447588

7/29/2019 447588

1/11

University of Utah

Western Political Science Association

Locke's State of Nature in Political SocietyAuthor(s): Robert A. GoldwinSource: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Mar., 1976), pp. 126-135Published by: University of Utah on behalf of the Western Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/447588 .

Accessed: 22/08/2013 09:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of Utah and Western Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to The Western Political Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 186.143.20.53 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 09:50:22 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utahhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wpsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/447588?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/447588?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=wpsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=utah

7/29/2019 447588

2/11

LOCKE'S STATE OF NATURE IN POLITICAL SOCIETYROBERT A. GOLDWIN

Special Consultant to the Presidentof the United StatesEADERS of the Two Treatises of Governmenthave long wondered about themeaning of Locke's discussion of the state of nature. Did Locke thinkthatthe state of nature really existed, or did he present it as an invented orimagined state? The question has been put in this form: Is Locke's state ofnaturemoral fiction,historicalfact,a combination of both, or somethingelse?1 Ishall argue that,forLocke,

(1) the state of nature s a fact,notfiction;(2) the state of nature is a fact of the presentand the futureas well as ofthe past (and is, therefore, ot "historical" in the sense of somethingonce, but nolonger, existing);(3) the state of nature is no more nor less moral than anythingelse in theTwo Treatises of Government (a work distinguishedfrommost of Locke's otherwritings ythecomplete absence of the words"moral," "morals," and "morality");and, finally,(4) the state of nature is not only a persistent act but a necessaryand per-vasive componentofpolitical life.

IAlmost at the beginningof the Second Treatise, Locke presentshis definitionof political power and immediatelythereafter ays that "to understand politicalpower right... we must considerwhat state all men are naturally n."2 The statewe are all naturally n, the state of nature, s essentially n unpolitical state. Lockethus begins his political argument with a profoundlyparadoxical assertion: tounderstand what he means by political we must begin with considerationof theunpolitical. Why? What, in Locke's thinking,s the connection of the unpoliticaland thepolitical? thestateofnatureand political power?Locke gives us statementsdescriptiveof the state of nature,e.g., that in it allmen are perfectly qual and perfectly ree,and that in it everyman has the rightto judge and punish violations of the law of nature,but these descriptivestate-ments do not definethe state of nature.3 The essentialdefining haracteristicofthe state of nature is a defect the lack of an authority, ommonlyaccepted, tosettle controversies hatmay arise. "Want of a common judge withauthorityputsall men in a state of nature."4 The state of nature is governed by the law ofnature,5but Locke makes it clear from the beginningof his argument,and in-creasingly mphatic as it progresses, hat because judging and punishingare in the

NOTE: An earlierversion f thisessay, ntitled The Politics f Self-Interest,"as pre-sented t a meetingftheAmericanolitical cienceAssociationnChicago, eptember8, 1971. It willappear n a forthcomingolume, ssays n HonorofJacobKlein.'R. Ashcraft,Locke's Stateof Nature:Historical act orMoralFiction?"American oliti-cal ScienceReview, 2 (September 968),898-915.2 Two Treatises fGovernmentCambridge:The Universityress, 960), ed. PeterLaslett,Book I, sees.4 and 3. I havefollowedhetext, unctuation,ndspellingftheLaslettedition, utnot he apitalizationr talicization.II, secs.4 and 7.4II, sec. 19.II, sec. 6.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

