NOTES IN MODERN POLITICAL THEORIES

(POLITICAL SCIENCE 07)

WHAT IS POLITICAL THEORY?

Political Theory is the study of the development of varying political doctrines or thoughts
from ancient, medieval, modern to contemporary political philosophies relating to the
basis, origin, form and structure, political culture or behaviour of the people in a state.

The enterprise of political theory is the serious search for comprehensive knowledge or
wisdom about political things. We seek knowledge concerning the following problems:
1. Human conflict – the nature and causes thereof.
2. The pursuit of power – the capacity to make others do our bidding.
3. The best or best possible cooperative social arrangements, capable of
resolving or diminishing society’s common problems.
4. The moral foundations of political legitimacy, liberty, equality, justice, and
human rights.
5. Who should govern – one, few or many.
6. The state and its nature, proper purpose and limits.

These issues require, among others, knowledge of the facts about human nature and
about human relationships. Hence, Political Theory can also be understood as the study
of how we should live together in society. Given that there are many aspects to social
life and social cooperation, there are many dimensions to political theory. Viewed from
the issues mentioned above, these can be divided into three intersecting categories:
interpersonal relations; state-personal relations; global relations.

Interpersonal relations. The key question is how we should divide up the benefits and
burdens of cooperative activity: who should get the spoils and who should pay the
costs? We also need to know when and how we may defend ourselves against one
another: what limits should be placed on how people may treat one another and what
penalties can be imposed on members of society who transgress these limits? Further,
how should people relate to one another within these limits? May those different from us
in beliefs and practices be condemned and shunned? May we prevent them from
speaking? And how should those among us who are dependent – the infirm, the ill, the
old and the children – be treated? Who is responsible for their care and what form
should that take? Still further, we need to know how we should organize ourselves in the
smaller groupings of society to which we all belong at some point in our lives. How
should families operate? What obligations do employers have to their employees? Should
classes and castes be abolished? And how, if at all, do voluntary groupings – religion,
pressure groups, trade unions, etc. – help us to live together well?

State-personal relations. Questions address whether and why individuals should

accept the political authority of the state, what its limits are, and how those who wield
the power of the state should come to do so. Have we all consented to have this power
exercised over us? If so, when and how, was it given? If we have not consented to it, is
the state illegitimate and may we reject its edicts? If we should, and do, accept the
state, what are its limits? May the state monitor our movements, communications, and
interactions with others without our knowledge? May it require us to serve - militarily or
otherwise, in times of war or peace – on pain of punishment? May it set limits on what
may be said and with whom we associate? May it tax us to fund spending of which we
disapprove? May it interfere with how our children are raised? And what is the best way
in which to choose the group that has its hands on this immense power? Most people in
democracies now reject the principle of hereditary rule – but why is democracy
preferable? Why not benign dictatorship instead? And what makes a state democratic?

Global relations. There are a set of questions that are related to the scope of any
justified principles of social cooperation and justice. Do such principles apply only within
the borders of a given state or nation? Or should they be extended to apply to all states
everywhere? Perhaps the principles that govern the relationships between states are
supported by different arguments, and have different content, than those that apply
within states? Or perhaps we should get rid of stats altogether and opt instead for a
world government? If, however, we stop short of that and decide that global relations
between states should be governed by some principles of justice, questions that arose in
relation to interpersonal relations must again be faced: what is the responsibility, if any,
of developed to developing states? How may a state act, unilaterally or multilaterally,
towards any state that threatens it? What are the conditions under which war is “just”?
Was the radical British political philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806-73) right in his claim
that refusal to fight in a war against an unjust regime is cowardice?

These categories are rough, and hide a multitude of further complexities and sub-
questions. Answers given to questions in one category very often affect answers to
questions in another. For example, if how children are raised within families is a matter
of legitimate political attention – if, for example, every child has a right to be free from
violence and hunger, and has a right to an education – then significant interference by
the state in the “private” realm of the family may be unavoidable, and even required.
Finally, there are some themes in political theory that involve thinking about
interpersonal, state-personal, and global relations all at once: questions about how to
protect the environment – in particular, those relating to climate change – are a good
example. Despite these complexities and omissions, the categories and questions just
listed give a good indication of the breadth of issues about which political theorists think.

