
government falls, it is not generally replaced by a monarchy or a republic. The
creation of a stable monarchy or republic is extremely difficult: "a masterpiece
of legislation, rarely produced by hazard, and seldom attained by prudence". It
is particularly difficult when those who would have both to frame the laws of
such a government and to live by them have previously been brutalized and
degraded by despotism. Producing a despotic government, by contrast, is
relatively straightforward. A despotism requires no powers to be carefully
balanced against one another, no institutions to be created and maintained in
existence, no complicated motivations to be fostered, and no restraints on
power to be kept in place. One need only terrify one's fellow citizens enough to
allow one to impose one's will on them; and this, Montesquieu claims, "is what

85
every capacity may reach". For these reasons despotism necessarily stands in a
different relation to corruption than other forms of government: while they are
liable to corruption, despotism is its embodiment.
7.4 Theory of separation of powers.
The functions of the government are vast and varied. It is necessary to
entrust these functions to specific organs, so that the responsibility for
performing these functions may be effectively fixed. The division of
governmental power under any constitutions may be of two kinds; the
functional division such as legislative, executive and judicial and the territorial
division of federalism. Thus structurally considered government consists of
three branches having for their functions (i) legislation or law meaning (ii) their
execution or administration and (iii) interpretation of these laws. The three
branches to which these functions belong are known as the Legislature, the
Executive and the Judiciary respectively.
Political liberty in a state is possible when restraints are imposed on the
exercise of these powers. The functions of the government should be
differentiated and assigned to separate organs to limit each section to its own
sphere of action. So that these organs independently interact between
themselves. This is what is known as the theory of separation of powers.
Montesquieu, the celebrated French Scholar asserted that concentrated power is
dangerous and leads to despotism of government. As a check against this
danger he suggested to separate the functions of executive, legislature and the
judiciary so that one may operate as a balance against the other.
However Montesquieu was not the first scholar to develop the theory of
separations of powers. Its origin can be traced back to Aristotle, the father of
Political Science. Of course he did not discuss the issue in great details. He
only analysed the functions of the three branches of government, the
deliberative, executive and the judiciary without suggesting their separation.
Besides many other philosophers at a later stage from thirteenth century
onwards gave some attention to the theory of separation of powers. Jean Bodiri
one of the earliest thinkers of the modern period sees the importance of
separating the executive and judicial powers.
But actually it acquired greater significance in eighteenth century. John
Locke was one of the eighteenth century philosophers to pay greater attention
to the problems of concentration of governmental power. He argued that the
executive and legislative powers should be separate for the sake of liberty.
Liberty suffers when the same human being makes the law and executed them.

86
Meaning of Separation of Powers:
In simple words, the theory of Separation of Powers advocates that the
three powers of the government should be used by three separate organs.
Legislature should use only law making powers, Executive should undertake
only law enforcement functions, and Judiciary should perform only
adjudication/Judicial functions. Their powers and responsibilities should be
clearly defined and kept separate. This is essential for securing the liberty of
the people.
Separation of Powers: Views of Montesquieu:
Montesquieu is regarded as the chief architect of the principles of
Separation of powers. He in his book "The Spirit of Laws" published in 1748
gave the classic exposition of the idea of separation of powers. During his days
the Bouborne monarchy in France had established despotism and the people
enjoyed no freedom. The monarch was the chief law giver, executor and the
adjudicator. The statement by Louis XIV that 'I am the state' outlined the
character and nature of monarchial authority. Montesquieu, a great advocate of
human dignity, developed the theory of separation of powers as a weapon to
uphold the liberty of the people. He believed that the application of this theory
would prevent the overgrowth of a particular organ which spells danger for
political liberty. According to him every man entrusted with some power is
bound to misuse it. When the executive and the legislative powers are given to
the same person there can be no liberty.
Because it is apprehended that the same person may enact oppressive
laws to execute them whimsically. Again there is no liberty, if the judicial
power is not separated from the legislature and executive. If the judicial and
legislative powers are exercised jointly the life and liberty of the subjects could
be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge could then be the legislator. If it
joined to the executive power the judges might behave with violence and
oppression. If the same person or body of persons exercise these three powers
that of enacting laws, executing them and of trying the cases of individuals, he
maintained, that could spell the doom of the whole system of governance.
In his book The Spirit of The Laws’ (1748), Montesquieu enunciated
and explained his theory of Separation of Powers. He wrote,
1. If the legislative and executive powers are combined in the same organ,
the liberty of the people gets jeopardized because it leads to tyrannical
exercise of these two powers.
2. If the judicial and legislative powers are combined in the same organ,
the interpretation of laws becomes meaningless because in this case the

87
 lawmaker also acts as the law interpreter and he never accepts the errors
of his laws.
3. If the judicial power is combined with the executive power and is given
to one-person or one organ, the administration of justice becomes
meaningless and faulty because then the police (Executive) becomes the
judge (judiciary).
4. Finally if all the three legislative, executive and judicial powers are
combined and given to one person or one organ, the concentration of
power becomes so big that it virtually ends all liberty. It establishes
despotism of that person or organ.
As such, the three powers should not be combined and given neither to
a single organ nor to two organs. These three powers should be used by three
separate organs of the government. It is essential for safeguarding the liberty of
the people.
The British jurist Blackstone and the founding fathers of the American
constitution, particularly, Madison, Hamilton and Jefferson, extended their full
support to the theory of separation of powers. They regarded Separation of
Powers essential for protecting the liberty of the people.
Use of Separation of Powers in Modern Constitutions:
The theory of Separation of Powers guided the Declaration of Rights
adopted after the French Revolution of 1789. It clearly stated that, “every
society in which separation of powers is not determined has no constitution.”
The real and big support to this theory came from the founding fathers
of the Constitution of the USA. They accepted its importance as the essential
safeguard for preserving liberties and property.’ The Constitution of USA
adopted the theory of separation of powers as its guiding principle.
It laid down a governmental structure based on this theory. It gave the
legislative powers to the US Congress, the executive powers to the US
President and the judicial powers to the US Supreme Court. Each organ was
kept separate from the other two.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as adopted by the UN
General Assembly on 10 December 1948, also accepted the principle of
separation of powers. In fact, all contemporary democratic constitutions do
provide for a separation of powers in one way or the other.

88
Theory of Separation of Powers: Criticism:
1. Complete Separation is not possible:
The government is a single entity. Its three organs can never be
completely separated. The legislative, executive and judicial functions are
interdependent and inter-related functions and hence cannot be fully separated.
2. Complete Separation is not desirable:
Complete separation of three organs of government is neither possible
nor desirable. It is not desirable because without among mutual coordination
these cannot carry out its functions effectively and efficiently. Complete
separation of powers can seriously limit the unity and coordination needed by
the three organs.
3. Impracticable in itself:
We cannot fully use separation of powers. The function of law making
cannot be entrusted only to the legislature. The needs of our times have made it
essential to provide for law making by the executive under the system of
delegated legislation. Likewise, no one can or should prevent law making by
the judges in the form of case law and equity law.
4. Unhistorical:
The theory of Separation of Powers is unhistorical since it has never
been operative in England. While formulating and advocating this theory,
Montesquieu advocated that it was at work in England. Under the British
parliamentary system of government, there was and continues to be a close
relationship between the British Parliament and the Cabinet. Even there is no
separation of judiciary from legislature in so far the British House of Lords acts
as the highest court of appeals. The British Constitution has never been based
on the theory separation of powers.
5. The three Organs of Government are not equal:
The Theory of Separation of Powers wrongly assumes the equality of
all the three organs of the government. The legislature of the state is always
regarded as the primary organ of government. The work of the government
begins by law-making. However, in actual practice the executive acts the most
powerful organ of the government. The judiciary is the weakest of the three
organs, yet it is always held in high esteem by the people. Hence the three
organs are neither equal nor equally respected.
6. Separation of Powers can lead to deadlocks and inefficiency.
Separation of powers can lead to deadlocks and inefficiency in the
working of the government. It can create a situation in which each organ can
get engaged in conflict and deadlocks with other two organs.

89
7. Liberty does not depend only upon Separation of Powers:
The critics reject the view that liberty can be safeguarded only when
there is a separation of powers among the three organs of the government.
They argue that in the absence of fundamental rights, independence of
judiciary, rule of law, economic equality and a spirit of democracy, there can
be no liberty even when there may be present full separation of powers.
8. Separation of Functions and not of Powers:
The name ‘Separation of Powers’ is wrong because this theory really
advocates a separation of functions. Power of the government is one whole. It
cannot be separated into three separate parts. It is at the back of the functions of
all the three organs of government.
The theory of separation of powers is really a theory of separation of
functions. Thus, the theory of Separation of Powers has several limitations. All
scholars accept that absolute and rigid separation of powers is neither possible
nor desirable. Three organs of government cannot be and should not be totally
separated into unrelated water-tight compartments.
Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances:
Further for using the theory of Separation of Powers, we need the
adoption of another theory i.e. the theory of Checks and Balances. Under this
theory each organ, along with its own power, enjoys some checking powers
over the other two organs. In the process a system of checks and balances
governs the inter-organ relations.
The theory of Checks and Balances holds that no organ of power should
be given unchecked power in its sphere. The power of one organ should be
restrained and checked with the power of the other two organs. In this way a
balance should be secured which should prevent any arbitrary use of power by
any organ of the government.
The legislative power should be in the hands of the legislature but the
executive and judiciary should have some checking powers over it with a view
to prevent any misuse or arbitrary use of legislative powers by the legislature.
Likewise, the executive powers should be vested with the executive but
legislature and judiciary should be given some checking powers over it.
The same should be the case of the judiciary and its power should be in
some respects checked by the legislature and executive. In other words, each
organ should have some checking power over the other two organs and there
should prevail, a balance among the three organs of government.In fact, the
theories of Separation of Powers and Checks and Balances always go together.

90
 These have been together in operation in the US Constitution.The
theories Separation of Powers and Cheeks and Balances have to adopt
simultaneously
7.5 Liberty
Montesquieu is among the greatest philosophers of liberalism, but his is
what Shklar has called "a liberalism of fear" According to Montesquieu,
political liberty is "a tranquility of mind arising from the opinion each person
has of his safety. Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want: if we
have the freedom to harm others, for instance, others will also have the
freedom to harm us, and we will have no confidence in our own safety. Liberty
involvesliving under laws that protect us from harm while leaving us free to do
as much as possible, and that enable us to feel the greatest possible confidence
that if we obey those laws, the power of the state will not be directed against
us.If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government
must have certain features. First, since "constant experience shows us that
every man invested with power is apt to abuse it ... it is necessary from the very
nature of things that power should be a check to power"This is achieved
through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of
government. If different persons or bodies exercise these powers, then each can
check the others if they try to abuse their powers. But if one person or body
holds several or all of these powers, then nothing prevents that person or body
from acting tyrannically; and the people will have no confidence in their own
security.
Certain arrangements make it easier for the three powers to check one
another. Montesquieu argues that the legislative power alone should have the
power to tax, since it can then deprive the executive of funding if the latter
attempts to impose its will arbitrarily. Likewise, the executive power should
have the right to veto acts of the legislature, and the legislature should be
composed of two houses, each of which can prevent acts of the other from
becoming law. The judiciary should be independent of both the legislature and
the executive, and should restrict itself to applying the laws to particular cases
in a fixed and consistent manner, so that "the judicial power, so terrible to
mankind, … becomes, as it were, invisible", and people "fear the office, but not
the magistrate"
Liberty also requires that the laws concern only threats to public order
and security, since such laws will protect us from harm while leaving us free to
do as many other things as possible. Thus, for instance, the laws should not
concern offenses against God, since He does not require their protection. They
should not prohibit what they do not need to prohibit: "all punishment which is

91
not derived from necessity is tyrannical. The law is not a mere act of power;
things in their own nature indifferent are not within its province" (SL 19.14).
The laws should be constructed to make it as easy as possible for citizens to
protect themselves from punishment by not committing crimes. They should
not be vague, since if they were, we might never be sure whether or not some
particular action was a crime. Nor should they prohibit things we might do
inadvertently, like bumping into a statue of the emperor, or involuntarily, like
doubting the wisdom of one of his decrees; if such actions were crimes, no
amount of effort to abide by the laws of our country would justify confidence
that we would succeed, and therefore we could never feel safe from criminal
prosecution. Finally, the laws should make it as easy as possible for an
innocent person to prove his or her innocence. They should concern outward
conduct, not (for instance) our thoughts and dreams, since while we can try to
prove that we did not perform some action, we cannot prove that we never had
some thought. The laws should not criminalize conduct that is inherently hard
to prove, like witchcraft; and lawmakers should be cautious when dealing with
crimes like sodomy, which are typically not carried out in the presence of
several witnesses, lest they "open a very wide door to calumny"
7.6 Climate and Geography
Montesquieu believes that climate and geography affect the
temperaments and customs of a country's inhabitants. He is not a determinist,
and does not believe that these influences are irresistible. Nonetheless, he
believes that the laws should take these effects into account, accommodating
them when necessary, and counteracting their worst effects.According to
Montesquieu, a cold climate constricts our bodies' fibers, and causes coarser
juices to flow through them. Heat, by contrast, expands our fibers, and
produces more rarefied juices. These physiological changes affect our
characters. Those who live in cold climates are vigorous and bold, phlegmatic,
frank, and not given to suspicion or cunning. They are relatively insensitive to
pleasure and pain; those who live in warm climates have stronger but less
durable sensations. They are more fearful, more amorous, and more susceptible
both to the temptations of pleasure and to real or imagined pain; but they are
less resolute, and less capable of sustained or decisive action. The manners of
those who live in temperate climates are "inconstant", since "the climate has
not a quality determinate enough to fix them". These differences are not
hereditary: if one moves from one sort of climate to another, one's
temperament will alter accordingly.

92
 A hot climate can make slavery comprehensible. Montesquieu writes
that "the state of slavery is in its own nature bad"he is particularly
contemptuous of religious and racist justifications for slavery. However, on his
view, there are two types of country in which slavery, while not acceptable, is
less bad than it might otherwise be. In despotic countries, the situation of
slaves is not that different from the situation of the despot's other subjects; for
this reason, slavery in a despotic state is "more tolerable" than in other
countries. In unusually hot countries, it might be that "the excess of heat
enervates the body, and renders men so slothful and dispirited that nothing but
the fear of chastisement can oblige them to perform any laborious duty: slavery
is there more reconcilable to reason". However, Montesquieu writes that when
work can be done by freemen motivated by the hope of gain rather than by
slaves motivated by fear, the former will always work better; and that in such
climates slavery is not only wrong but also imprudent. He hopes that "there is
not that climate upon earth where the most laborious services might not with
proper encouragement be performed by freemen"); if there is no such climate,
then slavery could never be justified on these grounds.
The quality of a country's soil also affects the form of its government.
Monarchies are more common where the soil is fertile, and republics where it
is barren. This is so for three reasons. First, those who live in fruitful countries
are more apt to be content with their situation, and to value in a government not
the liberty it bestows but its ability to provide them with enough security that
they can get on with their farming. They are therefore more willing to accept a
monarchy if it can provide such security. Often it can, since monarchies can
respond to threats more quickly than republics. Second, fertile countries are
both more desirable than barren countries and easier to conquer: they "are
always of a level surface, where the inhabitants are unable to dispute against a
stronger power; they are then obliged to submit; and when they have once
submitted, the spirit of liberty cannot return; the wealth of the country is a
pledge of their fidelity"Montesquieu believes that monarchies are much more
likely than republics to wage wars of conquest, and therefore that a conquering
power is likely to be a monarchy. Third, those who live where the soil is barren
have to work hard in order to survive; this tends to make them "industrious,
sober, inured to hardship, courageous, and fit for war".). Those who inhabit
fertile country, by contrast, favor "ease, effeminacy, and a certain fondness for
the preservation of life". For this reason, the inhabitants of barren countries are
better able to defend themselves from such attacks as might occur, and to
defend their liberty against those who would destroy it.

93
 These facts give barren countries advantages that compensate for the
infertility of their soil. Since they are less likely to be invaded, they are less
likely to be sacked and devastated; and they are more likely to be worked well,
since "countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but to their
liberty". This is why "the best provinces are most frequently depopulated,
while the frightful countries of the North continue always inhabited, from their
being almost uninhabitable"
Montesquieu believes that the climate and geography of Asia explain
why despotism flourishes there. Asia, he thinks, has two features that
distinguish it from Europe. First, Asia has virtually no temperate zone. While
the mountains of Scandinavia shelter Europe from arctic winds, Asia has no
such buffer; for this reason its frigid northern zone extends much further south
than in Europe, and there is a relatively quick transition from it to the tropical
south. For this reason "the warlike, brave, and active people touch immediately
upon those who are indolent, effeminate and timorous; the one must, therefore,
conquer, and the other be conquered". In Europe, by contrast, the climate
changes gradually from cold to hot; therefore "strong nations are opposed to
the strong; and those who join each other have nearly the same courage”.
Second, Asia has larger plains than Europe. Its mountain ranges lie further
apart, and its rivers are not such formidable barriers to invasion. Since Europe
is naturally divided into smaller regions, it is more difficult for any one power
to conquer them all; this means that Europe will tend to have more and smaller
states. Asia, by contrast, tends to have much larger empires, which predisposes
it to despotism.
7.7 Commerce
Of all the ways in which a country might seek to enrich itself,
Montesquieu believes, commerce is the only one without overwhelming
drawbacks. Conquering and plundering one's neighbors can provide temporary
infusions of money, but over time the costs of maintaining an occupying army
and administering subjugated peoples impose strains that few countries can
endure. Extracting precious metals from colonial mines leads to general
inflation; thus the costs of extraction increase while the value of the extracted
metals decreases. The increased availability of money furthers the development
of commerce in other countries; however, in the country which extracts gold
and silver, domestic industry is destroyed.
Commerce, by contrast, has no such disadvantages. It does not require
vast armies, or the continued subjugation of other peoples. It does not
undermine itself, as the extraction of gold from colonial mines does, and it
rewards domestic industry. It therefore sustains itself, and nations which

94
engage in it, over time. While it does not produce all the virtues -- hospitality,
Montesquieu thinks, is more often found among the poor than among
commercial peoples -- it does produce some: "the spirit of commerce is
naturally attended with that of frugality, economy, moderation, labor,
prudence, tranquility, order, and rule". In addition, it "is a cure for the most
destructive prejudices", improves manners, and leads to peace among nations.
In monarchies, Montesquieu believes, the aim of commerce is, for the
most part, to supply luxuries. In republics, it is to bring from one country what
is wanted in another, "gaining little" but "gaining incessantly. In despotisms,
there is very little commerce of any kind, since there is no security of property.
In a monarchy, neither kings nor nobles should engage in commerce, since this
would risk concentrating too much power in their hands. By the same token,
there should be no banks in a monarchy, since a treasure "no sooner becomes
great than it becomes the treasure of the prince. In republics, by contrast, banks
are extremely useful, and anyone should be allowed to engage in trade.
Restrictions on which profession a person can follow destroy people's hopes of
bettering their situation; they are therefore appropriate only to despotic states.
While some mercantilists had argued that commerce is a zero-sum
game in which when some gain, others necessarily lose, Montesquieu believes
that commerce benefits all countries except those who have nothing but their
land and what it produces. In those deeply impoverished countries, commerce
with other countries will encourage those who own the land to oppress those
who work it, rather than encouraging the development of domestic industries
and manufacture. However, all other countries benefit by commerce, and
should seek to trade with as many other nations as possible, "for it is
competition which sets a just value on merchandise, and establishes the relation
between them"
Montesquieu describes commerce as an activity that cannot be confined
or controlled by any individual government or monarch. This, in his view, has
always been true: "Commerce is sometimes destroyed by conquerors,
sometimes cramped by monarchs; it traverses the earth, flies from the places
where it is oppressed, and stays where it has liberty to breathe. However, the
independence of commerce was greatly enhanced when, during the medieval
period, Jews responded to persecution and the seizure of their property by
inventing letters of exchange. "Commerce, by this method, became capable of
eluding violence, and of maintaining everywhere its ground; the richest
merchant having none but invisible effects, which he could convey
imperceptibly wherever he pleased". This set in motion developments which
made commerce still more independent of monarchs and their whims.

95
 First, it facilitated the development of international markets, which
place prices outside the control of governments. Money, according to
Montesquieu, is "a sign which represents the value of all merchandise". The
price of merchandise depends on the quantity of money and the quantity of
merchandise, and on the amounts of money and merchandise that are in trade.
Monarchs can affect this price by imposing tariffs or duties on certain goods.
But since they cannot control the amounts of money and merchandise that are
in trade within their own countries.
Second, it permitted the development of international currency
exchanges, which place the exchange rate of a country's currency largely
outside the control of that country's government. A monarch can establish a
currency, and stipulate how much of some metal each unit of that currency
shall contain. However, monarchs cannot control the rates of exchange
between their currencies and those of other countries. These rates depend on
the relative scarcity of money in the countries in question, and they are "fixed
by the general opinion of the merchants, never by the decrees of the prince".
Finally, the development of international commerce gives governments
a great incentive to adopt policies that favor, or at least do not impede, its
development. Governments need to maintain confidence in their
creditworthiness if they wish to borrow money; this deters them from at least
the more extreme forms of fiscal irresponsibility, and from oppressing too
greatly those citizens from whom they might later need to borrow money.
Since the development of commerce requires the availability of loans,
governments must establish interest rates high enough to encourage lending,
but not so high as to make borrowing unprofitable. Taxes must not be so high
that they deprive citizens of the hope of bettering their situations, and the laws
should allow those citizens enough freedom to carry out commercial affairs.
In general, Montesquieu believes that commerce has had an extremely
beneficial influence on government.
7.8 Religion
Religion plays only a minor part in the Spirit of the Laws. God is
described in Book 1 as creating nature and its laws; having done so, He
vanishes, and plays no further explanatory role. In particular, Montesquieu
does not explain the laws of any country by appeal to divine enlightenment,
providence, or guidance. In the Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu considers
religions "in relation only to the good they produce in civil society"and not to
their truth or falsity. He regards different religions as appropriate to different
environments and forms of government.

96
 Religion can help to ameliorate the effects of bad laws and institutions;
it is the only thing capable of serving as a check on despotic power. However,
on Montesquieu's view it is generally a mistake to base civil laws on religious
principles. Religion aims at the perfection of the individual; civil laws aim at
the welfare of society. Given these different aims, what these two sets of laws
should require will often differ; for this reason religion "ought not always to
serve as a first principle to the civil laws “he civil laws are not an appropriate
tool for enforcing religious norms of conduct: God has His own laws, and He is
quite capable of enforcing them without our assistance. When we attempt to
enforce God's laws for Him, or to cast ourselves as His protectors, we make our
religion an instrument of fanaticism and oppression; this is a service neither to
God nor to our country.
If several religions have gained adherents in a country, those religions
should all be tolerated, not only by the state but also by its citizens. The laws
should "require from the several religions, not only that they shall not embroil
the state, but that they shall not raise disturbances among themselves”. While
one can try to persuade people to change religions by offering them positive
inducements to do so, attempts to force others to convert are ineffective and
inhumane.
Summary
Montesquieu's most influential work divided French society into three
classesthe monarchy, the aristocracy, and the commons. Montesquieu saw two
types of governmental power existing: the sovereign and the administrative.
The administrative powers were the legislative, the executive, and the
judiciary. These should be separate from and dependent upon each other so that
the influence of any one power would not be able to exceed that of the other
two, singly the monarchy, the aristocracy, and the commons or in combination.
This was radical because it completely eliminated the three Estates structure of
the French Monarchy: the clergy, the aristocracy, and the people at large
represented by the Estates-General, thereby erasing the last vestige of a
feudalistic structure.
Likewise, there were three main forms of government, each supported
by a social "principle": monarchies (free governments headed by a hereditary
figure, e.g. king, queen, emperor), which rely on the principle of honor;
republics (free governments headed by popularly elected leaders), which rely
on the principle of virtue; and despotisms (enslaved governments headed by
dictators), which rely on fear. The free governments are dependent on fragile
constitutional arrangements. Montesquieu devotes four chapters of The Spirit

97
of the Laws to a discussion of England, a contemporary free government,
where liberty was sustained by a balance of powers.
Like many of his generation, Montesquieu held a number of views that
might today be judged controversial. While he endorsed the idea that a woman
could head a government, he held that she could not be effective as the head of
a family. He firmly accepted the role of a hereditary aristocracy and the value
of primogeniture.
One of his more exotic ideas, outlined in The Spirit of the Laws and
hinted at in Persian Letters, is the meteorological climate theory, which holds
that climate may substantially influence the nature of man and his society. He
goes so far as to assert that certain climates are superior to others, the
temperate climate of France being ideal. His view is that people living in very
warm countries are "too hot-tempered," while those in northern countries are
"icy" or "stiff." The climate of middle Europe is therefore optimal. On this
point, Montesquieu may well have been influenced by similar statements in
Germania by Tacitus, one of Montesquieu's favorite authors. In a different
perspective Louis Althusser, in his analysis of Montesquieu's work, has pointed
out the seminal character of the inclusion of material factors, such as climate,
in the explanation of social dynamics and political forms.
Model Questions
1. Discuss and explain Montesquieu’s theory of government.
2. What do you understand by the theory of separation of powers? Discuss it.

98
 CHAPTER – 8
THOMAS HOBBES
Structure
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Life and Works
8.3 State of nature and Human nature
8.4 Social contract
8.5 Civil law and natural law
8.6 Sovereignty
8.1 Introduction
Thomas Hobbes is one of the most colourful, controversial and
important figures in the history of western political thought. He was one of the
founders of contemporary political philosophy. His understanding of humans
as being matter and motion, obeying the similar physical laws as other matter
and motion, and his explanation of human nature as self-interested cooperation,
and of political societies as being based upon a "social contract" remnants one
of the major topics of political philosophy.
Thomas Hobbes of Malmsbury (5 April 1588 – 4 December 1679), was
an English philosopher, best recognized today for his work on political
philosophy. His book Leviathan recognized the base for mainly of Western
political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory. His status as
a political thinker was not fully recognised until the 19th century. The
philosophical radicalism of the English utilitarian’s and the scientific
rationalism of the French Encyclopaedists incorporated in a large measure
Hobbes’s mechanical materialism, radical individualism and psychological
egoism. By the mid- 20th century Hobbes was acclaimed as “probably the
greatest writer on political philosophy that the English speaking people have
produced”. According to MichaelOakeshott, “the Leviathan is the greatest,
perhaps the sole, masterpiece of political philosophy written in the English
language”.
In addition to political philosophy, Hobbes also contributed to a diverse
array of other meadows, including history, geometry, the physics of gases,
theology, ethics, and common philosophy.
Hobbes lived at a time of great constitutional crisis in England when the
theory of DivineRight of Kings was fiercely contested by the upholders of the
constitutional rule based on popularconsent. It is he who for the first time
systematically expounded the absolute theory of sovereigntyand originated the
positivist theory of law. Though he was not a liberal, modern commentators

99
believe that his political doctrine has greater affinities with the liberalism of the
20th century than hisauthoritarian theory would initially suggest. From a broad
philosophical perspective, the importanceof Hobbes is his bold and systematic
attempt to assimilate the science of man and civil society to athoroughly
modern science corresponding to a completely mechanistic conception of
nature. Hispsychological egoism, his ethical relativism and his political
absolutism are all supposed to followlogically from the assumptions or
principles underlying the physical world which primarily consists ofmatter and
motion.
8.2 Life and Works
Hobbes was prematurely born in 1588 in Westport near the small town
of Malmesburg inEngland at a time when the country was threatened by the
impending attack of the SpanishArmada. His father was a member of the
clergy (vicar) near Malmesburg .His long life was full ofmomentous events. He
was a witness to the great political and constitutional turmoil caused byEnglish
civil war and his life and writings bear clear imprint of it. After his education at
Oxford, Hobbes joined as tutor to the son of William Cavendish, who was
about the same age as Hobbes.The association of Cavendish family lasted, with
some interruptions until Hobbes’ death. Throughhis close connection with the
royal family he met eminent scholars and scientists of the day such asBacon
Descartes, Galileo etc. His first publication was translation in English of
Thucydides Historyof the Peloponnesian War in 1629. He died in 1679.
Besides just before he died, at the age of 86, he translatedHomer’s Odyssey
and Iliad into English. The important works of Hobbes include De Civic and
theLeviathan.
In 1631, Hobbes met Descartes, Gassendiand Galileo. He became
convinced that everything including man and society,morals and politics could
be explained on the basis of laws of motion.Kepler's laws of planetary motion '
and Galileo's laws of falling bodies made a deep impact in his mind. He
returned to England and completed in 1640 his first important philosophical
work called the Element of Law, whichwas published in 1650 in two parts,
Human Nature and De Corpore Politico.In this workHobbes demonstrated the
need for undivided sovereignty, but the arguments for this were notderived
from the theory of Divine Right of Kings.In 1640 Hobbes fled to the Continent
in fearfor his life after the dissolution of Parliament in May 1640 andthe
impeachment of Earl ofStrafford by the Long Parliament.
The exile in France was the most fruitful period of Hobbes' intellectual
life.In 1642 hepublished his De Cive in Latin (later to appear as De Corpore

100
Politico).He made a beginning with De Corpore. Leviathan, Hobbes' magnum
opus, was written during this period and was published in 1651.
Hobbes’ political philosophy in the Leviathan (1651) was a reflection of
the civil war inEngland following the execution of Charles I . According to
William Ebenstein the Leviathan is notan apology for the Stuart monarchy nor
a grammar of despotic government but the first generaltheory of politics in the
English language’ What makes Leviathan a masterpiece of philosophical
literature is the profound logic of Hobbes’ imagination, his power as an artist.
Hobbes recalls us to our morality with a deliberate conviction, with a subtle
and sustained argument.
8.3 State of nature and Human nature
Hobbes’ political theory is derived from his psychology which in turn is
based on hismechanistic conception of nature. According to Hobbes’, prior to
the formation of commonwealthor state, there existed state nature. Men in the
state of nature were essentially selfish andegoistic. Contrary to Aristotle and
medieval thinkers, who saw human nature as innately social.Hobbes viewed
human beings as isolate egoistic, self interested and seeking society as a means
totheir ends. Unlike most defenders of absolute government, who start out with
the gospel forinequality, Hobbes argues that men were naturally equal in mid.
This basic equality of men is aprincipal source of trouble and misery. Men
have in general equal faculties; they also cherish likehope and desires. It they
desire the same thing, which they cannot both obtain, they becomeenemies and
seek to destroy each other. In the state of nature, therefore men are in a
conditionof war, of every man against every man and Hobbes adds that the
nature of the war consists notin actual fighting “but in the known disposition
there to” force and fraud the two cardinal virtues ofwar , flourish in this
atmosphere of perpetual fear and strife fed by three Psychological
causes:competition, diffidence and glory. In such a condition, there is no place
for industry, agriculture,navigation , trade; there are no arts or letter; no society
, no amenities of civilised living, and worst ofall, there is continual fear and
danger of violent death, and the life of man solitary, poor, nasty,brutish and
short’.
According to Hobbes, there can be no distinction between right and
wrong in the state ofnature. Any conception of right and wrong presupposes a
standard of conduct, a common law tojudge that conduct and a common law
giver. Again there is no distinction between just and unjust inthe state of
nature, for where there is no common superior, there is no law and where there
is no lawthere can be no justice.

101
 Hobbes asserted that every human action, feeling and thought was
ultimately physicallydetermined. Though the human being was dependent on
his life, on the motion of his body he wasable to some extent, to control those
motions and make his life. This he did by natural means, i.e., byrelying partly
on natural passions and partly on reason. It was reason, according to Hobbes,
thatdistinguished human beings from animals. Reason enabled the individual to
understand theimpressions that sense organs picked up from the external world,
and also indicated an awarenessof one’s natural passions. He mentioned a long
list of passions, but the special emphasis was onfear, in particular the fear of
death, and on the universal and perfectly justified quest for power.”
Hobbes contended that life was nothing but a perpetual and relentless
desire and pursuit ofpower, a prerequisite for felicity. He pointed out that one
ought to recognise a general inclination ofall mankind, a perpetual and restless
desire for power after power that ceased only in Death.Consequently,
individuals were averse to death, especially accidental death for it marked the
end ofattainment of all felicity. Power was sought for it represented a means of
acquiring those things thatmade life worthwhile and contented. The fact that all
individuals sought power distinguished Hobbesfrom Machiavelli. Hobbes
observed that human beings stood nothing to gain from the company ofothers
except pain. A permanent rivalry existed between human beings for honour,
riches andauthority, with life as nothing but potential warfare, a war of every
one against the others.
In a state of nature, individuals enjoyed complete liberty, including a
natural right toeverything, even to one another’s bodies. The natural laws were
not laws or commands.Subsequently, Hobbes argued that the laws of nature
were also proper laws, since they weredelivered in the word of God. These
laws were counsels of prudence. Natural laws in Hobbes’theory did not mean
eternal justice, perfect morality or standards to judge existing laws as the
Stoicsdid.
It is clear from above observations that what is central to Hobbes’
psychology is nothedonism but search for power and glory, riches and honour.
Power is, of course, the centralfeature of Hobbes’ system of ideas. While
recognising the importance of power in Hobbesianpolitical ideas, Michael
Oakeshott wrote thus: “Man is a complex of power; desire is the desire
forpower, pride is illusion about power, honour opinion about power life the
unremitting exercise ofpower and death the absolute loss of power “
The concept of natural right is considered to be the most important
contribution of Hobbes to modern political theory.