7/29/2019 447588

3/11

Locke'sStateofNature nPolitical cience 127hands of everyman thestateof natureworks ery adly: the aw is insufficientlyknown nd accepted s binding,he"judges"arebiased, nd enforcementf udg-ments s weak and uncertain.6 ontroversiesn thestateof nature, nce begun,tend to continue o a harshending, ecause there s no authorityo subjectbothparties to thefairdeterminationf the aw."7 "Some men haveconfounded"hestate fnature nd the tate fwar,8 ut Locke scareful okeepthem eparate nthought nd definition.Although, s we shall see, he givesmany nstances faggressive iolence n the stateof nature, hroughouthe book Locke never aysthat he tate fnatures a state fwar, s didHobbes.9The stateof nature nd thestate of war are not thesame,butneither rethey pposites.The oppositeof the stateof nature s not the stateofwar; theopposite f thestateof nature s civil ociety.Civilsocietys formed ytheact ofagreeing osupplywhat the state fnature acks- a commonudgewith uthor-ity o settle ontroversiesnd punish iolatorsfthe aw of that ociety.The stateof nature nd civilsocietyre thusperfectpposites,ach defined ythe absenceorthepresence f a judgewith uthority.The stateof waris defineds thestatemen are in whenone usesforcewith-out authoritygainsttheperson f another; his s more ikely o happenwheretheresno authoritativeudge,but tcan anddoeshappen lso within ivil ociety."Forcewithout ight pona man'spersonmakes state fwar,bothwhere hereis and is not commonudge."1'The opposite f thestateofwar wouldbe a stateofpeace (mentionedncebyLocke,but notdiscussed),"characterizedythe use offorce nlywithright,or- notpreciselyhe same thing thenon-use f forcewithout ight. n sum,the tate f nature nd the tate fwararenot the ameandtheyre notopposites;theyare differenttatesdefined n dissimilar erms nd, therefore,ot trulycomparable.If thismuch s clear,we areready odispel everal ommon onfusions. hestateof natureneednot be prehistoric,or a condition eculiar oprimitive en,nor even prepolitical.Locke says that "all princes nd rulersof independentgovernments"re in a stateofnature.l2By this xampleLockeshows hatwhenhe speaksof thestateofnaturewe neednotread into t morethanLocke'sownstrictlyimited efinition:Wantofa commonudgewith uthorityutsall menin a stateof nature." The phrase, tateof nature,f it mustconjureup images,shouldputthereadernmind fQueenElizabeth, or xample, erhapsmore hana caveman.Heads ofgovernments,ersons reeminentlyolitical, re denizens fthe tate f nature.Further,men nthe tate f natureneed notbe thoughtf as either elligerentorpacific; he tate fnature s thenatural tate f"all men." The state fnatureis not imited o anyera- prehistoricr historic; theworldneverwas,noreverwillbe,without umbersfmen n that tate."l3 Laterwe shall ee that he tateof naturepresentlyxistsnotonlybetween olitical ommunitiesut also withinpolitical ommunities.)The stateofnature,n someform,lways xists.The stateof war, also, is not necessarilynpolitical; t can exist n civilsociety.One ofLocke's firstxamples fthe stateof war s of a thief nd hisvic-tim, othmembersfthe amepolitical ociety:II, sec. 13.TII, sec. 20.8II, sec. 19.9De Cive, The Author's refaceo theReader";Ch.V, article .0II, sec. 19."II, sec. 212.12II, sec. 14,ch. sec. 184.s Idem.


7/29/2019 447588

4/11

128 Western oliticalQuarterly... force, ra declareddesign f force pontheperson fanother, herethere s no common uperior n earth o appeal to forreliefi.e., n thestateofnature],s the stateofwar: and 'tisthewant of suchan appealgives man theright fwarevenagainst n aggressor,hough e be insocietynda fellowubject i.e., ncivil ociety].'4

Thus, paradoxically,ocke asserts hatmen can be in a political nd unpoliticalstatesimultaneously;ellow ubjects n political ociety an also be, at thesametime,n a stateofnature; nd in that tateofnaturewithin ivil ociety hey analso be, at the sametime, n a stateofwar with ach other.How thisworkssmade clearer yLocke'sexample:... a thief,whom cannotharm butbyappeal to the aw, forhavingstolen ll that am worth, maykill,whenhe setsonme torobmebutofmyhorse r coat: becausethe aw,whichwas madeformypreserva-tion,where t cannot nterposeo securemy ifefrom resent orce...permitsme myown defence, nd theright fwar,a libertyokill theaggressor,ecause theaggressorllowsnot timeto appeal to our com-mon udge... 15Whenonecitizen, ttacked yothers,s unprotected ycivil uthorityecausethepolice cannot arrive n time, t is as if civilauthorityemporarilyoes not existand- toa limited xtentnd temporarily thecitizensre n the tate fnaturealthough hey re also- to a greater xtent nd permanently in civilsociety.And if, n thatsituation f thestateof naturewithin ivilsociety, nauthorizedforce s usedagainst heperson f somecitizen rcitizens,oththeaggressorsndthevictims re nthe tate f war.Because even n a strictlyoliced societyhepolicecannot lwaysbe present,it is a common xperienceo be in thestate fnature as whenwalking ownadarkand empty treet t night ne seesa strange igurepproach nd finds im-selfhoping hata policecar willcomeby. As suchoccasions re commonn theexperiencef us all, it is safeto saythat veryone as been n thestate fnature,at one timeor another, o someextent, venthoughhe lives n civilsociety,ndalwayshas.We have seen thusfarthatthe stateofnature xists n twoways, onsistentwiththe existence f civilsociety: n therelations f independent olitical om-munitiesnd,within political ommunity,n therelationsfcriminalsnd theirvictims.But the mostsignificantorm f thestateof naturewithin ivilsocietyextendsmuchfartherhanthese, o all ofthoserelationsmongmenthat houldnot be- and in a decentmodernpoliticalsociety,re not-regulated by theofficialuthorities. xamplesof such relations re themaking nd breaking ffriendships,hemaking nd breaking f promises thatfall short f contracts),and theactivities fbusiness ompetitionot nvolvingiolationsfthe aw.Theseand similar ctivities nd relations mongmen and women are thought o bebeyond heproperreachoftheauthoritiesnd are,therefore,form f thestateof naturewithin ivil ociety,ccording oLocke'sdefinition:wantofa commonjudgewith uthorityuts llmen n a state fnature."II

