Hobbes and Samuel: reply

Geoffrey Brennan has presented a defense of Hobbes against the claim of misrepresentation of the prophet Samuel as supporting a leviathan. He has also used the occasion of his reply to introduce embellishments that were outside of the scope of my observations concerning the prophet Samuel and Hobbes.     

The Two Leviathans: R. G. Collingwood and Thomas Hobbes

In this article I draw upon the published and unpublished works of R. G. Collingwood in order to discern the relation between the Leviathan of Hobbes, and that of Collingwood. First, an attempt is made to explain why Hobbes became important for Collingwood, having had no special status in the writings of the latter prior to the composition of The New Leviathan . Secondly, two misconceptions of the ostensible relation between the two Leviathans will be exposed. Thirdly, the two Leviathans are compared at the level of general intent. It is argued that Collingwood never meant merely to update Leviathan in a piecemeal fashion, but instead formulated an entirely different criterion of conduct from that offered by Hobbes. Finally, some of the arguments of the two Leviathans are compared. Principally, Collingwood found Hobbes deficient in failing to provide an adequate account of the perpetual transition from the state of nature to civil life. One of the aims of Collingwood was to make good this deficiency.     

Hobbes's Liberty and Skinner's Discontent

This article questions the plausibility of the interpretation of Hobbes's liberty that Quentin Skinner articulates in Hobbes and Republican Liberty . It argues that Skinner's book fails to prove two of the three claims it must uphold: the 'textual accuracy claim' and his 'methodological claim'. This article maintains that understanding Hobbes's use of liberty in Leviathan according to his definition of 'corporall liberty', as Skinner does, ignores many of Hobbes's claims that invoke liberty outside the beginning of chapter 21, resulting in a one-dimensional reading of Hobbes.     

THE CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF GOVERNMENT: A NEGLECTED DIMENSION OF HOBBES'S LEVIATHAN

Abstract. Philosophical preoccupation with moral, legal, and hypothetical problems have led us to neglect those practical (or strategic) dimensions of Leviathan in which Hobbes confronts the problems of how order can actually be politically created from disorder and how, once begun, the germ of order can be perpetuated in stable political society. The possibilities of political creation reside in the idea of confederation and, importantly, in men's fundamental manipulability. The consequent maintenance of political order depends, for Hobbes, on creating conditions in which, without excessive or unnecessary resort to force, men can be made to forebear conflict among themselves and resistance to government. Those conditions, as in the case of political creation, depend upon appearances, illusion, and political manipulation.     

Eminent domain power and afterwards: Leviathan’s post-taking opportunism

This paper investigates post-taking procedures, a research area not yet fully explored. It discusses the economic implications underlying the landowner’s ‘repurchase right (RR)’ which can be invoked upon the occurrence of a so-called ‘change in use after taking.’ RR is compared with the government’s discretion regarding such changes. The lack of post-taking accountability tends to create power ripe for abuse, and RR appears to be an effective device for constraining Leviathan’s opportunism. Finally, a parsimonious estimation supports that, under the overriding-RR regime, there exists the systematic post-taking opportunism whereby ‘original public projects are changed into inappropriate projects.’     

Carl Schmitt in West German perspective

Carl Schmitt: Theorist for the Reich. By Joseph W. Bendersky. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983. Pp.xiv + 320. £20.50.

Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes. Sinn und Fehlschlag eines politischen Symbols. By Carl Schmitt. Koln: Hohenheim Verlag, 1982 (reprint of the 1938 edition). Pp.244. DM34.80.

Land und Meer. Eine weltgeschichtliche Betrachtung. By Carl Schmitt. Köln: Hohenheim Verlag, 1981 (reprint of the 1942 edition). Pp.107. DM18.     

Carl J. Friedrich on Responsibility and Authority

Carl J. Friedrich’s concept of administrative responsibility is examined in his published works from 1935 to 1960. Friedrich’s idea of responsibility encompassed not only political and personal responsibility within the hierarchy of bureaucratic organizations, but also functional responsibility based on scientific knowledge and professional standards required by the reality of administrative discretion. Friedrich’s notion of responsibility is contrasted with that of Herman Finer, who espoused strict obedience to political and administrative superiors. An examination of the NOMOS series of edited volumes from the later stage of Friedrich’s career reflects the consistency of his views on responsibility and on the relationship of responsibility to authority based on reasoned communication. Friedrich’s optimism regarding such authority contrasts with Hannah Arendt’s view that authority is no longer an operative concept in modern society. Friedrich lays an important foundation for continued interest among public administrative scholars in the concept of administrative responsibility.     