102
8.4 Social contract
After presenting a horrible and dismal picture of the state of nature,
Hobbes proceeds to discusshow man can escape from such an intolerably
miserable condition. ‘In the second part of theLeviathan, Hobbes creates his
commonwealth by giving new orientation to the old idea of the socialcontract,
a contract between rulers and ruled. Hobbes thus builds his commonwealth.
‘The onlyway to erect such a common power as may be able to defend them
(i.e., men) from the invasion offoreigners and the injuries of one another. …..
is to confer all their power and strength upon oneMan or upon one Assembly of
men that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices unto one willthe
sovereign himself stands outside the covenant. He is a beneficiary of the
contract, but not aparty to it. Each man makes an agreement with every man in
the following manner’.
“I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this man or to
this assembly of man on thecondition that thou give up thy right to him, and
authorise all his actions in like manner. This is thegeneration of that great
Leviathan or rather (to speak more reverently) of that mortal god, to whichwe
owe under the immortal God, our peace and defence.’ It is clear from the above
statement thatno individual can surrender his right to self-preservation.
In order to secure their escape from the state of nature, individuals
renounce their natural rights toall things, and institute by common consent, a
third person, or body of persons, conferring all rightsof him for enforcing the
contract by using force and keeping them all and authorising all his action
astheir own. According to Hobbes, the social contract institutes an office which
may be held by oneman or an assembly of men but which is distinct from the
natural person of the holder. By thetransfer of the natural rights to each man,
the recipient becomes their representative an is investedwith authority to
deliberate, will and act in place of the deliberation will and action of each
separateman. The multitude of conflicting wills is replaced, not by a common
will but a single representativewill.
According to WilliamEbenstein Hobbesian, social contract is made
between subjects andsubjects and not between subjects and sovereign. The
sovereign is not a party to the contract, butits creation. This contract is a
unilateral contract in which the contracting individuals obligatethemselves to
the resultant sovereign. Then again it is an irrevocable contract owe the
individualscontract themselves into a civil society, they cannot annual the
contract. They cannot repudiate theirobligation. Repudiation of a contract is an
act of public will of the individuals which they hadsurrounded at the time of
the original contract. Thus Hobbesian contract is a social and notgovernmental

103
contract. In this conception of social contact, the sovereign cannot commit
anybreach of covenant because he is not a party to it. By participating in the
creation of the sovereignthe subject is anther of all the ruler does and must
therefore not complain of any of the rulers’actions, because thus he would be
deliberately doing injury to himself. Hobbes concedes that thesovereign may
commit iniquity but not “injustice or injury in the proper signification”,
because hecannot by definition, act illegally; he determines what is just and
unjust and his action is law.
8.5 Civil law and natural law
After the constitution of civil society, natural law is for all practical
purposes replaced by civillaw which is the creation of the sovereign. For
Hobbes the conflict between common law andthe statute law, and the
constitutional crisis arising out of it was the real problem to tackle and he was
confident that this could be solved only by making the will of the sovereign
supreme and the ultimate point of reference in all legal and political matters.
To him it is reason, notwill, that makes law obligatory. In civil society Natural
Law does not disappear; it is assimilatedto civil law.
"The law of nature, and the civil law, contain each other, and are of
equal extent.... The law of nature therefore is a part of civil law in all
commonwealths of the world. Reciprocally also, the civil law is a part of the
dictates of nature. Forjustice, that is to say, performance of covenant, and
giving to every man his own,is a dictate of law of nature ... Civil, and natural
law are not different kinds, butdifferent parts of law ; whereof one paif being
written, is called civil the other unwritten, natural. But the light of nature, that
is, the natural liberty of man, mayby the civil law be abridged, and restrained:
may, the end of making laws, is noother, but such restraint; without which
there cannot possibly be any peace.And law was brought into the world for
nothing else, but to limit the naturalliberty of particular men, in such manner,
as they might not hurt, but assist oneanother, and join together against a
common enemy."
This passage his been interpreted differently according to the degree of
importance given tonatural law in Hobbes' system. According to Plamenatz,
when Hobbes says that natural law andcivil law contain one another, "he is not
denying that men may have good grounds for believingthat civil law is contrary
to the law of nature; he is saying that they ought always to do what they
promised, which was to accept sovereign's interpretation of natural law as
alone valid.They must never use the law of nature as an excuse for not obeying
civil law"

104
 According to Warrender: "With the advent of sovereign authority and
the civil law that itprovides, the laws of nature are not superseded, though their
manner of operation is altered.They persist in civil society together with civil
law itself, and play, in Hobbes' theory, a part in determiningthe patterns of
obligation in civil society no less essential than their functions in the State of
Nature".
Hobbes' argument for the absolutepower of the sovereign is by no
means a plea for unadulterateddespotism. He consistently maintained that the
object of the state was the safety and well-being of me and for this the
sovereign was accountable to God. He also maintained that by "safetyis not
meant a bare Preservation, but also all other contentment of life, which every
man bylawful Industry, without danger, or hurt to the commonwealth, shall
acquire to himself'. Admirers of Hobbes have discerned in this a distinct
element of liberalism. But it would bemore appropriate to view it as a policy of
''enlightened despotism."
8.6 Sovereignty
The heart of Hobbes’ political philosophy is his theory of sovereignty.
He was not the first touse the term sovereignty in its modern sense. It is beyond
dispute that before and after ThomasHobbes the doctrine of sovereignty has
been defended by various scholars on various grounds.Hobbes was perhaps the
first thinker to defend the sovereignty of the state on scientific grounds.
Hobbes freed the doctrine of sovereignty of limitations imposed by Jean Bodin
and Hugo Grotius.
Sovereignty, according to Hobbes, is absolute, indivisible, inalienable
and perpetual. It is not limited either by the rights of the subjects or by
customary and statutory law. Sovereign is of course obliged to act according to
Natural Law, but he alone is the interpreter of this law and none of his actions
can be challenged on the ground that it is violative of reason and justice.
Justice consists in acting in accordance with promises made, and the sovereign
has made promise. Hence his actions cannot be called unjust or injurious. In
relation to hissubjects, thesovereign is always in the state of nature and enjoys
all his natural rights. No one call complaint that sovereign is acting wrongly,his
actions are the actions of his subjects and nobody can rightly complain against
his ownaction.Sovereign has absolute right to declare war and make peace, to
levy taxes and impose penalties.
Liberty is the silence of law. In other words, a citizen is free to do or
forbear what the sovereign has not commanded or forbidden.However, the
command of the sovereign cannot dissolve thesubjectsright to self-
preservation. If a sovereign commands some one to kill himself, he is not

105
bound to abide by it, for the sole purpose of the establishment of civil society is
the preservationof life. It is, of course, up to the sovereign to kill or not to kill a
person in the interest of peace'and security of the commonwealth, butthis does
not imply that the subject himself is obligedto end his life, or any others' life
when ordered to do so by the sovereign."When therefore our refusal to obey,
frustrates the end for which sovereignty was ordained, then there is no liberty
to refuse: otherwise there is."
In Hobbes there is no general right to disobedience or rebellion. The
authority of the sovereign is absolute and irrevocable.To resist him is to
commit what may be called a performativecontradiction. For the subjects have
authorised all his actions as their own and nobody can go against his own will.
Moreover, to resist or disobey the sovereign is to opt for the state ofnature,
where there is no right or wrong.
Hobbes saw the sovereign power as undivided, unlimited, inalienable
and permanent. Thecontract created the state and the government
simultaneously. The sovereign power was authorisedto enact laws as it deemed
fit and such laws were legitimate Hobbes was categorical that the powersand
authority of the sovereign has to be defined with least ambiguity.
The following are some of the major attributes of Hobbesian sovereign.
1. Sovereign is absolute and unlimited and accordingly no conditions
implicit or explicit can beimposed on it. It is not limited either by the
rights of the subjects or by customary andstatutory laws.
2. Sovereignty is not a party to the covenant or contract. A sovereign does
not exist prior to the commencement of the contract. Contract was
signed between men in the state ofnature mainly to escape from a state
of war of every man against every man. The contract isirrevocable.
3. The newly created sovereign can do no injury to his subjects because he
is their authorisedagent. His actions cannot be illegal because he
himself is the sole source and interpreter oflaws.
4. No one can complain that sovereign is acting wrongly because
everybody has authorised himto act on his behalf.
5. Sovereign has absolute right to declare war and make peace, to levy
taxes and to imposepenalties.
6. Sovereign is the ultimate source of all administrative, legislative and
judicial authority.According to Hobbes, law is the command of the
sovereign.
7. The sovereign has the right to allow or takes away freedom of speech
and opinion.

106
 8. The sovereign has to protect the people externally and internally for
peace and preservationwere basis of the creation of the sovereign or
Leviathan. Thus Hobbesian sovereignrepresents the ultimate, supreme
and single authority in the state and there is no right ofresistance against
him except in case of self defence. According to Hobbes, any act
ofdisobedience of a subject is unjust because it is against the covenant.
Covenants withoutswords are but mere words. Division or limitation of
sovereignty means destruction ofsovereignty which means that men are
returning to the old state of nature where life will beintolerably
miserable.
By granting absolute power to the sovereign, some critics went to the
extent of criticising Hobbes asthe ‘spiritual father of totalitarian fascism or
communism’ However, William Ebenstein in his wellknown work ‘ Great
Political Thinkers’ has opposed this charge on following grounds. First,
government is set up according to Hobbes, by a covenant that transfers all
power. This contractualfoundation of government is anathema to the modern
totalitarians second, Hobbes assigns to thestate a prosaic business; to maintain
order and security for the benefit of the citizens. By contrast,the aim of the
modern totalitarian state is anti-individualistic and anti hedonistic. Third
Hobbesianstate is authoritarian, not totalitarian. Hobbes’ authoritaritarianism
lacks one of the mostcharacteristic features of the modern totalitarian state:
inequality before the law, and the resultant sense of personal insecurity. Fourth,
Hobbes holds that the sovereign may be one man or anassembly of men,
whereas modern totalitarianism is addicted to the leadership principle.
TheHobbesian sovereign is a supreme administrator and lawgiver but not a top
rabble-rouser, spellbinder, propagandist, or showman. Fifth, Hobbes recognizes
that war is one of the two mainforces that drive men to set up a state. But
whenever he speaks of war, it is defensive war, andthere is no glorification of
war in the Leviathan. By contrast, totalitarians look on war as something
lightly desirable and imperialist war as the highest form of national life.
Thus it is clear from the above observations that Hobbes’ theory of
sovereignty is the firstsystematic and consistent statement of complete
sovereignty in the history of political thought. Hissovereign enjoys an absolute
authority over his subjects and his powers can be neither divided norlimited
either by the law of nature or by the law of God.Hobbes’ Leviathan is not only
a forceful enunciation of the theory of sovereignty but also a
powerfulstatement of individualism. As Prof. Sabine has rightly pointed out, in
Hobbesian politicalphilosophy both individualism and absolutism go hand in
hand. Granting absolute and unlimitedpower to the state is, in essence, an
attempt to provide a happy and tension free life to theindividuals.

107
Conclusion
The Leviathan of Hobbes has been regarded as one of the masterpieces
of political theory known forits style, clarity and lucid exposition. He has laid
down a systematic theory of sovereignty, humannature, political obligation etc.
Hobbes saw the state as a conciliator of interests, a point of view thatthe
Utilitarian’s developed in great detail. Hobbes created an all powerful state but
it was nottotalitarian monster.
Two aspects of Hobbes' thought require special attention-his absolutism
and his individualism. It is often asserted that the two are logically correlated.
It is on the basis of his radical individualism that Hobbes builds his theory of
political absolutism. And following this line ofthought, it is also claimed that
Hobbes' political theory is quintessentially a theory of liberalism.Hobbes'
emphasis on natural right, it is said, distinguishes him from the classical natural
Lawtheorists.
Hobbes is considered as the father of political science: His method was
deductive and geometricalrather than empirical and experimental. His theory of
sovereignty is indivisible, inalienable andperpetual. Sovereign is the sole
source and interpreter of laws. Before and after Hobbes, politicalabsolutism has
been defended by different scholars on various grounds. Hobbes was perhaps
thefirst political thinker to defend political absolutism on scientific grounds.
Summary
Hobbes is generally regarded as the father of modern political science.
His theories reflect political ideology of the initial capitalist market society
characterised by the doctrine of"possessive individualism" and the ethic of
cutthroat competition and self-aggrandisement. His method was deductive and
geometrical rather than empirical and experimental.According to Hobbes the
root cause of conflict in the state of nature are the passions of desire and
aversion.Since goods are limited, there is ruthless competition and a struggle
for power to retain whatis acquired.Conflict is inherent in human nature in
blind pursuit of self interest.Another thing that Hobbes points out is that each
man has liberty to use his own power as he will for preservation of his own
nature and life.This he calls natural right. But at times he equates natural right
with power, at times with absence of obligations or with liberty to do that
whichright reason prescribes.
To escape this state of nature and to avoid war man is endowed with
reason and rational self preservation. These are known as laws of nature which
play an important role to transform stateof nature into a civil society.In order to
escape the state of nature, individuals renounce theirnatural rights and institute
a third person or body of persons conferring all rights on that personor body,

108
authorising all its action as their own.This common superior or sovereign has
to be created through a covenant with the sovereign outside this covenant.
Sovereignty is indivisible, inalienable and perpetual.The, Sovereign acts
according to natural law but he alone is the interpreter of this law and his
action cannot be challenged.After the constitution of civil society, natural law
is assimilated into civil law.
Hobbes starts with natural rights of individuals but restricts them to
found a viable civil society. He restricts the natural liberty of men but does not
espouse the individual's right to restrictauthority of the state.
Model Questions
1. What is man‘s natural state of nature according to Hobbes?
2. What are the ways in which man may escape the state of nature
asexplained by Hobbes?

109
 CHAPTER – 9
JOHN LOCKE
Structure
9.1 Introduction
9.2 Life and works
9.3 Power
9.4 Characteristics of Lockean state
9.5 Limitations of Government
9.6 Natural Rights and Private Property
9.7 Civil Society
9.8 Political Theory
9.9 Limits to Accumulation
9.1 Introduction
John Locke, widely recognized as the Father of Classical Liberalism,
was an English philosopher and physician regarded as one of themainly
influential of Enlightenment thinkers.Aprofound and extensive study of John
Locke has been one of the most remarkable achievementsof recent
philosophical scholarship.Measured one of the first of the British empiricists,
following the custom of Francis Bacon, he is equally significant to social
contract theory. His work had a great impact upon thedevelopment of
epistemology and political philosophy. His writingsinfluenced Voltaire and
Rousseau, several Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, aswell as the American
revolutionaries. His contributions to classicalrepublicanism and liberal theory
are reflected in the United States Declarationof Independence.Locke's theory of
mind is often cited as the origin ofcontemporary conceptions of identity and the
self, figuring prominently in thework of later philosophers such as Hume,
Rousseau and Kant. Locke was thefirst to describe the self through a stability
of consciousness.
9.2 Life and works
Locke's father, also described John, was a country lawyer and clerk
tothe Justices of the Peace in Chew Magna, who had served as a captain
ofcavalry for the Parliamentarian forces throughout the early part of the
EnglishCivil War. His mother was Agnes Keene. Both parents were Puritans.
Lockewas born on 29 August 1632, in a small thatched cottage through the
church inWrington, Somerset, in relation to the twelve miles from Bristol. He
wasbaptised the similar day. Soon after Locke's birth, the family moved to

110
themarket town of Pensford, in relation to the seven miles south of Bristol,
whereLocke grew up in a rural Tudor home in Belluton.
In 1647, Locke was sent to the prestigious Westminster School
inLondon under the sponsorship of Alexander Popham, a member of
Parliamentand his father's former commander. After completing his studies
there, he wasadmitted to Christ Church, Oxford. The dean of the college at the
time was John Owen, vice-chancellor of the university. Although a capable
student, Locke was irritated through the undergraduate curriculum of the time.
Heestablish the works of contemporary philosophers, such as René
Descartes,more motivating than the classical material taught at the university.
Throughhis friend Richard Lower, whom he knew from the Westminster
School,Locke was introduced to medicine and the experimental philosophy
beingpursued at other universities and in the Royal Society, of which he
eventuallybecame a member.
Locke was awarded a bachelor's degree in 1656 and a master's degreein
1658. He obtained a bachelor of medicine in 1674, having studied
medicineextensively throughout his time at Oxford and worked with such
notedscientists and thinkers as Robert Boyle, Thomas Willis, Robert Hooke
andRichard Lower. In 1666, he met Lord Anthony Ashley Cooper, 1st Earl of
Shaftesbury, who had come to Oxford seeking treatment for a liver
infection.Locke's medical knowledge was put to the test when
Shaftesbury'sliver infection became life threatening. Locke coordinated the
advice of manyphysicians and was almost certainly instrumental in persuading
Shaftesbury toundergo an operation to remove the cyst. Shaftesbury survived
and prospered, crediting Locke with saving his life.
Shaftesbury, as a founder of the Whig movement, exerted great
poweron Locke's political thoughts. Locke became involved in politics
whenShaftesbury became Lord Chancellor in 1672. Following Shaftesbury's
fallfrom favour in 1675, Locke spent some time traveling crossways France
astutor and medical attendant to Caleb Banks. He returned to England in 1679
when Shaftesbury's political fortunes took a brief positive turn. Approximately
this time, mainly likely at Shaftesbury's prompting, Locke composed the
bulkof the Two Treatises of Government.Though Lockewas associated with the
influential Whigs, his thoughts in relation to thenatural rights and government
are today measured quite revolutionary for thatera in English history.
Events that happened throughout Locke's lifetime contain the
EnglishRestoration, the Great Plague of London and the Great Fire of London.
He didnot quite see the Act of Union of 1707, though the thrones of England
andScotland were held in personal union throughout his lifetime.

111
Constitutionalmonarchy and parliamentary democracy were in their infancy
throughoutLocke's time.
John Locke’s first works were written at Oxford, namely the Two
Tracts on Government in1660-1662, and the Essays on the Law of Nature in
Latin in 1664. In both these writings he arguedagainst religious toleration and
denied consent as the basis of legitimate government. Lockepublished his Two
Treatises of Government in 1690. The same year saw the publication of
hisfamous philosophical work The Essay Concerning Human understanding.
Locke’s other importantwritings were the Letters Concerning Toleration and
Some Thought Concerning Education.
The Two Treatises of Government consists of two parts- the first is the
refutation of filmer andthe second, the more important of the two, is an inquiry
into the ‘true original, extent and end of civilgovernment’. The work was
ostensibly written to justify the glorious revolution of 1688. According
toWilliam Ebenstein, Locke’s two treatises of government is often dismissed as
a mere apology for thevictorious Whigs in the revolution of 1688. The two
treatises exposed and defended freedom, consent and property as coordinal
principles of legitimate political power. Locke saw political power as a trust,
with the general community specifying its purposes an aims.
His work had a great impact upon the development of epistemology and
political philosophy. His writings influenced Voltaire and Rousseau, several
Scottish Enlightenment thinkers, as well as the American revolutionaries. His
contributions to classical republicanism and liberal theory are reflected in the
United States Declaration of Independence. Locke's theory of mind is often
cited as the origin of contemporary conceptions of identity and the self,
figuring prominently in the work of later philosophers such as Hume, Rousseau
and Kant. Locke was the first to describe the self through a stability of
consciousness. He postulated that the mind was a blank slate or tabula rasa.
Contrary to pre-existing Cartesian philosophy, he maintained that we are born
without innate thoughts, and that knowledge is instead determined only
through experience derived from sense perception.
9.3 Power
Locke exercised a profound power on political philosophy,
inscrupulous on contemporary liberalism. In order to explain the origin of
political power, Locke began with a description of the state ofnature which for
him was one of perfect equality and freedom regulated by the laws of
nature.Locke’s description of state of nature was not as gloomy and pessimistic
as Hobbe’s. The individualin the Lockean state of nature was naturally free and
become a political subject out of free choice.The state of nature was not one of

112
licence, for though the individual was free form any superiorpower, he was
subject to the laws of nature. From the laws of nature, individuals derived the
naturalrights to life, liberty and property (Together known as Right to
Property). The laws of nature known tohuman beings through the power of
reason, which directed them towards their proper interests.
Locke believes that man is a rational and a social creature capable of
recognising and livingin a moral order. Thus Lockean men in the state of
nature led a life of mutual assistance, good willand preservation. Locke cannot
conceive of human beings living together without some sort oflaw and order,
and in the state of nature it is the law of nature that rules. The law of nature
throughthe instrument of reason , defines what is right and wrong,; if a
violation of the law occurs, theexecution of the penalty is in the state of nature,
‘put into every man’s hands, whereby every onehas right to punish the
transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation’
Lockepenetratingly notes that in the law of nature the injured party is
authorised to the judge in his owncase and to execute the judgment against the
culprit. In other words, in the Lockean state of nature,there was no organised
govt. which alone can protect and enforce the natural rights.
According to William Ebenstein, Lockean law of the state of nature is
deficient in threeimportant points. First, it is not sufficiently clear. Second,
there is no third party judge who has nopersonal stake in disputes. Third, in the
state of nature the injured party is not always strongenough to execute the just
sentence of the law. Thus the purpose of the social contract is toestablish
organised law and orders so that the uncertainties of the state of nature will be
replacedby the predictability of known laws and impartial institutions. After
society is set up by contract, government is established, not by a contract, but
by fiduciary trust.
For the three great lacks of the state of nature - the lack of a known law,
of a known judge, ofa certain executive power – the three appropriate remedies
would seem to be establishment of alegislative, of a judicial, and of an
executive authority. In civil society or the state, Locke notes theexistence of
three powers, but they are not the above. There is first of all the legislative,
which hecalls’ the supreme power of the commonwealth.’ The legislative
power was supreme since it wasthe representative of the people, having the
power to make laws. Besides the legislative there wasan executive, usually one
person, with the power to enforce the law. The executive which included the
judicial power has to be always in session. It enjoyed prerogatives and was
subordinate andaccountable to the legislature. The legislative and executive
power had to be separate, thus preemptingMontesquieu’s theory of separation

113
of powers. The third power that Locke recognises iswhat he calls the
federative- the power that makes treaties, that which is concerned with
thecountry’s external relations. Locke realises the great importance of foreign
policy, and knows thatits formulation, execution and control presents a very
special kind of problem to constitutionalstates.
9.4 Characteristics of Lockean state
The first and foremost feature of Lockean state is that it exists for the
people who form it,they do not exist for it. Repeatedly he insists that ‘the end
of government is the good of thecommunity’. As C.L. Wayper has rightly
pointed out the Lockean ‘ state is a machine which wecreate for our good and
run for our purposes, and it is both dangerous and unnecessary to speak ofsome
supposed mystical good of state or country independent of the lives of
individual citizens.
Locke further insists that all true states must be founded on consent.
Further, the true statemust be a constitutional state in which men acknowledge
the rule of law. For there can be nopolitical liberty if a man is subject to the
inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of other man.Government must
therefore be established standing laws, promulgated and known to the people,
and not by extemporary decrees.
The most important characteristic of Locke’s true state is that it is
limited, not absolute. It islimited because it derives power from the people, and
because it holds power in trust for the people.As only a fiduciary power to act
for certain ends, its authority is confined to securing those ends. It islimited
moreover, by Natural law in particular. The state should exist for the good of
the people should depend on their consent, should be constitutional and limited
in its authority.
Besides, Lockean state is a tolerant state which will respect differences
of opinion. It is anegative state which does not seek to improve the character of
its citizens or to manage their lives.Again, Lockean state is also a transformer
state, transforming selfish interest into public good.
9.5 Limitations of Government
John Locke advocated a limited sovereign state, for reason and
experience taught him that politicalabsolutism was untenable. Describing the
characteristics of a good state Locke said it existed forthe people who formed it
and not the vice- versa. It had to be based on the consent of the peoplesubject
to the constitution and the rule of law. It is limited since its powers were
derived from thepeople and were held in trust.

114
 Locke does not build up a conception of legal sovereignty. He abolishes
the legalsovereignty in favour of popular sovereignty. He has no idea of
absolute and indivisible sovereigntyas presented by Thomas Hobbes. Locke is
for a government based on division of power and subjectto a number of
limitations. His limited government cannot command any thing against
publicinterests. It cannot violate the innate natural rights of the individuals. It
cannot govern arbitrarilyand tax the subjects without their consent. Its laws
must conform to the laws of Nature and of god.It is not the government which
is sovereign but law which is rooted in common consent. Its lawsmust conform
to the laws of Nature and of God. It is not the government which is sovereign
but lawwhich is rooted in common consent. A government which violates its
limitations is not worthy ofobedience.
Most important in terms of limiting the power of government is the
democratic principal itself. Thelegislature is to be periodically elected by the
people. It could be no other way, in fact, sincelegitimate government must be
based upon the consent of the governed according to Locke, anddirect election
of representatives to the legislature makes consent a reality. And since
electedrepresentatives depend of popular support for their tenure in office, they
have every interest in staying within legal bounds.A further limitation upon the
legislative power recommended by Locke is limiting of the duration
oflegislative sessions because, he argues constant frequent meetings of the
legislative could not but be burdensome to the people”.
In Locke’s mind, the less frequent the meetings of the legislature the
fewer the law passed and consequently, the less chance that mischief will be
done.
Another crucially important structural principle in limiting the power of
government is the separationof powers. Between the legislative and executive,
the logic behind this principle, according toLocke, is that “It may be too great a
temptation to human frailty apt to grasp at power for the samepersons who
have the power of making laws, to have also in their hands the power to
executethem. .” Locke, however, does not go so far as to make the separation
of powers an absolutecondition for limited government.
9.6 Natural Rights and Private Property
The conception of Natural rights and the theory of property was one of
the important themes inLocke’s political philosophy. According to Locke, men
in the state of nature possessed naturalrights. These rights are Right to life
liberty and property. Liberty means an exemption from allrules save the law of
nature which is a means to the realisation of man’s freedom.

115
 Locke spoke of individuals in the state of nature having perfect freedom
to dispose of theirpossessions, and persons, as they thought fit. He
emphatically clarified that since property was anatural right derived from
natural law, it was therefore prior to the government. He emphasised
thatindividuals had rights to do as they pleased within the bounds of the laws of
nature. Rights werelimited to the extent that they did not harm themselves or
others.
According to Locke, human beings are rational creatures, and “Reason
tells us that Men,being once born have a right to their preservation, and such
other things as nature affords for theirsubsistence”. Rational people must
concede that every human being has a right to life, andtherefore to those things
necessary to preserve life. This right to life and those things necessary
topreserve it, Locke calls it property. The right to life, he argues, means that
every man has propertyin his own person. This nobody has any right to but
himself “Logically, the right to property inperson means that all human beings
have a right to property in those goods and possessions acquired through labour
that are necessary to preserve their person.
Locke argues that the “Labour of his body, and the work of his Hands
are properly his.Whatso ever then he removes out of the state that nature hath
provided, and left it in, he hathmixed his labour with, and joined to it
something that is his won and thereby makes it hisproperty”. Since human
beings have property in their persons and hence a right to life, it followsthat
they have property in those possessions that they have legitimately laboured to
obtain. Inother words, property in both person and possessions is a right that
belongs to every human beingas human being. It is a right all people possess
whether they be in a state of nature or in politicalsociety. Locke thus says that
the great and chief end of men’s uniting into commonwealth’s, andcutting
themselves under government is the preservation of their property”.
Consequently, Government has no other end but the preservation of people
‘Lives, liberties, and Estates” Libertyis a property right for Locke because to
have property in one’s person implies the right to think,speak and act freely.
Locke has argued that in the state of nature property is held in common
untilpeople mix their labour with it at which point it becomes their private
property. A person has right toappropriate as much common property as
desired so long as “there is enough and as good left incommon for others”.
It was the social character of property that enabled Locke to defend a
minimal state withlimited government and individual rights, and reject out
right the hereditary principle of government.Locke also wanted to emphasise
that no government could deprive an individual of his materialpossessions

116
without the latter’s consent. It was the duty of the political power to
protectentitlements that individuals enjoyed by virtue of the fact that these had
been given by God. Inshort, Locke’s claim that the legitimate function of the
government is the preservation of property means not just that government
must protect people’s lives and possessions, but that it mustensure the right of
unlimited accumulation of private property. Some scholars have argued
thatLocke’s second treatise provides not only a theory of limited government
but a justification for anemerging capitalist system as well. Macpherson argued
that Locke’s views on property made him abourgeois apologist, a defender of
the privileges of the possessing classes. As Prof. WilliamEbenstien has rightly
pointed out, Lockean theory of property was later used in defence ofcapitalism,
but in the hands of pre-Marxian socialists it became a powerful weapon of
attackingcapitalism.
9.7 Civil Society
According to Locke what drives men into society is that God put them
“under strongObligations of necessity, convenience, and inclination”. And men
being by nature all free, equal andindependent, no one can be put out of this
estate (State of nature) and subjected to politicalpower of another without his
own consent. Therefore, the problem is to form civil society bycommon
consent of all men and transfers their right of punishing the violators of natural
law to anindependent and impartial authority. For all practical purposes, after
the formation of civil society thiscommon consent becomes the consent of the
majority; all parties must submit to the determinationof the majority which
carries the force of the community. So all men unanimously agree
toincorporate themselves in one body and conduct their affairs by the opinion
of the majority after theyhave set up a political or civil society, the next step is
to appoint a government to declare andexecute the natural law. This Locke
calls the supreme authority established by the commonwealth orcivil society.
The compulsion to constitute a civil society was to protect and preserve
freedom and toenlarge it. The state of nature was one of liberty and equality,
but it was also one where peacewas not secure, being constant by upset by the
“corruption and viciousness of degenerate men”. Itlacked three important
wants: the want of an established settled, known law, the want of a knownand
indifferent judge; and the want of an executive power to enforce just decisions.
9.8 Political Theory
Locke's political theory was founded on social contract theory.
UnlikeThomas Hobbes, Locke whispered that human nature is characterized
throughcause and tolerance. Like Hobbes, Locke whispered that human
natureallowed men to be selfish. This is apparent with the introduction of

117
currency.In a natural state all people were equal and self-governing, and
everyone had anatural right to defend his ―Life, health, Liberty, or
Possessions". Mainly scholars trace the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness," in theAmerican Declaration of Independence, to Locke's theory of
rights, thoughother origins have been suggested.
Like Hobbes, Locke assumed that the sole right to defend in the stateof
nature was not enough, so people recognized a civil society to resolveconflicts
in a civil method with help from government in a state of society.Though,
Locke never refers to Hobbes through name and may instead havebeen
responding to other writers of the day. Locke also advocatedgovernmental
separation of powers and whispered that revolution is not only aright but also
an obligation in some circumstances. These thoughts would come tohave
profound power on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the
United States.
9.9 Limits to Accumulation
Labour creates property, but it also does contain limits to
itsaccumulation: man‘s capability to produce and man‘s capability to
consume.Just as to Locke, unused property is waste and an offence against
nature.Though, with the introduction of ―durable‖ goods, men could
exchange theirexcessive perishable goods for goods that would last longer and
therefore notoffend the natural law. The introduction of money marks the
culmination ofthis procedure. Money creates possible the unlimited
accumulation of propertywithout causing waste through spoilage. He also
comprises gold or silver asmoney because they may be ―hoarded up without
injury to anyone,‖ since theydo not spoil or decay in the hands of the
possessor. The introduction of moneyeliminates the limits of accumulation.
Locke stresses that inequality has comein relation to the through tacit
agreement on the use of money, not through thesocial contract establishing
civil society or the law of land regulating property.Locke is aware of a problem
posed through unlimited accumulation but doesnot consider it his task.He
presently implies that government would functionto moderate the disagreement
flanked by the unlimited accumulation ofproperty and a more almost equal
sharing of wealth and does not say whichprinciples that government should
apply to solve this problem.Though, not allelements of his thought form a
constant whole. For instance, labour theory ofvalue of the Two Treatises of
Government stands face through face with thedemand-and-supply theory
urbanized in a letter he wrote titled Some Thoughtson the Consequences of the
Lowering of Interest and the Raising of the Valueof Money. Moreover, Locke

118
anchors property in labour but in the end upholdsthe unlimited accumulation of
wealth.
Summary
John Locke has been interpreted differently by different people.One
controversy relates to the alleged conflict between his empiricist theory of
knowledge in his 'An Essay ConcerningHuman Understanding' and the
rationalist view of Natural law in the Second Treatise of Civil Government. It
has been argued that the notion of natural law cannot be reconciled with
theoverall empiricism of Locke which shows in his theory of origin of
knowledge in experienceand reflection.
The Natural Law constitutes an integral part of Locke's political
theory.For him, it is prepoliticaland not pre-social as men are social by
nature.The state of nature is a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and
self-preservation.It has the law of nature, which is God's reason, to govern it.
Another important concept of Locke's is the natural right to life, liberty and
property, derived from natural law and limited by it.Man does not have
unlimited right of appropriation. They are limited by labour limitation,
sufficiency limitation and spoilagelimitation.
Since men are by nature, free, equal and independent, no one can be
subjected to politicalpower of another without his own consent.Thus common
consent is required lo form civilsociety after which a government or legislative
has to be established to execute natural law.This authority or the legislative is
the supreme authority.Besides this, there are two other powers of the
commonwealth, the executive (includes judicial power) and the federative
(concerned with foreign affairs).The executive is answerable to the legislative.
The legislative cannot rule by arbitrary decrees but only through promulgated
and established laws.On sovereignty, Locke states that behind the authority of
the legislature, there is an ultimatesovereignty of the people which was later
termed as popular sovereignty.
Locke has been criticised for not explaining the concept of consent even
though the fundamentalprinciple of his theory is based on consent.He has also
been described as an apologist of the Glorious Revolution.Rebellion or
resistance is an essential part of his philosophy but he does not clearly state
who has the right to rebel.And critics even say that he gave that right only to
the landed aristocracy, but this has been debated.