This discussionf the tate fnaturehas thus ar gnored neexplicit lementof Locke's definition hich shouldno longerbe ignored.Locke saysthat"menlivingtogetherccording o reason,without common uperior n earth,with4'II, sec. 19.II, sec. 19; cf. ec.207.


7/29/2019 447588

5/11

Locke'sStateofNature nPolitical cience 129authorityo judge between hem, s properlyhe stateof nature,"'land so wemust skwhat, n thestateof nature,s "according o reason." As we shall m-mediatelyee, n the tate fnature, woobligationsominate: veryones "boundtopreserve imself"nd also "topreserveherest fmankind."We cannotunder-standfullywhatLockemeansbyreason n the stateofnatureuntilwe see howthese woobligationsrerelated.Lockesays:

Every ne as he is bound topreserve imself,nd nottoquithis stationwillfully;o bythe ike reasonwhenhisownpreservationomesnot ncompetition,ughthe, as muchas he can, to preserveherest fman-kind, ndmaynot unless tbe to do justice n an offender,ake way, rimpair he ife, r what tends o thepreservationf the ife, he iberty,health,imb rgoods f nother.17When we are told thatthere re twoobligations,eeminglyqual- to preserveyourselfnd to preserve thers thefirst aturalquestion especiallywhentheauthorhimselfpeaksof one's ownpreservationeing"in competition")wemustask is: If they onflict, hich omesfirst? ocke doesnotraisethatquestion x-plicitly,uthe doesprovide heanswer, omewhat catteredhroughouthe TwoTreatises.18We mustbeginby noting hat Locke places somequalificationsn theobli-gationto preserve herestof mankind.Everyone ughtto preserve the restofmankind" as muchas he can"; in thestate fnature, owmuchcanhe? Every-one oughtto seek to preserve therest fmankind" whenhis ownpreservationcomesnot n competition";n the stateofnature,willhisownpreservationomein competitionften, nd whatmusthe do when t does? These qualificationsgenerate uestionshatmake theequality fthe twoobligationsoubtful,t least,and suggest hepossibilityhatLocke meantthatwhenthetwoobligationsre inconflictheduty fself-preservationomesfirst. shallargue,however,hatthatisnot sufficientlyccuratewayof tating hatLockemeant.Self-preservations a fundamentalhemeof the Two Treatises.God's wayofspeaking o man and assuring imthateverythinge does topreserve imselfisrightwasto"plant" n man"a strongesire f elf-preservation";For thedesire, trong esire fpreservingis ife nd beinghavingbeenplanted n him,as a principle f actionbyGod himself,eason,whichwas the voiceof God in him,couldnot but teachhim and assurehim,thatpursuing hatnatural nclination e had to preserve isbeing,hefollowedhewillofhisMaker, nd thereforead a right... to makeuseof those hings,hatwerenecessaryr useful ohisbeing.l9The desirefor elf-preservation,ocke says, s "the first nd strongestesire,"20"principle f action" mplantedn ournatures.Reasonteachesus thatfollowingtheinclination o self-preservations right; eason "could not but teach" us and"assure"us of that. The mostpowerful esirefor self-preservation-is hefoundation f our right o life: this s whatreasonteachesus. Locke's assertionthatmen live togethern the stateof nature"according o reason" means thateveryman seeks o protect isright o those hings hattendtopreserve is life.If reason annot eachus otherwisehanthatwehavea right o whatever eneedforpreservation,hydo weneed furthernstruction? ne responsemight ethatrestraint,nd moderation,nd considerationorthepreservationfothers,II, sec. 19.7 I, sec. 17.18Fora discussionf use of"scatter'd" riting,eeBook , sees.7 ff.9 I, sec. 86.20I,sec. 88.


