4. Locke is one of the main 'social contract'
theorists, a main support for thinking about limits on government power. Is the
contract a real, negotiated agreement? If not, why should a fictive 'contract'
be thought of as a central idea of human and civil rights?
The social contract is a fictional contract, one that is based on theory,
on ideals. One that has to make a theoretical premise to build the theory upon.
And it is the difference in premises that constitutes the difference between
the social contract theorists Hobbes and Locke. In fact, although Hobbes
believes that the natural man is savage and violent, Locke believes that he is
rather hungry but more peaceful.
However, this contract remains a theory because a real contract cannot
possibly result in extremely different forms of government including monarchies
with divine right, absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies (the UK) and
even direct democracies (the US) all of which claim to uphold to “The social
contract”. These various forms of government all have their own interpretations
of the fictional contract and according to which decide the proper form of
governance.
The liberal social contract theorists (such as Locke) are aware of the tension
that arises from the fact that their theories are fictional. Mainly, if this
contract was approved by imaginary people in an imaginary past, why should our
generation feel entitled to commit to it?
Thus, Locke never tries to prove the
validity of his contract through historical facts. He actually portrays his
process of the social contract, not as what happened, but rather as what should
have happened if we ever want to give any legitimacy to any political power.
The social contract is thus a presentation of an ideal imaginary history that
integrates the various steps of the social contract in a way that allows us to
think about our present and future as a result of a certain ideal.
This deliberate fictional history thus serves the following purpose:
-Provide us with a fictional ideal reference to help us determine which is
the most adequate political system given certain premises, and to help us determine
whether according to the premises of the social contract if we are “free” or
not.
Your point that the social contract lives in theory and thus, experiences complications when applied to the real world is one that can also be seen in the other texts we have discussed. Particularly, Plato. Plato's idea of the just state is one that is also ideal. It may not be possible to implement his theories in practice (like having all children be raised together, etc), but the principles behind these practices are implementable and remain important today. The idea of social stratification and interdependence in Plato is still one that is relevant today. The idea of exchanging liberty for protection is still something that is very important today. In destitute times, we are expected to give up some freedoms (such as freedom of speech in the Tinker case) in exchange for the protection. Though these texts may have been written long ago in the context of different societies, their principles remain today. After all, the goals of most of these texts --whether they be political stability or happiness-- are still goals we have today.
ReplyDeleteI actually saw the social contract as one of the more realistic/practical ideas we have read. While the social contract may not be an agreement that actually gets negotiated between the people and the government, I interpreted it as something that nevertheless does exist in the real world. For instance, most citizens of the U.S. willingly obey laws and pay taxes, in short give up some of their liberties, out of recognition that the arrangement is beneficial overall because they get access to infrastructure (for example public education) and get to exist in a fairly well-ordered and peaceful society. While the social contracts that exist in real life may differ from Locke's ideal, they nonetheless exist because in many places people do willingly give up some liberties in exchange for government.
ReplyDeleteThis still leaves the question of how to justify the social contract when it is not directly agreed to by the people. How can we ensure that the subjects of a government do want to be part of the social contract? According to Locke, anyone who does not want to submit to the social contract can simply leave the commonwealth. Therefore, anyone who stays is agreeing to the social contract of their own free will. This assumption doesn't work as well in modern times, however. With major powers like the United States becoming more fearful of outsiders, people trying to leave their countries often struggle to find a place to go. It is important to Locke that participation in the social contract be voluntary, so would he see it as still being a workable basis for government in today's world?