119
Model Questions
1. Critically examine the limitations on the ownership of property
asdefined by Locke
2. What were Locke's views on Sovereignty?

120
 CHAPTER- 10
JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU
Structure
10.1 Introduction
10.2 Life and Times
10.3 Revolt against cause
10.4 Critique of Civilisation
10.5 Social contract
10.6 General will
10.7 Critical appreciation
10.1 Introduction
Jean Jacques Rousseau was one of the greatest political philosopher that
the French has produced.Rousseau was a brilliant philosopher, provocative,
equally controversial and highly critical of his times. In the entire history of
political theory he was the most exciting and provocative. He was a genius and
a keen moralist who was ruthless in his criticism of 18th century French
society. He was one of the most controversial thinkers, as evident from the
conflicting, contradictory and oftendiametrically opposite interpretations that
existed of the nature and importance of his ideas. He isbest remembered for his
concept of popular sovereignty, and the theory of general will whichprovide a
philosophical justification for democratic governance. He was the intellectual
father of theFrench Revolution as well as the last and perhaps the greatest of
the modern contract theorists.
He livedin the age of reason, French Enlightenment, and while he
attacked the ancient regime, he wasalso critical of tile Enlightment. He is best
remembered for his concept of popular sovereignty, and the theory of General
Will, which provides a philosophical justification for democratic governance.
Rousseau wrote lucidly and prolifically. His writings can be classified
in two periods. The first period saw Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, and
Discourse on the Origin of Inequality,wherein Rousseau attacks the morally
decadent ancient regime but lends only a qualified supportto modernity,
lamenting the unnaturalness of reason, the eclipse of sentiments and the
corruptionof humanity brought about by advancements in arts and sciences;
and appears as a romanticrebel, castigating civil society for its injustices.In the
second phase, that saw the Social Contract, Rousseau is more sober, in tune
with the age of reason, no longer tearing down society but building it up, the
rationalist way.

121
10.2 Life and Time
Rousseau was born of a poor family in Geneva. Rousseau's mother died
a few days after giving birth to him, and his father was unable to raise
Rousseau in any coherent fashion.From the age of twelve he was apprenticed
to several masters, but lie failed to set up himselfin any trade or art. For mainly
of his life he remained in poverty, surviving through dint of hisingenuity and
benevolence of women. For temporary material advantages he even changed
hisreligion and accepted charity from people he detested.As a young man he
wasapprenticed in several trades, and in 1728 he set out for a period of travel
during which he engaged in an extensive process of self- education
In 1742 Rousseau set out for Paris where he met the leading cultural,
scientific andphilosophical luminaries of Enlightenment France. Among them
was Diderot, a leading philosopherand the founder of the encyclopedia, a
multi-volume work that aimed at encompassing allknowledge. Rousseau
contributed several articles to the encyclopedia, the most important of
whichwas the Discourse on Political Economy. This work along with the first
and second discourses, andmost importantly the social contract, constitutes the
basic source of Rousseau’s social and politicalthought, although he wrote
several other minor political works, such as the Government of Poland.In
addition, Rousseau wrote several novels and numerous essays, and he produced
threeautobiographical works, the most important of which is the Confessions.
In 1761 Rousseaupublished Emile perhaps the most famous work on education
every written.
Rousseau lived at a timewhen the absolutist feudal order presided in
excess ofthrough Louis XV reigned France. Political power, privilege and
social prestige were themonopoly of the king, clergy and the nobility, who
existed extravagantly at the expense of themasses occupied in n a grim battle of
survival. Having been denied even the minimum requiredof decent livelihood
through the corrupt and inefficient bureaucracy of the King, discontentwas
rampant and the desire for change had created a climate of defiance. Sharing
thediscontent and the desire for change was a new emergent class of the French
bourgeoisie, which establish the extant order too restrictive for its own
development and had joined handswith the peasantry.
In shaping the climate of opinion and the spirit of dissent against the
ancient regimethe French played a major role. Enlightenment judged
everything based on cause andexperience alone. Inevitably it brought under
attack several things that had hitherto been takenfor granted, including the
church and the traditional political institutions of France. Rousseaushared some
of the enlightenment thoughts, but not wholly. I n so distant as the

122
philosophersdesired change, pinned their faith in man as a free agent, Rousseau
was with them, but he didnot share their thought of progress implied in their
modernity and had greater regard forfeeling than respect for rationality.
Rousseau whispered that the part of what was wrong withcontemporary man is
that he had lost touch with his feelings. Philosophers' insensitivitytowards
feelings and emption led to revolt against 'cause'.
10.3 Revolt against cause
Rousseau attacked Enlightenment, in a prize-winning essay written in
1749 on thequestion: "Has the progress of science and arts contributed to
corrupt or purify morality?"Rousseau science was not saving but bringing
moral ruin upon us. Progress was an illusion.What appeared to be advancement
was in reality regression. The arts of civilized societyserved only to 'cast
garlands of flowers in excess of the chains men bore'. The development
ofcontemporary culture had not made men either happier or more virtuous.
Virtue was possiblein an easy society, where men existed austere and frugal
lives. In the contemporarysophisticated society man was corrupted, and greater
the sophistication the greater thecorruption.
As for the grand Baconian hope of creating abundance on earth,
Rousseau saw moreevil than good in it. Abundance to him spelt luxury, and
luxury was notoriously the breeder ofcorruption. Luxury, undermined nations
as it undermined men. Athens, the centre of vices,was doomed to perish
because of its elegance, luxury, wealth, art and sciences. He alsoestablish
support in Roman history—so extensive as Rome was poor and easy she was
able to command respect and conquer an empire; after having urbanized luxury
and engulfed theriches of the Universe Rome fell prey to peoples who knew
not even what riches were.
Rousseau argued that 'our minds have been corrupted in proportion as
the arts andsciences have improved'. The much-vaunted politeness, the glory of
civilized refinement, wasfor Rousseau, a 'uniform and perfidious veil' under
which he saw jealousy, suspicion, fear,wildness, reverse, hate and
fraud.'Against intelligence, the growth of knowledge and theprogress of
sciences, which the Enlightenment whispered to be the only hope of
culture,Rousseau set amiable and benevolent sentiments, the goodwill and
reverence. He privilegedsentiments and conscience in excess of cause, and
proposed that all moral valuations he haddone on the foundation of sentiments.
Intelligence was dangerous because it underminedreverence; science was
destructive because it takes absent faith; cause was bad because it setsprudence
against moral intuition. Without reverence, faith and moral intuition there is
neither character nor society.

123
10.4 Critique of Civilisation
Rousseau attacked civilisation and enlightenment in a prize winning
essay written in 1749on the question: Has the progress of science and arts
contributed to corrupt or purify morality? Rousseau argued that science was
not saving but brings moral ruin upon us. Progress was anillusion, what
appeared to be advancement was in reality regression. The arts of civilised
societyserved only to ‘cast garlands of followers over the chains men bore. The
development of moderncivilisation had not made men either happier or more
virtuous. In the modern sophisticated societyman was corrupted, the greater the
sophistication the greater the corruption. Rousseau wrote thus:“our minds have
been corrupted in proportion as the arts and science have improved”.
The second Discourse, as this essay is described, is anarrative of the fall
of man-how his nature got twisted, warped and corrupted with theemergence of
civil society, which in n turn was necessitated through the rise of the institution
ofprivate property and the require to defend it through institutionalizing social
inequalitythrough law'. Here, Rousseau is extolling the 'natural man' and
pouring scorn in excess of theso-described 'civilized men'. The problem
evidently was not with man, but the nature of society in which he was living.
Tracing the fall, Rousseau says that inthe state of nature, which is a
condition priorto the emergence of society, man was a 'noble savage'; existed in
separation and had a fewelementary, easily appeased needs. It was neither a
condition of plenty nor scarcity; neitherthere was disagreement nor cooperative
livelihood. There was no language or knowledge ofany science or art. In such a
situation man was neither happy nor unhappy, had no conceptionof presently
and unjust, virtue and vice. The noble savage was guided not through cause
butthrough two instincts—self love or the instinct of self-preservation, and
sympathy or thegregarious instinct.
The state of nature, which was one of innocence, did not last forever. In
course oftime, the noble savage who existed in separation exposed the utility
and usefulness of labour.Without yet having given up their primitive dispersal,
men began to collaborate occasionallyand created a degree of provisional
order. Later men began to build shelters for themselvesand families stayed
jointly—a stage Rousseau calls the patriarchal stage. But as lieconsolidated his
first social dealings, he gave himself to labor and to thought, i.e., to the use
ofcause and language. This brought in the first fall for man, wrenching him
from the happinessof the 'patriarchal stage' even as the detection of division of
labor, enabled men to pass from asurvival economy to an economy of
productive development. The emergence of metallurgyand agriculture was

124
indeed a great revolution, but iron and corn, which civilized men,
ruinedhumanity.
The farming of earth led to the enclosure of land, and this necessarily
gave rise to thethought of property, As Rousseau puts it in a well-known
statement: "The first man who afterfencing off a piece of land, took it upon
himself to say "This belongs to me" and establishpeople easy-minded enough
to consider, was the true founder of the civil society".Once men began to claim
possessions, the inequality of men's talents and skills led toan inequality of
fortunes.
Disagreement led in turn to a demand for a system of law for sake of
order andtranquility. The rich especially voiced this demand, for while the state
of violence threatenedeveryone's life it was 'worse for the rich because it
threatened their possessions also. Hencethe expedient of a 'social contract' was
thought of through a rich man to the detriment of thepoor.
The result, says Rousseau, was the origin of civil society and laws,
which gave newfetters to the poor, and new powers to the rich; which
destroyed natural liberty for ever, fixedfor all the law of property and
inequality, transformed shrewd usurpation into settled right, andto benefit a
few ambitious persons, subjected the whole of human race thenceforth to labor,
servitude and wretchedness.
Rousseau suggests though, that things require not have turned out as
badly as theyhad. If, with the establishment of the government, men, 'ran
headlong into chains', that wasbecause men had the sense to see the advantages
of political institutions, but not theexperience to foresee the dangers. To this
theme Rousseau was to return some years later inthe Social Contract.It may
though be noted here that Rousseau was not depicting the transition from
stateof nature to 'civil society' as historical information.
10.5 Social contract
Though Rousseau criticised civil society, he did not suggest man to
choose the savageexistence, as some of his contemporaries mistook him. The
main concern of the social contract isthe central issue of all political
speculation: Political obligation. ‘The Problem’ Rousseau says’ “isto find a
form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common
force theperson and goods of each associate, and in which each while uniting
himself with all may still obeyhimself along, and remain as free as before”.
Like his predecessors, Rousseau uses the conceptions of the state of
nature and the socialcontract that puts to end to it. Rousseau’s conception of
man’s life in the state of nature is notquite so gloomy as that of Hobbes’ nor as
optimistic as that of Locke. Each man pursues his selfinterestin the state of

125
nature until he discovers that his power to preserve himself individuallyagainst
the threats and hindrances of others is not strong enough Rousseau’s social
contract opensthus: ‘Man is born free and he is everywhere in chains’ His
purpose is how to make the chainslegitimate in place of the illegitimate chains
of the contemporary society.
The social contract involves "the total alienation of each associate,
jointly with allhis rights, to the whole society." Each man provides himself to
all; he provides himself tonobody in scrupulous: "As there is no associate in
excess of whom he does not acquire thesimilar right as he yields in excess of
himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses,and an augment of force
for the preservation of what he has." Reduced to its essence, theparticipants of
the social contract agree amongst themselves that: "each of us puts his
personand all his power to the general use under the supreme direction of the
General Will; and as abody we receive each member an indivisible part of the
whole".
The purpose of the social contract is thus to combine security which
comes from collectiveassociation, with liberty which the individual had before
the making of the contract. But the socialcontract consists in the total alienation
of each associate, together with all his rights, to the wholecommunity.’ Each
man gives himself to all, he gives himself to nobody in particular.
In Rousseau’s social contract man does not surrender completely to a
sovereign ruler, buteach man gives himself to all, and therefore gives himself
to nobody in particular. Rousseaushows in the social contract a much greater
appreciation of civil society as compared with the stateof nature than he
showed in his earlier writings. As a result of the contract, private person
ceasesto exist for the contract produces a moral and collective Body, which
receives from the same act itsunity, its common identity, its life and its will.
This public person formed from the union of allparticular individuals is the
state when it is passive, the sovereign when it is active, a power whencompared
with similar institutions.
Here we havea conception of man whose moral sensibilities and
intellectual prowess slowly evolves anddevelops paripasiiwith the widening
and deepening of man's social dealings brought inrelation to the through a
continuous participation in the General Will.
10.6 General will
The doctrine of general will occupies a prominent place in Rousseau’s
political philosophy Inthe Discourse on Political Economy Rousseau had
already dealt with the problem of general will. Hesees the body politic’
“possessed of a will and this general will, which tends always to

126
thepreservation and welfare of the whole and of every part, and is the source of
the laws, constitutesfor all the members of the state in their relation to one
another and to it, the rule of what is just orunjust”. By introducing the concept
of General Will, Rousseau fundamentally alters the mechanisticconcept of the
state as an instrument and revives the organic theory of the state, which goes
backto Plato and Aristotle.
In order to understand the meaning and importance of general will it is
necessary tounderstand the meanings of related terms and concepts. According
to Rousseau, the actual will ofthe individual is his impulsive and irrational will.
It is based on self- interest and is not related to thewell-being of the society.
Such a will is narrow aself conflicting. The real will of the individual ison the
other hand, rational will which aims at the general happiness of the community.
The real willpromotes harmony between the individuals in society. Rousseau
believes that an average man hasboth an actual and real will.
The general will is the sum total of or rather synthesis of the real wills
of the individuals insociety. It represents the common consciousness of the
common good after proper discussion anddeliberation. The chief attribute of
the general will not it was sovereign power but pursuit of common interests
and its public spiritedness. The character of the general will is determined
bytwo elements: first it aims at the general good, and second, it must come
from all and apply to all.The first refers to the object of the will; the second, to
its origin.
Rousseau also makes differences between will of all and general will.
There is often a greatdeal of differences between the will of all and the general
will. ‘the latter considers only the commoninterests, while the former takes
private interest into account and is no more than a sum of particularwills. Thus
the will of all is the aggregate of all the wills of the individuals of the
community abouttheir private interest into account and is no more than a sum
of particular wills. Thus the will ofall is the aggregate of all the wills of the
individuals of the community about their private interest,wills which partly
clash and partly coincide mutually. But the general will represent the aggregate
ofthese wills which is common to all the citizens. In other words, the essential
difference between thewill of all and general will is one of motivation, i.e.,
service to the community without any prejudice ordiscrimination.
Unlike nearly all other major political thinkers, Rousseau considers the
sovereignty of thepeople inalienable and indivisible. The people connote give
away or transfer to any person or body their ultimate right of self government
of deciding their own destiny. Whereas Hobbes identified thesovereign with
the ruler who exercises’ sovereignty, Rousseau draws a sharp distinction

127
betweensovereignty, which always and wholly resides in the people and
government which is but atemporary agent of the sovereign people. Rousseau
believes that the general will would be thesource of all laws. The human being
would be truly free it he followed the dictates of the law. Hewas categorical
that the General will could emerge only in an assembly of equal lawmakers.
Characteristics of general will
The following are some of the important features of general will.
Firstly, Rousseau’s general will ispermanent It is rational and not
impulsive. It is not eternal but permanent and imparts stability tonational
institutions.
Secondly, Rousseau locates sovereignty in the general will. General
will andsovereignty are inalienable just as life of the individual is inalienable.
Whereas in Locke the peopletransfer the exercise of their sovereign authority,
legislative, executive and judicial to organs ofgovernment, Rousseau’s concept
of inalienable and indivisible sovereignty does not permit thepeople to transfer
their legislative function, the supreme authority in the state As to the
executiveand judicial functions, Rousseau realises that they have to be
exercised by special organs of government but they are completely subordinate
to the sovereign people.
Thirdly, Rousseau’s general will is unitary because it is not self
contradictory. It gives a touch ofunity to national character. Nextly, general
will is unrepresentable because sovereignty lies in thecommunity which is a
collective body and cannot be represented but by itself: As soon as a nation
appoints representatives, it is no longer free, it no longer exists.
Finally, the general will is infallible. Rousseau means little morethan
that the general willmust always seek the general good. He says the general
will is always right and tends to the publicadvantage. If the general will is
always right, it is not always known. It does not follow that thedeliberations of
the people are always equally correct.
Rousseau saw the government as an agent of the General will, the
sovereign entity in thebody polity. Like Montesquieu, he believed all forms of
government were not suited to all countries.A government had to reflect the
character of a country and its people.
According to William Ebenstein, Rousseau’s concept of sovereignty
differs from both Hobbes’and Locke’s In Hobbes the people set up a sovereign
and transfer all power to him In Locke’ssocial contract, the people set up a
limited government for limited purposes, but Locke shuns theconception of
sovereignty - popular or monarchical – as a symbol of political absolutism.

128
Rousseau’s sovereign is the people constituted as a political community
through the social contract.Rousseau’s theory of popular sovereignty is not
only different from Locke’s , it is in fact a throughgoing critique of the whole
tradition of Lockean liberal democracy. For while Locke recognises
theprinciple of popular sovereignty in theory, he rejects it in practice, says
Rousseau In point of fact ,Locke’s contract does not give the legislative power
to the people, but to a representativelegislature. As such, sovereign belongs to
the elected representatives, or more precisely to amajority of representatives
rather than to the community as a whole. Thus, Locke actually putssovereignty
in the hands of a very small minority, thereby denying to the pole that political
libertythat a correct reading of the contract shows they rightfully ought to
possess.
10.7 Critical appreciation
There appears to be an obvious divide and fundamental logical
discrepancy flankedby his earlier writings in n Discourse on Inequality and the
later work Social Contract. AsVaughan says, the first stage of his work is
marked with defiant individualism, while in dielatter there is an equally defiant
collectivism.
The variation flanked by the earlier works and the Social Contract is
merely that inthe former lie is writing himself free from the uncongenial social
philosophy and in the latterhe was expressing a counter-philosophy of his own.
The social philosophy from which hedisengaged himself was that of systematic
individualism, which whispered that man wasmoral and rational; had sense of
ownership and inherent rights; that man cooperated out ofenlightened self-
interest; that society or social group was created out of universal selfishnessand
was utilitarian in nature meant for the protection of rights and promotion of
happiness orself-satisfaction; and that in itself it had no value though it protects
values.
With insights gleaned from Classical Greek philosophy, Rousseau
worked out hisown political theory. It rejected systematic individualism,
compelling one to think that society was more than a heap of individual atoms;
that good of all—the 'public good' cannot beproduced through each individual's
pursuit of private interests or universal selfishness. Unlessmen thought beyond
their private interests, in conditions of public interest or the good of thewhole
of which they are integral part, they could not attain their own good.
Moreover, only when individuals are disposed towards thinking in n
conditions of public good, that power, which is required for order and,
freedom, which is needed for felicityor self-development can be reconciled.
Locke and Hobbes both failed in this reconciliationbecause they had a false

129
theory of man. Locke becomes fearful of power while securingliberty; for the
sake of order and tranquility sacrifices individual at the altar of the
sovereign.There is much value in the philosophical insight of theory of General
Will and it ledto an alternative conceptualization of state, not as a machine but
as an organism; but Rousseaudid not care to work out the practical implications
of his theory. One consequence of this hasbeen that whereas Rousseau had set
out to give a philosophical justification for democraticgovernance and resolve
the tension flanked by power and freedom establish in the mechanistictheory of
state, quite contrary to his intentions, Rousseau became for several an
apotheosis oftotalitarianism.
Theory of General Will unluckily provided a pretext for any arbitrary
ruler to coercerecalcitrant subjects, pleading that they, much as they are
enslaved to their scrupulous wills,do not know what the general will is. In this
context 'the paradox of freedom' in Rousseau,acquired dangerous propensities.
Liberty became an 'honorific' word, the name for a sentimentwith which even
attacks on liberty could be baptized.
But even more dangerous was the implied view that a man whose moral
convictionsare against those generally held in n his society is merely capricious
and ought to be suppressed.As Sabine comments this was perhaps not a
legitimate inference from the abstract theory ofGeneral Will, because freedom
of conscience really is a social and not merely an individualgood. But in every
concrete situation the general will has to be recognized with some body
ofactual opinion, and moral intuitionism usually means that morality is
recognized withstandards, which are usually accepted. Forcing a man to be free
therefore becomes euphemism for creation blindly obedient to the mass or the
strongest party.In a method such abuse happened because the theory of general
will was too abstractand there was difficulty with regard to its site or
identification. That general will is alwaysright is merely a truism because it
stands for social good, which is itself the standard of right.
Notwithstanding such criticisms, the significance of Rousseau cannot
be everdiminished. In protection of Rousseau it may be said, as Ebenstein has
observed, that he was the first modern writer to have attempted, though not
always successfully, to synthesize goodgovernment with self-government in
the key concept of the general will. The classical doctrineof Plato and Aristotle
had accentuated good government at the expense of self-government.And the
more contemporary thoughts of Locke and the liberal school were
concernedprincipally with self-government; it relegated the problem of good
government intobackground.

130
 Secondly, Rousseau also was clearer than the conventional liberal
doctrines that theend of government is not confined to the protection of
individual liberty but also comprisesequality because 'liberty cannot exist
without it.' In the Social Contract one may notnotice the hostility that he
showed to the institution of private property in theDiscourse on Inequality but
he does not abandon the ideal of economicequality. No citizen "shall be ever
wealthy enough to buy another, and none poorenough to be forced to sell
himself." Rousseau realizes that in practice it is extremely hard touphold the
ideal of equitable sharing of property, but it is precisely because the force
ofcircumstances tends continually to destroy equality that the force of
legislation should alwaystend to its maintenance. Whereas Locke failed to see
property as a relation of power of man in excess of man, Rousseau clearly
recognized property as a form of private power that had to bekept under
manage through the general will.
Thirdly, Rousseau was not socialist in the contemporary sense of the
term, yetindirectly this part of Rousseau—the stress on equality—has aided the
development of thesocialist sentiment through sharpening the awareness that
political liberty and crass economicinequality are ultimately incompatible if
democracy is to survive and expand. And secondlythat all rights, including
those of property, are rights within the society and not against it.
Fourthly, Rousseau himself was in no sense a nationalist, though his
philosophycontributed to nationalism. Through reviving the intimacy of feeling
and the reverenceconnoted through citizenship in the municipality-state, he
made it accessible, at least as anemotional coloring, to citizenship in the
national state. The cosmopolitanism implied throughnatural law, he chose to
regard as merely a pretext for evading the duties of a citizen.
Assessment
There was no denying the fact that Rousseau‘s political philosophy was
one of the mostinnovative striking and brilliant argued theories. His most
important achievement was that heunderstood the pivotal problem that faced
individuals in society - how to reconcile individualinterests with those of the
larger interests of the society. Rousseau is the first modern writer toattempt, not
always successfully to synthesize good government with self government in the
keyconcept of General will.
Rousseau’s influence has changed over the last three centuries. In the
18th century he wasseen as critique of the statusquo, challenging the concept of
progress, the core of the enlightenment belief structure. In the 19th century, he
was seen as the apostle of the Frenchrevolution and the founder of the romantic
movement. In the 20th century he has been hailed as thefounder of democratic

131
tradition, while at the same time assailed for being the philosophicalinspiration
of totalitarianism.
Summary
Although many classify him as an enlightment thinker, Rousseau is
highly critical of the enlightenment and modernity in general. Rousseau thinks
that civilisation corrupts human beings. He equated civilisation withvanity and
arrogance.Rousseau believed that what was wrong with the modern man was
that he had lost touch with his feelings.Rousseau's regard for rationality is
mixed with an equal orgreater regard for feeling.
Critiquing the civil society of his contemporary times he pointed out
that the social order was founded for the protection of private interest and
property, that private property was at the root of social inequality, injustices
and exploitation and that such a civil order was contrary to man'snature.
Since society was inevitable; man couldn't unlearn himself to return to
the woodsand therealisation of man's nature depended on the nature of
socialisation. The task for him was tosuggest the just principles upon which to
found a social-political order that would be conduciveto the realisation of
human freedom. Rousseau accomplishes this task in his Social Contract,
wherein Rousseau lays down the blue print of the required political society.
This ideal political .society is set up through a social contract, in the image of a
community, possessing a generalwill, which is sovereign and which while
always aiming at the general good, comes from all and applies to all equally.In
Rousseau's theory of General Will, freedom and authority automatically gets
reconciled,as there is no tension between the two.The earlier theories, which
were premised on individual separatism, and the need to preserve and protect
privateinterests through setting up an authority, failed to properly reconcile
authority with freedombecause it had a faulty theory of man and society.
Model Questions
1. Examine the nature and characteristic of Rousseau's General Will.
2. Evaluate Rousseau as a critic of civil society.
3. "Man is born free, and every where he is in chains." Explain
andexamine Rousseau's attempt to bring about reconciliation
betweenliberty and authority.

132
 CHAPTER -11

GEORGE WILHELM FRIEDRICH HEGEL(1770-1831)

Structure
11.1 Introduction
11.2 Life and Works
11.3 Idealism
11.4 Dialectical Method
11.5 Philosophy of History
11.6 State
11.7 Freedom
11.1 Introduction
Hegel was a product of German Idealism, which drew considerable
inspiration from Rousseau and Kant and integrated it with modern popular
desire for German unification leading to the rise of the nation states in Europe.
Hegel like Fichte echoed the sentiment of idealism. His assertion that the real
will of the individual is not in negation but an affirmation with society meant
that the rational will of the individual was expressed in the totality of the will
of the state. The consciousness and moral power of the state subordinated the
individual will. Through the dialecticallogic of a spirit, the march of History
moves from the imperfect to the perfectstage rationally removing all the
obstacles of acquiring the distinction flankedby 'is' arid 'ought' as real became
rational. Though the state is the mainlysignificant institution of this present
ideal, the other two significantcomponents were civil society and the family.
Freedom played a significantrole in Hegel but Hegelian version of freedom
was associated with rationalityunlike the thrust of British liberalism, which
associated freedom with libertyand individuality.
Hegel is the most methodologically self conscious of all philosophers in
the western tradition. His system encompasses philosophy, metaphysics,
religion art, ethics, history and politics- In itsrange alone his work is impressive
and of a truly encyclopedic character. His position in Germanywas so powerful
that even the most ferocious attack against orthodox German philosophy that
ofKarl Marx, sprang largely form Hegelian assumptions.
11.2 Life and Works
Hegel was born in Stuttagar on 27 August 1770, the eldest son of a
middle class family. His fatherwas a civil servant, and most of his relatives
were either teachers or Lutheran ministers. As astudent, Hegel’s major interest

133
was theology but he soon gravitated towards philosophy. Aftercompleting his
studies he accepted the position of a family tutor with a wealthy family
inSwitzerland from 1793-1796. This was followed by a similar position at Bern
and Frankfurt from1797 to 1800. In 1806 the French armies defeated Prussia at
the decisive battle of Jena and Hegelsaw Napoleon ride through Jena. During
the French revolution he was an ardent sympathiser ofJacobin radicalism. As
Napoleon’s star rose, Hegel profoundly admired him for his genius and power.
In 1818, three years after the defeat of Napoleon, Hegel was invited to come to
theuniversity of Berlin, and he stayed there until his death in 1831. He became
the dominant figure at the university, and his influence extended over all
Germany. In the last phase of his life, Hegel wasa follower and admirer of the
Prussian police state, just as he had previously admired Jacobinismand
Napoleon.
Hegel was the founder of modern idealism and the greatest influence in
the first half of the 18thcentury, when the entire academic community in
Germany was divided between the Hegelians theleft Hegelians and the right
Hegelians. He innovated the dialectic and the theory of self- realisation.Hegel
wrote extensively on various aspects of political philosophy. The major works
of Hegelinclude the Phenomenology of Spirit. (1807) Science of Logic (1812-
1816) Encyclopedia of thePhilosophical Sciences (1817) Philosophy of Right
(1812), Philosophy of History (1837), Philosophy of Law (1821).
The best statement of Hegel’s political ideas is to be found in his
Philosophy of Law. Hegel‘s writings illustrate that many philosophers and
thinkers of thepast immensely influenced him. Hegel borrowed his dialectical
method fromSocrates. So the ancestry of Hegelian doctrine of dialectical
idealism can betraced back to these two great Greek thinkers of the past. It
expresseshis conception of freedom, natural and social, which provides the key
to an understanding of hispolitical thought. Hegel‘s philosophy was historicist
in nature. Historicism is a doctrine, which is variously understood through
dissimilar thinkers. In its mainlycommon sense it is rooted in the assumption
that there are limits to scientificknowledge in relation to the human behaviors
and achievements and suchinadequate scientific knowledge cannot be used as a
means for controlling thefuture course of events. In his writings, Hegel
combined the historical sense of Vico and Montesquieu withthe philosophical
eminence of Kant and Fichte. He was also influenced by the writing of Plato
andAristotle. The Keynote of the Hegelian system is evolution, the evolution of
Idea by a dialecticalprocess.

134
11.3 Idealism
In the history of political ideas there are two major schools of thought
about at the nature of reality -idealism and naturally, rationalism and
empiricism. According to the idealist school, of which Hegelis a major
exponent, true knowledge of every thing in the world - material and non
material isdeduced from the idea of the thing. In other world, according to
idealist thinkers the idea of the thingis more important than the thing itself.
Therefore, what is real and permanent is the idea of thething not the thing as
such. This is because that physical world is constantly in a state of flux
andchange but the idea is permanent. The knowledge of actually existing thing
is relative and henceimperfect.
Hegel starts with the assumption that the universe is a coherent whole.
In this organic unitywhat he variously calls the Idea or Spirit or Reason or the
Divine Mind, is the only reality. Everything, including matter and the external
world, is the creations of the Idea or Spirit or Reason.Hence it is true to say that
Reason is the sovereign of the world’. It is the nature of this Spirit orReason,
Hegel tells us to know all things. At the beginning of the world - process the
spirit orreason does not, in fact, know anything; its nature is as little achieved
as is the nature of Aristotle’sman before he enters the polis. As Hegel puts it:
The truth is the whole the whole, however, ismerely essential nature reaching
its completeness through the process of its own development’.
According to Hegel, history is the process by which the spirit passes
from knowing nothingto full knowledge of itself, is the increasing revelation of
the purposes of the Rational Mind. “Thehistory of the world therefore, says
Hegel, presents us with a rational process”. The spirit on theway to its goal
makes many experiments. According to Hegel, the rational is real and the real
isrational. It is to be noted that he is using real here in the sense of the
important or the fundamental.In his theory of state he rejects Fichte’s teaching
that only the ideal state is rational whereas existingstates are irrational, and he
maintains on the contrary that actual existing states are rational andare
accordingly to be treated with all reverence.
Hegelian idealism is often referred to as absolute idealism because it
provided us with a setof categories in terms of which all human experiences of
the past and the present can beunderstood. There is another dimension of
Hegelian idealism. This may be called idealistinterpretation of History. Hegel
believes that all changes in society, economy, polity and culture takeplace
because of development of ideas. Thus Hegelian idealism sees a close
relationship betweensubject and the object.