7/29/2019 447588

6/11

130 Western oliticalQuarterlybeingpeacable and nonprovocative aysof behavingtowardothers, re con-duciveto one's own preservation;f so, then men wouldverymuchneed suchinstruction.We can say, hen, hat here retwoaspects oself-preservation:irst,caringforone's self nd,second, espectingheright o lifeofothers.The firstsfullyguided by the strongest uman desireand by reason; the secondrequiresinstruction.The stateofnature s governed ythe aw ofnature, nd "reason,which sthat aw, teachesall mankindwho will but consult t, that... no one oughttoharmanother...." This is thepart of the law of natureforwhichconsulting,instruction,s needed. Are the conditions ropitious orsuch consultingn thestate fnature? Locke makesus doubt t: "Forthough he aw ofnature e plainand intelligibleo all rational reatures; etmenbeingbiassedbytheirnterest,swellas ignorant orwant ofstudy f t,arenotapt to allowof tas a lawbindingtothem...."21 It seems hat n theaspectof the aw of naturen whichmenmostneedinstruction regard orthepreservationf therest fmankind thestateofnature rovides oorprofessors.To the extent hat nstructedeason eachesmen to respect thers,t willbelittleheededin the stateof nature.The difficultys in that "first nd strongestdesire." Especially n the state of nature, hatpowerful atural nclinationwillbe consistentlyperative. t shouldnotsurprise s thatLockenowhere ellsus ofa strong esire, rnaturalnclination,rprinciple f actionwithinmentopreservethe restof mankind.He sayswe have thatobligation, ut what will ead us orforce s tofulfillt? Locke'sanswer, believe,s that nlyhuman aw, npoliticalsociety, ill lead to theenforcementfthatpartofournatural bligations.Theobligationsf thelaw ofnature, ease not n society, utonly n many asesaredrawncloser, nd have byhuman awsknownpenalties nnexed o them, o in-force heir bservation."22aradoxically,he law of nature reason becomesmorefully perativen civil ocietyhan t can be in thestate f nature.In order o understand hat Lockemeansbythephrase, according o rea-son,"we askedthequestion: n case ofconflict, hichobligation omesfirst,heduty opreserveurselvesrtheduty opreserveherest f mankind? f I under-standLocke correctly,is responsewouldbe thatthequestion s not wellput.The endofthe awof nature s thepreservationf all mankind23 in the tateof nature heenforcementfthe aw is in thehandsofeveryman ndividually,orsomeonemusthave theauthorityo enforce he aw and punishviolators,r elseitwill notbe effective;nd ifonehas suchpower na state fperfectquality, llmusthave it.24The law ofnature,whichwills hepreservationf all mankind,ssoon transformedy Locke intopreservationf "the innocent" nd restraintf"offenders"25quitesensibly,f course, or ftherewerenot both kinds fmentherewouldbe noproblem fpreservation,rat leastnoneedtoprotectmenfromthehostilityf othermen,although herewouldstillbe theproblems ccasionedbytheharshnessfnature, .g.,famine, pidemic, lood, rought,r earthquake.The task thenbecomesnot to preserve ll, which s not alwayspossible, ut toavoid the victory f the "offenders"t the expenseof thepreservationf "theinnocent";26heproblem henbecomesone of determininghe extent o which"one manmay awfullyoharm oanother."2721 II, sec.124; f.,I, sec.12, ocke'seferenceo"a studierf hataw."22 II, sec. 135.23II, sec. 7.24II, secs.7,8 ff.25I, sec. 16.26II, sec. 7.27II, sec. 8.