POLITICAL THEORY AND THE REAL WORLD

How do political theorists think about such questions? Very often, a distinction is made
between normative or prescriptive and descriptive thinking in order to address this
issue. Normative thinking is thinking in terms of how persons, society, or the world
ought to be; descriptive thinking aims to present a picture of how persons, society and
the world actually are. In this way, descriptive thinking can be said to mirror the world,
while normative thinking aims to change it.

The claim is often made that political theory is a normative subject: political theorists tell
us how people ought to interact, the sorts of laws we ought to pass, what it means for
democratic systems to function well, etc.

Political theory involves some descriptive thinking in at least two ways. First, many
political theorists operate with a set of background assumptions that describe the world
to which their theory applies. For example, most thinkers concerned with distributive
justice (the way in which goods ought to be distributed among people) assume that the
circumstances of justice hold true. Second, it matters to political theorists that
assumptions are not so removed from reality that they are nothing but fantasy. It
matters that the principles and recommendations advocated on the back of the
assumptions are achievable, which means that the assumptions themselves must
describe forms of social interaction, personal dispositions, and institutional design that
we can imagine being instantiated in the world, given our knowledge of it.

So, in order to get to the point of making normative political recommendations, political
theorists engage in descriptive thinking, albeit often by imagining a world that is slightly
removed from – and slightly better than – the one we know. They keep an eye on the
realism of the assumptions they use. Political theory is for real, living, human beings,
with all their frailties, greed, kindness, and cruelty; it is not for angels, aliens, or
monsters.

POLITICAL THEORY: CONFLICT, DIAGNOSIS AND ORDER

Political Theory and Conflict. Situations of political conflict arise over differences in
religion, gender, class, economic interests, race, social status, and so forth. Political
conflict may occur over affirmative action, taxation, regulation of business, government
aid to schools, terrorism, health care, multiculturalism, and many other subjects. Such
conflicts can produce urgent social problems and disorder. Edmund Burke argues that
the pursuit of political theory takes place in a condition of political disorder or decay.
Thomas Spragens said that the political philosophies and comprehensive visions of
political philosophers “are like pearls: they are not produced without an irritant.”

Political Theory and Diagnosis. Political theorists provide a comprehensive vision of

the political when they raise questions and provide some answers about the most
important factors that cause conflict, disorder, corruption, violence, terrorism,
exploitation, or revolution. By doing so, they lead us to focus on the particular factors
that cause political disorder or order. For example, Hobbes examines human passions;
Machiavelli focuses on human deception and its relevance to successful political
leadership; and Marx addresses the role that economic inequality and class conflict play
in forming a political system. Political theorists are not satisfied in simply describing
public disorder or discontent: They seek to diagnose the cause of human conflict. For
example, Marx is not satisfied simply to describe economic class conflict in society; he
shows that the unequal material distribution of resources causes that conflict. Such
descriptions of human conflicts and disorder are united with the political theorist’s
diagnosis of the disorder’s causes and then related to his or her prescription for a
political therapy that will make public life better.” Sound diagnoses must precede
beneficial therapy,” says Thomas Spragens.

Political Theory as Prescription or Political Therapy. The political theorist offers his
or her prescription or therapy by identifying appropriate norms or standards, which help
to resolve or diminish human social conflicts, thereby creating a better political order.
Which is the best form of government? Are there proper limits to freedom? What type of
equality should be the basis of public policies – equal rights, equal opportunities, equal
results? What should be the basis for just treatment of individuals or groups?