135
11.4 Dialectical Method
The distinctive feature of Hegel’s philosophical system is his dialectical
method which hedescribed as the logic of passion. Hegel borrowed this method
from Socrates who is the firstexponent of this method The word ‘ dialectic’ is
derived from the Greek word dialego which meansto discuss or debate.
Dialectic simply means to discuss or conversation. Socrates believed that
onecan arrive at the truth only by constant questioning. So dialectics was the
process of exposing contradictions by discussion so as ultimately to arrive at
truth.
Hegel’s dialectic method played major role in this political philosophy.
By applying theprinciples of a thesis, anti-thesis and a synthesis, Hegel’s major
thrust was to solve the problemof contradiction. It attempted to reconcile the
many apparent contradictory positions and theorems developed by earlier
thinkers. As a method of interpretation, it attempted to reconcile the
variousdifferent traits developed in the past.
Having taken a clue from Socrates, Hegel argued that absolute idea or
the spirit, in search ofself- realisation moves from being to non being to
becoming. In other words, an idea move from athesis to anti thesis until a
synthesis of the two is found As Prof. C.l. Wayper has rightly pointed out“in
the Hegelian dialectics there will be a struggle between thesis and anti thesis
until such time as asynthesis is found which will preserve what is true in both
thesis an anti thesis until such time as asynthesis is found which will preserve
what is true in both thesis an antithesis, the synthesis in thisturn, becoming a
new thesis and so on until the Idea is at last enthroned in perfection”. ‘The
thesis’‘Despotism’ for instance, will call into being ‘ democracy’, the antithesis
and from the clash betweenthem the synthesis’ Constitutional Monarchy’
which contains the best of both results. Or the thesisfamily produces its
antithesis, bourgeois society, and from the resultant clash the synthesis, thestate
emerges in which thesis and antithesis are raised to a higher power and
reconciled.
The synthesis will not, Hegel insists, be in any sense a compromise
between thesis and antithesis. Both thesis and anti thesis are fully present in the
synthesis, but in a more perfect form inwhich their temporary opposition has
been perfectly reconciled. Thus the dialectic can never admitthat anything that
is true can never be lost. It goes on being expressed, but in ever new and
moreperfect ways. Contradiction or the dialectic is therefore a self generating
process - it is very movingprinciple of the world’.

136
 According to Hegel, dialectics is the only true method’ for
comprehending pure thought. Hedescribed dialectics as the indwelling
tendency towards by which the one-sidedness and limitationof the predicates of
understanding is seen in its true light --- the dialectical principle constitutes
thelife and soul of scientific progress, the dynamic which alone gives
immanent connect and necessityto the body of sciences.
In the Phenomenology, Hegel gave an example of its use in human
consciousness, but amore comprehensive political use was found in the
Philosophy of Right in which the dialecticalprocess reflected the evolution of
world history from the Greek world to Hegel’s time. For Hegel,there was a
dialectical pattern in history, with the state representing the ultimate body,
highlycomplex formed as a result of synthesis of contradictory elements at
different levels of social life.However, the relationship between contradiction
and synthesis was within concepts shaped byhuman practices. Marx too
discerned a dialectical pattern in history but then understoodcontradictions
between the means and relations of production at different stages of history.
Use of Dialectical Method
Having stated his dialectical method Hegel argued that a
phenomenoncan be best understood just as to the law of dialectics, i.e. when
contrastedwith its opposite. Pleasure is best understood in opposition to pain,
heat inopposition to cold, goodness in opposition to badness, justice in
opposition toinjustice and so on. Hegel has given many instances of thesis,
antithesis andsynthesis. The following instances given through him are note
worthy and youshould keep in mind them.
 Family is the thesis, civil society is its antithesis and state is
thesynthesis.
 Likewise, despotism is thesis, democracy is its antithesis and
constitutional monarchy 'is the synthesis.
 Inorganic world is the thesis, organic world is its antithesis and
humanbeings are the synthesis.
Hegel said that the true nature of thing can be recognized only ifits
contradictions are also recognized. In this sense, his theory of dialects isrooted
in contradiction or negation. He measured contradictions as the drivingforce of
the whole procedure of development. This is the fundamental law ofthe cosmos
as also of thought.

137
11.5 Philosophy of History
Hegel‘s philosophy of history is contained in the lectures that
hedelivered while he was at the Berlin University. He does not attach
muchimportance to the material things. He views them merely as the
cumulativeresult of development of absolute Thought. Absolute Thought is
dynamic andever evolving. It moves forward in search of self-realisation. This
is termedthrough Hegel as unfolding of the cause. The whole universe is the
result of thisprocedure of unfolding of Cause. In information, Hegel‘s
philosophy ofhistory is somewhat similar to the Christian theology, which sees
history as apattern of meaningful events which can be understood in conditions
of cosmicdesign. It is unfolding of cause under God's guidance or as willed
throughGod. The Absolute Thought moves forward in an evolutionary
procedure. Inthis evolutionary procedure the absolute Thought or the spirit
takes severalshapes, discarding the earlier ones and getting newer ones. The
first stage inthis development is the physical or the inorganic world. At this
initial stage theAbsolute Thought (or Spirit) acquires the form of gross matter.
The secondstage in this procedure is the organic world: animals, plants etc.
This stage isan improvement on the earlier stage. The third stage is the
development ofhuman beings. Each stage is more complicated than the
previous stage. Thedevelopment of human beings marks a qualitatively higher
stage because thehuman beings are rational mediators capable of distinguishing
flanked by goodand bad. The fourth stage marks the development of family
system. In additionto rational element it involves mutual cooperation and
accommodation. Thefifth stage marks the development of Civil Society. Here
economic interdependenceis the main characteristic in addition to mutual
cooperation andaccommodation. The last and highest stage witnesses the
development of thestate, which symbolizes a perfect moral order. Hegel argues
that familysymbolises unity; civil society symbolises particularity and the
statesymbolises universality. The unity of the family, particularity of the
civilsociety is realised with the appearance of the state as the actuality of
theuniversal order. Both the family and civil society are to some degree
rationalbut only the state is perfectly rational and perfectly ethical. In short,
theevolutionary procedure passes through the following stages and
eachsuccessive stage is a separate improvement on the predecessor stages:
 Inorganic would
 Organic world
 Human beings
 Family
 Civil society

138
 State
It should be noted that with the help of the above argument Hegel
triedto solve the vital problem in relation to the connection flanked by matter
andSpirit. He did so through arguing that matter is only a manifestation of
Spiritin its crude form. Matter is not only a negation of Spirit but also the
consciousrealization of Spirit.
The second significant dimension of Hegel‘s philosophy of history isthe
doctrine of historicism. It is hard to explain this doctrine. Broadlyspeaking,
historicism is a doctrine, which holds that the whole course ofhistory is
predetermined course. The human intervention or human effort canbe effective
only if it falls in row with the dialectical direction of the world history. Like the
stoic God history leads the wise man and drags the fool.
The third major dimension of Hegel‘s philosophy of history is the useof
Aristotelian teleology. Just as to it every thing in the world is movingtowards
the realization of its end, its true nature. From the point of view of thehuman
actors, history is a union of irony and tragedy; from the point of viewof the
Whole it is a cyclic. When we seem at Hegel‘s philosophy of history inits
totality we can say that it is an effort to synthesize Kant‘s and
Herder'sphilosophies of history. Kant advocated scientific understanding of
history,while Herder emphasized the lay of feelings and speculation. In this
senseHegel‘s philosophy of history is speculative cause. Let us elaborate this
point.
For filler understanding of thrust of Hegel‘s philosophy of history
younecessity understand that there is philosophical as against empirical
history.The historians of latter category insist on accurate delineation of the
factswhich is their paramount concern. The former (philosophic historians) on
theother hand are not satisfied with mere narration of facts and attempt to
givedivination of the meaning and seem for the exhibition of cause's working
inthe sphere of history. They do not feel satisfied through mere reproduction
ofempirical facts and attempt to incorporate their knowledge of the Thought,
thearticulation of cause. Therefore they elevate empirical contents to the stage
ofnecessary truth.
For Hegel the world history exhibits the development of
theconsciousness of freedom on the part of Spirit. Hegel actually applies
hisphilosophy of history when he says that in the oriental world (China etc)
therewas despotism and slavery and freedom was confined only to the
monarch.But in Greek and Roman civilizations although slavery was there, yet
thecitizens enjoyed freedom. In Europe particularly in Germany there is
emphasison liberty for all and infinite worth of each individual is recognized.

139
The worldhistory therefore consists of definite stages of progression —
Oriental, Greek,Roman and Germanic. In short, Hegel‘s philosophy of history
consists of twoparts:
 The common pattern and
 Several stages in this common pattern
Finally, Hegel‘s philosophy of history talks of doctrine of movingforces
in historical change. He argues that Cause's great design can beaccepted out
with the help of human passions. Sure great men (like Caesar orAlexander) are
chosen as instruments of destiny. Such men are necessary ifthe plot of history
is to be accepted out. This amounts to saying that thoughtsare significant but
there necessity be will power to implement them.
11.6 State
The most important contribution of Hegel to political philosophy is his
theory of state. Hegelregarded the state as the embodiment of the Giest or the
Universal Mind. The state was therepresentative of the Divine Idea. His theory
of state is rooted in the axiom: what is rational is realand what is real is
rational. For Hegel, all states are rational in so far as they represent the
variousstates of unfolding of Reason. He considered the state as march of God
on earth or the ultimateembodiment of reason.
State, for Hegel, is the highest manifestation of reason because it
emerges as a synthesis of family(thesis) and civil society or bourgeois society
(antithesis). The family is too small for theadequate satisfaction of man’s
wants, and as children grow up they leave it for a wider world. Thatworld is
what Hegel calls the world of bourgeois society and it is the antithesis which is
called intobeing by the original thesis, the family. Unlike the family, which is a
unity regarded by its verymembers as being more real than themselves,
bourgeois society is a host of independent men andwomen held together only
by ties of contract and self-interest. Whereas the characteristic of thefamily is
mutual love, the characteristic of bourgeois society is universal competition.
The thesis,the family, a unity held together by love, knowing no differences, is
thus confronted by theantithesis, bourgeois society, an aggregate of individuals
held apart by competition knowing novanity, even though it is manifestly
struggling towards a greater unity which it has nevertheless notyet attained.
The synthesis, which preserves whatis best in thesis and antithesis, which
swallowsup neither family nor bourgeois society, but which gives unity and
harmony to them is the state.

140
 The essence of modern state, according to Hegel, “is that universal is
bound up with the fullfreedom of particularity and the welfare of individuals,
that to interest of the family and of bourgeoissociety must connect itself with
the state, but also universality of the state’s purpose cannotadvance without the
specific knowledge and will of the particular, which must maintain its rights.
Features of Hegelian State
There are several characteristics of Hegelian state. To begin with it is
no exaggeration tosay that it is divine. It is the highest embodiment that the
spirit has reached in its progress throughthe ages. It is the ‘divide Idea as it
exists on earth’ It can be called the march of God on earth’ Itfollows that Hegel
makes no attempt, as does Rousseau, to square the circle and admit
thepossibility of a social contract.
The state also is an end in itself It is not only the highest expression to
which the spirit hasyet attained, it is the final embodiment of spirit on earth’
There can thus be no spiritual evolutionbeyond the state, any more than there
can be any physical evolution beyond.
The state, too, is a whole which is far greater than the parts which
compose it and whichhave significance only in it. “All the worth which the
human being possess”, Hegel writes in thePhilosophy of History, “all spiritual
reality, he possess” only through the state”. Individuals,therefore, must
obviously be completely subordinated to the state. It has the highest right over
theindividual, whose highest duty is to be a member of the state In the words of
Prof. Sabine, if the individuals in Hegel’s world is nothing the state is all. In his
Philosophy of History (publishedposthumously in 1837) Hegel defines the state
as the ‘realisation of freedom’.
The state is the actually existing, realised moral life and all the worth
which the human beingpossesses- all spiritual reality he possesses only through
the state. The individual has moral valueonly because he is part of the state,
which is the complete actualisation or reason because thestate is actualised
reason and spirit, Hegel says, the law of the state is a manifestation of
objectivespirit, and only that which obeys law is free’, for it obeys itself.
The state, moreover, is unchecked by any moral law, for it itself is the
creator of morality.This can be seen clearly in its internal affairs and in its
external relations. Firstly it lays down whatshall be the standard of morality for
its individual citizens. Secondly, the state can recognise noobligation other than
its own safety in its relations with other states. In the Ethics he
writescategorically: The state is the self- certain, absolute mind which
acknowledges no abstract rules ofgood and bad, shameful and mean, craft and

141
deception’. The state, according to Hegel, is thetruest interpreter of the
tradition of the community.
The state, Hegel insists, is a means of enlarging not restricting freedom;
Freedom, he adds isthe outstanding characteristics of modern state. He
criticises the Greeks because they did notrecognise that the state must rest on
respect for personality. He believes that the state will help mento fulfill
themselves’.
According to Hegel, rights are derived from the state and therefore no
man can have any right against the state. The state has an absolute end itself.
Prof. L.T. Hobhouse has beautifullysummed up the Hegelian concept of state
when he wrote that the state “as a greater being, a spirit,a supper personality
entity, in which the individuals with their private conscience or claims of
right,their happiness or misery are merely subordinate elements’. As Prof.
C.E.M. Joad has rightlypointed out, just as the personal abilities of all its
individuals in the state are transcended by andmerged in the personality of the
state. So the moral relations which each citizen has to each othercitizen are
merged in or transcended by the social morality which is vested in the state.
Hegelregarded the state as a mystic transcendental unity the mysterious union
of all with the greaterwhole which embraces all other institutions of social life.
The fundamental law of the state is the constitution. He opposes the
democratic idea of theconstitution as an instrument of government a charter
and compact consciously framed for desiredends. The constitution should not
be regarded as something made, even though it has come intobeing in time.
Because the state is “the march of God through the world”, the constitution of
the stateis not something to be tampered with by ordinary mortals. Going back
to the history of the state,Hegel finds that its origin “involves imperious
lordship on the one hand, instinctive submission onthe other”. This leadership
principle, so characteristic of fascism, is also stressed by Hegel in hisdiscussion
on the merits of the different types of constitution- democracy, aristocracy and
monarchy.Because of his preference for monarchy, Hegel rejects the
sovereignty of the people, especially ifthe term implies opposition to the
sovereignty of the monarchy. In the words of Prof. WilliamEbenstein, Hegel
anticipates the corporate organisation of the modern fascist state by his
emphasisthat the individuals should be politically articulate only as a member
of a social group or class, andnot just a a citizen as in the liberal democracies’.
11.7 Freedom
The concept of freedom occupies a prominent place in the political
philosophy of Hegel.According to Hegel, ‘the history of the world is none
other than the progress of the consciousness offreedom’. The spirit, he says, is

142
free, for it has its centre in itself and self- containedness is the veryessence of
freedom. Matter, on the other hand, is not free, for it is subject to the law of
gravity andalways tends to a point outside itself. Therefore the development of
history is thus the history offreedom. Human history culminates in the state in
which the spirit finds its final embodiment.Therefore, the perfect state is the
truly free state and the citizen who gives perfect willing obedienceto the perfect
laws of the perfect state has perfect freedom. The individual is also an
embodiment of the spirit, though not of course as perfect an embodiment as the
state.
Hegel’s doctrine of freedom was based on the old Greek notion of an
individual finding histrue personality and his freedom in the state. This
represents a reaction against the notion offreedom born of natural rights which
characterised the revolutionary era. Man had no inalienablerights and his
freedom was a gift of the state. The state not only secures the freedom of
theindividual but enlarges it. For Hegel, freedom of the individual is a social
phenomenon and therecan be no freedom in the pre- social state of nature.
Freedom is self realisation which is possibleonly in the state through the media
and institutions maintained by the state True freedom isdetermined by reason,
not the reason of the individual as with Kant but the reason of the community
as embodied in the laws of the state.
Because the state is actualised reason and spirit, Hegel says, the law of
the state ismanifestation of objective spirit, and “only that which obeys law is
free”, for it obeys itself. Hegelrejects the liberal concept of freedom as absence
of restraints and call such freedom formal,subjective, abstracted from its
essential objects and constraints or restrictions put on the impulses,desires and
passions of the individual are not, Hegel maintains, a limitation of freedom but
itsindispensable conditions because such compulsion forces man to adjust his
behaviour to the higherreason of the state. According to Hegel, man’s real,
substantive freedom (as distinct from mereformal freedom) thus consists in his
submitting to and identifying himself with the higher rationality ofstate and
law.
Whether man submits voluntarily to the state or has to be constrained,
makes little difference,as the Hegelian concept of freedom refers, not to the
mode of action - free personal choice betweenexisting alternatives, or forcible
adaptation of conduct to prescribed rules- but to the object of action.As Prof.
William Ebenstein has rightly pointed out’ “if man acts in harmony with the
goals of the stateregardless how the harmony is attained, he is free, because his
action partakes of the highestform of actualised freedom- the state”. ‘On the

143
basis of this assumption when the subjective will ofman submits to laws, the
contradiction between liberty and necessity vanishes.’
Hegel believes that freedom for the individual can never be the abstract
and uneducatedpower of choice, but only the willing of what is rational, of
what the spirit would desire and the powerto perform it. His real will impels
him to identify himself with the spirit. The spirit is embodied in thestate.
Therefore it is his real will to obey the commands and dictates of the state.
Indeed thedictates of the state are his real will. Thus the commands of the state
give man his only opportunityto find freedom. He may obey the state because
he is afraid of the consequences of disobedience.If he obeys because of fear he
is not free he is still subject to alien force. But if he obeys becausehe wishes to,
because he has consciously identified himself with the will of the state, because
hehas convinced himself that what the state demands he would also desire if he
knew all the facts,then he is subject only to his own will and he is truly free.
The state, Hegel says, is that form ofreality in which the individual has and
enjoys his freedom provided he recognises, believes in andwills what is
common to the whole..”,
In the Philosophy of Right, Hegel formulates positive freedom in terms
of self- determination.Self- determination essentially means two things.
1. That the self and not force out side itself determines its actions and
2. In determining itself it makes itself determinate, turning what is merely
potentialintended into something actual realised and organised. Self -
determination is closely connectedwith autonomy. Hegel thinks that the
very essence of the self consists in freedom. Like Rousseauand Kant, he
maintains that the distinctive feature of a rational being is its freedom,
morespecifically, its autonomy; its power to act on universal principles.
Assessment
Karl Popper, in his major work “Open Society and its Enemies” has
launched a frontal attack onHegel as a major enemy of open society along with
Plato and Karl Marx. He stressed the origins ofHegel’s historicism to three
ideas developed by Aristotle:
a. Linking individual or state development to a historical evolution.
b. A theory of change that accepted concepts like an undeveloped essence
or potentiality.
c. The reality or actuality of any object was reflected by change.
The first one led to thehistoricist method, which in Hegel assumed a
form of ‘Worship of history”; the secondare linked the underdeveloped essence
of destiny, and the third helped to formulate histheory of domination and

144
submission, justifying the master slave relationship. As Popperhas rightly
pointed out, Hegel’s principle aim was “to fight against the open society, and
thusto serve his employer, Frederick William of Prussia. Popper also argued
that Hegel’sidentification of the rational with the actual inevitably led to a
philosophy of the pure politics ofpower, where might was right. The irrational
forms of “State worship” led to the renaissanceof tribalism. In the entire
tradition of western political theory of over 2000 years, no otherthinker aroused
as much controversy about the meaning of his discourse as Hegel did
Marxrealized the formidable dominance of Hegelian philosophy, and compared
it with the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle. He stressed that Hegel’s
philosophy could be attackedonly from within and not from outside. Because
of this reason Marxian materialism wasdialectically linked to Hegelian
idealism.
Hegel’s teaching is valuable because it insists on man’s dependence on
society. Heis right in showing how much man is influenced by society. He
made the idea of liberty richerby showing that man’s conception of it largely
depends upon the institutions which havetrained him and given him his
education. In this his idealism is thoroughly realistic, and hasbeen confirmed
by recent psychology, which has proved how the early impressions made onour
minds always remain. As C.L. Wayper has pointed out, Hegel “made politics
somethingmore than a mere compromise of interests, and that he made law
something more than merecommand.” His whole work is valuable reminder
that we would do well not to minimize theimportance of natural growth of a
community.It is beyond dispute that Hegel is one of the greatest political
thinkers of moderntimes. He exerted considerable influence on subsequent
political theory, particularlyMarxism and Existentialism. He has been claimed
as the philosophical inspiration by bothCommunists and Fascists. The British
idealist T. H. Green adapted Hegelianism to reviseliberalism in the late 19th
century.
Hegel's political philosophy has exercised great influence during thelast
two centuries. The riseof fascism in Italy and totalitarianism in Soviet Union is
attributed to his philosophy. The general swing to the right is said to have
drawn inspiration from his philosophy. He glorified war because in his view, it
brings out the noblest qualities of man, He viewed war as an instrument in the
hands of world spirits to facilitate the development of world according to
thedialectic of history.

145
Model Questions
1. What were the major influences on Hegel?
2. What is Hegel's Philosophy of History?
3. What are Hegel's views about freedom of the individual'?

146
 CHAPTER -12
THOMAS HILL GREEN
Structure
12.1 Introduction
12.2 Life
12.3 Liberalism
12.4 T.H Green positive freedom
12.5 Freedom and Compulsion
12.6 Legal obligations and Proper self-rule
12.7 Theory of Rights
12.8 Role of State
12.9 Right to Property
12.10 The Theory of the Will
12.11 Social Theory and Conscientious Agency
12.12 Influence of Green's thought
12.1 Introduction
Thomas Hill Green (7 April 1836 – 15 March 1882) was an English
philosopher, political radical and temperancereformer, and a member of
the British idealism movement.Thomas Hill Green was a leading British
philosopher and political figure and founder of the school of British Idealism.
He pioneered in questioning the traditional liberal antithesis between the state
and the individual. Green's lectures delivered in Oxford in 1879: “Lectures on
the Principles of Political Obligation” and “Prologema to Ethics” are the
beginning of the transformation of English liberalism in a social liberal
direction.Like all the British idealists, Green was influenced by
themetaphysical historicism of G.W.F. Hegel. He was one of the thinkers
behind the philosophy of social liberalism.
When reading Green's work, you will notice the emphasis
on individualism which is very strong in all liberal thought. Yet, when
compared to the body of preceding liberal thought, he can be seen to have
replaced the formers emphasis of the autonomy of the individual with an
emphasis on the “organic” society, and the value of community ethos. He
stressed the individual being a part of society and addressed the obligations
towards the community. The development of his ideas has to be seen in the
context of the historic circumstances given during his lifetime. These were
highly unequal socio-economic consequences of the industrial revolution. The

147
drastic economic development was accompanied by poor work and health
conditions.
These conditions urged him to criticize the burdens the inequities of the
market system placed on the working class and demand policies which would
not only in word but de facto provide for equal opportunities and liberties. The
aim, according to Green, was full and equal human development. Given the
extreme sense of alienation and inequalities under which many people suffered
in his time, Green stressed the need for moral and ethical considerations and
obligation of society as a whole to better ensure each individual's possibility of
self-realization.
His discussion was followed by other liberal thinkers such as David
Ritchie, John Hobson and Leonard Hobhouse, all of who contributed to the
movement of liberal thought away from a strict laissez-faire approach to
incorporating a role for the state in social welfare. His contribution lies in the
attempt to reconcile a capitalist market society with liberalism in a democratic
state. Sharing with Marxism the ideal of a classless, just society, Green never
parted from his conviction that it could be realized within the market system.
Indeed, he shared the conviction with liberals as for example F. Hayek that a
free society could only be achieved with a market economy. His spirit
influenced thinkers and can be seen in the social legislation passed by Liberal
governments, which laid the foundations to the welfare state.
12.2 Life
Green was born at Birkin, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, England,
where his father was rector. On the paternal side, he was descended
from Thomas Cromwell. His education was conducted entirely at home until,
at the age of 14, he entered Rugby, where he remained for five years.
In 1855, he became an undergraduate member of Balliol College,
Oxford, and was elected fellow in 1860. He began a life of teaching (mainly
philosophical) in the university – first as college tutor, afterwards, from 1878
until his death, asWhyte's Professor of Moral Philosophy.
The lectures he delivered as professor form the substance of his two
most important works, viz, the Prolegomena to Ethics and the Obligation,
which contain the whole of his positive constructive teaching. These works
were not published until after his death, but Green's views were previously
known indirectly through the Introduction to the standard edition of Hume's
works by Green and T. H. Grose, fellow of Queen's College, in which the
doctrine of the "English" or "empirical" philosophy was exhaustively
examined.Green was involved in local politics for many years, through the
University, temperance societies and the local Oxford Liberal association.

148
During the passage of the Second Reform Act, he campaigned for the franchise
to be extended to all men living in boroughs, even if they did not own real
property. In this sense, Green's position was more radical than that of most
other Advanced Liberals, including Gladstone.
It was in the context of his Liberal party activities that in 1881 Green
gave what became one of his most famous statements of his liberal political
philosophy, the Lecture on Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract.At this
time, he was also lecturing on religion, epistemology, ethics and political
philosophy.
Most of his major works were published posthumously, including his
lay sermons on Faith and The Witness of God, the essay On the Different
Senses of "Freedom" as Applied to Will and the Moral Progress of
Man, Prolegomena to Ethics, Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation,
and the Lecture on Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract.
Green died of blood poisoning on 15 March 1882, age 45. In addition to
Green's friends from his academic life, approximately two thousand local
townspeople attended his funeral. He helped to found the City of Oxford High
School for Boys.
12.3 Liberalism
T.H Green he is one of the thinker of positive liberalism his theory was
inspired by idealist theory, developed from the teachings of Rousseau, Kant
and Hegel.Green recognizes ‘moral freedom’ as the different quality of man.
He based his principles on the religious nature of man, he maintained that man
strength of mind act upon his reflections is an “act of will” and is on the
outside determined by God, According to Green, freedom is not the Supposed
ability to do anything desired but is the power to identify one’s self with the
good that reason reveals as one’s own true good. Green said that man’s will
must always free in at least one sense: “ since in all willing a man is his own
object to himself , the object by which the act is determined, the will is always
free that is willing constitutes freedom self satisfaction is always free and is
always the object of the will.
12.4 T.H Green positive freedom
T.H Green’s Theory of liberty is characterized by moral freedom. He
proceeds his studies by distinctive between negative and positive freedom. As
we know that Negative liberty is freedom from interference from other people
.It is primarily concerned with the possession of the capacity of individuals to
act independently and to make their own free choices. Where as positive liberty
is having the power and resources to fulfill one’s own potential as opposed to

149
negative liberty, which is freedom from external restraint. Example like free
from restriction, lock up.
Positive liberty consists in acting according to reason achieving self
realization or self perfection. T.H Green said that the true liberty or positive
freedom of man consists in the act of “Good Will”, it is a positive power of
doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying.
GREEN set out a numbers of different descriptions of positive concept
of freedom. In fact, there are three descriptions of positive freedom to be found
in Green’s thoughts. While all three descriptions are of course closely linked,
each show different picture and brings out a different aspect of the concept. On
one occasion ‘the idea of true freedom described as ‘the maximum of power
for all members of human society alike to make the best of them self’s. In this
description Green puts special importance on the self realization of the
individual. A second description, describe freedom in the positive sense as ‘the
liberation of the powers of all men equally for contributions to a common
good. This seems primarily to point to equal opportunity for all individual
citizens. For the purpose of our present inquiry, however, we will chiefly base
ourselves on what could be viewed as the classical definition of positive
freedom. This seems primarily to point to equal opportunity for all individual
citizens. For the purpose of our present inquiry, however, we will chiefly base
ourselves on what could be viewed as the classical definition of positive
freedom. This concept is contrasted to the then current notion, which, in order
to distinguish it from Green’s redefinition of the term, is referred to as
‘negative’ freedom.
He also explains the negative freedom as following from its nature as a
political ideal. This is set out by specifying three elements in which the
difference with negative freedom consists. Again, these three elements are
presented as building on one another.
He started with a series of three negative characteristics, which are
subsequently contrasted to the more appropriate conception of freedom by
means of a parallel series of three determinations, culminating in a final point
about the essentially social nature of freedom. The second distinguishing
feature to formal, unspecified nature of the condition of absence of
compulsion: merely freedom to do, as we like irrespectively of what it is that
we like’ is contrasted with doing or enjoying something worth doing or
enjoying. The third element centres on the compatibility of the exercise of
various specific forms of freedom by different people: freedom that can be
enjoyed by man or set of men or one set of men at the cost of a loss of freedom
to other’s is opposed to those forms of freedom which do not interfere with the

150
exercise of similar forms of freedom by others. These three elements prepare
the way for the conclusion about the social nature freedom. Genuine freedom
can only be exercised ‘through the help our security given to him by his fellow
men, and which he in turn helps to secure for them.
12.5 Freedom and Compulsion
His opinions on the relationship of freedom and compulsion clearly
come out when he discusses the relationship of positive freedom and negative
concept of freedom which so far had been current. According to him we shall
see that freedom in all forms of doing what one will with one’s own is valuable
only as a means to end. That end is what calls freedom in the positive sense.
Green does not so much refer to the required character of the legal measures
intended, as to the formal, unspecified nature of the negative concept of
freedom. But it is obvious that there may be cases in which the project of the
liberation of all man equally for contributions to the common good needs to be
enforced by the law. Green states in the same breath that though of course there
can be no freedom among men who act not willingly but under compulsion, yet
on the other hand the mere removal of compulsion, the mere enabling a man to
do, as he likes it in itself no contribution to true freedom.
12.6 Legal obligations and Proper self-rule
Green also discussed about the various legal measures in the field of
public health and labour legislation Green also arise the question as to whether
independence and self –dependence do not, in the long run , constitute a better
guarantee against the problems social legislation sought to remedy. ‘ Might not
our people he puts this imaginary counter argument, have been trusted to learn
in time for themselves to remove harmful housing, to refuse dangerous and
degrading employment, to get their children the schooling necessary for
making their way in the world? Would they not for their own comfort, if not
from more polite feeling, keep their own wives and daughters from overwork?
Or, failing this ought not women, like men, to learn to protect themselves?
Might not all the rules, in short, which legislations of the kind we have been
discussing is intended to attain, have been attained without tampering so
dangerously with the interdependence and self-independence of the people? Of
course, a situation in which all these desiderata are provided for by the
spontaneous activity of the individuals concerned, would be preferred to legal
sanctions, Green is eager to point out. But as he goes on to say, we must take
men as we find them. As long as individuals do not voluntarily take care of
number of essential matters, the law will need to provide be premature,
however, to conclude that this would be necessarily at the cost of the moral
autonomy and self-reliance of the individual. An agent who would have done

151
voluntarily what is prescribed by law will not look upon such enactment as an
unwelcome interference with his affairs.
Such a man does not feel the law as limited to all. To him it is simple a
powerful friend. It gives him security for that being done efficiently which,
with the best wishes, he might have much trouble in getting done efficiently if
left to himself. No doubt it relieves him from some of the responsibility which
would otherwise fall to him from some of the responsibility which would
otherwise fall to him as a head of a family but if he is what we are supposing
him to be in proportion as he is relieved of responsibility in one direction he
will assume them in another. The security which the state gives him for safe
housing and sufficient schooling of his family will only make him more careful
for their well-being in other respects, which he is left to look after for himself.
It follows that there is no reason to fear that legal system would leave
no room for the moral responsibility of the individual green finds his way out
of this potential difficulty by stipulating the clause of certain minimum
standard of moral and material well being. Proceeding on this stipulation,
Greens argument is that, as far as he social evils he drew attention to were
concerned, this precondition simply had not been met.
12.7 Theory of Rights
If the individual is to follow his conscience, then he must be free from
external interference. He needs “fences” to protect his freedom of thought,
action, and so on. In Western societies these fences are rights, and one of the
most important parts of Green's political philosophy is his theory of rights. The
sense of “rights” with which Green is fundamentally concerned in his lectures
on the Principles of Political Obligation can be understood as Kant understood
“einRecht”; that is, “to have a title … to coerce others through [one's] mere
will to do or omit something that is otherwise indifferent to freedom” (Kant,
quoted in Mulholland, 1990, 5). More specifically, Green argues that,A right is
a power of which the exercise by the individual or by some body of men is
recognised by a society either as itself directly essential to a common good or
as conferred by an authority of which the maintenance is recognised as so
essential.
Green is primarily concerned with what I shall call for the moment
“moral rights”: that is, those rights which are justified and recognised on
ethical and not purely legal grounds. Moral rights exist prior to the law. We
shall see that even though moral rights are conceptually distinct from
legal rights, they should still find expression in law in order to make them
effective regulators of human action. Therefore, the role of the state is to

152
uphold the rights which originate in society as part of the unfolding of the
eternal consciousness.
Carrying on the same analytical method into the area of moral
philosophy, Green argued that ethics applies to the peculiar conditions of social
life—that investigation into human nature which metaphysics began. The
faculty employed in this further investigation is no "separate moral faculty,"
but that same reason which is the source of all our knowledge – ethical and
other.
Self-reflection gradually reveals to us human capacity, human function,
with, consequently, human responsibility. It brings out into clear consciousness
certain potentialities in the realisation of which human's true good must consist.
As the result of this analysis, combined with an investigation into the
surroundings humans live in,”content"—a moral code—becomes gradually
evolved. Personal good is perceived to be realisable only by making real and
actual the conceptions thus arrived at. So long as these remain potential or
ideal, they form the motive of action; motive consisting always in the idea of
some "end" or "good" that humans present to themselves as an end in the
attainment of which he would be satisfied; that is, in the realization of which he
would find his true self.
The determination to realize the self in some definite way constitutes an
"act of will," which, as thus constituted, is neither arbitrary nor externally
determined. For the motive which may be said to be its cause lies in the person
himself, and the identification of the self with such a motive is self-
determination, which is at once both rational and free. The "freedom of man" is
constituted, not by a supposed ability to do anything he may choose, but in the
power to identify himself with that true good that reason reveals to him as his
true good.
This good consists in the realisation of personal character; hence the
final good, i.e. the moral ideal, as a whole, can be realised only in some society
of persons who, while remaining ends to themselves in the sense that their
individuality is not lost but rendered more perfect, find this perfection
attainable only when the separate individualities are integrated as part of a
social whole.
Society is as necessary to form persons as persons are to constitute
society. Social union is the indispensable condition of the development of the
special capacities of its individual members. Human self-perfection cannot be
gained in isolation; it is attainable only in inter-relation with fellow-citizens in
the social community.