7/29/2019 447588

7/11

Locke'sStateofNature n Political cience 131A man whoattacks notherwithout ight becomes angerous omankind";his assault s "a trespassgainst hewhole pecies."The onewho s attackedmaykill theattacker,where t is necessary,"nd in doing o he acts"bytheright e

hathtopreservemankindngeneral."28n the state fnature, everyman... hasa powerto kill a murderer,"ecausea murderer as "declaredwar against llmankind."29 he "right o destroyhatwhichthreatensmewithdestruction"sjustifiedn the name of theobligation o preserve ll: "For bythefundamentallaw ofnature,manbeing o be preserved,s muchas possible,when ll cannotbepreserv'd,he afetyfthe nnocentstobepreferred..."30The turnof thearguments nowapparent.The question f thepriorityfself-preservationersus hepreservationf all, seemsto dissolve s Locke arguesit. There need be no answer o thequestionn thatform, ecausethe twoobliga-tions ppear tomerge nd becomealmost ne. In thestateofnature, nd in thestate f naturencivil ociety, henonedefends imselfgainst ttack, edefendsall ofmankind s wellas himself.fhe kills he ggressor,e hassavedhimselfndprotectedmankind:"One maydestroy man who makeswar uponhim... forthe amereason hathemaykill wolf r a Lyon."'3If I am notmistaken,n every assage n whichLockespeaks ftheduty opreservell mankind, e invariablyinks heperformancefthatobligationo thekilling f anotherman whomight ndanger ne's life. 2 Evenwhenhe is speak-ingof mennot n thestateofnature,we see thesamepattern:"[Politicalpoweris] a powerto make aws,and annex suchpenalties o them, s maytendto thepreservationf thewhole [society],ut cutting ff thoseparts, nd thoseonly,which re so corrupt,hatthey hreaten hesoundand healthy, ithoutwhichnoseveritys lawful."33Locke's ssumptionverywheres that herewill nevitablyeoffendersgainstthe law seeking hepreservationfall, and thatthereforehepreservationfallis unattainable; e seekswhatmight e attainable, hepreservationfsome, theinnocent,"ythekilling ftheoffenders"where t snecessary").34 utbecausechief haracteristicf the stateof nature s theself-lovehatmakesmenpartialto themselves,he nclinations strong or veryman to udgehimselfo be oneof"the nnocent" nd others obe theoffenders:wheremenmaybe judges ntheirown case,... he whowas so unjust s to do hisbrothern injury,willscarcebeso just as to condemnhimself or t."35I concludethat, n thestateofnature,everythingman doesto preserve imselfs likely o be justified yhim, hesolejudgeand executioner,s action opunish n aggressorr offendergainst he awof nature.Preservingne's self ndpreservingllmankind hus ecomepracticallyindistinguishable.If therewere morereadily iscernableonflictetween hetwogreatnaturalobligations,urely elf-preservation,heone buttressedy "the first nd strongestdesire,"wouldprevail.Mankind s fortunatehat thepreservationf all ofman-kind an be linked yreason othepowerfulatural nclinationo elf-preservation.

IIIThe strong esire or elf-preservation,ccording oLocke, s thefoundationof thenaturalright o things onducive o preservation;iventhatright, eason

28II, sec. 8.29II, sec. 11.30II, sec. 16.31Idem.32II, secs.6, 7,8, 11,16.3 I, sec. 171.34II, secs. 16 and 8.35 I, sec. 13.


7/29/2019 447588

8/11

132 Western oliticalQuarterlyteaches veryonen thestate f nature hathe has a right okill notherman whothreatens im, s muchas he has theright o killan attackingwild animal. Be-causethishas so harsh sound, t bearsrepeatinghat hestate f nature ccord-ing to Locke is differentromHobbes'sstateof nature. Hobbes rarely sed thephrase, thestateofnature"; t neveroccurs n Leviathan,f I am not mistaken(althoughothervery imilarphrasesdo occur,such as "the condition f merenature"). Whenhe speaksof ifebeing solitary,oor,nasty, rutish,nd short,"Hobbes s speaking xpresslyfthe"time f war."36ButHobbesdoes notdifferen-tiatethestates rconditions fnature ndwar. Forexample,n De Cive,Hobbessaysthat "the stateof men without ivilsociety whichstatewe mayproperlycall the state of nature) is nothingelse but a mere war of all against all...." 37In another lace in the samework,he says, wemeansucha waras is of all menagainst ll men,suchas is themere tateofnature."38 he pointofthis extualobservations not so much to say somethingbout Hobbes as to emphasize hesignificancef thedistinctionfthetwostates o carefullyefinednd so strictlyadheredto byLocke. Lockemade a use of the stateofnature hatHobbesdidnot, y eparatingt,bydefinition,romhe tate fwar.WhenLockespeaks f men n the tate fnature hereader an substitutehedefinition "Men living ogetherccording o reason,without common upe-rior" without avingto add anyother ondition r characteristic.t can be astateof anysortor sorts fmen, o longas they ackan effectivend commonlyaccepted uthority. r they an be men n civilsocietywhoserelationsre noneof the business f theauthorities,rbeyond hereach ofthe authorities. o longas there s no authorityo intervenen case ofcontroversy,hey re- at least npart, rtemporarily,rboth inthe tate fnature.IV

