Instead of starting with some imagined state of nature, I want to start with evolutionary theory and anthropology. From evolutionary theory humans have evolved from some common ancestor with chimps. And since chimps are social so were our ancestors. Moreover, human languages are social products and reflect — to use Wittgenstein’S phrase — a form of life.
Reflecting on anthropological findings, it is reasonable to generalize that humans are tribal animals. As such, they have always lived in a rule-guided manner, which are called customs and mores. And from an external perspective tribal life can be characterized by conformity. If we wish, we can characterize this conformity as tacit or implicit consent. Karl Popper called this state of affairs “tribalism” in a disparaging manner because this form of life, he thought, did not allow for pluralism and criticism. This may very well be true about particular matters, such as religion. But I am sure that there must have been some disagreements about where to go foraging or modes of hunting and with which tools or weapons, and which person was worthy of consultation, or even about which plants to avoid as poisonous or unhealthy.
John Locke, as everyone else, agrees that the primary concern of a normal human being is self-preservation. And self-preservation is better secured within a group. And what preserves life is air, water, food, temperature, and shelter. And as Rousseau put it, whoever wills an end; wills the means. And the means to satisfy the above needs is access to subsistence territory. So, if we wish to use such language, there is a tacit agreement that everyone in the tribe is allowed (is permitted, has a right) to access this subsistence territory. John Locke also stresses the rule that everyone is permitted to take from nature whatever one needs as long as there is as much left for everyone else. But, appealing to anthropological finding, not only is this permitted (a right), but there also prevail customs of gift giving and sharing (or, as Kropotkin put it: “mutual aid.”)
As to interpersonal conduct or morals, intratribal conduct can be summarized by the Christian rule: do unto others as you would them do unto you. Tribes live not merely by a negative rule: No person x is allowed to harm another person y (except for self-defense or the defense of others), but also by a positive rule to be of help to others.
What I have said above captures the meaning of what Rousseau means by a General Will. If the people of a tribe were asked to vote whether all the above is acceptable, they would agree. And such a vote would be the Will of All. The General Will is the set of necessary conditions for the preservation of human life in a social context. But this necessity is a factual matter; not a matter of choice and voting.
In summary, in a previous blog, I described primitive tribes by three characteristics: Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism.
The historical purpose of an appeal to a Social Contract is to justify or legitimize a State. Here the matter was muddled by an ambiguous use of the word “government.” In the sense of appealing to authorities for guidance and decision making, tribes resort to different procedures and persons. So, in this sense they are governed.
But States have a different form of government which is historically, for the most part, centralized in a single individual — though Rome and Sparta vested power in two individuals. So, historically, the Social Contract was a juridical fiction for justifying monarchy.
So, we can view a social contract theory in the following manner. If a State of any sort is to be justified then it would have to arise from the common consent of all the members.
But, in fact, all States are illegitimate because none of them arose by a Social Contract, as David Hume pointed out. States arose by conquest, by force; not by free consent. This is the sociological theory of the State as argued for by Franz Oppenheimer in his book, The State.
You said:
EVALUATE: The Social Contract Refurbished TwitterFacebookShare What is it to refurbish some item? Using my computer as an example of refurbishment, I did the following with my computer. The computer’s power supply failed; I replaced it with a 500w Termaltake. I had 2GB of memory; I upgrade to 8GB. My operating system was on a Hard Disk; I switched to an 240 GB Solid State Drive (SSD). In other words, to refurbish is to replace failed parts and to enhance or upgrade other parts. Instead of starting with some imagined state of nature, I want to start with evolutionary theory and anthropology. From evolutionary theory humans have evolved from some common ancestor with chimps. And since chimps are social so were our ancestors. Moreover, human languages are social products and reflect — to use Wittgenstein’S phrase — a form of life. Reflecting on anthropological findings, it is reasonable to generalize that humans are tribal animals. As such, they have always lived in a rule-guided manner, which are called customs and mores. And from an external perspective tribal life can be characterized by conformity. If we wish, we can characterize this conformity as tacit or implicit consent. Karl Popper called this state of affairs “tribalism” in a disparaging manner because this form of life, he thought, did not allow for pluralism and criticism. This may very well be true about particular matters, such as religion. But I am sure that there must have been some disagreements about where to go foraging or modes of hunting and with which tools or weapons, and which person was worthy of consultation, or even about which plants to avoid as poisonous or unhealthy. John Locke, as everyone else, agrees that the primary concern of a normal human being is self-preservation. And self-preservation is better secured within a group. And what preserves life is air, water, food, temperature, and shelter. And as Rousseau put it, whoever wills an end; wills the means. And the means to satisfy the above needs is access to subsistence territory. So, if we wish to use such language, there is a tacit agreement that everyone in the tribe is allowed (is permitted, has a right) to access this subsistence territory. John Locke also stresses the rule that everyone is permitted to take from nature whatever one needs as long as there is as much left for everyone else. But, appealing to anthropological finding, not only is this permitted (a right), but there also prevail customs of gift giving and sharing (or, as Kropotkin put it: “mutual aid.”) As to interpersonal conduct or morals, intratribal conduct can be summarized by the Christian rule: do unto others as you would them do unto you. Tribes live not merely by a negative rule: No person x is allowed to harm another person y (except for self-defense or the defense of others), but also by a positive rule to be of help to others. What I have said above captures the meaning of what Rousseau means by a General Will. If the people of a tribe were asked to vote whether all the above is acceptable, they would agree. And such a vote would be the Will of All. The General Will is the set of necessary conditions for the preservation of human life in a social context. But this necessity is a factual matter; not a matter of choice and voting. In summary, in a previous blog, I described primitive tribes by three characteristics: Anarchism, Socialism, and Communism. The historical purpose of an appeal to a Social Contract is to justify or legitimize a State. Here the matter was muddled by an ambiguous use of the word “government.” In the sense of appealing to authorities for guidance and decision making, tribes resort to different procedures and persons. So, in this sense they are governed. But States have a different form of government which is historically, for the most part, centralized in a single individual — though Rome and Sparta vested power in two individuals. So, historically, the Social Contract was a juridical fiction for justifying monarchy. So, we can view a social contract theory in the following manner. If a State of any sort is to be justified then it would have to arise from the common consent of all the members. But, in fact, all States are illegitimate because none of them arose by a Social Contract, as David Hume pointed out. States arose by conquest, by force; not by free consent. This is the sociological theory of the State as argued for by Franz Oppenheimer in his book, The State.