153
 The law of our being, so revealed, involves in its turn civic or
political duties. Moral goodness cannot be limited to, still less constituted by,
the cultivation of self-regarding virtues, but consists in the attempt to realise in
practice that moral ideal that self-analysis has revealed to us as our ideal. From
this fact arises the ground of political obligation, because the institutions of
political or civic life are the concrete embodiment of moral ideas in terms of
our day and generation. But, since society exists only for the proper
development of Persons, we have a criterion by which to test these
institutions—namely, do they, or do they not, contribute to the development of
moral character in the individual citizens.
It is obvious that the final moral ideal is not realised in any body of
civic institutions actually existing, but the same analysis that demonstrates this
deficiency points out the direction that a true development will take.
Hence arises the conception of rights and duties that should be
maintained by law, as opposed to those actually maintained; with the further
consequence that it may become occasionally a moral duty to rebel against the
state in the interest of the state itself—that is, in order better to subserve that
end or function that constitutes the raison d'être of the state. There exists a
"general will" that is a desire for a common good that cannot be easily
reconciled as there is an antagonism between the "common good" and the
"private good": such as: "... interest in the common good, in some of its various
forms, is necessary to produce that good, and to neutralise or render useful
other desires and interests". Its basis is can be conceived as coercive authority
imposed upon the citizens from without or it can be seen as a necessary
restriction of individual liberty in light of a social contract, but this consists in
the spiritual recognition or metaphysics, on the part of the citizens, of what
constitutes their true nature, some conceptions and complicating factors are
elaborating questions concerning: "Will, not force, is the basis of the state.",
"Citizen Rights Against the State", "Private Rights. The Right to Life and
Liberty", "The Right of the State Over the Individual in War", "The Right of
the State to Punish", "The Right of the State to Promote Morality ", "The Right
of the State in Regard to Property", and "The Right of the State in Regard to
the Family".
This section has examined Green's claim that rights are necessarily
social. It has been shown that moral rights only exist where they are recognised
as contributing to the common good; that is, where they are seen to push
society to attain its telos. Legal rights may or may not embody moral rights, but
the ideal is the empowering of all and only moral rights through law. An
essential part of rights is their rational coherence — that is, they must conform

154
to Kant's categorical imperative. The second part of this section examined the
effect of this argument when combined with the growing explicitness of the
eternal consciousness in the world. The Kantian respect for persons, thus,
spreads from families to tribes, and, finally, to individuals as members of the
human species. Implicit in this, it has been argued, is the supercession of the
nation-state.
12.8 Role of State
The moral consciousness emanating from society – which impels men
to pursue ideal objects is also responsible for the creation of the state. In other
words, the state is product of moral consciousness. The laws of the state are
moral since they issue from the state which is a moral perfection in itself. It
represents the 'true moral consciousness'. It represents the 'social
consciousness' or social mind. To obey the state is obeying the best self of
man. According to Green human consciousness postulates liberty; liberty
involves rights; rights demand the state. The state is, therefore an instrument of
perfection as the idealist theory claims. The state owes its origin to the social
natural of men, genuine human personality is essentially a social phenomena. It
is inconceivable that an isolated natural man should be amoral agent. He
exercises his moral freedom within the social organization, for which he needs
rights. But rights are maintained by the state; hence the state serves as an
essential base for moral freedom.
Green holds that the state should foster and protect the social, political
and economic environments in which individuals will have the best chance of
acting according to their consciences. Notice that in principle Green is not
concerned to allow all actions, no matter what their origin. He himself was a
temperance reform for example, and stated time and again that the state could
legitimately curtail the individual’s freedom to accept the slavery of
alcoholism. Yet, the state must be careful when deciding which liberties to
curtail and in which ways to curtail them. Over-enthusiastic or clumsy state
intervention could easily close down opportunities for conscientious action
thereby stifling the moral development of the individual. The state should
intervene only where there was a clear, proven and strong tendency of a liberty
to enslave the individual. Even when such a hazard had been identified, Green
tended to favour action by the affected community itself rather than national
state action itself — local councils and municipal authorities tended to produce
measures that were more imaginative and better suited to the daily reality of a
social problem. Hence he favoured the ‘local option’ where local people
decided on the issuing of liquor licenses in their area, through their town
councils.

155
 T.H. Green maintained that if the individual challenges the authority of
the state, then it becomes his duty to prove the wrongs of the state. T.H.
Green's concept of Idealism is known as Moderate Idealism. He has confined
the authority of the state and laid stress on the right to individual freedom.T. H.
Green maintained that will and not the force is the basis of state. In fact he was
more of a Rousseauist than a Hegelian so far as his philosophical theory of the
state was concerned. He regarded the state as a natural plus moral institution.
He admitted that the state was needed for the moral development of man. He
has regarded the state as the main source of the individual rights. He
maintained that freedom can be achieved only within the state. The function of
the state is to enable people to become free. The state can make man free only
when the state grants a few rights to man. Sanction of rights to the individual is
essential for the perfection of morality.
According to T. H. Green the state can make the use of its authority and
power. The state represents the General Will. But at the same time he confines
the authority of the state. The laws of the state can control the outward actions
of man. The state cannot exercise its effect on the feelings and desires of man.
According to Green, the real function is to act as a hindrance to
hindrances against good life. It means that the state aims at providing a better
standard of living. The state is not an end in itself. On the contrary, it is only a
means. It is the real function of the state to remove the hindrances that come in
the path of good life.
T.H. Green regarded drinking (of wine), ignorance and vandalism as
hindrances in the path of good life. Therefore, he maintained that it was the
sole function of the state to remove these hindrances from the path of good life.
Green's attitude is not only negative but it is positive also. For example, he
believes that the state should run dispensaries and educational institutions. He
permits the individual to make the proper use of his property. But if any one
makes the use of his property in such a way as hinders and curtails other's right
to liberty and property. T.H. Green was of the opinion that in such a situation
the state should take his property in its control. He was in favour of such a
society in which people till their land themselves and each of them has equal
measure of land.
Green stressed the need for specific solutions to be tailored to fit
specific problems. This is not to say that all problems would be dealt with most
effectively at the local or municipal levels. The national state was the only
political institution powerful enough to wage war internationally for example.
Moreover it was the institution most likely to be able to resist vested interests
such as those found in the manufacturing sector, meaning that it was the

156
national government that should pass regulations on terms and conditions at
work say, or on the sale and control of land. Yet, Green stressed that there are
no eternal solutions, no timeless division of responsibilities. The distribution of
responsibilities should be guided by the imperative to enable as many
individuals as possible to exercise their conscientious wills in particular
contingent circumstances, as only in this way was it possible to foster
individual self-realisation in the long run. Hence deciding on the distribution of
responsibilities was more a matter for practical politics than for ethical or
political philosophy. Experience may show that the local and municipal levels
are unable to control the harmful influences of, say, the brewery industry.
When it did show this, the national state should take responsibility for this area
of public policy
Green various views on the theory of state are as follows-
 The war is the attribute of an imperfect state and it can never be
absolute right.
 The state is the product of reason which tells man of moral freedom as
his essential quality.
 The state is meant to create those opportunities which are necessary to
the full moral development of individual.
 State is a natural organization and will not the force is the basis of state
 Rights according to Green are the outer conditions necessary for man's
inner development.
 Green did not believe in the natural theory of right, he says right can be
only enjoyed by an individual within a state.
 In regards to right to property given is both individualistic and socialist.
 State is limited form within and without. Function of the state is
negative in nature because it has nothing to do with the individual's
motives and morality. The function of state becomes positive when it
removes obstacle which prevent men from becoming moral.
 Green provides power to state in matter of punishment. State can punish
anyone who disobey the laws of state.
 State creates conditions which make moral life possible.
12.9 Right to Property
As a defender of rights, Green upholds the rights to property as a means
of realizing a will potentially directed to a social good. On this ground he even
defends property in capital.Green’s views of ‘property in capital’ as follows:

157
 Green is concerned to show that property is an expression of one's
being and worth. In appropriating something, one is able to say, “this shall be
mine to do as I like with, to satisfy my wants and express my emotions as they
arise”. Owning private property is a sign of the individual's power to will and
be self-creating. The individual becomes aware that the object he owns and
controls is present because of his labour and talents.There is nothing in its
essence which is anti-social. On the contrary, it is constantly being distributed
through the community in wages to laborers and in profit to those who are
engaged in exchange; nor is there anything in the fact that laborers are hired in
masses by capitalists to prevent them from being, on a small scale, capitalists
themselves. On the same ground of Potential social value Green also defends
inequality of property.
Private property relations allow the individual to choose which things to
labour on and with, and hence how to develop. As Green notes, “this
appropriation must vary in its effects according to talent and opportunity, and
from that variation again result differences in the form which personality takes
in different men”. Here, firstly Green advocates a system of property based on
distribution according to the use of one's “talents and opportunity”, in line with
the above argument. Secondly, he adopts Hegel's argument that different
distributions of material goods to specific individuals tend to make explicit
different personalities in these individuals. This is different from but does not
contradict what was argued previously. Green is now also saying that property
is important to human development in a non-neutral way. For example, an
artist as an artist requires access to certain resources that a farmer as a farmer
would find useless. Hence, if individuals wish to control their own
development according to their will, they need to control the distribution of
resources through a system of private property relations.
Green’s argue that freedom of the individual postulates freedom to
acquire and posses material good requires that different individuals should fill
different positions in the social whole. Hence,difference in property is
‘functional’ from the point of view of the social good, which should be
recognized by the social conscience.
But on this point the question of the inequality of property Green faced
with a Problem. When the right to property creates conditions under which
some men take an unduly larger share and others are prevented from acquiring
property as a means of their ‘self-realization’, this right becomes an obstacle in
the exercise of moral freedom by many. Thus, Green proceeds to realize the
difficulty of the capitalist system which created such conditions.

158
 Also, he argues that there is no formal block on workers setting up their
own co-operative societies “for the investment of savings”, and, so in England,
“the better sort of labourers do become capitalists”. This is good, because in
becoming a successful capitalist, the worker must learn to plan and execute his
actions coherently. This requires rational thought and self-discipline. Green
admits that in practice there may be blocks on this “development”, but says that
these are the result of non-capitalist practices. For example, the poor are so
“impoverished and reckless” that often they cannot form such societies.
Green's last justification of capitalism to be discussed here is his most
powerful. It must be remembered, Green argues, “that the increased wealth of
one man does not naturally mean the diminished wealth of another”and
capitalism benefits everyone in the long run. Even the poor are made better off
because the wealth held by the rich is used in such a way that is raises the
standard of living of everyone in society. The significant rise in the standard of
living of the British working classes since the Industrial Revolution has been
the result of free trade and government legislation to protect the workers' from
exploitation. This is Green's most powerful justification for private property.
It has been shown that Green's theory of property isbased squarely on
his teleology. Thus, he argues that generally a system of private property is the
best arrangement for promoting the eternal consciousness in society as a whole.
Where it contradicts this end, private property is illegitimate.
Thus Green’s tends to blame the feudal system of the past for all the
evils of the present capitalist system the plight of the proletariat and
suppression of their moral freedom. It is thus to the system of landed property
that Green seems inclined to assign the creation of a working class, neither
holding nor acquiring property.
12.10 The Theory of the Will
This section examines the ways in which the eternal consciousness
develops through the minds of individuals and the institutions of society. It
begins by examining Green's conceptions of freedom, the will and reason. It
then sketches his theory of man's essential reliance on society, and the latter's
possibilities for interpreting social forms at a higher level. The interlinking of
social norms and laws, individual freedom, and morality is a recurring theme of
this discussion.
To understand Green's position on morality, one must first understand
his analysis of the human will, for in many ways the most fundamental
question is “what makes the will free?” This question can restated by asking,
“what is the difference between the good and bad will?”, because Green sees
the truly free will as being by definition the truly good will.

159
 Green argues that desires are emotional impulses felt by the individual
and recognised by him as forming an indispensable part of his being. In
desiring, one is necessarily acknowledging one's own existence as a person, as
one is necessarily self-conscious. Usually, individuals will desire many objects
at the same time. Often, holding them simultaneously is impossible, and so one
is forced to decide which object to actively attempt to possess; that is, one will
have to choose which object to will to possess. In this way, choice represents
the adoption of a motive by the self as the determination of action — that is, as
the will. For example, I may desire to own a book and a statue. However, as I
can afford one but not both (and buying them is the only way to gain either), I
must choose between them. In choosing, say, the statue, it then becomes my
will to possess the statue — it is no longer merely a desire. My motivation is
one on its own — whereas my desire can be one of many. In willing, firstly one
must desire (and by desiring acknowledge one's existence). Secondly, one must
make the object part of oneself because, in the act of willing, one necessarily
makes the chosen object impossible to understand without reference to one's
act of choice. In Green's terminology, the nature of the object is in part created
by the individual's will to possess it. As he writes, such objects are “objects
which only the intercourse of self-conscious agents can bring into existence”.
For this reason, my relationship to (and hence the nature of) the object is
transformed by my choice of it; it is transformed by my act of willing, because
obtaining the willed object is then the source of my self-satisfaction
To understand what Green means here, one must bear in mind that he is
talking not in metaphysical, but in epistemic terms. This argument echoes his
claim that nature's ‘creation’ is an epistemic process, not a metaphysical one.
Green uses terms such as ‘creation’, ‘nature’ and ‘reality’ in very different
ways to their common usages. Hence, ‘the world’ and ‘nature’ are the
‘creation’ of the human mind. They exist only in the consciousness of the
individual perceiver. This contention becomes relatively uncontroversial when
the way in which Green uses his terms is understood. In this instance he is
arguing that one cannot know what the chosen object is without recognising
that possession of it is willed by a person.
Green argues that a man's will must always be free in at least one sense:
“since in all willing a man is his own object to himself, the object by which the
act is determined, the will is always free … [that is] willing constitutes
freedom”Self-satisfaction is always free and is always the object of the will.
There are several things to notice here. Firstly, in willing something, the
individual must deliberate. When willing, the individual is “seeking to realise
an idea of his own good which he is conscious of presenting to himself”.
Action which occurs without deliberation — unthinking action — is not an act

160
of will and hence is not free. Secondly, Green argues that the “motive” for the
determination of the will is part of the will itself. For this reason, it is wrong to
ask whether a man is “being himself” when he is willing a particular course of
action; for example, taking drugs for the first time. Thus, “in being determined
by a strongest motive, in the only sense in which he is really so determined, the
man … is determined by himself — by an object of his own making”
This argument can be extended. For Green, desires are not something
external to and acting on the individual — they are part of his very essence. For
example, Green warns against talking “of Desire moving us to act in such or
such a way, misleading us, or overcoming us, conflicting with Reason,— then
‘Desire’ is a logical abstraction which we are mistaking for reality”.By
“Desire” (as opposed to “desires”) here, Green means, “the man's self, as
conscious of itself and consciously seeking in the satisfaction of desires the
satisfaction of itself”. Desire is then unified in the self by its relation to intellect
which ensures that no object of understanding would be what it is without the
presence of Desire, and vice versa.
However, the important point to grasp here is that up until this point
Green's statements had been concerned only with one sense of the term
“freedom”. That the will originates in the strongest motive (self-satisfaction),
and that this in turn originates in the person's “circumstances and character”
has radical implications. Examining the inability of one's character to
determine the individual's will sufficiently for an action to be ‘truly’ free helps
to explain why “circumstances” (as Green uses the term) are so important to
the exercise of a completely free will. Circumstances and character determine
acts of will by giving the individual his specific motivations and by giving his
motivations their relative strengths.
By “circumstances”, Green does not mean merely the immediate
situation in which the individual makes his particular decision, together with its
antecedent causes. He means in addition “the state of [the individual's] health,
the outward manner of his life (including his family arrangements and the
mode in which he maintains himself and his family), and the standard of social
expectations on the part of those whom he recognises as his equals”
The individual's self-satisfaction is determined by his circumstances.
Thus, circumstances are necessarily formative of his particular free will. At the
same time, human reason shapes these circumstances so as to foster the
increasingly explicit embodiment of the external consciousness in the world. It
may seem strange that Green is arguing that the individual's will (which is, by
definition, free) is determined at least in part by things which appear to be
external to him. However, the influence of circumstances is an essential part of

161
man. Without influences such as his family structure and social expectations
(and hence customs and society's values), the individual would have to create
his own character from pure thought, which he cannot do. This claim needs to
be examined in greater depth.
By “character”, Green means the eternal consciousness' at least partial
“reproduction of itself”within a particular person.
The degree to which the eternal consciousness is merely implicit in the
individual's actions determines the degree to which the individual is capable of
exercising free will. In other words, a human's will is not free if the objects
willed are counter to “the law of his being”. He is free to the extent that he
wills his embodiment of the eternal consciousness.
It is helpful to summarise the argument to this point. The distinguishing
characteristic of the truly free will is found in the object towards which it is
directed. That object which is “best” will be “the end in which the effort of a
moral agent can really find rest”. It is in attaining this object (strictly, “state”)
that the individual gains the greatest self-satisfaction. In this sense the
attainment of this object is what the individual truly wills. For this reason, self-
satisfaction should not be confused with satisfying one's strongest desire.
Indeed, once the individual has reached a certain stage of development, the
strongest desire cannot be followed if it is counter to a man's character — “his
strength of character overcomes the strength of desire”. The motive (which
determines the will) is not a desire in this case; the former is the habitual
determination for that which the individual regards as his permanent good. The
latter, when destructive, “is incompatible with [the individual's] steady
direction of himself towards certain objects in which he habitually seeks
satisfaction”. Consequently, it is incompatible with his true freedom, even
though at one level it may be part of the individual's will.
12.11 Social Theory and Conscientious Agency
Green holds that the individual's application of moral rules is itself a
form of moral education. In many ways, therefore, each new experience tends
to push men forward, which entails in turn an at least partial development of
social institutions. This development shapes the ways in which the individual
experiences the world. Thus, in the case of law the individual should find
himself faced by an external expression of his true will. By following such a
law, one is following one's own will, for the abstract nature of law reflects,
firstly, the abstract idea of man as a “self-conscious and self-realising subject”
whose wayward tendenciesmust be restrained to enable the will's “attainment
of its own perfection”. When following the law then, the individual
acknowledges his ability to become that which he is not at present. Secondly,

162
law helps to form the individual in the sense of reinforcing his values, views
and the actions of the eternal consciousness, as it exists in his world at the time.
In this way, the individual is increasingly brought into line with “the law of his
being”.
In reality, the currently existing laws (and the underlying social
institutions, values and so on) are imperfect in that their presuppositions
contradict the logical structure of the eternal consciousness. Recognition of
these imperfections awakens an innate drive in the individual to correct them.
In fact actualising the idea of perfection found in reason increasingly becomes
the source of self-satisfaction contained in the individual's will.
However, Green argues that without recognition of a common good
underlying your relations with your fellow citizens, there could not be
“intelligent co-operating subjects of law and custom”. Only where such a
common good is present will a society hold together without the use of
coercion. There are two connected elements here. Firstly, the individual's
reason allows him to conceive of a good towards which he should work as a
person. Secondly, Green holds that a stable society can only rest on institutions
which are based on a conception of a common good. As Aristotle writes that “it
is a characteristic of man that he alone has any sense of good or evil, of just
and unjust, and the like, and the association of living beings who have this
sense makes a family and a state”. In fact the development of a person's
practical morality requires him to recognise through his exercise of reason that
he should pursue certain ends because they serve thecommon good of his
society. The individual comes to realise that no purely private object he wills
and attains can ever make him truly happy. It becomes more obvious to him as
he lives and wills that only attaining what is good for all will bring him
complete satisfaction. This very significant contention needs to be explained.
Green argues that it is important to recognise that the individual's
ultimate good is only fully actualised following the movement of his society
through the “lesser” ends embedded in different earlier imperfect societies.
These various ends serve to determine the goals of the individual members of
the various societies. However, the ultimate goal of individuals as human
beings is to become totally rational, that is to perfectly embody the eternal
consciousness. Crucially, this realisation requires the individual to possess a
sense of self-worth, and recognise and understand what is of ultimate value
within their society. In this way, the individual should come to possess “an idea
of an absolute good, common to him with [all other members of society] — an
idea indefinable indeed in imagination, but gradually defining itself in act”.
This good exists in a sense independently of any particular impulse and is

163
founded on the absolute nature of man.Thus, the good act will be performed
because it brings the individual to a greater awareness of himself and his
nature, and hence to a greater awareness of what it is that best serves his most
permanent interests as an embodiment of the eternal consciousness. That object
is truly good, therefore, which is internal to the individual, and which the
individual seeks as a fully self-conscious person. Green contends that this good
is pursued because it affirms man to himself as a rational, self-satisfiable
human being.
The true reformer seeks to actualise that state of affairs which he
honestly feels to be an improvement on the current state of the world. He acts
from a personal motive, which is a natural outgrowth of his possession of the
eternal consciousness. As Green writes “he feels a personal responsibility for
realising … [that which] is part and parcel of the practical idea itself, of the
form of consciousness which we so describe”. Thus, in most cases the truly
contentious man knows instinctively which rules and practices to follow in
society and which to seek to change, because of the partially developed eternal
consciousness within himself. Just as the initial progress of man requires the
spark of the eternal consciousness, so the good man's actions grow out of the
self-realising principle embodied in his nature (his character) and his social
background (his circumstances).
The accusation may be made that this merely gives each individual
license to act as they happen to prefer at the time. Yet, Green need not be
drawn to this conclusion. As has been said, the eternal consciousness is alive in
everyone as a voice of guidance (although muffled to varying degrees
depending on the individual). Also, it is present although imperfectly in the
social institutions which make up society. The fact that the individual may
resist the conclusions of his moral sense, and so may follow his shortsighted
“self-serving” egoism is an important point, but it is not an objection to Green's
theory unless it is also an objection to nearly every other ethical theory as well.
Indeed, Green argues that as humanity progresses individuals will naturally
come to truly follow their consciences more easily.
It is in this way that for Green, there is no such thing as a conflict of
duties”. Given more than one possible course of action, the problem is in
deciding which course of action it is truly one's duty to follow, and this
problem is often one of choosing between inconsistent “injunctions given by
external authorities”. In a sense, the philosopher's task is to allow the individual
to decide which “authority” is false and therefore external, and which is good
and therefore internal, in that it best serves the unfolding of the eternal
consciousness. The philosopher performs this function by making the

164
individual aware of the ends served by the norms, customs, institutions and
laws of his society, by helping him recognise that, “rules are made for man, not
man for rules”. Nevertheless, the philosopher must not merely attempt to knock
down existing institutions and replace them with “an improvised [purely
personal] conscience” which sets up the individual as the only practical source
of law. We should not forget that the individual must have a society if he is to
have a conscience at all. “No individual can make a conscience for himself. He
always needs a society to make it for him”. Thus, in many ways, the
philosopher's task is to promote understanding and rational harmony in society
by allowing individuals to come to their own recognition of the rationality
which is inherent in themselves and their society. They should encourage
personal liberty, rather than personal license.
12.12 Influence of Green's thought
Green's teaching was, directly and indirectly, the most potent
philosophical influence in England during the last quarter of the 19th century,
while his enthusiasm for a common citizenship, and his personal example in
practical municipal life, inspired much of the effort made in the years
succeeding his death to bring the universities more into touch with the people,
and to break down the rigour of class distinctions. His ideas spread to
the University of St. Andrews through the influence of Prof. David George
Ritchie, a former student of his, who eventually helped found the Aristotelian
Society. John Dewey wrote a number of early essays on Green's thought,
including Self-Realization as the Moral Ideal.
Green was directly cited by many social liberal politicians, such
as Herbert Samuel and H. H. Asquith, as an influence on their thought. It is no
coincidence that these politicians were educated at Balliol College,
Oxford. Roy Hattersley called for Green's work to be applied to the problems
of 21st century Britain.
Works and commentary
Green's most important treatise—the Prolegomena to Ethics, practically
complete in manuscript at his death—was published in the year following,
under the editorship of A. C. Bradley (4th ed., 1899). Shortly afterwards, R. L.
Nettleship's standard edition of his Works (exclusive of the Prolegomena)
appeared in three volumes:
1. Reprints of Green's criticism of Hume, Spencer, G. H. Lewes
2. Lectures on Kant, on Logic, on the Principles of Political Obligation
3. Miscellanies, preceded by a full Memoir by the Editor.

165
 The Principles of Political Obligation was afterwards published in
separate form. A criticism of Neo-Hegelianism will be found in Andrew
Seth (Pringle Pattison),Hegelianism and Personality (1887)Contains Green's
"Introductions to Hume's Treatise of Human Nature" and also Green's
"Introduction to the Moral Part of Hume's Treatise"
Conclusion
Green’s theory of liberty talk about ‘Moral Freedom’ as a unique
quality of a man. This shows the two parts of the freedom one is Negative and
second is Positive freedom, Negative freedom shows the satisfaction of the
human desires, acting according to their own will and choice, Positive freedom
consist of reaching or acting according to reason, achieving self-realization or
self-perfection, therefore positive freedom means determination and the good
will of an individual.
The theory also talks about the rights of an individual which are relative
to ethics, morals and principles rather than law and the recognition of which
speaks is recognition by a common moral values awareness rather than by a
governing body or we can say elected representative. The rights are relative to
the principals in the sense that they are the conditions of the attaintement of the
moral end; and the recognition is given by the moral awareness, because it
knows that they are important conditions of its own satisfaction. According to
Green’s human perception postulates liberty; this involves rights; and which
demands the state. Thus the state is an instrument of perfection.
As his theory is a protector of rights, he upholds the right to property as
a means of realizing a will potentially directed to a social good. Green argues
that the freedom of the individual postulates freedom acquire and possess
material good according to one;s potentiality to contribute to the social good.
The social good requires that different individuals should fill different positions
in the social whole. Hence, difference in property are functional from point of
view of social good, which should be recognized by the social perception.
Hence Green made a significant contribution to liberal political theory
by discovering the moral foundations of social life and by subordinating the
state to will of society which alone embodies moral perceptions.
Features of Idealism
1. Man is a social animal:
Idealism begins with Aristotelian dictum that man is a social animal.
And the development of his personality is possible only in society. Divorced
from society, the individual has no significant role to play nor is his progress
possible in the absence of society.

166
2. The State possesses an organic unity:
The State possesses the same organic unity as is possed by human body.
Just as an organ is the part of body so an individual is the organ of the state.
Just as an organ cannot be more important than the whole body, so the
individual cannot be more important than the state. Thus, the welfare of the
individual lies in the welfare of the state. The state is the saviour of the social
order.
3. State is a moral institution
Though there are many moral institutions like family, church, etc. yet
the state is the supreme moral institution. So the development of human
personality is possible only in the state and only with the help of the state.
4. State is creator and protector of the rights of the individual:
The state is the source of freedom and other rights. The individual
cannot have his freedom and other rights from any other source. It is only the
state that protects the rights of the individual.
5. The State has got its independent personality and will:
The state is not the sum-total of the individuals. But it has its
independent personality and will. The state is not the sum-total of the actual
will of the individuals. On the contrary it represents their real will. So,
whenever, the state acts according to the real will of all.
6. The state is an end in itself:
Political thinkers like Hegel and Bernard Bosanquet regard the state as
an end and the individual as a means. But Kant and T.H. Green regard the state
as a means and the individual as an end.
7. The State is a divine Institution:
Hegel and many of his followers regard the state as a divine or spiritual
institution. Hence, they conceive the state to be all powerful, infallible and
absolute institution.
8. There can be no conflict and interacts between the interests of the state
and the individual:
Since the state represents the real will of all the individuals, there can be
no conflict between the interests of the state and the individual.
9. The state is supreme of all human institutions
10. Extreme idealist is of the opinion that war is indispensable and the state
reaches its culmination during the period of war. But the moderate
idealists do not support this view.

167
 11. Moderate idealists like T. H. Green maintain that Public Will is the
basis of the state. But the extreme idealists do not attach any importance
to Public Will. They believe in the absolution of the state.
Criticism of Idealism:
1. This theory is purely abstract
This theory does not throw any shade of light on the existing social
conditions. It is purely an abstract theory. It is related more to spiritualism than
to Materialism. This theory is not practical.
2. The distinction between the actual and real will is confusing:
Duguit has criticised this theory on the ground that this theory makes
provision for the independent personality of the state, which is distinguished
from that of an organised nation. Besides, the distinction between the actual
and real will is purely abstract.
3. It sacrifices the liberty of the individual:
Theory regards the state as an end and the individual as a means and
thus it sacrifices the liberty of the individual. This theory does not make any
provision for 'he individual to condemn the immoral and illegal actions of the
state. It does not attach any importance to the individual in comparison to the
state.
And this hampers the development of the individual. Hobhouse has
severely criticised this theory in these words, "The doctrine that the individual
has no value or life of his own apart from the state and no freedom unless it is
in conformity with law and custom as interpreted by the ethical spirit of the
particular society to which the individual belongs, is virtual negation of
freedom".
4. It makes the State omnipotent which is wrong:
The idealistic theory of the state has been severely criticised on the
ground that it makes the state an omnipotent and does not confine its authority
by any international law or morality. Duguit, a French political thinker has
severely criticised the state on this ground: The most eminent of the critics of
Idealism is M r. Duguit who attacks the theory particularly because "it
attributes to the state a personality of its own distinct from that of the nation
organised generally, because it teaches the doctrine of the omnipotence,
absolutism and divinity of the state".
Duguit further says, "This doctrine also sacrifices the autonomy and
independence of the individual to its all-embracing power, denying to him not
only the inalienable right of revolution but even the right to question, the
legitimacy or moral rightfulness of the authority or conduct of the state".

168
He further says, "The doctrine that state is infallible, that it can do no wrong,
that it is subject to no law except that of which, it is itself, the creator, that it is
not even bound by the moral law or the prescriptions of international law
except in so far as it chooses to be bound, is false and iniquitous".
5. This doctrine does not distinguish between State and Society:
This doctrine does not discover any difference between the State and
Society. The two are the images of the same coin. In modern age, nobody
accepts it.
6. This doctrine does not award a prominent place to the association:
The idealistic theory adores the authority of the state only and
completely ignores the claims of all other institutions existing in society.
7. It regards the functions of the state as of negative nature:
According to this theory, the functions of the state are not of positive
nature but of negative nature. It does not recognise the state as socialistic
institution.
8. This doctrine considers the state as perfect which is not the truth:
The Idealists regards the State as perfect. But in reality, there is no state
which is not imperfect. Professor Barker has severely criticised this theory on
this very ground".
9. This Theory is not only unsound but dangerous also:
Hobhouse has asserted that, "it is a mistake to regard Hegel's exaltation
of the state as merely the rhapsodical utterances of a metaphysical dreamer, his
false and wicked doctrine of the "God-state" furnished the basis of the most
serious opposition to the rational democratic humanitarianism of the nineteenth
century”.
He further asserted, "The Hegelian conception was designed to turn the
edge of the principle of freedom by identifying freedom with law; of equality,
by substituting the conception of discipline; of personality itself, by merging
the individual in the state; of humanity, by erecting the state as the supreme
and final form of human association".