Among the political theorists, various conflicting norms are claimed – such as Plato’s
“justice,” which is the harmony of individuals in society in which all pursue the tasks they
are most capable of performing; or Marx’s social “justice,” which occurs when each
person gives freely of his or her talents for the public good and everyone’s basic needs
are equally provided for; Hobbes’s “justice,” which is the social situation in which the
state’s sovereign is obeyed absolutely. Which of these conflicting norms concerning
justice is true or workable in terms of human needs, talents , and resources? When we
read political theorists and their different and conflicting norms, we are invited to reflect
upon the norms we hold, or to discuss with others whether we should accommodate,
tolerate, integrate, or reject these norms in our own imperfect public life.
In summary, we can say that a political theory has factual (descriptive), diagnostic
(causal), and evaluative (normative or prescriptive) dimensions to its comprehensive
vision of politics as conflict over power and modes of social cooperation.

AN OVERVIEW OF THEMES AND THEORIES.

The main task of each the subject is to provide an exposition of the main arguments of
each thinker. However, each thinker makes use of broad patterns of argument that can
be used to link or contrast groups of thinkers. In what follows I provide a brief glossary
or explanation of some of these broad theories. Once again it will be for you to decide
how closely any particular thinker fits within one of these theories.

Individualism.
In one sense individualism is the most illusive of theories since all theories that do
not deny the obvious fact that there are individuals are individualist. However, for our
purposes there are two important ways in which theories can be individualist. The first is
methodological. A theory is methodologically individualist when it uses the idea of the
individual person as the most basic unit of social explanation. On such a view all other
forms of association such as family, church, culture, nation, state or civilisation are
explained through the actions and choices of the individuals that compose them. The
individual is primary and the complex association is secondary. A good example of a
thinker who is methodologically individualist is Hobbes, but we could also include Locke,
Mill and, more controversially, Rousseau. The second sense in which a theory can be
individualist is normatively or ethically. Ethical individualists claim that the basic unit
of moral importance is the human individual and his or her rights. Some theories can be
ethically individualist without being methodologically individualist. But thinkers who
combine both positions are Locke and Mill.

Communitarianism.

Communitarian theories are the opposite of individualist theories and can also take two
forms. Methodologically communitarian theories give explanatory priority to the
group, whether this be family, nation culture or class, as opposed to the individual. An
obvious exemplar of this position is Marx, but we can also include Hegel. Both claim that
the human individual emerges through social relations such as class relations or through
the idea of the state as an organic (growing and interrelated transgenerational)
community. Yet one could be a methodologically communitarian thinker and still attach
primary ethical significance to the person and not the state, nation or culture. Some
argue that this is actually Hegel’s position. Ethical communitarians on the other hand
claim that individuals are the bearers of ethical significance only because of the roles and
relations they enjoy. Consequently, communities such as family, clan, nation or state
can have a prior claim on an individual. Such theories tend to emphasise duty over rights
and explain the idea of rights through membership of particular communities, such as
states, which exist before the person and will persist long after the person. Some of the
most fundamental debates in political theory take place between individualists and
communitarians.

Contractarianism.

This is an ethically individualist theory that explains the origin of the state or other
institutions and its authority on the basis of an agreement (contract) between
individuals. Such individuals are usually said to reside in a state of nature. This is a
condition free from any of the institutions, structures, laws and obligations of politics and
the state. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau are perhaps the most famous contract theorists,
but the idea is still used among some contemporary political philosophers. The role of
the contract, promise or agreement is the feature that differs between contract theories.
The social contract is most commonly seen as a hypothetical device. That means it does
not actually have to take place. We can treat the emergence and authorisation of
political sovereignty as if it emerged from an agreement, even if we have no evidence of
such a contract ever having been entered into. This seems to be the approach taken by
Hobbes and Rousseau. However, Locke at least seems to suggest that the original
contract to establish civil society must have taken place at some remote time in history.
Hypothetical contract theories are the most popular because they can apply across
generations and avoid the main problem that applies to historical contracts. If a contract
or agreement is historical, then it raises a question about why future generations after
those who made the agreement should be bound by it. If your great-grandmother
promised to do something, does that place an obligation on you to continue doing what
she promised?

Utilitarianism.