Equity and Political Economy in Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes is often viewed as a seminal figure in the development of the homo economicus philosophical anthropology central to the acquisitive, bourgeois morality of liberal modernity. The present study challenges this interpretation of Hobbes as an antecedent to free market ideology by arguing that his political economy presupposed a complex relation between contract, law, and social networks of credit informed by prudence and robust norms of equity. The normative claims of equity permeate Hobbes's holistic account of political economy and inform his vision of liberal statecraft that gave priority to prudential judgment against economic determinism, especially as Hobbes understood trade, taxation, allocation of resources, and the provision of social welfare. I will conclude by reflecting upon how Hobbes's political economy both reveals the internal diversity within the liberal intellectual tradition and can help us to better understand and critique contemporary liberal states and democratic theory.     

Pluralism and the Hobbesian Logic of Negative Constitutionalism

According to an essentially Hobbesian account of political order, the claims of cultural and national minorities within a state to some form of constitutional or institutional recognition are morally suspect and politically undesirable. Underlying this Hobbesian logic is a particular understanding of the relation between law and politics. 'Negative constitutionalism' is focused primarily on limiting the damage government can do. However the pursuit of constitutional minimalism runs up against the challenges presented by deeply diverse political communities. By investigating the manner in which Hobbes has been invoked in arguments concerning the relation between the rule of law and the 'politics of recognition', I argue (i) that the distinction between the rule of law and politics is fundamentally unstable, and (ii) that in invoking Hobbes, modern theorists have missed an important element of Hobbes's own argument—namely, his appreciation of this instability. As an example, I examine the way Hobbes is used in some of John Gray's recent writings on pluralism and liberalism.     

On Hobbesian Resistance Theory

As many have observed, Hobbes's political theory contained elements of an inchoate resistance theory. The present article identifies those elements, and considers their significance for the general interpretation of Hobbes's thought. It is suggested that Hobbes's resistance theory provides evidence of his belief that the artificial commonwealth was built upon foundations of natural morality. If the sovereign ruler of any commonwealth infringed natural morality then she might well face the natural punishment of rebellion, even though in the artificial realm of civil law this rebellion could never be justified. In the light of these remarks, the interpretation of Hobbes given by Howard Warrender is reexamined. Although Warrender's conclusion that Hobbes grounded natural morality in the command of God cannot be sustained, it is shown that much else in Warrender's work remains valid. In particular, his contention that Hobbes was a genuine natural law thinker seems more defensible when Hobbesian resistance theory is properly understood.     

Hobbes on Democracy

Hobbes is often cited as a precursor of modern liberalism, both on the grounds of his individualism and of his endorsement of intellectual and moral autonomy. Yet Hobbes supports absolutist government rather than democracy. This is partly explained by his rejection of autonomy understood as self-government. But Hobbes's case against democracy is more comprehensive than this. This article considers Hobbes's case against democracy.     

Knowledge/Power/Resistance

Francis Bacon’s famous metaphor that knowledge is power has been the intellectual springboard for many scholars to offer misleading observations about the inordinate authority and power of knowledge. Among the important implications that Bacon derives from his metaphor is the assertion that individuals provided with experimental skills and practical knowledge are those most entitled to hold executive office, rather than the aristocracy of blood. In this essay, we critically analyze Michel Foucault’s ambivalent version of the closeness of knowledge, power and authority.     

The Theory of Universal Human Rights: A Comment on Talbott

In this analysis of William Talbott’s important book, I note with appreciation his defense of universal moral principles and of moral justification as a “social project,” his focus on the critique of oppression, and his emphasis on empathic understanding in the account of human rights. I go on to develop some criticisms regarding: 1) Talbott’s traditional understanding of human rights as holding against governments and not also applying to nonstate actors; 2) his account of the interrelations among well-being, autonomy, claims for first person authority in moral judgment, and human rights; 3) his strongly rationalist and liberal individualist interpretation of moral judgment and autonomy; and 4) the lack of a role for intercultural dialogue about human rights, which nonetheless are held to apply to all human beings across cultures. In each case, I briefly consider what an alternative approach would look like.     

