CW: Slavery, racism
In Chapter 4 of the Second Treatise, John Locke briefly discusses the legality of slavery in his theory of society. Confusingly and weakly, especially because he lived and benefited from the slave trade of the time, he doesn't mention any specific people, places, classes, or races, instead choosing to focus on the vague "man" as his subject. I feel like this might be intentional -- after all, in this whole section, he only references forms of slavery that aren't as related to the Atlantic slave trade, focusing on the right of "man" or "men" to give up their own freedom and their own body and labor in order to pay a debt. I wonder what this means in the world that Locke lives in/helps create -- when people who were enslaved were often considered forms of property and labor by their oppressors, he uses the word "man" to discuss slavery, indicating that the concept of African and Indigenous people who were attacked and taken by the system of slavery don't seem to even come into his mind-space. No matter what he believed on a personal level, John Locke was key to institutionalizing slavery in the United States. According to earlier historian Leslie Stephen, John Locke was party responsible for codifying the legality of slavery into the United State's Constitution, specifically as the Constitution drew influence from code CX of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas (which he wrote): "Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever." He was also a major investor in the Atlantic slave trade that created the foundation for White American society. If one of the three values that he espouses (life, liberty, property) is PROPERTY, and those can be seen as the roots of his theories and of his ideal government, we cannot ignore that what he most likely considered "property" at the time (including people who were enslaved, the land they labored on and developed, the fortunes that were made by exploiting their labor) is rooted in racism, in slavery, in colonization, in imperialism, and he literally benefited from the antithesis of liberty and life, those realities have to color the way we read the rest of this text.
In Chapter 4 of the Second Treatise, John Locke briefly discusses the legality of slavery in his theory of society. Confusingly and weakly, especially because he lived and benefited from the slave trade of the time, he doesn't mention any specific people, places, classes, or races, instead choosing to focus on the vague "man" as his subject. I feel like this might be intentional -- after all, in this whole section, he only references forms of slavery that aren't as related to the Atlantic slave trade, focusing on the right of "man" or "men" to give up their own freedom and their own body and labor in order to pay a debt. I wonder what this means in the world that Locke lives in/helps create -- when people who were enslaved were often considered forms of property and labor by their oppressors, he uses the word "man" to discuss slavery, indicating that the concept of African and Indigenous people who were attacked and taken by the system of slavery don't seem to even come into his mind-space. No matter what he believed on a personal level, John Locke was key to institutionalizing slavery in the United States. According to earlier historian Leslie Stephen, John Locke was party responsible for codifying the legality of slavery into the United State's Constitution, specifically as the Constitution drew influence from code CX of the Fundamental Constitutions of the Carolinas (which he wrote): "Every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves, of what opinion or religion soever." He was also a major investor in the Atlantic slave trade that created the foundation for White American society. If one of the three values that he espouses (life, liberty, property) is PROPERTY, and those can be seen as the roots of his theories and of his ideal government, we cannot ignore that what he most likely considered "property" at the time (including people who were enslaved, the land they labored on and developed, the fortunes that were made by exploiting their labor) is rooted in racism, in slavery, in colonization, in imperialism, and he literally benefited from the antithesis of liberty and life, those realities have to color the way we read the rest of this text.
Your research on Locke certainly brings a negative aurora that taints his “virtuous” proliferation of liberty. Interpretations that use contemporary contexts will surely lead to disappointment at the lack of progressive thought, however in the actual historical context things are slightly more ambiguous. Noting that the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina was written prior to the Second Treatise on Government one can suggest that Locke experienced an evolution of ideals as evidenced by his progressive tone in the section on slavery. Regardless, the hypocritical behavior stands, yet I believe more contemplation is necessary before dismissing the validity of Locke’s rhetoric based on the aforementioned actions.
ReplyDeleteIn Response to George:
ReplyDeleteYou argue that Locke's "progressive" writings in the Second Treatise are evidence for Locke undergoing an "evolution of ideals" from the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. However, like Yuan states, in the Second Treatise Locke doesn't actually mention the same type of slavery that he mentions in the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina; by avoiding any mention of colonized peoples and focusing solely on those who "chose" to give up their sovereignty to pay a debt, he almost categorizes colonized peoples as natural slaves without explicitly saying it (which I don't think you could argue is progressive in any form). Because it's obvious that Locke did not believe the enslaved Africans or indigenous Native Americans had any sovereignty over their land I think he simply justified Aristotle's theory of natural slavery in more words. Aside from this, Yuan ends their post by stating that Locke's realities "have to color the way we read the rest of this text". You state that "interpretations that use contemporary contexts will surely lead to disappointment at the lack of progressive thought." And yet, if we DON'T put Locke's writings into a contemporary context (or at least consider the historical ramifications) then what's the point of even putting it on the CC syllabus? You can read philosophy for philosophy's sake, but I think it's crucial that we do take into account the historical context of the text and its meaning for the US constitution if we really want to understand it's nuances. And if we're trying to figure out what ideals to live by as Chalmers mentioned in the first class, what better way than to actually consider the effects of the philosophical thought on actual people and entire societies? I'm not going to believe that Locke's writings on slavery here are progressive and I doubt he had a change of thought between the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina and the Second Treatise. If so, he would have made it clear.