Social contract arguments are sometimes used to explain and justify morality, but there
is another great individualist ethical theory, namely utilitarianism. Utilitarians hold two
positions, the first is consequentialist, and the second concerns the conception of the
good in terms of which consequences are judged. Consequentialists believe that
the object of moral obligation and appraisal is consequences or states of affairs and not
motives or the character of the agent. A bad person can still bring about good
consequences, just as a conscientious individual can bring about appalling consequences.
The second dimension to utilitarian theories is the way in which consequences are
assessed. Consequences are assessed in terms of the amount of some good-making
property. There is a variety of such properties such as sensations of pleasure or
happiness, welfare or the satisfaction of desires or preferences. John Stuart Mill, one of
the most important utilitarian theorists thought that the good was the maximisation of
pleasurable states and the minimisation of painful ones, so he argues that the criteria for
judging actions or policies is to identify which one ‘maximises the greatest happiness of
the greatest number’. The more of this property produced by an act or policy the better
the consequences. Most utilitarian theories are maximising theories: the best act or the
right act is the one that maximises good consequences. Utilitarian theories developed
following the decline of natural law theories of morality.

Natural law.

Natural law theories claim that the basis of our most fundamental moral and political
obligations are derived from a law that applies to us by virtue of our natures, and not
because of any prior agreement or because we are subject to a coercive authority. We
can discover this law of nature simply through the exercise of reason. All we have to do
is reflect on the kinds of being we are and our place in the world and we can come to
know our obligations. Natural law theorists distinguish between the law of nature that is
accessible to all through reason and divine law that is revealed in a sacred text such as
the Bible or Koran. Theorists differ on the content or substance of natural law. For
Hobbes, the law of nature is merely a generalisation from human experience of the
tendency of human beings to preserve themselves. For Hobbes, then, the law of nature
is a descriptive law, like a law of psychology or physics. For Locke, on the other hand,
the law of nature is a moral law that imposes strict duties upon individuals. The problem
for natural law theories is that we can disagree about our natures and that will affect
what we take our obligations to be. Furthermore, although it is called law, natural law
seems to be incomplete in respect of its carrying a clear and authoritative sanction. So
although natural law theorists like to claim there is law prior to the state, they still rely
on the state and positive law to turn natural law claims into real commands sanctioned
by the threat of punishment.

Communism.

Most people will associate communism with the ideology of the communist party as
expounded by Karl Marx and developed by Lenin and other twentieth-century leaders
such as Mao. In this sense Communism is almost an historical curiosity following the
collapse of ‘really existing socialism’ in 1989. However, for our purposes communism
means more than the teachings of Marxism–Leninism. It means a society or mode of
existence without private property or ownership. Marx presupposes communism as
a condition for overcoming the exploitation and alienation of the wage labour system.
However, communism also describes the situation in Locke’s state of nature before the
initial acquisition of private property. Rousseau also uses the idea of communism to
describe man’s natural condition before the discovery of technology (agriculture and
metallurgy). However, whereas Rousseau and Marx regard communism as a good thing
corrupted by acquisitiveness, other thinkers such as Locke see communism as a bad
thing because, given natural scarcity, it creates conflict and disorder.

The Concept of the 'Sovereign' in Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan

Thomas Hobbes defines the natural ‘state of man’, as one in which man desires ‘Felicity’ i.e.,
happiness. Felicity in itself has no single conception that is shared by all human beings, but more so,
it is for the continual satisfaction in which individuals differ in their wants and desires. In the pursuit
of felicity  as it is conceived here, it is the natural state of man to exercise his right i.e. the ‘right of
nature’, to attain or possess that which is solely for his own self-gratification. Without having a
common conception of felicity in the state of nature, man evokes his own state of happiness as his
own conscience dictates it to be. In this primitive state, there are no common rules for that which is
right or that which is wrong. Problems arise when different individuals want the same thing e.g.
money, power, land etc. In situations such as these, the possibility of conflict manifesting itself is
inevitable, and if considered to be an appropriate way, this act gives way to the use of violence as
being an appropriate way for any man to achieve his goals. In this way the  state of nature manifests
itself as a ‘state of war."