“Not Imminent in My Domain!” County Leaders’ Attitudes toward Eminent Domain Decisions

Eminent domain is an urgent problem facing local government administrators and scholars throughout the United States. However, the literature is sparse regarding how local leaders make decisions on this hot‐button issue. A 2006 Government Accountability Office report noted a lack of data about local governments’ use of their eminent domain authority. A survey of county managers in North Carolina was conducted to redress this apparent knowledge gap. Although the findings are primarily generalizable only to other Dillon’s rule states, such data demonstrate that eminent domain applies more often for “narrow” (public use) purposes, such as water and sewer systems, than for “broad” (public good) purposes, such as economic development. Current and future property considerations also influence eminent domain decisions. [A] law that takes property from A, and gives it to B: It is against all reason and justice, for a people to entrust a legislature with such powers; and, therefore, it cannot be presumed that they have done it. —Associate Justice Samuel Chase, majority opinion, Calder v. Bull (1798)     

Enoch Powell and the Conservative Party: Reflections on an Ambiguous Legacy

This article examines Enoch Powell's ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech in relation to the Conservative party. Powell's speech created an additional challenge to a Conservative party already weakened by the loss of the 1964 and 1966 elections and by the failure of the newly elected leader, Edward Heath, to impress his authority decisively on the party. Powell had some parliamentary support but his real following was concentrated in the Conservative grass roots. Powell lost the support of the liberal‐minded Shadow Cabinet; but after 1968 the Conservatives nevertheless moved to the right on the issue, especially after Mrs. Thatcher became leader in 1975. His speech has cast a long shadow as the party has sought to modernise in more recent times and to appeal to a more racially diverse electorate.     

Politics and the Turkish military

As NATO prepares to expand into Eastern Europe, the military of one its longest-standing members, Turkey, is openly at odds with the country’s democratically elected government. Turkish Prime Minister Necmettin Erbakan, under pressure from his generals for months, has been forced to concede political power. The military’s successful challenge to civilian authority, in keeping with Turkey’s praetorian traditions, could have dangerous consequences. The very threat that it now struggles against – radical Islam – could deepen its hold on Turkish society as a result of the armed forces’ challenge to the political order.     

Franz Boas: The Anthropologist as Public Intellectual

Franz Boas is among the most important public intellectuals in American history because the authority of his expertise was joined with the purposes to which he applied his citizenship. His contributions to the discipline of anthropology were as towering as anyone has ever made; he also tapped his scholarly credentials to fight for good causes, such as civil rights and civil liberties. His origins as a Jewish immigrant and his political ideals as a cosmopolitan liberal predisposed him to reject the racialism that dominated late-nineteenth-century thought, and to advance an alternative social science that would be unpolluted by condescension towards lesser breeds. So persuasive was his research that a paradigm shift occurred; and buttressed with the authority of scholarship, Boas was decisive in changing public discourse on the often radioactive subject of race. He honored the ideal of the scholar as activist and as social conscience, and virtually no one in modern American history came closer to satisfying that standard.     

Reading Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the Armenian genocide of 1915

ABSTRACT

The debate on where Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey and universally known as the ‘Father of the Turks’, stood in regard to the colossal violence committed against Armenians during the First World War has become a fiercely contested part of the Turkish-Armenian reconciliation process, especially within the past few years. Ulgen aims to clear away the clouds of dust surrounding Kemal by delving into his texts and examining his role in the reification of Turkish denial of the destruction of Ottoman Armenians. Based on a textual analysis of his entire corpus, including Nutuk—the Great Speech of 1927 and the master-narrative of modern Turkish history and national identity—her article examines and documents how his charismatic leadership helped to consolidate both the myth of ‘murderous Armenians’ and that of the Turks as an ‘oppressed nation’ (mazlum millet), monumentalizing both in official Turkish historiography. Ulgen argues that Kemal's portrayal of Armenians and the Armenian Question was generally consistent across the years and in various political documents, as well as being consistent with contemporary Turkish representations of the events of 1915. What really tips the balance towards Turkish innocence in Kemal's representation of the conflict is not his framing of the issue per se but the stark difference in the rhetoric he deploys in depicting Armenian and Turkish atrocities and, hence, Armenians and Turks. The undeniable authority of this discursive regime is central to the resilience of Turkish denial today.     

Can Decentralization Limit Government Growth? A Test of the Leviathan Hypothesis for the Indian Federation

Decentralization in India has only recently gained momentum,particularly with the 73^rd and 74^th amendments in 1992, whichextended constitutional recognition to local governments. Againstthis backdrop, this article examines the Leviathan hypothesisput forth by Brennan and Buchanan for the Indian economy. Thehypothesis asserts that total government intrusion into theeconomy should be smaller when taxes and expenditure are decentralized.A caveat to the Leviathan hypothesis is the Collusion hypothesis,which suggests that the disciplining impact of decentralizationcan be nullified if revenue decentralization does not keep pacewith expenditure decentralization and if there is an increasein dependence on intergovernmental grants. Empirical testingfor the Indian federation vindicates both hypotheses, thus suggestingthat a two-pronged strategy is required if government growthis to be checked. More effort must be made to strengthen localbodies. This must be accompanied by a close look at intergovernmentaltransfers and by an attempt to restrict their growth.