169
 CHAPTER -13
JEREMY BENTHAM (1748-1832)
Structure
13.1 Introduction
13.2 Life and times
13.3 Utilitarian Principles
13.4 Bentham's Political Philosophy
13.5 ThePanopticon
13.1 Introduction
Utilitarianism is essentially a British school of political theory.
Itconsisted of a group of writers, politicians, officers and social reformers.
Themainly well-known members of the group are Jeremy Bentham, James
Milland John Stuart Mill. Their primary theoretical interest lay in conceiving
aframework of political rules leading to a science of politics. In practice
theyemphasized on the utmost necessity of legal and social reform and
evolvingefficient political institutions. Their impact in common and that of
Bentham'sown efforts at substantial reforms in scrupulous drew substantial
popularsupport. John Stuart Mill's tribute to Bentham as the father of
Britishinnovation and as a great critical thinker was justified.
Bentham not only wanted to reform the social and legal institutions
ofhis day, but was also a strong supporter of democratic reform—of
universalsuffrage, shorter annual Parliaments and the secret ballot. He was the
founderof a group described the Philosophical Radicals, who, influenced
through theFrench revolution, and rejecting Burke's condemnation of it,
advocated thatsocial institutions should be judged through the principle of the
greatesthappiness of the greatest number. Any social practice, which did not
advancethis happiness should be reformed.
13.2 Life and times
Bentham was born in 1748 in England in the family of a wealthy
andsuccessful attorney. After an Oxford education at Queen's College (1760-
63),Bentham began attending the London law courts in 1763.
Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism, combined throughout
his active life the carriers of aphilosopher, a jurist and that of a social reformer
and activist. Though trained to be a lawyer, he gaveup the practice of law in
order to examine the basis of law and to pursue legal reforms. His
utilitarianphilosophy based on the principle of the “greatest happiness of the
greatest number” was aimed atrearing the fabric of felicity of prison, legislation
and parliament and stressed the need for a newpenal code for England. It was

170
for these reasons that he has been regarded by J.S. Mill as a“progressive
philosopher”, the great benefactor of mankind’ and enemy of the status quo
and thegreatest questioner of things established.
From the middle of the 18th century, England experienced a
technological and industrialtransformation whose impact was revolutionary
from the viewpoint of new social ideas and a newmaterial environment.
Socially, the industrial revolution was responsible for three
complementarydevelopments; first the growth of new and the rapid expansion
of old towns and cities; second theincrease in population made possible by
higher living standards and improved conditions of health;third the destruction
of the existing social hierarchy headed by the landed aristocracy and its
gradualreplacement by the manufacturers, financiers, merchants and
professional men as the newdominant social class. The war with France (1793-
1815) provided the conservative government inBritain with a welcome
opportunity to repress democratic and radical ideas under the pretext offighting
Jacobinism. The defeat of Napoleon and the revival of the old European order
at theCongress of Vienna (1815) seemed to put an end to the nightmare of
revolution and democracy. AsProf. Sabine has pointed out, the rising middle
classes in Britain inevitably developed a new socialand political philosophy
that was clearly distinct from Burke’s adulation of landed aristocracy, as wellas
from Paine’s radicalism and Godwin’s anarchy”. What was needed was a
political faith reflectingthe outlook of the middle classes, which was essentially
empirical optimistic willing to innovate andeager to translate natural science
into technology and industry and political science into governmentand
administration.
The most characteristic expression of this outlook is to be found in the
work of Jeremy Bentham, thefounder of Philosophical Radicalism. Bentham
was born in 1748, only three years after theJocabite rebellion of 1745 that
sought to regain the throne of the Stuarts. Bethan’s father andgrand father were
well-to-do attorneys and Bentham was to enter upon the same carrier. At
thecomparatively early age of three Bentham was found poring over a big folio
volume of Rapin’sHistory of England, he read Latin before he was four, French
at six and took to Voltaire for lightreading at eight. He entered Oxford at
twelve, received his bachelor’s degree at fifteen and thenstudied the law. He
was called to the bar in 1769 but he soon decided that he was moreinterested in
reforming the law than in practicing it. A small annual income of a hundred
poundsenabled him to live independently though modestly; after his father’s
death in 1792 his financialsituation greatly improved and he was able to live
comfortably in his house in London. There hespent his life, unmarried
completely devoted to his literary and political activities.

171
 Jeremy Bentham’s political philosophy was influenced by the writings
of David Hume, PriestlyClaude Adrien Helvetius, CesoreBonesana etc.
Bentham’s first book Fragment on Government wasdirected against
Blackstone, the oracle of English law. The Fragment on Government was
publishedin 1776, the year of James Watt’s first successful steam engine, the
Declaration of Independenceand the publication of another milestone of social
thought, Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations’. In theFragment, Bentham
pragmatically describes the nature of political society in terms of the habit
ofobedience, and not of social contract, natural rights and other fictions. In this
early work ofBentham there is more than a touch of Burke, because of the
constant emphasis that government isnot based on metaphysical generalities
but on interest and advantage.
Bentham’s most widely known book is his Principles of Morals and
Legislation (printed in 1780 andpublished in 1789) Bentham welcomed the
French Revolution and set his reform proposals, thoughmore were adopted. But
he was made an honorary citizen of France in 1792. In 1809, a
closerelationship between Bentham and James Mill (1773—1836) began, with
Mill being convinced ofthe urgency for reforms. Bentham started and financed
the West minster Review in 1824 with theidea of propagating his utilitarian
principles. Bentham lived till the age of 84.
13.3 Utilitarian Principles
Utilitarianism as a school of thought dominated English political
thinking form the middle ofthe 18th century to the middle of the 19th century.
Some of the early utilitarian’s were FrancisHutcheson, Hume, Priestly, William
Paley. But it was Bentham who systematically laid down itstheory and made it
popular on the basis of his innumerable proposals for reform. Bentham’s
meritconsisted of not in the doctrine but in his vigorous application of it to
various practical problems.Through James Mill, Bentham developed close
links with Thomas Malthus and David Ricardogetting acquainted with the
ideas of the classical economists.
The basic premise of utilitarianism was that human beings as a rule
sought happiness thatpleasure alone is good, and that the only right action was
that which produced the greatesthappiness of the greatest number In the hands
of Bentham, the pleasure pain theory evolved into ascientific principle to be
applied to the policies of the state welfare measures and for administrative,
penal and legislative reforms. He shared Machiavelli’s concern for a science of
politics, not in theunderstanding the dynamics of political power, but in the
hope of promoting and securing thehappiness of individuals through legislation
and policies.

172
 Utilitarianism provided a psychological perspective on human nature,
for it perceived humanbeings as creatures of pleasure. Bentham began the first
chapter of An Introduction to the Principlesof Morals and Legislation thus:
“Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereignmasters,
pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do as well
as todetermine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and
wrong, on the other thechain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne.
They govern us in all we do, in all we say,in all we think: A man may pretend
to abjure their empire: but in reality he will remain subject to itall the while.
The principle of utility recognises thus subjection, and assumes it for the
foundation ofthat system, the object of which is to rear the fabric of felicity by
the hand of reason and of law”.
Bentham believes that human beings by nature were hedonists. Each of
their actions weremotivated by a desire to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Every
human action has a cause and amotive."Nature has placed mankind under the
governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to
point out what we ought todo, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the
one hand the standard ofright and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and
effects, are fastened totheir throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say,
in all we think: a manmay pretend to abjure their empire: but in reality he will
remain subject to itall the while. The principle of utility recognizes this
subjection, and assumes itfor the base of that system, the substance of which is
to rear the fabric offelicity through the hands of cause and of law."
For Bentham, utilitarianism was both a descriptive and normative
theory. it not onlydescribed how human beings act so as to maximise pleasure
and minimise pain, but it alsoprescribed or advocated such action. According
to the principle of utility, the cause of all humanaction is a desire for pleasure.
But utility is meant that property in any object, where by it tends toproduce
benefit, advantage, pleasure good or happiness.
Bentham viewed hedonism not only as a principle of motivation, but
also a principle ofaction. He listed 14 simple pleasures and 12 simple pains,
classifying these into self- regarding andother regarding groups, a distinction
that J.S. Mill borrowed in elaboration of the concept of liberty.Only two
benevolence and malevolence, were put under other regarding action. Under
self regardingmotives, Bentham listed physical desire, pecuniary interest, love
of power and self preservation.Self- preservation included fear of pain, love of
life and love of ease.

173
 As Prof. C.L. Wayper has pointed out, when Bentham spoke of the
good and badconsequences of an action he simple meant the happy or painful
consequences of that action. Heaccepted the association principle of Hartley
that all ideas are derived from the senses as the resultof the operation of
sensible objects on these, and he conceived of life as being made upon
ofinteresting perceptions. All experience, he believed, was either pleasurable or
painful or both.Pleasures were simply individual sensations. But happiness, he
thought of not as a simple individualsensations. Rather it was a state of mind, a
bundle of sensations.
Bentham is fully aware that personal happiness and the happiness of the
greatest numberare not always identical and he sees two means by which the
gulf between individual selfishnessand communal good can be bridged. First
education can elevate men’s minds so that they willunderstand that rationally
conceived happiness of one’s self includes good will, sympathy, and
benevolence for others. The second means of bridging the gap between
individual selfishness andthe greatest happiness of the greatest number is the
creation of an institutional environment inwhich main’s selfish impulses can be
channelled into socially useful purposes, so that it will becontrary to his selfish
interest to harm others.
Bentham claims in his principles to have developed a genuinely
scientific comprehension ofthe nature of pleasure. Pleasure, he agrues, may be
said to be of lesser or greater value dependingupon certain measurable
variables such as intensity, duration, fecundity and so on. One pleasure,for
example, may be more intense than another but of shorter duration. Another
pleasure may beof greater duration but lack of fecundity that is the capacity to
generate other subordinate pleasures.Moreover, as Epicures had also noted,
pleasures are often accompanied by pain and somepleasures are more apt to be
accompanied by pain than others are.
All pleasures and pains, according to Bentham are effects produced by
external causes butindividuals do not experience the same quantity of pleasure
or pain from the same cause and this isbecause they differ in sensivity or
sensibility. Bentham has listed around 32 factors which influencesensibility
and these should be taken into account in any computation of the total amount
of pleasureor pain involved in any given act. These factors are health, strength,
hardness, bodilyimperfections, quality and quantity of knowledge, strength of
intellectual powers, firmness of mind, bent of inclination etc.
Bentham believes that every individual is the best of his happiness. The
state is a group ofpersons organised for the promotion and maintenance of
utility that is happiness or pleasure. Thestate could increase pleasure and

174
diminish pain by the application of sanctions. These are thephysical sanction
which operates in the ordinary course of nature. The moral sanction which
arisesfrom the general feeling of society; the religious sanction, which is
applied by the immediate handof a “superior invisible being, either in the
present life or in a future”; and the political sanction whichoperates through
government and the necessity for which is the explanation of the state.
Thecommunity according to Bentham is a fictitious body and its interests are
the sum total of theinterests of the several members who compose it.
Bentham distinguished pleasures quantitatively rather than qualitatively
when he wrote that ‘the pleasure of pushpin is as good as poetry’. He did
differentiate between pleasures, and in thatsense he was not an elitist. He did
not assign any inherent grading to activities and treated them atpar in terms of
their contribution to individual happiness. Her taught men to govern by the
simplerule of the greatest happiness of the greatest number’ which in turn,
could be measured by anapparatus known as felicific calculus.
Bentham recognized four common motives for human action.
Thepurely social motive of benevolence moves only a few individuals.
Suchbenevolent individuals pursue the happiness of others even at the cost of
theirown happiness, An individual acting out of the semi-social motive of love
ofreputation or praise, pursues others' happiness only when it promotes his
ownas well. The majority of humankind act out of the asocial motive of
selfinterest, when one's own happiness is pursued, taking care not to cause
other spain but not pursuing their happiness either. Finally, there are
someindividuals moved through dissocial motives, who actually
experiencepleasure through harming others.
Bentham also provided a calculus for determining the balance
flankedby pleasure and pain from any action. Just as to this felicific calculus,
onenecessity provide a numerical value to the intensity, duration, certainty
oruncertainty, and propinquity or remoteness, of the pleasures and pains of
thepersons affected through one's actions, and one necessity undertake the
action only if the value of the pleasure is higher than the value of the pain.
Several criticisms have been levelled against Bentham’s doctrine of
quantitative utility. Prof.William Ebenstein in his major work ‘Great Political
Thinkers’ has criticised Bentham’s theory as“uninspiring, not imaginative
enough and merely mechanical”. His theory lacked originality andwas full of
prejudices and speculation. He was very much confused and contradictory in
his owntheoretical adventures. Prof. Carlyle has branded Benthanism as the
“pig philosophy” just to remind us that hedonism of the kind is not very
satisfactory, the happiness is much more than pleasure.

175
 Human beings seek happiness, their own and that of others. Theyought
to seek happiness, their own and of others. To seek, though, is onething; the:
question is, how they can attain what they seek. What is required, incommon,
for human beings to reach the happiness they are searching for?Human
happiness, for Bentham, depended on the services men rendered toeach other.
Government can ensure these services through creating a system ofrights and
obligations. Political society exists because government is necessaryto compel
individuals to render services to each other to augment theirhappiness—this
then is how Bentham made the transition from hisutilitarianism to his political
philosophy.
13.4 Bentham's Political Philosophy
"Government cannot be exercised without coercion; nor coercion
without producing unhappiness," Bentham said. Now, unhappiness is to
beavoided, so the only justification for government is that without it
moreunhappiness would be produced in society.The raison d ' etre of
government is toattach sanctions to sure unhappiness producing actions so that
individualcitizens will not be motivated to perform them. Or, the coercion
which is, through definition, part of the nature of government, is essential to
make asystem of rights and obligations to further the welfare of society.
Bentham defines politicalsocietyas follows: "When a number of persons
(whom we may approachsubjects) are supposed to be in the habit of paying
obedience to a person, or anassemblage of persons, of a recognized and sure
account (whom we may callgovernor or governors) such persons altogether
(subjects and governors) are said tobe in a state of political SOCIETY." "When
a number of persons are supposed tobe in the habit of conversing with each
other, at the similar time that they arenot in any such habit, they are said to be
in a state of natural society,"The state of natureis not an asocial or anti-social
state. It is an ongoing society, with men inconversation, that is, in interaction
with each other. For Bentham there was nopure state or nature or political
society, but there was a continuum flanked bythe two: "Governments
accordingly, in proportion as the habit of obedience ismore perfect, recede
from, in proportion as it is less perfect, approach to astate of nature..."
The common end of government is the greatest happiness of thegreatest
number. In specific conditions, the ends of government are "survival,
abundance, security, and equality; each maximized, in as distant as it
iscompatible with the maximization of the rest." Bentham defined survival
asthe absence of everything leading to positive physical suffering. He
advisedthe government to encourage industrialization to generate employment
so thateach individual could seem after his own survival, but if an individual

176
was unable to do so, the government was to set up a general finance
fromcontributions from the rich, for the well being of the poor.
If survival keeps the citizens from being unhappy, abundance is
necessary to maximize their happiness. Through ensuring prosperity, that is,
surplus wealth in the hands of individuals after their vital needs are met,
thegovernment encourages the citizens to fulfill all their desires. Bentham
thought that affluence could best be increased through guaranteeing to
eachman the due reward of his work and security of his possessions. The state
should also encourage the invention of new apparatus and gadgets, and
offerrewards, for socially useful inventions; it should develop technological
manpower, and encourage thrift and hard work. "Above all it should fightthose
characteristics of religious thought that encourage men to despisecomforts and
luxuries."
For Bentham, security had many components—the security of person,of
property, of power, of reputation, and of condition of life. Through thelatter,
Bentham meant something like social status. Every citizen's security, ineach of
these characteristics, was to be provided for through the government;security
of property, for instance, is provided through seeing to it that validcontracts are
kept through everyone.
Bentham was concerned in relation to the four types of inequality—
moral, intellectual, economic and political. He did not propose any events
toreduce moral and intellectual inequalities, but inequalities of wealth and
powerwere to be mitigated. Differences flanked by the rich and the poor were
to beevened out—"the more remote from equality are the shares possessed
throughthe individuals in question, in the mass of the instruments of felicity,
the less isthe sum of felicity, produced through the sum of those similar shares"
but notat the cost of the security of property. Inequalities of power could
be"minimized through reducing the amount of power attached to public
officesto the barest minimum, through declaring every sane adult eligible for
them, and through creation their incumbents accountable to those subject to
theirpower."
The last service to be provided through the government was that
ofencouraging benevolence in the citizen body so that every member of the
bodypolitic voluntarily, and with enjoyment performed the 'countless
smallservices' of which the fabric of the felicity of society was built.
Thegovernment could, for instance, "fight the religious and sectarian
prejudiceswhich limit men's sympathies and incline them to treat outsiders as
less than fully human."

177
 So distant, we looked at how the government fulfils its goals inspecific
methods. What is more significant is Bentham's theory of how thegovernment
reaches its goals in common. Bentham whispered man to be acreature so
dependent on others for his well being that human life would bemiserable and
even impossible if men did not render several kinds of servicesto one
another...society is ultimately only a system of services men render oneanother.
Government creates sure of these services through creating a systemof
obligations and rights. It does this through putting in lay a system ofoffences
with their corresponding punishments: it is a punishable offence, forinstance,
not to pay one's taxes; it is a punishable offence to steal someoneelse's money.
These punishable offences ground the services men render eachother—the
positive service, or obligation, of contributing to the finance ofgeneral
possessions, or the negative service, or obligation of not interferingwith
someone's right to property. These services, or obligations, in turn, thenground
everybody's rights—my right to property, or my right to survival. Eachright
only exists because of a corresponding obligation, and the government isto be
extremely careful in specifying these obligations. "My rights may or maynot be
a source of pleasure to me, but the corresponding obligations theyimpose on
others are sure sources of pain to them. The government so shouldnever make
rights, ‘instruments of felicity' though they are, unless it can beabsolutely sure
that their probable advantages would more than compensatefor their sure
disadvantages."
In a political society the sovereign can get the citizens to act as hewants
through two methods, through influencing their will, which Benthamcalls
impetration, and through the threat of corporeal punishment, whichBentham
calls contestation. Although the former power is based on the latter,creation the
latter the foundation of the sovereign's sovereignty, Benthampoints out that a
political society based on impetration is stabler and longer lasting than a
society based on contestation.
Bentham's utilitarianism led him to consider that thegovernment that
would best serve the people's interests would be thedemocratic form of
government. Only in such a government could a harmonyflanked by the
interests of the governed and those in government beengineered. In a
democracy, what would maximize the happiness of the rulersis to be returned
to office, and they know that the best chance of thishappening is if they
maximize the happiness, or in other languages, seem afterthe welfare and
interests of the ruled. They know that if they go against theinterests of the
ruled, they will be voted out of office. From this argument,Bentham logically
derived the following: the right of every adult to vote,frequent national
elections, as frequent as one every year, transparency ofgovernment business

178
which meant a free press, unlimited access togovernment offices, and the right
to attend legislative sessions. '"Once annualelection, universal franchise, and
fullest publicity are recognized, nogovernment, Bentham thinks, would eves
'dream' of pursuing its interest at thecost of that of the society."
13.5 ThePanopticon
The Panopticon is the name that Bentham gave to a model prison that
he intended for the British government in the 1790s. A piece of land wasbought
through the government, on which Bentham was to supervise theconstruction
of the new prison. Though, much to Bentham's disappointment,approximately
the year 1802, the project fell through.
The design of the Panopticonwas to serve as a model for any
disciplinary institution — not presently a jail home, but any school,
hospital,factory and military barracks could have the similar structure as well.
Thethought of the Panopticon has become significant again today with
Foucaultcrediting Bentham with creating a new technology of power. The
Panopticonsymbolizes "one central moment in the history of repression — the
transitionfrom the inflicting of penalties to the imposition of surveillance." This
is howFoucault describes the architecture of the prison structure: "A
perimeterstructure in the form of a ring. At the centre of this, a tower pierced
throughbig windows opening on to the inner face of the ring. The outer
structure isdivided into cells each of which traverses the whole thickness of the
structure.These cells have two windows, one opening on to the inside, facing
thewindows of the central tower, the other, outer one allowing daylight to
passthrough the whole cell. All that is then needed is to put an overseer in
thetower and lay in each of the cells a lunatic, a patient, a convict, a worker or
aschoolboy. The back lighting enables one to pick out from the central
towerthe little captive silhouettes in the ring of cells. In short, the principle of
thedungeon is reversed; daylight and the overseer's gaze capture the inmate
moreeffectively." The prisoners, who have no get in touch with each other, feel
as ifthey are under the constant watch of the guards. "There is no require for
arms, physical violence, material constraints. Presently a gaze.An inspecting
gazewhom each individual under its weight will end through interiorizing to
the point that he is his own overseer, each individual therefore exercising
thissurveillance in excess of, and against, himself."
To have overthrown the feudal or monarchical form of power
andreplaced it with a new model of contemporary shapes of power, is to have
brought in relation to the revolution in political theory, even if one infamous
for doing so. Critics of liberalism have often claimed that theconnection
flanked by the government and the citizens, for liberal theorists,approximately

179
mirrors the Panopticon. Liberalism devalues horizontal linksflanked by
citizens—what unites a citizen body is each individual's separatepolitical
obligation to obey the government. Although liberalism claims toground the
government in the consent of the governed, this consent is, just asto critics, (as
the Panopticon model shows) only a mythical or manufactured consent.
Assessment
Bentham was not an outstanding philosopher though paradoxically he
occupies an importantplace in the history of political philosophy. Bentham’s
main contribution to political science was notthat he offered a novel principle
of political philosophy but that he ‘steadily applied an empirical andcritical
method off investigation to concrete problems of law and government.’ It was
an attempt ‘toextend the experimental method of reasoning from the physical
branch to the moral’. Whatevermay be the criticisms levelled against
Bentham’s theory of utility’, it is beyond dispute thatBentham ‘changed the
character of British institutions more than any other man in the
nineteenthcentury’.
We cannot regard Bentham as the greatest critical thinker of his age and
country. Accordingto C.L. Wayper, it was “Benthamism which brought to an
end the era of legislative stagnationand ushered in that period of increasing
legislative activity which has not yet ended and under thecumulative effects of
which we are living our lives today”. He supplied a new measurement for
social reform- the maximising of individual happiness.
Bentham exercised a great influence upon theories of sovereignty and
law. Law was not amystic mandate of reason or nature. But simply the
command of that authority to which the members of community render
habitual obedience. He considered the power of the sovereign asindivisible
unlimited, inalienable and permanent. As Prof. Sabine has rightly pointed out,
Bentham’sgreatest contribution was in the field of jurisprudence and
government.Bentham was a firm believer in gradual reform. He had no faith in
the violence of a revolution.He advanced numerous ideas which have become
central to the liberal creed of the 19th century.His utilitarian principles not only
dominated the liberal discourse but also influenced the earlysocialist writings
of William Thompson.
Model question
1. What do some commentators mean when they claim that
Bentham'sPanopticon represents a radically new form of power?
2. Why did Bentham believe that a denlocratic government would best
ensure the welfare ofthe citizens? Which kind of democratic checks did
he propose?

180
 CHAPTER – 14
JOHN STUART MILL (1806-1873)
Structure
14.1 Introduction
14.2 Life and Times
14.3 Qualitative utility
14.4 Liberty
14.5 Representative Government
14.6 Equal Rights for Women
14.1 Introduction
John Stuart Mill was the most influential political thinker of the 19th
century. In his politicaltheory, liberalism made a transition from laissez faire to
an active role for the state, from a negativeto a positive conception of liberty
and from an atomistic to a more social conception of individuality.While Mill
was a liberal he could also be regarded at the same time as a reluctant
democrat, a pluralist a co-operative socialist, an elitist and a feminist.
14.2 Life and Times
John Stuart Mill was born in London on 20 May 1806. He had eight
younger siblings. Hisfather James Mill came from Scotland, with the desire to
become a writer. At the age of 11 hebegan to help his father by reading the
proofs of his father’s book namely History of British India.In 1818 his father
was appointed as Assistant examiner at the East India House.It was
animportant event in his life as this solved his financial problems enabling him
to develop his time andattention to write on areas of his prime interest,
philosophical and political problems. His father washis teacher and constant
companion.
As James Mill decided to teach his son all through himself at house, the
fatterwas denied the usual experience of going to a regular school. His
education did notcontain any children‘s book or toys for he started to learn
Greek at the age of four andLatin at eight. Through the time he was ten he had
read several of Plato‘s dialogues, logicand history. He was familiar with the
writings of Euripides, Homer, Polybius, Sophoclesand Thucydides. He could
solve troubles in algebra, geometry, differential calculus andhigher
mathematics. So dominant was his father's power that John Stuart could
notrecollect his mother's contributions to his formative years as a child. At the
age of thirteenhe was introduced to serious reading of English Classical
Economists and published anintroductory textbook in economics entitled
Elements of Political Economy (1820) at theage of fourteen. From Thomas

181
Carlyle (1795-1881), Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772- 1834), IsidoreAuguste
Comte (1798-1857), Goethe (1749-1832), and Wordsworth (1770-1850) he
came to value poetry and art. He reviewed Alexis de Tocqueville's (1805-
59)Democracy in America in two parts in 1835 and 1840, a book that left a
thorough impacton him.
At 16 he founded the Utilitarian Society, an association of young men
who met to discuss Bentham’s ideas. He became a member of a small group
discusspolitical economy, logic and psychology. He joined the speculative
debating society and the political economy club At 17. He obtained a post in
the office of the examiner of Indiacorrespondence in the East India company
which lasted until its abolition in 1853. He soonachieved distinction in the
articles that he contributed to the Westminster Review. At the age of 20he
edited Bentham’s Rational of Evidence.
In his thinking John Stuart Mill was greatly influenced by the dialogues
and dialectics of Platoand the cross questions of Socrates. His studies were also
influenced by the writings of John Austin, Adam Smith and Ricardo. He had
inhibited Bentham’s principles from his father and Benthamhimself and found
the principles of utility the keystone of his beliefs. Among other influences,
aspecial mention is to be made of the impact exercised on J. S. Mill b his own
wife Mrs. Taylor whomhe used to call a perfect embodiment of reason,
wisdom, intellect and character. She touched theemotional depths of Mill’s
nature and provided the sympathy he needed.
J. S Mill was a prolific writer and he wrote on different branches of
knowledge with equalmastery. His System of Logic (1843) tried to elucidate a
coherent philosophy of politics. The logiccombined the British empiricist
tradition of Locke and Hume of associational psychology with aconception of
social science based on the paradigm of Newtonian physics. His Essay On
Liberty (1859) and the Subjection of Women (1869) were classic elaborations
of liberal thought onimportant issues like law, rights and liberty. Another major
work, The Considerations ofRepresentative Government (1861) provided an
outline of his ideal government based onproportional representation, protection
of minorities and institutions of self government. Hisfamous work
Utilitarianism (1863) endorsed the Benthamite principle of the greatest
happiness ofthe greatest number yet made a significant departure from the
Benthamite assumptions. It waswritten an exposition and defense of the
pleasure pain philosophy applied to ethics, but he makesso many changes that
there is little left of the original creed. He seems that human nature is
notentirely moved by self- interest as Bentham and his father had taught, but is
capable of selfsacrifice.

182
14.3 Qualitative utility
J.S Mill was a close follower of his teacher, Jeremy Bentham and his
services to Benthamare exactly the same as the service of Lenin to his master,
Karl Marx. He saved Benthanism fromdeath and decay by removing its defects
and criticisms as Lenin made Marxism up to date Millcriticized and modified
Bentham’s utilitarianism by taking into account factors like moral
motives,sociability, feeling of universal altruism, sympathy and a new concept
of justice with the key idea ofimpartiality. He asserted that the chief deficiency
of Benthanite ethics was the reflect of individualcharacter, and hence stressed
on the cultivation of feelings and imagination as part of good lifepoetry,drama,
music, paintings etc. were essential ingredients both for human happiness
andformation of character. They were instruments of human culture. He
defined happiness and dignityof man and not the principle of pleasure, the
chief end of life. He defined happiness to meanperfection of human nature,
cultivation of moral virtues and lofty aspirations, total control over
one’sappetites and desires, and recognition of individual and collective
interests.
In his desire to safeguard utilitarianism from criticisms levelled against
it, Mill goes “fartowards or overthrowing the whole utilitarian position. The
strong anti hedonist movement of his day,personified by Carlyle, determined
him to show that the utilitarian theory, although hedonistic, iselevating and not
degrading. Therefore, he sought to establish the non-utilitarian proposition
thatsome pleasures are of a higher quality than other. Bentham had denied this,
maintaining quantity ofpleasure being equal, pushpin is as good as poetry’.
Mill offers a singular proof that Bentham iswrong. Men who have experienced
both higher and lower pleasures agree, he says, in preferringthe higher, and
theirs is a decisive testimony, ‘it is better to a human being dissatisfied than a
pigsatisfied, better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the
fool or the pig is of adifferent opinion it is because they only know their side of
the question. The other party to thecomparison knows both the sides.’ Mill’s
assertion that pleasures differ in quality is no doubt a truerreflection of human
experience than is Bentham’s insistence to the contrary. It is, nevertheless,non-
utilitarian. If pleasures differ qualitatively, then the higher pleasure is the end
to be sought andnot the principles of utility. A Sedgwick, who was so ruthless
and logical a thinker, saw, if we are tobe hedonists we must say that pleasures
vary only in quantity, never in quality. Utilitarianism,because it is hedonist,
must recognize no distinction between pleasures except a quantitative one.