No Law Without a Lawmaker

In the state of man  we find three principal causes of argument: ‘First, competition; second,
diffidence; third, glory.’ Man competes against man for gain and possession, in diffidence for
defence and constant success, and in glory for reputation and power. From these three perspectives,
Hobbes concludes that ‘during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe,
they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war, as is of every man, against every man.’
In the state of nature, men are equal both in state of mind and body, but no one is immune to being
brought down by others. Even by the weakest of men. In this pre-political state of man, the
individual is solely dependent on his own physical and intellectual abilities for the sake of his self-
preservation: ‘and the life of man; solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.’ In this very bleak passage
Hobbes depicts that the greatest form of deprivation is the absence of civilisation and the benefits
that derive from it. Of these benefits, it is namely that of peace, which is to be seen as an essential
core in the construction of Hobbes’ Leviathan.

It is only through the establishment of a commonwealth that the essence of civilisation can be
properly attained. In the natural state of war: ‘the notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice,
have there no place.’ It is in man’s natural rights in the state of nature to seek the objects of his
desire. With no distinctions of dominions or ‘what is mine?’ at all costs, man seeks to possess what
he can get for himself. In doing so he finds himself in a state of perpetual competition with his fellow
opponents desiring the same things. In situations such as these, it would be in men’s best interests
to liberate themselves from this savage free-for-all of the state of nature, in order to avoid head-on
conflicts and the strong possibility of destroying each other. The only possible solution towards
avoiding such conflict and the possible outbreak of civil war is to establish ‘a common power of fear.’
Without this ‘there is no law; where no law, no injustice.’ Until a lawmaker defines law, there can be
no moral values within any form of society.

In the resolution of conflict, the fear of death is the key motive for establishing peace. With this in
mind, Hobbes proposes that it is in our own self-interest to make a covenant or contract with the
aim in preserving peace and respecting human life. This of course would mean the abandonment of
the state of nature. People would agree to trust the judgements of an agreed person or assembly of
people, who in return could offer a more secure and substantial way of living than that of the savage
free-for-all of the state of nature. In order to ensure that all obey this covenant, Hobbes proposes ‘a
strong sovereign’ to impose severe penalties on those who disobey the laws of the established
covenants. The sovereign himself would enable people to freely trade, travel and form associations
within limits. They would not only be protected from the threat of violent attacks, but would be
involved in political life primarily through obedience to the institution of the commonwealth Civitas,
on which the sovereign power is conferred by the consent of the people assembled.

The Right of Nature; The Law of Nature

In the development of the commonwealth, Hobbes introduces the role of reason, by defining the
‘Right of Nature’ jus naturale and the ‘Law of Nature’ lex naturalis. He defines the Right of Nature as
that of the liberty each one possesses to use his own power forself-preservation. By the concept of
‘liberty’ he means the non-existence of external restrictions in a man’s ability to acquire. The  Law of
Nature  is defined as ‘a general rule, found out by reason’, which forbids a man to act in any way,
which may threaten or violate his own means for self-preservation. Through these two laws, man’s
sense of insecurity, which arises out of this ‘natural right’, is overcome by the introduction of the
‘rule of reason’.

With the development of the rules of reason, Hobbes states that the fundamental law of nature is
the general rule of reason that ‘every man, ought to endeavour peace as far as he has the hope of
obtaining it.’ If this is not possible, war should only be sought in the interest of man’s self-
preservation. The second law is based on one of the values of the Christian Gospel, ‘whatsoever you
require that others should do to you, that do ye to them.’ As liberty causes war, it is essential that
one gives up one’s own ‘rights’ with the intention of all others following suit, if the sovereign is to
function properly. Here, Hobbes uses ‘rights’ in the sense of Liberty. For it is also in man’s natural
passions to desire and attain peace. It is this rational pursuit of self-preservation through the
establishment of peace that leads men to form commonwealths.

The Origin of the Sovereign

Within the establishment of commonwealths (by institution or acquisition), man’s main priority for
his ownself-preservation and security can be found. In the case of a commonwealth existing by form
of institution, a multitude of men subject themselves to a chosen sovereign out of fear of death. In
giving up their natural right of liberty, by ‘covenant of every one, with everyone’, they subject
themselves to the sovereign. This is also otherwise known as a ‘political commonwealth’, and in the
Hobbesian mindset, a more structured way for man to proceed into the establishment of a civilised
society. One in which envelops a greater degree of security and respect for human life.