The state f nature nd the tate fwarare mentionedmore requentlyowardthe end ofthe SecondTreatise,wherepolitical ocietys discussed,han nmanyearly hapters f thebookthatdiscuss he ifeofman outside fpolitical ociety.This observationrings s backto theearlier uestion:What s thepolitical ele-vanceoftheunpolitical?In the stateof nature, man has twogreatnaturalpowers: first, otsur-prisingly,hepowerto preserve isownlife, iberty,nd possessions; econd, hepowerto "punish hebreaches fthat aw [ofnature]nothers,s he isperswadedtheoffence eserves,venwithdeath... ."3 These twopowers re the"original"ofpolitical ower;they re thenatural owers ivenup toform ivil ociety.Butone of thesepowers s not, nd cannotbe,wholly ivenup; and what s retainedbyeveryman,what s heldback even n civilsociety, ives specialcharacter oLocke'steachingboutthenature fthepolitical.The power each man has in the stateof nature "to punishthe crimescommitted gainst that law [of nature],"Locke says "he whollygivesup."40There cannotbe civil societywherecitizens ontinue o insist n theirnaturalright o punish hosewhoviolatethe aw. The earlier xample fthe thiefmadethisclear; evenif he steals all that am worth," I cannotharm him]butbyappeal tothe aw."But it is otherwise iththe first aturalpower, viz. ofdoingwhatsoever ethought itforthepreservationfhimself,nd the rest f mankind. ."41 Locke8 Leviathan,h.13." "The Author's reface otheReader."aCh. V, article .9 II, sec. 87.4011 secs.128, 130.41I sec. 128.


7/29/2019 447588

9/11

Locke'sStateofNature nPolitical cience 133doesnotsaythatthispower s wholly ivenup in order oform olitical ociety.Whenever e speaksof thisfirst aturalpower,he qualifies hegiving p. It isclearthat hepowerofself-preservationannotbe givenup completely;omethingofit persists ithin ivilsociety.He saysthateverymangivesup thispower"sofarforths thepreservationfhimself,nd therest fthat ocietyhallrequire."42This mustbe contrasted iththewords hat followmmediately: Secondly, hepower fpunishingewholly ives p...."43The first eservationoncernsheability fthe authoritieso act,and act intime. The naturalpower s "resign'd p intothehandsofthecommunityn allcasesthatexcludehim notfrom ppealingforprotectiono the aw."44 t cannotbe considered holly iven pbecausetherewillbe caseswhere ppealfor ffectiveprotections notpossible. Again: "withthe udgment f offences hichhe hasgivenup to the egislativen all cases,wherehe can appeal to themagistrate,ehas given right o thecommonwealtho imployhisforce...."4 Becausetherewill be cases wherehe cannotappeal to themagistrate,heright s notwhollygiven up. Once again: "Now thispower,whicheveryman has in that stateofnature, nd whichhe partswithto thesociety,n all cases,where hesociety ansecurehim, s, to use such meansfor thepreservingf his ownproperty,s hethinks ood,and nature llows him... "46 But,sincesocietywill not be able tosecurehim n every ase, it is clearthatsomethings heldbackby everyman inthe ransitionromhe tate fnature ocivil ociety.This something-held-backs theretainednaturalpowerof every itizen odo whatever eemsnecessaryo preserve imselfn all thosecaseswherehe canrely n no one buthimself;nd theremustbe many uchcases, s we have seen,in thecommon xperience f everyone.But Locke'suse of it goesmuchfartherthantheright f self-defensegainst n armedrobber.The greatesthreat oself-preservationn civilsocietys themanwho abusespolitical ower nd attemptsoextend t beyondpolitical imits. Whena rulerusespower n a waythatmakesthepeoplefeelunsafe;whentheirives, iberties,nd estates re indanger fcon-fiscationr are subjectto other llegalforce, nd there s, in the natureof thesituation, o appeal to an impartialudgewith uthorityo settle hecontroversybetween he ruler nd subjects, hatsomething-held-backomes ntodecisive c-tion. The law theywill act under, he law of self-preservation,s "a law ante-cedent nd paramount oall positiveawsofmen." Theyhave "reserv'dhatulti-mate determinationo themselves,hichbelongs o all mankind,where here iesno appeal on earth."

