This post originally appeared on my website, http://schultzbergin.xyz, during the height of the pandemic
In [the state of nature], there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (1651) Ch. 13, p. 62
Thomas Hobbes is (in)famous for presenting a rather pessimistic view of “the state of nature” – the hypothetical situation we would find ourselves in absent government and civil society. The common reading of Hobbes’s argument is that human beings are naturally selfish and short-sighted and so, absent the strong arm of the law, they will constantly steal and kill. The state of nature, he suggests, is a state of war.
I think the common reading is wrong. And I think re-reading Hobbes in light of the current pandemic can help to see what he was really on to. The Hobbes that follows from this reading is insightful and realistic, far from the caricature commonly presented.
Hobbes certainly provides a less optimistic conception of human nature, but he does not present human beings as wholly selfish. Generally self-interested, yes; often a bit short-sided, sure; but this is far from the psychopathic solipsism that many read into him.
Hobbes’s key psychological insight, though, and the one that generates the problematic readings, is the centrality of fear (and, relatedly, anxiety) as a human motivator. For Hobbes, a world without civil society is characterized by rational fear and anxiety: by not knowing who you can trust, but not knowing whether others accept the same rules that you do, and by not knowing whether anything you gather today will be secure tomorrow.
The English Civil War was at the forefront of Hobbes’s mind in constructing this state of nature. But we can just as easily look at responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. As our schedules are disrupted and we see or hear about people getting sick, we get scared and anxious. Our response? To hoard toilet paper, hand sanitizer, and ammunition. In hoarding important goods, we neglect the interests of others not out of pure selfishness, but out of fear for our own situation; in hoarding ammunition, we display our anxiety at the lack of security for those goods we have hoarded. The state of war, for Hobbes, is not actually a state of conflict, but a state of heightened anxiety where we simply cannot trust that others would not be willing to resort to violence.
Of course, we are not living in a full-blown Hobbesian state of nature. People were still queuing up for their ammunition purchases, after all. But, the change in behavior, even when we still have a civil society but it is simply faced with a crisis, nicely illustrates Hobbes’s central insight about human motivation. Indeed, he would appreciate appealing to this sort of “experience” to further support his argument. He, similarly, responded to (hypothetical) critics of his position by pointing out the actions people commonly take in civil society: arming themselves before travel, not traveling alone, and locking their doors (Ch. 13, p. 62). His point, in these examples, is that even in a civil society with the protection of laws, we both read into others likely misbehavior and, on the basis of that fear and anxiety, take precautions.
So, if Hobbes is onto something with his state of nature, is he also on to something with his solution – the Commonwealth? Here, again, Hobbes is (in)famous for defending an absolute monarchy. But to focus on his preferred form of government is to miss some important insights.
First, Hobbes sees absolute governmental power as essential to combatting our natural tendencies. If fear and anxiety are such strong motivators, then as soon as they kick in we will be drawn to act on them. What power can promises (including the implicit promises we make to each other by living in civil society) have when we fear for our lives? Hobbes is recognizing that you cannot combat fear and anxiety with a high-minded ideal like morality. Instead, you must either reduce the fear and anxiety or provide a new source of fear and anxiety that can keep everyone in check. Hobbes is committed to absolute power because that is the only way to produce sufficient fear in the people to keep them in check. Unless we fear violating the laws more than whatever we fear that motivates us to violate the laws, then we will continue to violate laws. Maybe he is wrong that a sovereign must have absolute power in order to keep us in check (perhaps slightly less than absolute power will do the trick), but the sovereign power must be strong enough to counter the fear and anxiety that regularly rises up in the population.
Second, and more immediately relevant to the pandemic, is the idea that a central role of government is to provide sufficient stability and clarity so as to reduce feelings of fear and anxiety. This idea is relevant whether we buy into an absolute sovereign or not but may be especially relevant to governments with less power (or to people who don’t want their government to exercise greater power). Rather than giving the people “something to cry about”, here the role of government is to have the proper procedures in place to handle emergencies and communicate clearly. Hobbes’s insight is that without sufficient preparation to neatly handle emergencies, or without clear and trustworthy communication about what steps to take, then the fear and anxiety will drive people to act as if we are (more or less) in a state of nature. And we can see that playing out to some degree as well. As the response from the national government has been, to put it mildly, lackluster and uneven, people have turned to conspiracy theories and stockpiling.
Finally, and most broadly, many people read Hobbes’s description of the state of nature as a (set of) collective action problem(s). Put simply, it would be better for everyone if we organized and came together but each individually, thinking only from her perspective, has little reason to do so due to the fear and anxiety. Why should I come together with others if I cannot trust that those others won’t steal from me as soon as they feel anxious? The idea of collective action problems is relevant to pandemic preparation as well. It would be better for everyone if people only purchased an appropriate amount of toilet paper and hand sanitizer, rather than hoarding it. In that way, everyone would have what they need. However, its predictable that people, thinking individually, will be motivated by fear and anxiety to do what appears to be in their self-interest, not trusting what is to come and not trusting that others will not do the same. In short, the sort of hoarding behavior we are seeing is precisely the sort of behavior, motivated by exactly the same passions, Hobbes was focused on in constructing his state of nature.
Reading Hobbes in a pandemic can provide a better angle for understanding Hobbes and new insights to understanding pandemic response.
For more on Hobbes and the Pandemic, with greater technical detail on the game theory that many use to explain Hobbes, see my friend Ami’s post here: https://wrestling-with-philosophy.com/2020/03/19/toilet-paper-game-theory-and-the-leviathan/?fbclid=IwAR196fKjYhLALuUflgdDtGDJTIZo2YV44EMTaAiSBGHXx2IUzXTGet7daoo