If the commonwealth is formed by no other means than that of violence, then it has been formed by
acquisition. In this fearful way, men subject themselves to a sovereign, out of a fear of the sovereign
himself. In contrast of these two different kinds of commonwealth, the rights of the sovereign can
never be affected: ‘The rights and consequences of sovereignty are the same in both.’ In the
sovereign all are united in one person or assembly by mutual covenants with one another and are
subject to his sovereign power (including the churches). They alone are the essence of all his actions.
In the social contract, the Roman Catholic Church refused to associate itself with any form of state
sovereignty. In doing this, the church separated itself from the state. In church doctrine, there can
only be two supreme sovereigns; one being God, the immortal and supreme sovereign, and the
other being the Pope. This meant that the Pope himself was party to no other sovereign than that of
God himself, in whom all things were created.

Although, the sovereign in himself is not a party to the covenant, his sovereignty derives from it.
From this there are no covenants between himself and his subjects. In the case of the sovereign
being an individual or assembly of individuals, his power is absolute. All power of judgement and
legislation are invested in him, as he has: ‘the right of making war and peace with other nations, and
commonwealths; that is to say, of judging for the public good. The sovereign receives his power
from those who are subject to him as he alone is the biggest terrorist who institutes fear as the basis
of establishing peace at home and abroad. It is through fear of the sovereign that his subjects trust
each other, for he fears no one. The sovereign can never be executed, not even by those who are
subject to him. In doing so, one would indirectly punish others for one’s own irresponsible actions.

The Bleakness of Man's Natural State

Having now discussed the Concept of the Sovereign in these three important areas, I personally feel
that Hobbes paints a very bleak picture in describing man in what he believes to be his natural state.
It would be more of a significance to say that the natural state of man  is one of good and evil. Man
naturally progresses himself through his own natural ability in the light of his own self-awareness.
And it is through his ability to do so, that he gradually comes to an awareness of his self-ignorance.
Although, there is a strong necessity for law and order in any given form of society, there is also the
need of an awareness to that of the natural good of people: e.g., what good mother, having never
conceived the concept of sovereign power, would not lay down her own life for the sake of her
child? As stated in the above discussion, man’s passions not only lead him to desire war, but also
that of peace.

Yet, it is essential to acknowledge that Leviathan  has to be one of the most influential pieces of
political documentation ever written in the history of humankind. Later on, philosophers such as
John Locke and Jacques Rousseau, in their own unique and personal ways, redeemed man from this
pre-primitive state of brutal existence portrayed by Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan.

True/False Questions
1. Hobbes states that all voluntary motion begins in the imagination.

 a. True 

 b. False 

2. Hobbes argues that some things are absolutely good and others absolutely evil.

 a. True 

 b. False 

3. Hobbes claims that humans are naturally vastly unequal, in both body and mind.

 a. True 

 b. False 

4. Hobbes claims that we are required to keep our covenants, even when there is no common
power to enforce them.

 a. True 

 b. False 
 5. Hobbes claims that each person should be content with only so much liberty as they allow
others.

 a. True 

 b. False 

Multiple-Choice Questions
1. By “animal motion,” Hobbes means:

 a. involuntary operations such as heartbeat and breathing. 

 b. instinctive behavior, such as nursing young. 

 c. irrational behavior. 

 d. all voluntary behavior. 

2. In Hobbes’s view, to say something is good is to say that:

 a. it is conducive to human happiness. 

 b. you desire it. 

 c. most people desire it. 

 d. most people ought to desire it. 

3. Hobbes describes felicity as:

 a. a state of tranquility. 

 b. a continual progress of desire from one object to another. 

  c. a state of contemplation. 

 d. the absence of desire. 

4. According to Hobbes, without a common power to keep them in awe humans would exist
in a state of:

 a. peace and harmony. 

 b. mutual indifference. 

 c. cautious mistrust. 

 d. war of every man against every man. 