And this udgment hey annotpartwith, tbeingoutof a man'spowerso to submithimself o another,s togivehim a libertyo destroy im;God and Naturenever llowing man so to abandonhimself,s tone-glecthis ownpreservation;nd sincehe cannottakeawayhis own life,neither anhegive nother ower o take t.4The significancef thestateof nature or the remnant f it thatsurvivesin thatportion f naturalpowerthateveryman holds back-in civilsocietys

the imitationt placeson theexercise fpoliticalpower. The tyrant sespowerthatwas notgivenup to himand to thecommunity.he peoplesense hedangerto themselvesnd theirproperty.He uses theirforceforpurposes heynever42II, sec. 129.3 I, sec. 130.44II, sec. 87.5II, sec. 88.46II, sec. 171.47 I, sec. 168.


7/29/2019 447588

10/11

134 Western oliticalQuarterlyintended, orhisgood,not theirs.The tyrantlaceshimself utside f their oliti-cal society, ecausehe putshimself bove the aw, and menare not n the samepolitical ociety nless hey re subject o the same aws and to the same commonjudge. The tyrants in the state f nature n relation o the ubjects nd ifhe usesforce gainst hem twill be without ight; hus,he putshimselfn a state f warwiththem, n whichstatetheyhave the right o defend hemselvesnd to dowhateverhey hinkids their wnpreservation.48Somethingf the state f nature ersists ithin veryman, n thatpartof hisright o protecthimself hathe cannotgiveup without ecoming omethingessthana humanbeing;Lockedescribeshis ort fman, ifelesshough live, n hischapter Of Slavery."49 laves are notproprietorsf their wnlives; theyhavenothingoholdback. Men whoarenotslavesholdbacksomethingrom oliticalsocietyhat hey o not nd cannotgiveup,no matter owcivilizedndpoliticizedthey re.Thus the tate f nature ersistsncivil ocietyn twoways.The firsturvivalof t is seen n the factthatcivilauthorityannotreacheverywhere.f a politicalregime id seekto be completelyotalitarian,.e.,toregulate hetotalityfhumanaffairs, otonlypatrollingvery treet utpenetratingehindevery loseddoor(or,moreextreme, emovingveryock or evenevery oorthatmight e closedto surveillance), venso the stateof naturewouldnotbe completelyradicated;infact, ccording o Locke'sargument,t wouldbe reintroducedna strongerndworseform hantheordinarytateof nature.The totalitarianttempt o eradi-cate the state f naturewithin olitical ocietys notpolitical t all; it usespowerthat annotbe calledpolitical ecause t s a useofpower hatmen cannot onsentto; it putsthe authoritiesn a stateofnaturewith hesubject; tbrings ack thestate fnature nd the tate fwar, his imewithno admixturefpolitical ociety.Locke saysof absolutemonarchyhat t is "inconsistentith ivilsociety,nd socan be no form fcivilgovernmentt all."50 The attempt f a politicalregimeto stampout thevestiges f naturalright r powerwithin ivil society as theopposite f the ntended ffect: tbrings ack thefull tate fnature; t eliminatescivil ociety;tis theworst orm fthestate fnature, ecause t s combinedwiththe state fwar.51The secondway n whichthe stateof naturemustpersistn civilsocietyiesin that implefactof humannature, ccording oLocke,thatmen cannotwhollygiveup their esire rnatural nclinationo ookout for hemselves,n inclinationthat s strengthenedy danger.52 omethingfthe stateofnaturepersists ithinevery itizen;drivingt out ofhimdoes notmake him moreofa citizen, ut theopposite;adhering trictlyo Locke's definitionsnd terms,we must see thatasuccessfulurging fthe remnantfthe tate f nature rom citizenwouldmakehimnotmore fa citizen,ut slave.