183
 In the course of proving his thesis that the principle of utility can admit
a qualitative distinctionof pleasures, Mill makes use of the non- utilitarian
argument that pleasures cannot in any case, beobjectively measured. The
felicific calculus is, he says, absurd and men have always relied uponthe
testimony of ‘those most competent to judge. ‘These are no other tribunal to be
referred to evenon the question of quantity. In the words of C.L. Wayper, “Mill
was of course right in maintainingthe absurdity of the felicific calculus- but if it
is admitted that pleasures can no longer be measuredobjectively, a vital breach,
has been made in the strong hold of utilitarianism.”
Mill is concerned to establish the fact that pleasures differ in quality as
well as quantity, sothat he can maintain the further non- utilitarian position that
not the principle of utility but the dignityof man is the final end of life. In his
Liberty he makes the non- utilitarian complaint that “individualspontaneity is
hardly recognized by the common modes of thinking as having any intrinsic
worth, ordeserving any regard on its own account’ He approves of Humboldt’s
doctrine of self-realization.‘It is of importance’, he says, not only what men do
but also what manner of men they are that do it’.
According to Bentham, not self-realization but the achievement of
pleasure and the avoidance ofpain was the end that they sort before men. Mill,
on the contrary, is in effect saying that onepleasure is better than another is if it
promotes the sense of dignity of man. Mill is here introducing aconception of
the good life as something more than a life devoted to pleasure. Mil’s
Introduction intoUtilitarianism of this moral criterion implies a revolutionary
change in the Benthamite position. ThusMill has once again made the state a
moral institution with a moral end. Mill has defendedutilitarianism only by
abandoning the whole utilitarian position. Mill’s non-utilitarian interest in the
sense of dignity in man leads him to give a non- utilitarianemphasis to the idea
of moral obligation. For Mill the sense of moral obligation cannot be
explainedin terms of the principle of utility. Thus while his ethics are certainly
more satisfying than Bentham’sMill is responsible for yet another important
alteration in Benthamism.
Mill has pointed out that every human action had three aspects:
1. The moral aspect of right or wrong;
2. The aesthetic aspect (or its beauty); and
3. The sympathetic aspect of loveableness.
The first principle instructed one to disapprove, the second taught one
to admire or despise, andthe third enabled one to love, pity or dislike. He
regarded individual self-development and diversityas the ultimate ends,

184
important components of human happiness and the principal ingredients
ofindividual and social progress.
Mill used the principle of utility which he regarded as the ultimate
appeal on all ethicalquestions to support his principle of liberty, but then it was
utilitarianism based on the permanentinterests of the individual as a progressive
being. He made a distinction between toleration andsuppression of offensive
practices. In case of offences against public decency, majority sentimentwould
prevail. Beyond these, the minorities must be granted the freedom of thought
and expression,and the right to live as they pleased.
In one another respect J.S Mill definitely makes an improvement over
the utilitarian theory ofBentham. Bentham had not spoken about the social
nature of morality that society itself has a moralend- the moral good of its
members. From the contention that every individual desires’ his ownhappiness
Mill held that the individual should desire and promote general happiness. It is
thusobvious that Mill stood not for an individual’s happiness but for the
general happiness of thecommunity as a whole. He regarded utility as a noble
sentiment associated with Christian religion.
In addition to the above differences, Mill also tried to reconcile the
interests of the individualand the society. He spoke of nobility of character, a
trait that was closely related to altruism,meaning people did what was good for
society, rather than for themselves. The pleasures theyderived from doing good
for society might outweigh the ones that aimed at self-indulgence,contributing
to their happiness. Mill saw social feelings and consciences as part of
thepsychological attributes of a person. He characterized society as being
natural and habitual, for theindividual was a social person. As Prof. Sabine has
rightly pointed out, Mill’s ethics was importantfor liberalism because in effect
it abandoned egoism, assumed that social welfare is a matter ofconcern to all
men of good will and regarded freedom, integrity, self- respect and personal
distinctionas intrinsic goods apart from their contribution to happiness”. Under
the sociological influence ofAugust Comte and others, Mill introduces a
historical approach to the study of man and humaninstitutions and is against the
beBenthamite static view of human nature and human institutions.
14.4 Liberty
Mill’s ideason liberty had a direct relationship with his theory of utility
or happiness. Mill regarded liberty as a necessary means for the development
of individuality which was to become theultimate source of happiness. There
was only one road for him to take and that was the road ofhigher utility. In his
well known work, On Liberty, Mill thoroughly examines the problem of
therelationship between the individual on the one side and the society and state

185
on the other.Mill lived at a time when the policy of laissez faire was being
abandoned in favor of greaterregulation by the state of the actions of the
individual. Besides, due to the growth of democracy, theindividual was getting
lost in the society. To Mill this increasing regulation and elimination of
theindividual was a wrong and harmful development. He believed that the
progress of societydepended largely on the originality and energy of the
individual. He, therefore, becomes a great advocate of individual freedom.
According to J.S.Mill, liberty means absence of restraints. He believes
that an individual has twoaspects to his life: an individual aspect and social
aspects. The actions of the individual may bedivided into two categories, i.e.
1. Self-Regarding activities and
2. Other regarding activities. With regard to activities in which he alone is
concerned, his libertyof action is complete and should not be regulated
by the state. However, in action of the individualwhich affects the
society his action can be justifiably regulated by the state or society. In
his OnLiberty, J.S. Mill wrote thus: the sole end for which mankind are
warranted individually orcollectively in interfering with the liberty of
action of any of their members is self-preservation. Thatis the only
purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any members
of a civilizedcommunity against his will is to prevent harm to other.
Mill defended the right of the individual freedom. In its negative sense,
it meant that society had noright to coerce an unwilling individual, except for
self defense. In its positive sense it means thatgrant of the largest and the
greatest amount of freedom for the pursuit of individuals creativeimpulses and
energies and for self- development. If there was a clash between the opinion of
theindividual and that of the community, it was the individual who was the
ultimate judge, unless thecommunity could convince him without resorting to
threat and coercion.
Mill laid down the grounds for justifiable interference. Any activity that
pertained to theindividual alone represented the space over which no coercive
interference either form thegovernment or from other people, was permissible.
The realm which pertained to the society or thepublic was the space in which
coercion could be used to make the individual conform to somestandard of
conduct. The distinction between the two areas was stated by the distinction
Mill madebetween self regarding and other regarding actions, a distinction
made originally by Bentham. Millin his On Liberty wrote thus: “The only part
of the conduct of any one for which is amenable tosociety, is that which
concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, hisindependence

186
is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual
issovereign”.
Mill defended the right of individuality, which meant the right of
choice. As for as self-regardingactions were concerned, he explained why
coercion would be detrimental to self development.First, the evils of coercion
far outweighed the good achieved. Second, individuals were so diversein their
needs and cap cities for happiness that coercion would be futile. Since the
person was thebest judge of his own interests, therefore he had the information
and the incentive to achieve them.Third, since diversity was in itself good,
other things being equal it should be encouraged. Last,freedom was the most
important requirement in the life of a rational person. Hence, he made astrong
case for negative liberty, and the liberal state and liberal society were essential
prerequisites.
Mill contended that society could limit individual liberty to prevent
harm to other people. Heregarded as theory of conscience, liberty to express
and publish one’s opinions, liberty to live asone pleased and freedom of
association as essential for a meaningful life and for the pursuit ofone’s own
good. His defiance of freedom of thought and expression was one of the most
powerfuland eloquent expositions in the western intellectual traditions. The
early liberals defended libertyfor the sake of efficient government whereas for
Mill liberty has good in itself for it helped in thedevelopment of humane,
civilized moral person In the opinion of Prof. Sabine, “liberty wasbeneficial
both to society that permits them and to the individual that enjoys them”.
According to Mill, individuality means power or capacity for critical
enquiry and responsiblethought. It means self-development and the expression
of free will. He stressed absolute liberty ofconscience, belief and expression for
they were crucial to human progress. Mill offered twoarguments for liberty of
expression in the service of truth; a) the dissenting opinion could be trueand its
suppression would rob mankind of useful knowledge, and b) even if the
opinion was false, itwould strengthen the correct view by challenging it.
For Mill all creative faculties and the great goods of life could develop
only through freedomand experiments in living. On Liberty constituted the
most persuasive and convincing defense of theprinciple of individual liberty
ever written. Happiness, for Mill was the ability of the individual todiscover his
innate powers and develop these while exercising his human abilities of
autonomousthought and action. Liberty was regarded as a fundamental
prerequisite for leading a good, worthyand dignified life.

187
 Mill clarified his position on liberty by defending three specific
liberties, the liberty of thoughtand expression including the liberty of speaking
and publishing, the liberty of action and that ofassociation. Mill wrote thus: ‘If
all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one personwere of the
contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one
person , thanhe if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.’
Mill provided some reasons for thefreedom of expression. For Mill since the
dominant ideas of a society usually emanate from theclass interests of that
society’s ascendant class, the majority opinion may be quite far from thetruth
or from the social interest. Human beings, according to Mill are fallible
creatures- and theircertainty that the opinion they hold is true is justified only
when their opinion is constantly opposedto contrary opinions.
When comes to the liberty of action Mill asserted a very simple
principle: the sole end forwhich mankind are warranted, individually or
collectively, interfering with the liberty of action of anyof their number is self
protection… The only purpose for which power can be rightfullyexercised over
any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to
others.
Mill defended freedom of association on three grounds. First ‘when the
thing to be done is likely tobe done better by individuals than by government.
Speaking generally, there is no one fit toconduct any business or to determine
how or by whom it shall be conducted as those who arepersonally interested in
it. Second, allowing individuals to get together to do something, even ifthey do
not do it as well as the government might have done it is better for the mental
education ofthese individuals. The right of association becomes a ‘practical
part of the political education of afree people taking them out of the narrow
circle of personal and family selfishness and accustomingthem to the
comprehension of joint concerns habituating them to act from public or semi-
publicmotives, and guide their conduct by aims which unite instead of isolating
them from one another. Further, government operations tend to be everywhere
alike, with individuals and voluntaryassociations, on the contrary there are
varied experiments and endless diversity of experience.Thus Mill wanted
individuals to constantly better themselves morally, mentally and
materially.Individuals improving themselves would naturally lead to a better
and improved society.
Mill's ideal was improvement — he wanted individuals to constantly
betterthemselves morally, mentally and materially. It was to this ideal that he
saw individualliberty as instrumental: ―The only unfailing and permanent
source of improvement isliberty, since through it there are as several possible

188
self-governing centres ofimprovement as there are individuals." Individuals
improving themselves would naturallylead to a better and improved society.
Mill’s doctrine of liberty has been subjected to severe criticisms from
different corners. SirErnest Barker made an interesting observation when he
remarked that Mill was a prophet of anempty liberty and an abstract
individual’. Mill had no clear cut theory and philosophy of rightsthrough which
alone the concept of liberty attains a concrete meaning. Ernest Barkers
observationfollowed from the interpretation that the absolute statements on
liberty like the rights of oneindividual against the rest was not substantiated
when one assessed Mills writings in their totality.For instance, his
compartmentalization between self- regarding and other regarding actions,
andthe tensions between his tilt towards welfares which conflicted with
individualism were allindications of this incompleteness. But the point Barker
ignored was the fact that the tension thatemerged in Mill was an inevitable
consequence of attempting to create a realistic political theorywhich attempted
to extend the frontiers of liberty as much as possible. In fact, no political
thinker including the contemporary thinkers like John Rawls, Robert Nozicketc
are free from this inevitable tension.
14.5 Representative Government
Mill began his Representative Government through stating that we can
onlydecide which is the best form of government, through examining which
form ofgovernment fulfils mainly adequately the purposes of government. For
Mill, the point ofhaving a government was that it performs two main functions:
it necessity uses the existingqualities and skills of the citizens to best serve
their interests, and it necessity improve themoral, intellectual and active
qualities of these citizens. A despotic government may beable to fulfill the first
purpose, but will fail in the second. Only a representativegovernment is able to
fulfill these two functions. It is a representative government thatcombines
judiciously the two principles of participation and competence which is able
tofulfill the two functions of protecting and educating the citizens.
For Mill’s point that participation inthe political procedure necessity be
as extensive as possible, so that every individual has asay in controlling the
government and therefore protecting his interests. It is on thisfoundation that
Mill demanded the right to vote for women. He advocated the extensionof the
suffrage to cover everyone except those who could not read and write, did not
pay taxes or were on parish relief.
Whereas his belief in participation led him to advocate a widening of
thefranchise, his belief in competence led him to recommend plural voting. In
information,lie said that the franchise should not be widened without plural

189
voting being introduced.Plural voting meant that with everyone having at least
one vote, some individuals wouldhave more than one vote because they were,
for instance, more educated. It assumed 'agraduated level of educational
attainments, awarding at the bottom, one additional vote toa skilled labourer
and two to a foreman, and at the top, as several as five to professionalmen,
writers and artists, public functionaries, university graduates and members
oflearned societies. Plural voting would ensure that a better caliber of deputies
would beelected, and so the common interest would not be hampered through
the poor excellenceof members of Parliament.
Mill sought to combine his two principles in other institutions of
representativedemocracy as well. Take the representative assembly, for
instance. Mill said that thisbody necessity be 'a committee of grievances and 'a
congress of opinions'. Every opinionexisting in the nation should discover a
voice here; that is how every group's interestshave a better chance of being
protected. At the similar time Mill argued that this body wassuited for the
business neither of legislation nor of administration. Legislation was to
beframed through a Codification Commission made up of a few competent
legal experts.Administration should be in the hands of the bureaucracy, an
institution characterisedthrough instrumental competence, that is, the skill to
discover the mainly efficient meansto fulfill given goals. Mill's arguments
employed two types of competence—instrumentaland moral. Instrumental
competence is the skill to discover the best means to sure endsand the skill to
identify ends that satisfy individuals' interests as they perceive them.Moral
competence is the skill to discern ends that are intrinsically superior for
individualsand society. Morally competent leaders are able to recognise the
common interest andresist the sinister interests that dwell not only in the
government but also in thedemocratic majority. The purpose of plural voting is
to ensure that morally competent leaders get elected to the legislature.
What in relation to the other goal of government, that of creation the
citizensintellectually and morally better? Again it is a representative
government that is based ona combination of participation and competence
which is able to improve the excellence ofits citizens in the mental, moral and
practical characteristics. Let us again seem at some ofthe specific institutional
changes recommended through Mill. He wanted to replace then secret ballot
with open voting, that is, everyone necessity knows how one has voted.
ForMill, the franchise was not one's right in the sense of, for instance, the right
to property,which implies that one can dispose of one's property in any
arbitrary manner. Thefranchise is a. trust, or a public duty, and one necessity
cast one's vote for that candidatewhose policies appear to best further the
general interest. It is the require to justify one'svote to others that creates the

190
vote an instrument of one's intellectual and moral growth.Otherwise one would
use one's vote power voting for instance, for someone because ofthe colour of
his eyes. Everyone necessity have the franchise, but it necessity be open—this
is how Mill combined the principle of participation and competence in the
suffrage,to ensure the improvement of the voting citizens.
Representative government scores in excess of despotism not because it
better protects the given interests of thecitizens, but because it is able to
improve these citizens. The citizens develop theircapabilities through being
able to participate in government, minimally through castingtheir vote, and also
through actually taking decisions in local government. At the similartime, this
participation is leavened through the principle of competence to ensure that
thepolitical experience does have an educational effect.
14.6 Equal Rights for Women
Mill's referent for the legal subordination of women was the mid
th
19 Century English law of the marriage contract. Through this law, married
Englishwomencould hold no property in their own name, and even if their
parents gifted them anyproperty that too belonged to their husbands. Unless a
woman was legally separated fromher husband, (a hard and expensive
procedure) even if she existed absent from him, herearnings belonged officially
to him. Through law, only the father and not the mother wasthe guardian of a
couple's children. Mill also cited the absence of laws on marital rape toprove
the inequality suffered through the Englishwomen of that time.
What Mill establish paradoxical was that in the contemporary age,
when in otherregions the principles of liberty and equality were being asserted,
they were yet notapplied to the condition of women. No one whispered in
slavery any more, yet womenwere sometimes treated worse than slaves were
and this was accepted as beyond questioning.Mill wanted to explain this
resistance to women's equality in the contest of a commonacceptance of the
principles of equality and liberty. We did so through first presenting andthen
defeating the arguments for women's subordination, and then providing his
ownarguments for women‘s equality.
The first argument for women's inequality which Mill refuted was that
sincehistorically it has been a universal practice, so there necessity be some
justification for it.Contra this, Mill showed that other so described universal
social practices like slavery, forinstance, had been rejected, so perhaps given
time women‘s inequality would alsobecome unacceptable. Mill also said that
from the subsistence of something, one couldargue for the rightness of that
thing, only if the alternative has been tried, and in the caseof women,
livelihood with them on equal conditions had never been done. The cause

191
whywomen's inequality had survived slavery and political absolutism was not
because it, wasjustifiable, but because whereas only slave holders and despots
had an interest in holdingon to slavery and despotism, all men, Mill argued,
had an interest in women‘ssubordination.
A second argument for women‘s inequality was based on women‘s
nature—women were said to be naturally inferior to men. Mill's response was
that one could notcreate arguments in relation to the women's inequality based
on natural differencesbecause these differences were a result of socialisation.
Mill was usually against byhuman nature as a ground for any claim, since he
whispered that human nature changedjust as to the social environment. At the
similar time, Mill also pointed out that in spite ofbeing treated so differently
from men, several women throughout history had shown anextraordinary
aptitude for political leadership —here Mill cited examples of Europeanqueens
and Hindu princesses.
The third argument refuted through Mill was that there is nothing
wrong withwomen‘s subordination because women accept it voluntarily. Mill
pointed out that thisclaim was empirically wrong— several women had written
tracts against women'sinequality and hundreds of women were already
demonstrating in the streets of Londonfor women's suffrage. Further, since
women had 110 choices but to live with theirhusbands, they were afraid that
their complaints in relation to their location wouldonly lead to worse treatment
from them. Lastly, Mill also claimed that since all womenwere brought up
from childhood to consider that their ideal of character is theextremely
opposite to that of men; not self-will, and government through self-manage,
butsubmission, and yielding to the manage of others, what was not to be
remarked wasthat some women accepted this subordination willingly but that
so several women resistedit.
The last point against which Mill argued was that for a family to
function well, one decision maker is needed, and the husband is best suited to
be this decision maker.Mill scoffed at this argument—the husband and wife
being both adults, there was no cause why the husband should take all the
decisions.
Having refuted all of these four arguments for women's inequality, Mill
wrote:―There are several persons for whom it is not enough that the inequality
has no presentlyor legitimate defence; they require to be told what express
advantage would be obtainedthrough abolishing it." The question was, would
society benefit if women were grantedequal rights. Answering in the
affirmative, Mill detailed four social benefits of women‘sequality.

192
 The first advantage would be that the family would no longer be "a
school ofdespotism. Just as to Mill, the patriarchal family teaches all its
members how to live inhierarchical relationships, since all power is
concentrated in the hands of thehusband/father/master whom the
wife/children/servants have to obey. For Mill suchfamilies are an anachronism
in modem democratic polities based on the principle ofequality. Individuals
who live in such families cannot be good democratic citizensbecause they do
not know how to treat another citizen as an equal: ―Any sentiment offreedom
which can exist in a man whose adjacent and dearest intimacies are with
thoseof whom he is absolute master, is not the genuine love of freedom, but,
what the love offreedom usually was in the ancients and in the middle ages—
an intense feeling of thedignity and importance of his own personality; creation
him disdain a yoke forhimself,...but which he is abundantly ready to impose on
others for his own interest orglorification." In the interests of democratic
citizenship then, it was necessary to obtainequality for women in the family.
Another advantage, Mill pointed out, would be the "doubling of the
mass ofmental faculties" accessible to society. Not only would society benefit
because therewould be more doctors, engineers, teachers, and scientists (all
women); ail additionaladvantage would be that men in the professions would
perform better because ofcompetition from their female colleagues.
Third, women enjoying equality will have a better power on mankind,
Underdealings of subordination, women assert their wills only in all sorts of
perverse methods; with equality, they will no longer require to do this.
Finally, through giving women equal rights, their happiness would be
increasedmanifold, and this would satisfy-Mill argued, the utilitarian principle
of the greatesthappiness of the greatest number.
Summary
Mill's liberalism provided the first major framework of modern
democratic equality by extendingthe logic of the defence of liberty to end the
subjection of women As a Member of Parliament he tried to push through a
law allowing women to vote, all was disappointed when that didnot happen. He
was the first male philosopher, as Okin points out to write about
women'soppression and subjugation.He also portrayed the wide diversity in our
society and cautionedthe need to protect the individual from the fear of
intruding his private domain by a collectivegroup or public opinion. The
distinction between self-regarding and other-regarding actionwould determine
the individual's private independent sphere and the later, the individual'ssocial
public sphere. He stressed on the need to protect the rights of the minority
within a democracy. He understood the shortcomings of classical utilitarian

193
liberalism and advocated vigorously for important state actions in providing
compulsory state education and social control.Realising that his scheme is very
different from tthat of Bentham, he also described himself asa socialist. His
revision of liberalism provided the impetus to T.H. Green who combining
theBritish liberal tradition with the continental one provided a new basis of
liberalism with hisnotion of common good."The social problem of the future
we considered to be, howto unite the greatest individual liberty of action, with
a common ownership in the raw materialof the globe, and an equal
participation of all in the benefits of combined labour." If these arethe
requisites of the greatest happiness of the greatest number, the link between
capitalism and democracy, had become questionable for the later Mill.
Model questions
1. How does Mill attempt to subsume justice and rights under the
conceptof utility'?
2. How would you choose between a natural rights and a utilitariandefence
of individual liberty?

194
 CHAPTER – 15
KARL MARX (1818-1883)
Structure
15.1 Introduction
15.2 Life and times
15.3 Base – Super Structure Relations
15.4 Dialectical Method
15.5 Theory of Historical Materialism
15.6 Theory of Class War
15.7 Theory of surplus value
15.8 Theory of Alienation
15.9 Theory of Revolution
15.10 Dictatorship of Proletariat
15.11 Critique of capitalism
15.12 Critical Apprisal of Marxism
15.1 Introduction
In the whole history of political thought, both in power and in criticism,
few political theorists can match Karl Heinrich Marx. Reflecting of the modern
world from the background of Victorian optimism in England,Marx was
confident of human liberation through transcending the realm ofnecessity to a
realm of freedom.He was truly the last of the great critics in the Western
intellectualtradition. His ideas exerted a decisive influence on all aspects of
human endeavour, andtransformed the study of history and society. He was the
first thinker to bring together the variousstrands of socialist thought into both a
coherent world view and an impassioned doctrine of struggle.Along with
Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) with whom he shared an unparalleled
partnership, Marxdissected 19th century capitalism as scientific socialism or
Marxism. Marxism is not only a criticalappraisal of capitalism, but also a
viable or credible alternative to it. Marx brought about a seachange in the entire
methodology of the social sciences. He was “a brilliant agitator and
polemicist,a profound economist, a great sociologist, and incomparable
historian”.
15.2 Life and times
Karl Marx was born in March 5, 1818 win a predominantly Catholic
city of Trier in theRhineland in a Jewish family.Marx attended the University
of Berlin for several years where he studied jurisprudence, philosophy, and
history. Young Marx was a brilliant student who read and eventually took

195
doctorate in philosophy with dissertation on ancient atomism.He
quicklybecame engaged in political activities and in 1842 joined the staff of a
democratic newspaper inCologne. In the following year the paper was
suppressed by the Prussian Government and Marxwent to Paris, then the
European headquarters of radical movements. In Paris he met Proudhon,the
leading French Socialist thinker, Bakunin, the Russian anarchist , and Friedrich
Engels, aRhinelander like Marx, and soon to become his life long companion
and close collaborator. Engelswas the son of a German textile manufacture
with business interests, in Germany and England, andhe was sent by his father
to Manchester in 1842. His conditions of the Working Class in English(1844)
was a remarkably penetrating study drabness and poverty in the midst of
luxurious wealth,and Engels was the first to draw Marx’s attention to England
as a laboratory in which industrialcapitalism could be most accurately
observed. In 1845 Marx was expelled from France through theintervention of
the Prussian Government and he went to Brussels, another center of
politicalrefugees from all over Europe. There Marx composed with the aid of
Engels, the CommunistManifesto (1848), the most influential of all his
writings, a pamphlet that has made history, inspireddevotion and hatred, and
divided mankind more profoundly than any other political document.
Marxparticipated in the revolutions of 1848 in France and Germany, and early
in 1849 he was expelledagain by the Prussian government, and forbidden to
return to his native land.
He went to London in the late summer of 1849, soon followed by
EngelMarx had plannedto stay in England for only a few weeks, but he stayed
there until his death in 1883. Marx’s writingsshow little penetration of English
political ideas and ways of thought, and his lack of insight intothe forces and
innovations of English politics would have been little better or worse had he
stayed inGermany all his life. By contrast, his writings demonstrate a profound
knowledge of the English economic system based on detailed and painstaking
research.
Marx’s principal doctrines were not new; but he greatly amplified a
systematised older ideas, putting them into new and effective communications.
He attempted to show that a socialistprogramme must be based upon a
systematic interpretation of social evaluations and a critical analysis of the
existing system of production and exchange. His design was to show how
asocialist community is to be built upon capitalist foundations. Marx described
his socialism asscientific.

196
 Marx inherited and integrated three legacies, German philosophy,
French political thought andEnglish economics in his theoretical foundation.
From the German intellectual traditions, heborrowed the Hegelian method of
dialectics and applied it to the material world. From the Frenchrevolutionary
tradition he accepted the idea that change motivated by a messianic idea was
notonly desirable, but also feasible. He applied his method with a view to
bringing about large scalechange within the industrialised capitalist economy
of which England was the classical model in the19th century. Marx interpreted
liberalism and classical economics as articulating and defending theinterests of
the middle class. He proposed to create a social philosophy that was in tune
with theaspirations of the rising proletariat. Like Hegel, he looked upon the
French Revolution as anindication of the demise of feudalism, but while Hegel
contended that the revolution would culminatein the emergence of nation
states, Marx looked upon it as a prelude to a more fundamental andcomplete
revolution beyond the nation state. The French Revolution, which brought the
middleclass to the forefront with the destruction of the nobility, was essentially
a political revolution.
Marx has written so extremely on various issues of history, economics,
philosophy, societyand politics. As Prof. William Ebenstein has rightly pointed
out, Marx’s analysis of the capitalistsystem has influenced the making of
history even more than the writing of history. During hisstudent days, Marx
was attracted to Hegelian Idealism but he soon shifted his interest tohumanism
and ultimately to scientific socialism. The books, articles, pamphlets of Marx
werewritten during three decades from the early forties to the early seventies.
Major works of Marxincluded Critique of Political Economy, The Communist
Manifesto, Das Capital. Although the firstvolume of his great work Das Capital
was published in 1867, the second and third volumes wereedited after his death
by Engels from the vast amount of manuscript material that he left.
Marx’spolitical philosophy has to be gathered from many incidental remarks
and comments in his writingand letters, as he never wrote systematic
statements on the basic assumptions of his thought. Inthe preface to his
Critique of Political Economy (1859), Marx briefly states his general
philosophyof history, based on the thesis that “the anatomy of civil society is to
be found in political economy”.
Marx, before the Paris commune, never described himself as a socialist,
let alone a scientificsocialist. He always identified himself as a communist.
There are good reasons for this. Socialismpre-dated Marx; it was already
flourishing on French soil when Marx arrived in Paris in 1843, as amovement
which advocated economic well being and legislative protection for the
workers,universal suffrage, civil rights of association and freedom of opinion

197
and cultural opportunities forthe poor. Marx believed that socialism, like
Proudhonism, was by definition utopian and doctrinaire, and that it was by the
same token a false brother to communism; he thought that for this reason
itsvery name should be avoided. Marxism made its bid after the socialist
movement had alreadybecome organised, conscious, active, doctrinaire and
French, which does much to explain the relative a slowness of the penetration
of Marxism into the French radical tradition.
15.3 Base – Super Structure Relations
In order to understand the Marxist position on the origin and nature of
the state, it is essential todistinguish between the foundation or base of society
and the structure above its foundation or thesuper structure. In this building-
like metaphor it is assumed that the character of the superstructurewill depend
on the character of the base. The forces of production constitute the basis of
allsocial relationship; they belong to the base or sub structure. Legal and
political structure, religion, morals and social customs belong to the
superstructure of society, rests upon the prevailingeconomic conditions. In the
preface to his Critique of Political Economy, Karl Marx observed that“Legal
relations as well as form of state… are rooted in the material conditions of
life”. Elaboratingthe relation between the real foundation and the super-
structure, Marx further observed:” In thesocial production which men carry on
they enter into definite relations that are indispensable andindependent of their
will, these relations of production correspond to a definite state of
developmentof their material powers of production. The sum total of these
relations of production constitutes theeconomic structure of society - the real
foundation, on which rise legal and political superstructuresand to which
correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production in
material life determines the general character of the social, political and
spiritual process of life.”
This distinction between the economic structure or substructure of a
society and its correspondingsuperstructure constitutes an important element of
Marxian social analysis. The economic structureof society determines the
superstructure of consciousness. This is simply another way of saying thatlife
determines consciousness. This superstructure of consciousness corresponds to
legal andpolitical institutions that are also super structural, that is, determined
by the economic base ofsociety. Thus the economic structure (class) of society
determines its political structure and determines as well corresponding social
and political beliefs and values.

198
 According to Marx, this superstructure of political consciousness, and
indeed the whole culturalapparatus of ideas, beliefs and values, constitutes
misperceptions of social reality. Thus, while it istrue that life determines
consciousness, it does not determine it in ways that necessarily illustratethe
true character of social life. Indeed consciousness not only mistakes the nature
of social realitybut also plays the role of justifying the very reality that gives
rise to these misperceptions. Marxcalls these forms of social misperception, as
“false consciousness” There are a variety of ways in which consciousness may
be characterised as ideological.
15.4 Dialectical Method
The doctrine of dialectical materialism is one of the most important
contributions of Karl Marx to theworld. Karl Marx is indebted to both Hegel
and Hobbes for his theory of dialectical materialism.Dialectical materialism
holds that the world is by its very nature material and it develops inaccordance
with the laws of movement of matter. The evolution of the world is not one of
Idea orUniversal Spirit as held by Hegelian idealists, but the evolution of
matter or material forces. Mattergenerates sensations, perceptions and
consciousness.
Marx borrowed his dialectical method from Hegel but customized it ina
fundamental method. While Hegel had applied his dialectical method in
thedomain of thoughts, Marx applied the Dialectics to explain the
materialcircumstances of life. In the procedure of doing so he denounced the
Hegelianphilosophy of dialectical idealism, on the one hand, and the theory
ofmechanistic materialism, on the other. Hence, the Marxian theory of
societyand history may be described Dialectical Materialism.
In the dialectical materialism of Marx evolution is the development of
matter from within environment helping or hindering but neither originating
the evolutionary neither process nor capable ofpreventing it from reaching its
inevitable goal. Matter is active and not passive and moves by andinner
necessity of nature. In other words, Dialectical materialism of Marx is more
interested inmotion than matter, in the vital energy within matter inevitably
driving it towards, perfect humansociety. As Engels has rightly pointed out, the
dialectical method grasps things and their images,ideas essentially in their
sequence, their movement, their birth and death’. This motion thatdialectical
materialism entails in possible by the conflict of the opposites. According to
Marx,every state of history which falls short of perfection carries within itself
the seeds of its owndestruction. Each stage reached in the march to the
classless society, the thesis calls into being itsopposite or anti-thesis and from
the clash between the two, a new synthesis and from the clashbetween the two,

199
a new synthesis emerges in which what was true in both thesis and anti-
thesisand from the clash between the two. A new synthesis emerges in which
what was true in boththesis and anti- thesis is preserved which serves as a
starting point for the whole process again untilthe classless society has been
achieved.
Nowhere unfortunately Marx tells us what he means by materialism,
But at least he makes it clearthat his materialism is dialectical not mechanical.
In mechanical materialism evolution is the pathtaken by material. In
mechanical materialism evolution is the path taken by material things underthe
pressure of their environment. In dialectical materialism evolution is the
development of matterwithin, environment helping or hindering but neither
originating the evolutionary neither process norcapable of preventing it from
reaching its inevitable goal. Matter to the dialectical materialist is notpassive,
and moves by an inner necessity of its nature. Therefore, dialectical
materialism is moreinterested in motion than in matter, in a vital energy within
matter inevitably driving it towardsperfect human society just as Hegel’s
demiurge drove forward to the perfect realization of spirit. As Engels said: ‘the
dialectical method grasps things and their images, ideas, essentially in their
sequence, their movement, their birth and death”.
“Contradiction” then, as Hegel says,” is the very moving principle of
the world. But for the Marxist asfor the Hegelian, it works in a peculiar way.
The change it produces takes place gradually until acertain point is reached
beyond which it becomes sudden so that each synthesis is brought aboutvery
abruptly. As C.L. Wayper in his Political Thought has rightly pointed out, this
change as:“Water becomes ice, Feudalism capitalism, capitalism socialism, as
a result of a sudden qualitative change’.
For Hegel the universal substance isSpirit; for Marx it is Matter. Both
Spirit and Matter used to develop themselves and both do so theidea fully
conscious of itself; for Marx the inevitable goal is the classless society,
perfectlyorganized for production, sufficient for itself. Neither Hegel nor Marx
proves that the goal whichthey state to be inevitable is indeed so. Both begin
with the assumption that it is and in bothhistorical analysis serves to illustrate
but not to prove the initial act of faith. The only importantdifferences between
them are that Marx applied the dialectic to the future and indulged in
muchpseudo- scientific which Hegel would have been the first to condemn, and
that of course, hecompletely rejected Hegel’s philosophic idealism. As Marx
wrote in the Preface to the secondedition of Das Capital:In Hegel’s writings,
dialectic stands on its head. You must turn it right away up again if you want to
discover the rational kernel that is hidden away with in the wrappings of

200
mystification”.This he did through creation matter primary and mind
secondary.
It is beyond dispute that dialectic materialism is the corner- stone of
Marxist philosophy. Thematerialistic interpretation of history and the theory of
class struggle based on the theory of surplusvalue are its applications. Dialectic
materialism helps us to distinguish the contradictions of reality,to understand
their significance and follow their development.
15.5 Theory of Historical Materialism
Historical materialism is the application of the principles of dialectical
materialism to thedevelopment of society. It is, in fact, an economic
interpretation of history, according to which allthe mass phenomena of history
are determined by economic conditions. The theory begins withthe “simple
truth” which is the clue to the meaning of history, that man must eat to live’.
His verysurvival depends upon the success with which he can produce what he
wants from nature.Production is, therefore, the most important of all human
activities.
In his ‘Socialism: Utopian and Scientific’ Engels defined historical
materialism as a theorywhich holds that the ultimate cause which determines
the whole course of human history is theeconomic development of society. The
whole course of human history is explained in terms ofchanges occurring in the
modes of production and exchange. Starting with primitive communism,the
mode of production has passed through three stages: slavery, feudalism,
capitalism, andthe consequent division of society into three distinct classes
(Slave- master, serf - baron andproletariat- capitalist) and the struggle of these
classes against one another. The most profoundstatement of Marx which
explains his theory of historical materialism is contained in his ‘Preface toa
contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”. In this work Marx wrote
thus.“The economic structure of society, constituted by its relations of
production is the real foundations of society. It is the basis on which rises a
legal and political super- structure and to whichcorrespond definite forms of
social consciousness. Along with it the society’s relations ofproduction
themselves correspond to a definite stage of development of its material
productiveforces. Thus the mode of production of material life determines the
social, political and intellectuallife process in general. ‘
The forms of production which under the society change according to
necessities inherent inthem so as to produce their successors merely by their
own working.The system, for instance,characterized by the “hand mill” crates
an economic and social situation in which the adoption of themechanical
method of milling becomes a practical necessity. The “steam mill” in turn

201
creates newsocial functions, new groups, new out looks, which in turn outgrow
their own frame. The factorieswhich are necessary to solve the economic
problems of the 18th century create the conditions of 19thcentury problems.
These self- developing forms of production are the propeller which accounts
first for economic and then for social change, a propeller which requires no
external impetus.
Every society, Marx says, is confronted with problems which it must
face and solve- or collapse.But the possibility of collapse is never considered,
though no great knowledge of history is neededto convince one that
civilizations can and do collapse. Indeed in his Critique of Political Economy
Marx even says: ‘Mankind always takes up only such problems as it can
solve”. Finally, theproductive forces inherent in any society develop
completely before a change takes place, and thechange itself will be sudden as
when 0water turns into steam. In such sudden revolutionary change,the entire
structure of society will be evolutionally transformed, until the new society in
its turn isoverthrown and remoulded.
Marx developed his own materialist theory of history by way of a
critique of idealism and theidealist interpretation of history. This critique and
the basic outline of his own materialist conceptionwere published in 1846 as
the German Ideology, with Engels as co-author.Beforepeople can make history
they must first exist, not abstractly as philosophical categories, butconcretely as
actual existing material entities. It thus follows for Marx that any valid
historicalanalysis must begin with the ways in which human beings materially
produce themselves, both asindividuals and as species. This involves they
study of those productive or “historical acts” asMarx calls them, by which
people provide for the necessities of survival: and the social forms
ofreproduction by which the species as a whole is perpetuated; it is an obvious
and undisputable factthat these historical acts of production have “existed
simultaneously since the dawn of history andthe first men, and still assert
themselves in history today.”
The Marxian philosophy of historical materialism is different not only
from Hegelianphilosophy; it is also different from that of Feuerbach. While
Feuerbach saw the unity of man andnature expressed by man’s being a part of
nature, Marx sees man as shaping nature and his being,in turn, shaped by it. In
other words, whereas Feuerbach materializes man, Marx humanizes
nature.Marx argued that man not only satisfies his needs through his contact
with nature but also createsnew needs as well as possibilities of their
satisfaction. Thus, according to Marx, man’s needs arehistorical, not
naturalistic.