5. In Hobbes’s view, a law of nature is:

 a. a command of God. 

 b. a principle of duty, known by intuition. 

 c. a principle, known by reason, which forbids one from doing something
destructive of one’s life. 

 d. None of the above. 

6. Hobbes defines injustice as:

 a. taking more than one’s share of a good. 

 b. failure to perform one’s covenant. 

 c. treating another person as a mere means. 

 d. violating a law of nature. 

7. Hobbes claims that all of the laws of nature can be summarized in the precept:
  a. maximize happiness. 

 b. never treat another person as a means to your ends. 

 c. do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself. 

 d. practice virtue in all that you do. 

8. According to Hobbes, the right of nature is:

 a. an entitlement to the fruits of one’s labors. 

 b. a claim not to be harmed by others. 

 c. the right of the king to rule his subjects. 

 d. the liberty to use one’s powers to preserve one’s life. 

Government is necessary if :
People are not to live in a state of nature
People are to pursue individual happiness
People are to engage in industry and commerce
People are to sleep safely in their beds

LEVIATHAN
Thomas Hobbes

Important Terms

Commonwealth  -  A multitude of people who together consent to a sovereign authority, established

by contract to have absolute power over them all, for the purpose of providing peace and common
defense.
Contract  -  Also called "covenant" or "social contract," contract is the act of giving up certain natural
rights and transferring them to someone else, on the condition that everyone else involved in
making the contract also simultaneously gives up their rights. People agreeing to the contract retain
only those rights over others that they are content for everyone else to retain over them.

First Principles  -  The fundamental and irreducible facts of nature that are established by
philosophical definition and upon which philosophical arguments may be built. According to Hobbes,
first principles are not discovered by observation or experiment but are decided by philosophical
debate and social consent.

Law of Nature  -  A general rule discovered by reason that forbids a person from doing anything
destructive to her own life and gives her the right of self-preservation. The laws of nature state that
human beings must strive for peace, which is best achieved by contract.

Leviathan  -  A metaphor for the state, the Leviathan is described as an artificial person whose body
is made up of all the bodies of its citizens, who are the literal members of the Leviathan's body. The
head of the Leviathan is the sovereign. The Leviathan is constructed through contract by people in
the state of nature in order to escape the horrors of this natural condition. The power of the
Leviathan protects them from the abuses of one another.

Materialism  -  The philosophy of materialism states that physical matter and its motion explain all
phenomena in the universe and construct the only reality that human beings can experience.

Natural History  -  The collection of natural objects, organisms, phenomena, and facts gathered by
observation.

Natural Man  -  An inhabitant of the state of nature. Natural men are the main characters of the
narrative within Hobbes's text, who escape from their natural condition by making a contract with
each other to engineer the Leviathan. Although they are "men," the term also includes women
(though the gender significance of this term should not be entirely ignored).

Natural Philosophy  -  Natural philosophy is the study of nature and the physical universe, and was
the intellectual endeavor that eventually led to the historical development of modern science.
Natural philosophers such as Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle believed that natural philosophy
should derive inductively the workings of nature from natural history. Hobbes believed that natural
philosophy should derive deductively the workings of nature from established first principles.
Plenum  -  Hobbes used the term "plenum" to refer to his conception of the universe; according to
this conception, the universe is wholly material in nature, making possible the condition of a vacuum
in space. The assumption that the universe is a plenum is an important aspect of Hobbes's
materialism.

Sovereign  -  The person, or group of persons, endowed with sovereignty by the social contract. The
sovereign is the head of the Leviathan, the maker of laws, the judge of first principles, the
foundation of all knowledge, and the defender of civil peace.

Sovereignty  -  Supreme authority over a commonwealth. Sovereignty is owed complete obedience

by its subjects. Hobbes describes sovereignty as the soul of the Leviathan.

State of Nature  -  The "natural condition of mankind" is what would exist if there were no
government, no civilization, no laws, and no common power to restrain human nature. The state of
nature is a "war of all against all," in which human beings constantly seek to destroy each other in an
incessant pursuit for power. Life in the state of nature is "nasty, brutish and short."