VA properunderstandingfwhatLocke meansbythestate fnature,imitingit to the state s defined yLockeand notaddingunnecessaryccretionsf mean-

ing,has led to understandinghy hephrase ppears o oftenwhenLockespeaksof the "executive rerogative,"tyranny,"he imits fpoliticalpower, therightto resist" hetyrant,nd the "dissolutionfgovernment." erhaps he most m-a II, sees. 28, 29, 02, 22.9 I, ch. v, speciallyec. 3;cf. I, sec. 5.II, sec. 0; cf. ThePreface."1II, sec.91.Note ocke's istinctionf the rdinarytate fnature"nd"the nrestrainedstate fnature."II, sees. 09, 10, 25, 30.


7/29/2019 447588

11/11

Locke'sStateofNature nPolitical cience 135portant spectforus is theway n whichLockeusedthe term nd thethoughtosetoutthe imits fpolitical ower.The teachingmust e understoods addressedtoboththe rulersnd theruled. To both, headmonitions tobeware fbringingback thefull tateofnature53n a worseform hantheordinarytateof nature.The teachingoboth soneofrestraintnd moderation.The rulerwhounderstandshat omethingf the tate fnature ersists ith-in every ubjector citizen, nd that omethingf thestateof naturepersistslsoin the relationsmongall menand women n a political ociety, illbe restrainedin the exercise fhisauthority. e will be tolerant f thatuncivilizedemnantfnatural iberty ithin olitical ocietynd within very itizen.He willbe awarethatthe efforto makepolitical ociety ompletelyivilcannotsucceed; it canonlyhave the result fputting he ruler utsideof thesociety f hissubjects, rofmaking hem laves. He willunderstand,hat s, that thepolitical, ydefini-tionand deduction,annotbe all-pervasive,nd so he willnotseekto accomplishthe mpossible.The people, also, if theyunderstandhepoliticalrelevance f the stateofnature,will be restrainedn their olitical ction.Theirawareness ftheremnantof the stateofnaturewithin ivil ocietynd within ach ofthemwillmake themalert to thedangerof excessive se ofpowerby theauthorities. ut iftheywishto forestall return o the fullstateof nature, heywill be moderate n theirclaimsto thatportion f naturalpower till n their wnpossession.Civilsocietyis formed,fter ll, bywhollygivingup thepowerto punishcrimes; hat s, apopulace taughtbyLockewould alwaysbe opposedto thenotion f taking helaw into their wn handsas longas thegovernment as functioning ithrightand authority. itizens reindanger fbringingackthefull tate f naturewithall of itsunendurable ardships,y claiming heright o use powers heyhad inthe stateofnature nd gave up to form ivilsociety.The factthat omethingsreserveds consistent iththeteaching hatpracticallyll of thenaturalpowersofeveryman and womanhavebeengiven ptothe ommunity.The stabilitynd decency fpolitical ociety ependon restraintndmodera-tionon thepartof bothpolitical eaders nd citizenry.Wherewill thispoliticalwisdom nd moderation ome from?The task of political eaders n a societyguidedbyLockeanteachingss tosupportawsand institutionsnd doctrineshatpreserve nd protect he remnant f the stateof naturewithinpolitical ocietyand within very itizen, ecausethe efforto stampoutevery raceof t has theresult freturningll tothefull tate fnature. t is their ask, lso,todiscouragethe extension f the stateof naturebeyondcivil limits, s if we had givenupnothing o escapethe full tateof nature o enjoythepeace,plenty,nd freedomofpolitical ociety.The greatest anger ocivil ocietyanbe summed p as thedanger ffallingback intoa fullstateofnature,n a worseform han theordinaryne. On onesideofcivilsocietyiestyranny, stateof naturedisguised s political ociety; ntheother ide iesanarchy rcivilwar, nother orm f thefull tate fnature, heresult fexcessive se of naturalpowers n thepartofthepeople. Onlymodera-tionand restraintnd understandingan save political ociety rom alamity none side or theother.Civil societys a mean between wo extremes and bothextremesrethe tate f nature.

6II, sec. 137.

Documents

447588