202
 Historical materialism is a variety of determinism which as understood
by Marx implies that social orpolitical change is not really brought about by
“ideas”, that is by various schemes for social orpolitical reform. It is the modes
of production and distribution that determine social and politicalforms of
organization, not vice versa. Marx maintains that the prevailing ideology of a
society reflectsthe class interest of those who control the means of production
and distribution within the society,Historical materialism is a variety of
determinism which as understood by Marx implies that social orpolitical
change is not really brought about by “ideas”, that is by various schemes for
social orpolitical reform. It is the modes of production and distribution that
determine social and politicalforms of organization, not vice versa. Marx
maintains that the prevailing ideology of a society reflectsthe class interest of
those who control the means of production and distribution within the society,
15.6 Theory of Class War
The understanding of the concept of “class” is central to the
understanding of Marxianphilosophy. The sole criterion on the basis of which
the class of a person is determined is hisownership (or control) of means of
production (land, capital, technology etc.) those who own orcontrol the means
of production constitute the bourgeoisie (exploiters), and those who own
onlylookout power constitute the proletariat (exploited.) Thus classes are
defined by Marx on the basisof twin criteria of a person’s place in the mode of
production and his consequent position in terms ofrelations of production.
Since class is based on ownership of means of production and ownership
ofproperty, the disappearance of property as the determining factor of station.
During differenthistorical phases, these two classes were known by different
names and enjoyed different legalstatus and privileges; but one thing was
common that one of exploitation and domination. Class isdetermined by the
extent to which people own most, same or little of the means of production or
bytheir relationship to the means of production. Marx wrote thus: “Freeman
and slave, patrician andplebian, lord and serf, guild-master and Rneyman, in a
word, oppressor and oppressed, stood inconstant opposition to one another.”
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels said, “The history of all
hitherto existing society is thehistory of class struggle”. They argue that class
conflict is the real driving force of human history. Inthe capitalist societies call
differentiation is most clear, class consciousness in more developed andclass
conflict is most acute. Thus capitalism is the culminating point in the historical
evolution ofclasses and class conflict. The distinctive feature of bourgeois
epoch is that society as a whole ismore and more splitting up into two great

203
hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing eachother-bourgeoisie and
proletariat.
Marx made a distinction between the objective facts of existence of a
class and itssubjective awareness about its being a class- consciousness.
Division of labor is the main sourceof historical emergence of classes and class
antagonisms. Through a detailed historical analysisMarx showed that no major
antagonism disappears unless there emerges a new antagonism.Each new class
which puts itself in lay of the one ruling before it is compelled, merely in order
to carrythrough its aims, to symbolize its interest as the general interest of all
themembers of society. The class creation a revolution appears from
theextremely beginning not as a class but as the representative of the
wholesociety.
According to Marx, there has been class struggle since the breakup of
the tribal communityorganization. In fact, humanity has evolved to higher
stages of development through class conflicts.Marx believes that class –
struggle in the modern period is simpler than earlier class struggle. Thisis
because of greater polarization today compared with earlier times. Inspired by
Hegel’s distinctivetheory of history and idealist philosophy, Marx postulated
that human social and politicaldevelopment is advanced through conflict
between antithetical class forces. Marx made a majordeparture from Hegel, on
the nature of this conflict. Marx is said to have “stood Hegel on his head”by
claiming that it was conflict rooted in the material conditions of existence that
drove history andnot conflict over antithetical ideas, which Hegel asserted was
the principal mover of human history.
Marx examined the dominant material conditions at various moments of
human history andstated that each set of dominant conditions breed conflictive
conditions. In the hands of humanbeings, these contradictory conditions
contributed to conflict; at times, this conflict became sodeep and irresolvable
that it transformed human development in profound ways. Marx asserted that
human beings drove this process by acting collectively and particularly as
members of aneconomic class.
As a result for Marx and Engels, history moved in distinct stages or
epochs, and within eachepoch, one could find the contradictions (or class
conflicts) that would pave the way to the nextstage. Marx identified the
following stage:
1. Primitive communism
2. Slave society
3. Feudalism

204
 4. Capitalism
5. Socialism and communism
Unlike earlier liberal democratic theory, which held that there had been
a time inhuman history when humans did not live in a society, Marx argued
that humans hadalways lived in some kind of society. The first of these
societies he called primitivecommunism. This stage was characterized by a
society much like the tribal communitiesof the North American plains. Since
this was a class less society, it was communist.What made it primitive was the
very low standard of living and the great dangers facingtribal members.
Eventually, primitive communism gave way to the next stage of history,
slave society.Although Marx and Engels are not clear as to how primitive
communism collapsed, thereis a suggestion by Engles that it was a “natural”
development, slave society was inmany ways the first epoch with class
contradictions. In slave societies was defined interms of land ownership and
slave ownership. In such societies, there were classes:those who owned some
of the means of production; and those who owned nothing, noteven themselves
(slaves). Societies such as Rome were rocked by internal conflictsamong these
conflicts for control over the means of production. Eventually theseconflicts
led to the demise of slave society and the emergence of feudalism.
Feudalism, like slave society, is characterized primarily by agricultural
productioncontrolled by large estates of land holding nobles. In feudalism there
were also otherclasses, particularly the merchants, or the early bourgeoisie. The
early bourgeoisie, unlike the land holding nobility, directed their livelihood
form the control of trade andfinance. With the expansion of trade routes east
and west the European bourgeois i.e.grew in economic status and emended
political power as a results’.
15.7 Theory of surplus value
Another key characteristic of class dealings in capitalism is the
expropriation of surplus value through the bourgeoisie from thelabour of the
proletariat.The doctrine of surplus value is one of the important theoretical
contributions of Karl Marx.The theory of surplus value is rooted in the labour
theory of value propounded through Ricardo and classical economists.
According to which the value of every commodity is proportional to the
quantity of labour contained in it, provided this labour is inaccordance with the
existing standard of efficiency of production.Labour power equals thebrain,
muscle and nerve of the labourer. Being itself a commodity, it must command
a priceproportional to the member of labor hours that entered into its
production. This will be thenumber of labour hours required to house and feed
the laborer and to bring up his family.This is the value of his services, for

205
which he receives corresponding wages. But labour is unique among
commodities because in being used up to create more value. The
employer,therefore, can make his work more hours than would be required to
produce that stock. Thevalue thus created over and above what the labourer is
paid for, Marx calls surplus value, andhe regards it as the source of all profit.
Marx admitsthat human labour cannot make value through itself alone.
It uses instrumentsof manufacture which are owned through the capitalist. The
capitalist buys thelabour power" of the laborer and applies it to the raw
material to producecommodities which have an exchange value. The variation
flanked by theexchange value of the commodity and the wages paid to the
worker throughthe capitalist in producing that commodity is surplus value.
Marx explains the whole process of exploitation with the help of his
theory of surplus value.It is a distinctive feature of capitalist means of
production. Surplus value accrues because thecommodity produced by the
worker is sold by the capitalist for more than what the workerreceives as
wages. In his Das capital, Marx elaborated in it in a simple technical manner.
Heargued that the worker produces a commodity which belongs to the
capitalist and whose value isrealized by the capitalist in the form of price. This
capital has two parts- constant capital andvariable capital. Constant capital
relates to means of production like raw material, machinerytools set used for
commodity production.
There is a variation in the method in which surplus value was createdin
the slave society and under feudalism and the method it is created in
thecapitalist society. In the former the slave who created surplus valuewas tied
to his master or the feudal lord but in capitalism there is a 'freecontract' into
which the worker 'voluntarily' enters with the capitalist. Ofcourse, this freedom
is a myth because the worker has no option but to sell hislabour power.
Hisnecessity enters into contract with some capitalist. The onlyoption that he
has is to choose the capitalist to whom he wants to sell hislabour power.
Therefore this freedom is freedom to choose his exploiter. The slave did not
have this freedom.
15.8 Theory of Alienation
One of the mainly original contributions of Marx is his Theory
ofAlienation. This is contained in his early work—Economic and
PhilosophicalManuscripts—which were written in 1843 but were exposed
almost fifty yearsafter his death. These Manuscripts illustrate that early Marx
was mainlyinterested in the problem of alienation.

206
 Marx employed the term alienation to describe dehumanization and he
devoted muchtheoretical effort in these younger years to analyze the nature of
alienation in a capitalist system.In the Manuscripts Marx discusses a cluster of
forms of alienation thatcentre on a central sense of ‘alienation’ which is
virtually definitely of the capitalist economy. Byalienation Marx means the
separation of our specific human qualities, our “species being”, ashe termed it,
into structures of domination. In a capitalist society or economy, work or labor
itselfbecomes a commodity, something that is bought and sold on the open
market. One result isthe creation of the two principal classes of bourgeoisie-
liberal, capitalist society: there is thebourgeoisie, which control the means of
production and distribution in the society and inparticular, have the power to
buy labour. And there is the proletariat, composed of personswho have no
share in the control of the means of production and distribution in the society
andwho are forced to sell their labour on the open market in order to sustain
themselves and theirfamilies.
The class divisions generated by the existence of capitalist private
property constitute thechief example and indeed the basic source of alienation.
Given this class division, workers areseparated from the capitalists and once
separated, dominated. Indeed, it is precisely in theirseparation that is in the
alienation of their innate human capacity for community with their
fellowcreatures, that the domination of the worker becomes possible. Given
this basic form ofseparation – domination, the entire world of workers becomes
and alienated reality, Marxargues. They are alienated form the fruit of their
labour, which is expropriated by the capitalistas profit. What rightfully belongs
to workers as a direct human expression of their productivelife is separated
form them and then, in the form of surplus value or capital, becomes the
sourceof their domination and exploitation. More than this, the whole
technological infrastructure ofindustry takes on an alienated character.
All of these various forms of alienation achieve their highest and most
tragic characteritself- alienation, according to Marx. Having alienated the
power to act upon the world in adirectly human way, the workers finally
alienated the power even to comprehend that world.Given Marx’s proposition
that life determines consciousness, it must follow that where life hasbecome
alienated, so must consciousness. It is clear from this analysis that
alienatedconsciousness is nothing other than false consciousness, or ideology.
The natural humanability to comprehend reality is quite literally separated from
the workers by the conditions of theirlives and replaced by false perception of
reality. These perception, by blinding the workers totheir real conditions and
therefore preventing them from changing those conditioned, constitute
structures of mental domination.

207
 Given such extreme misery and alienation, particularly the alienation of
consciousness itself, one may well wonder how Marx could assert the
inevitable demise of capitalism. Marxproceeds to claim that a consequence of
the alienation of the activity of the labour is that theworker looks elsewhere to
find a true expression of himself or herself: “man(theworker) onlyfeels himself
freely active in his animal functions of eating, drinking, and procreating at
most alsoin his dwelling and dress”. This displacement of one’s true human
self into one’s “animal “(biological) functions and into artificial and fairly
trivial concerns interlocks with the sort ofconsumerism characteristic of
capitalist economies.
Finally, there results from the objectification of laobur the alienation of
man from man: eachman measures his relationship to other men by the
relationship in which he finds himselfplaced as a worker. The main feature of
this relationship is competition. Worker must competewith one another in the
sale of their labour. One might conclude that the forms of alienationdescribed
by Marx only effect members of proletariat in a situation of unregulated
competition.
15.9 Theory of Revolution
The vital cause of revolution, just as to Marx, is the disjunction
thatarises flanked by dealings of manufacture and the means of manufacture.
Asmeans of manufacture (technology etc.) grow with growth of scientific
knowledge, they go out of step with the existing dealings of manufacture.
Astage is reached where the dealings of manufacture become a fetter on
themanufacture procedure itself.This provides rise to immanent demand for
atransition to a new mode of manufacture. The capitalist mode of
manufactureappeared from the womb of feudal order in the similar method as
feudal modeof manufacture appeared from the womb of the slave society.
Likewise, socialism will emerge from the womb of bourgeois society itself.
This is sobecause capitalism constantly revolutionizes its own means of
manufactureand therefore undermines its own circumstances of subsistence.
Ininformation, the bourgeoisie produces its own grave diggers. Marx
assertedthat the bourgeois dealings of manufacture are the last antagonistic
form ofsocial procedure of manufacture— antagonistic not in the sense of
individualantagonism but class antagonism arising from the social
circumstances of lifeof the individuals. Therefore, the productive forces
developing in the wombof bourgeois society make material circumstances for
the resolution of thatantagonism.

208
 Marx‘s assertion that the bourgeois dealings of manufacture are the
lastantagonistic form of social procedure of manufacture is rooted in
theassumption that all the previous historical movements (revolutions)
weremovements of minorities in the interest of minorities. The
proletarianrevolution will be dissimilar from them. The proletariat, the lowest
stratum ofcapitalist society cannot stir, cannot raise itself to the location of
ruling class without the whole superincumbent strata of officials being sprung
into the air.Beside with it, Marx also spelled out the method, which will be
followedthrough the proletariat class to achieve its objective. In the
CommunistManifesto Marx and Engels declared that communists scorn to hide
theirviews and aims. They openly declare that their purpose (revolution) can
onlybe achieved through the forcible overthrow of the whole capitalist
order.Therefore, the emancipation of the proletariat is predicated through Marx
onthe emancipation of humanity.
Here it is significant for you to bear in mind that in the history
ofrevolutions there is a debate in relation to the role of subjective (human)
andobjective (material) factors in creation a revolution. Whether it is the
meresubsistence of a proletariat class which will bring in relation to
therevolutionary overthrow of capitalism or is it the consciousness of-
thisproletariat which is necessary for doing so? Marx‘s location in this regard
isextremely important. He sees a dialectical connection flanked by
philosophy'scomprehension of the world and its skill to change it. Theory
necessity evolvesa proper interpretation of the world before it is able to change
it. The ultimatetask of philosophy is not merely to comprehend reality but also
to change it.Praxis revolutionizes the existing reality through human action.
Revolutionarypraxis has, so, a dialectical aspect. Objectively, it is the
organisation of thecircumstances leading to ultimate human emancipation and
subjectively, it is the self-change that proletariat achieves through its self
detection throughorganisation.
Therefore, the dilemma of determinism vs. voluntarism is
transcendedthrough Marx through the dialectical nature of revolutionary
consciousness.Objective circumstances themselves will not bring in relation to
the revolutionuntil and unless the proletariat grasps the information that
through shaping itsown view of the world it also changes it. If revolutionary
consciousness existsthen revolution is bound to happen. When the worker
comprehends that under capitalist manufacture he is degraded to the status of a
mere substance, a commodity; he ceases to be a commodity, a substance and
becomes a subject (active agent). This is revolutionary consciousness. The
understanding of theexisting reality through the proletariat is so, necessary
condition for thepossibility of revolutionizing it. In other languages, it is only

209
an understandingof the internal dynamics of capitalism through the proletariat
that will enable itto create revolution which will signal the transition from
capitalism tosocialism.
15.10 Dictatorship of Proletariat
Dictatorship of the proletariat is another significant concept in
Marx‘swritings. Marx did not write extremely clearly and systematically in
relation tothe dictatorship of the proletariat and in relation to the exact nature
and formof post-revolutionary communist society. At best his treatment is
sketchy. In aletter to Wedemeyer (March 5, 1852) Marx said that he had not
exposed theconcept of classes and class struggles.
What I did that was new was to prove: (a) that the subsistence ofclasses
is only bound up with scrupulous phases in the development ofmanufacture;
(b), that the class thrash about necessarily leads to thedictatorship of the
proletariat; (c) that this dictatorship (of the proletariat) itselfonly constitutes the
transition to the abolition of all classes leading to theestablishment of a
classless society.
Therefore, the dictatorship of the proletariat is a necessaryintermediate
point or a middle stage on the path, from capitalism to socialismand
communism. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme he further clarifiedthat
flanked by capitalism and communist society lies a era of revolutionary
transformation from one (i.e. capitalism) to the other (i.e. socialism). Inpolitical
sphere this transformation will take the form of dictatorship of theproletariat. It
is the first step in the revolution of the working class which willraise the
proletariat to the location of a ruling class. In Marx‘s view throughoutthe
dictatorship of the proletariat there will be a regime in which the proletariat
will manage the state power. Such a middle stage of dictatorship ofthe
proletariat is necessary because the destruction of whole capitalist socialand
political order cannot be fully achieved without capturing the state powerand
without by it as an instrument to make circumstances for the ushering inof a
communist social order.
15.11 Critique of capitalism
In the Das Capital, Marx pointed out“capitalism arises only when the
owners of the means ofproduction and subsistence meet in the market with the
free labourer selling his labour power”. Thebasis of capitalism was wage
labour. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx implied thateven if the
state owned the means of production, wage labour still continue. This was not
realsocialism, but a new variation of capitalism, namely state capitalism.

210
 In the Communist Manifesto, Marx paid handsome tributes to the
bourgeoisie, while highlighting itsnegative side. There were three reasons that
make capitalism attractive. First, it brought remarkable economic progress by
revolutionizing the means of production and developingtechnology as never
before. It built and encouraged the growth of commerce and factories on ascale
unknown before. Secondly, capitalism undermined the national barriers, in its
search formarket and raw materials, capitalism and the bourgeoisie crossed
national boundaries andpenetrated every corner of the world drawing the most
backward nations into their fold. Thirdly,capitalism eliminated the distinctions
between town and the country and enabled the peasants tocome out of what
Marx called, “the idiocy of rural life. “ In spite of the achievements, Marx
believedthat capitalism had out lived its use because of the sufferings and
hardships it caused.
Marx examined the sufferings within capitalism, which were rooted in
its origin: the eviction ofpeasants from their land, the loss of their sources of
income and most significantly, the creation ofthe proletariat. According to
Marx, capitalism facilitates an exploitative relationship between the twomajor
social classes, the owners of capital (the bourgeoisie) and the working class
(the proletariat).Marx claimed that the profit derived from the capitalist
production process was merely thedifference between the value generated by
the proletariat and the wage that they earned from thebourgeoisie. Therefore,
according to Marxian conception, the proletariat generated all value as aresult
of its labour but had only a portion of that value returned it by the
bourgeousing in the form ofwages. Since the proletariat created surplus value,
but the bourgeoisie enjoyed the fruits of thevalue, the bourgeoisie was
effectively exploiting the proletariat on a consistent and on going basis.
Marx asserted that this exploitative relationship was an essential part of
the capitalistproduction process. Among other things, surplus value was used
by the bourgeoisie to reinvest, modernize, and expand its productive capacity.
Therefore, for Marx, capitalism could not continueas a mode of production
without the unceasing exploitation of the proletariat, which comprises
themajority of human beings in advanced industrial societies.
Not only Marx claimed that the capital wage labour relationship was
exploitative, but he alsoclaimed that this economic relationship left the
majority of human beings feeling estranged fromtheir own humanity. Because
Marx believed productivity was a naturally human act, he concludedthat the
capital wage labour relationship degraded something that was a fulfilling,
meaningful, andfree act into drudgery that was performed solely for the
purpose of basic survival.

211
 Marx predicted that capitalism, like every dominant economic mode of
production before it, possessed internal contradictions that would eventually
destroy the system. These contradictions orrecessions were moments of crisis,
Marx thought, and not necessarily temporary in nature.Furthermore Marx
predicted that, over time crisis periods would get progressively
longer,recessions would get deeper, recoveries would be shallower, and times
in between moments ofcrisis would get shorter.
In the meantime, Marx paints a picture of capitalism driven to ever
more desperate, and ultimatelyirrational and futile attempts the stave off the
inevitable. The intensity of capitalist competitionincreases in precise
proportion to the decline of the system as a whole. Technologies are
introducedat a fresh pace with resulting over production on commodities on the
one hand and increasingunemployment on the other. The consequences of this”
anarching of production” as Marx terms it,are periodic depressions in which all
of the productive forces that had evolved up to that point aredestroyed.
According to Marx, capitalism contains its own seeds of destruction. He
rallied the working classunder the call “workers of all countries unite”. Within
the capitalism, increase in monopolies led togrowing exploitation, misery and
pauperization of the working class. Simultaneously, as the workingclass
increased in number, it became better organized and acquired greater
bargaining skills’. Thisinitiated a revolutionary process, leading to a new
socialist arrangement in which commonpossession replaced private ownership
in the means of production. The calrion call given to theworkers was to unite,
shed their chains and conquer the world. Ultimately, like all modes
ofproduction before it, Marx claimed, capitalism would come to an end and be
replaced by aneconomic system that had fewer internal contradictions.
Following the collapse of capitalism and the seizure of power by the
proletariat, a transitional periodwould follow, Socialism. Marx spent very little
space discussing his vision for socialism andcommunism, but he and Engels
discussed it briefly in the Communist Manifesto. During thetransitional period,
the proletariat uses the coercive power of the state to defend the revolution
fromthe remnants of the bourgeoisie. In the Critique of the Gotha Programme,
Marx states that in asocialist society, the labourer will receive, in return for a
given quantity of work, the equivalent inmeans of consumption, from each
according to his ability, to each according to his labour. Fullcommunism would
have some key characteristics. It would be a classless society, because
classdifferences would disappear. Again communism would ultimately be a
stateless society as well, “because the state would ultimately “ wither away”
Further more, communism would be a nation lesssociety because, Marx and

212
Engels believed, national identities were a product of capitalism, andsuch
identities would disappear, to be replaced by a universal proletarian identity.
15.12 Critical Appraisal of Marxism
Marxism is undoubtedly one of the most influential philosophies of
modern times. Marx’s ideas notonly inspired a variety of schools of thought,
but his ideas have inspired a vigorous debate over awhole range of issues- such
as the balance of the state and the market in production and theproper role of
government in society. His ideas of Base- super structure relations alienation,
Dialectical Materialism, Class struggle, surplus value, Proletarian Revolution,
vision of communismetc have been extensively discussed, debated, modified
and sometimes even rejected by hisfollowers and adversaries. His writings are
so voluminous and his theories are so wide –rangingthat Marx has come to
mean different things to different people.
Marxism has been subjected to severe criticisms from different corners.
Marx’s vision of a newsocial order in which there will be neither alienation nor
exploitation, no classes, no classantagonism, no authority, no sate is highly
imaginative and fascinating and because of thisattraction, Prof. Sabine called “
Marxism a utopia but a generous and humane one” Marx did notforesee the
rise of fascism, totalitarianism and the welfare state. His analysis of capitalism
was atbest, applicable to early 19th century capitalism, though his criticisms of
capitalism as beingwasteful, unequal and exploitative was true. However, his
alternative of genuine democracy andfull communism seemed more difficult to
realize in practice, for they did not accommodate a worldwhich was becoming
increasingly differentiated, stratified and functionally specialized.
Karl Popper in his “Open Society and its Enemies has criticized
Marxism along with Plato andHegel. Popper was suspicious of Marx’s
scientific predictions, for scientific theory was one thatwould not try to explain
everything. Along with Plato and Hegel, Marx was seen as an enemy ofthe
open society, Marx was seen as an enemy of the open society. Marxism
claimed to havestudied the laws of history, on the basis of which it advocated
total, sweeping and radicalchanges. Not only was it impossible to have first-
hand knowledge based on some set of laws thatgoverned society and human
individuals but Popper also rejected Marx’s social engineering asdangerous ,
for it treated individuals as subservient to the interests of the whole. Popper
rejectedthe historicism, holism and utopian social engineering of Marxism. In
contrast, he advocatedpiecemeal social engineering, where change would be
gradual and modest, allowing rectification oflapses and errors, for it was not
possible to conceive of every thing. Popper claimed that Marx’sscientific
socialism was wrong not only about society, but also about science. Popper

213
wrote thus: “Marx misled crores of intelligent people by saying that historic
method is the scientific way ofapproaching social problems. “ Further, Marx
made the economy or economic factors all important,ignoring factors like
nationality, religion, friendship etc.” As Karl Popper has rightly mentioned,
Marx brought into the social science and historical science the very important
idea that economicconditions are of great importance in the life of society…
There was nothing like seriouseconomic history before Marx”. Like Popper,
Berlin attacked the historicism of Marx which hedeveloped in his essay”
Historical Inevitability”.
Marx is wrong in his static conception of the classes. As Prof. C.L.
Wayper has observed, classesare not fixed and rigidly maintained blocks.
There is constant movement from class to class, somuch so that perhaps the
most salient features of social classes is the incessant rise and fall ofindividual
families from one to another. Marx believed that he had “scientifically proved”
that thedevelopment of capitalism would leave facing each other in
irreconcilable opposition two and onlytwo classes. He did not allow for the
emergence of a new class of managers and skilled technicaladvisers. The
forecast based on his economic analysis of surplus value have similarly proved
wideof the mark. He declared that working men must become ever poorer until
the day of finalreckoning. But real wages today are higher than they were a
century ago, not lower as theyshould now be according to Marx. Further, Marx
did not foresee the possibilities of the Trade unionmovement and of the social
service state.
Marx was wrong in ignoring the psychological aspects of politics.
Though his is an explanation ofthe state in terms of force, nowhere he gives us
any adequate treatment of the problem of power.Nowhere in his work is there
the realisation of that men desire power for the satisfaction of theirpride and
self respect and that for some men power must be regarded as an end in itself.
Onemust go further and say that nowhere he shows any real appreciation of the
defects in humannature.
The collapse of communism proved the serious shortcomings of
Marxism, both in theory and practice. It at best remained a critique rather than
providing a serious alternative to liberaldemocracy. However its critique of
exploitation and alienation, and the hope of creating a trulyemancipated society
that would allow the full flowering for human creativity, would be a
startingpoint of any utopian project. In spite of Marx’s utopia being truly
generous, it displayed a potentialfor being tyrannical, despotic and arbitrary.
Concentration of political and economic power andabsence of checks on
absolute power were themselves inimical to true human liberation andfreedom.

214
As Prof. Sabine has observed, Marx “offered no good reason to believe that the
powerpolitics of radicalism would prove to be less authoritarian in practice
than the power politics ofconservative nationalism”.
Whatever may be the limitations and shortcomings of Marxian
principles, it is beyond dispute thatMarx would be remembered as a critic of
early 19th century capitalism and politics. The “true andfalse together in him
constitute one of the most tremendously compelling forces that modern
historyhas seen”. Although the study of Marxism after the collapse of the
Soviet Union in 1991 has goneout of vogue in many intellectual circles, its
relevance now has become increasingly apparent. Theconcentration of wealth
in fewer and fewer hands via corporate mergers and hostile takeovers,
thedisappearance of petite bourgeoisie, and the apparent collusion between big
capital and the stateall were suggested by Marx. Perhaps a rediscovery of
Marxism among students of social sciencewould help them better understand
the direction of the world in the 21st century.
Assessment
Marx is undoubtedly one of the mainly influential philosophers
ofcontemporary times. His thoughts have acquired the status of a
powerfulideology. His thoughts on Alienation, Historical Materialism, Class
War,Surplus Value and his vision of a Proletarian Revolution, Dictatorship of
theProletariat, Socialism and Communism have been extensively
discussed,debated, customized and sometimes even rejected through his
followers andadversaries. His writings are so voluminous and his themes are so
widerangingthat Marx has come to mean dissimilar things to dissimilar people.
Forinstance, there are studies which seek to distinguish flanked by 'early'
and'later' Marx. While 'early' Marx is projected as a humanist
philosopherinterested in redemption of mankind from alienation; the later'
Marx is viewedas an economist and a revolutionary interested in abolishing
use. Early‘ Marxis Marx of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts;
while the 'later' Marxis Marx of the Communist Manifesto, A Contribution to
the Critique ofPolitical Economy and Capital. There are also studies which see
an underlyingunity flanked by the 'early' and the 'later' Marx. Some studies
have even triedto assess the power that Engels exercised on Marx and power
that Marxexercised on Engels. Such studies have a valid point to create
because initiallyMarx was basically a philosopher, while Engels was basically
an economist.Due to power that they exercised on one another Marx moved
fromPhilosophy to Economics; while Engels moved from Economics
toPhilosophy. So much so that it is approximately impossible to provide
auniversally acceptable and a non-partisan assessment of Marx.

215
 Marx‘s vision of a new social order in which there will be
neitheralienation nor use, no classes, no class antagonism, no power, no state
ishighly fascinating and because of this attraction, Sabine described Marxism
autopia but a generous and a humane one. Though, though he admitted
thathistorical growths are always open to many possibilities yet he did not
agreethat such possibilities were open to his own theory. Though, not putting
hisown theory to the possibility of dialectical critique as Avinerisaid was
agrave mistake. Berlin commenting on his tremendous popularity for
generations establish that to be a negation of Marx‘s rigid framework
ofdeterminism. Plamenatz distinguished flanked by a German Marxism
andRussian Communism. Harrington portrayed the modern radical view of
Marxas being an excellent critic of capitalism but unable to give a
detailedalternative to it. This failure of Marx is mainly because of the
information thathe was writing at a time when democracy was only one of the
possibilities andnot a universal reality as it is today. Because of this lacuna he
could not graspthe dynamics of democracy and the importance of civil and
political libertiesfor any civilized society.
Summary
Karl Marx is known for his radical socialist convictions and anti-state
views.He borrowed theconcept of alienation and the dialectical method from
Hegel but modified them in a fundamentalway. He attacked Hegel for
identifying existence of objects with alienation which makes theobjective
world a mere fantasy. Marx even applied Dialectics used by Hegel in the
domain ofideas to explain the material conditions of life.Marx holds that the
material and the ideal arenot only different but opposite and constitute a unity
in which the material is primary and themind (idea) secondary.Thus according
to him, the ultimate cause which determines the whole course of human history
is the economic development of society.This was explained by the theory of
historical materialism.Starting with the primitive communism the mode of
production haspassed through three stages: slavery, feudalism and capitalism
and the consequent division ofsociety into distinct classes (slave-master, serf-
baron and proletariat-capitalist) and the struggleof these classes against one
another.The general relations as well as forms of state are to be grasped neither
from themselves nor from the so-called general development of human
mind,but they have their roots in the material conditions of life.Classes are
defined by Marx on the basis of twin criteria of a person's place in the mode of
production. Class is based on ownership(or control) of means of production
and ownership of property, surplus value accrues to thecapitalist, because the
commodity produced by the worker is sold by the capitalist for more thanwhat
he (the worker) receives as wages and this is the distinct feature of the

216
capitalist modeof production.The disappearance of class difference and the
disappearance of property is thedetermining factor of status.In final analysis
Marx visualised the emergence of a classlesssociety and this can be achieved
according to him, through revolution and dictatorship of the proletariat. This
will lead to the establishment of a Communist society and this is the final
solution to the riddle of history.

Model Questions
1. What is Marxian theory of alienation?
2. Critically examine Marx's theory of surplus value.
3. Discuss Marx's theory of historical materialism.

217
 NOTES
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................
................................................................................................................................

218