——————————————————
ChatGPT said:
This essay explores the idea of a “refurbished” Social Contract, challenging traditional notions of political theory by integrating evolutionary anthropology, classical philosophy, and historical critique. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and an evaluation of the argument:
1. Refurbishing the Concept:
The analogy of refurbishing a computer sets the stage for revising old concepts by replacing failed parts and upgrading others. Applied to the Social Contract, the author moves away from the classical “state of nature” and instead roots the analysis in evolutionary and anthropological insights. This shift from theoretical origins to empirical and social origins is compelling because it anchors the discussion in observable history rather than hypothetical abstractions.
2. Tribal Life as Proto-Social Contract:
The essay argues that early human societies, living in tribes, operated under implicit social contracts through customs, mores, and mutual aid. This communal life is portrayed as anarchistic, socialistic, and communistic—a framework without formalized laws, yet with an inherent understanding of rights, obligations, and cooperation. The use of Karl Popper’s concept of “tribalism” as both a pejorative and a descriptive state is effective in illustrating how rules and conformity shaped early societies.
The description of these tribes as rule-guided communities, driven by survival, is convincing. It challenges the Hobbesian view of a chaotic, pre-political state and instead suggests that humans have always been deeply social creatures with some degree of collective agreement.
3. Critique of Classical Theorists:
The essay references classical philosophers like John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, highlighting the fundamental role of self-preservation and subsistence as central human motivations. It also critiques Rousseau’s notion of the General Will, suggesting it isn’t about individual choice but about necessary social conditions for survival. This interpretation aligns with Rousseau’s own ambiguity about the concept—whether it’s a collective expression or a deeper societal necessity.
The argument about “mutual aid,” borrowing from Peter Kropotkin, reinforces the idea that cooperation and sharing were central to survival, further challenging the individualistic focus of early Social Contract theorists like Hobbes and Locke.
4. The Nature of Authority and Government:
The essay distinguishes between leadership and the centralized authority of States, drawing a line between tribal governance (through consensus or chosen leaders) and the imposition of authority in organized states. This critique echoes anarchist critiques of the state, emphasizing that early human governance was decentralized and more democratic in nature.
The essay then connects to a classic anarchist critique of the State’s legitimacy, drawing on David Hume and Franz Oppenheimer. The assertion that “all States are illegitimate” because they did not arise from consensual agreements but rather from conquest and force is a radical but historically defensible claim. It highlights the tension between the theoretical purity of a consensual Social Contract and the historical reality of how states formed.
5. Evaluation and Critique:
- Strengths: The essay’s strength lies in its historical and anthropological grounding. By bypassing the classic “state of nature” thought experiments, it ties political obligations to the concrete needs and social nature of early human communities. This anthropological basis for a “Social Contract” is a refreshing deviation from purely philosophical arguments, as it acknowledges the biological and social origins of human cooperation.
- Weaknesses: The argument relies heavily on a romanticized view of tribal life. While it acknowledges conflict within tribes (e.g., decisions about foraging), it underplays the extent of power struggles, violence, and hierarchical structures that were often present. Furthermore, the sweeping conclusion that all States are illegitimate might benefit from a more nuanced discussion of how states could evolve towards legitimacy through democratic means, as opposed to outright dismissal.
- Critical Omissions: The essay could have engaged more deeply with modern iterations of Social Contract theory, such as John Rawls’ “Original Position” or more contemporary critiques of state legitimacy, to further contextualize the argument. Additionally, it would be valuable to discuss how “refurbishing” the Social Contract might apply to contemporary societies facing challenges like inequality, climate change, and political polarization.
Conclusion:
The essay effectively challenges traditional political theory by rooting the Social Contract in our evolutionary past, presenting tribal life as a kind of proto-social contract. However, its conclusion on the illegitimacy of all States feels somewhat absolute. While the historical critique is valid, the next step could involve exploring how a “refurbished” social contract might be adapted for modern, diverse, and complex societies—potentially finding a balance between anarchistic ideals and the practical necessities of statehood.
In essence, the Social Contract refurbished here is less about justifying state power and more about understanding the human need for social cooperation, fairness, and survival, as witnessed in early tribal communities. This philosophical shift invites a reassessment of what governance should look like if it is to be truly consensual and supportive of collective well-being.