A Middlesex University resource |
Lecture links for Andrew Roberts |
I want to take a picture from each side of the Hobbes Big Picture to explain the history of the times Hobbes, Locke and Filmer were writing. Clicking on the red dates will take you to the timeline and resources. | |
I will use the crown for the King's power | The bench can symbolise Parliament's power |
X 1642 | English civil war between Charles 1st and parliament over the power of each |
1649 | King executed. Parliamentary forces were led by Cromwell, who later established his own dictatorship |
1651 Hobbes' Leviathan. This supported the need for absolute power. But Cromwell's absolute power would be as good as a King's | |
1660 | Restoration of English monarchy (Charles 2nd) |
1680
Patriarcha by Sir Robert Filmer (died 1653) published. This
supported absolute divine right of kings. So would not support Cromwell, or
Parliament choosing a king.
Locke's Two Treatises written in reply. They supported limitations on the power of Kings and the rule of laws established by parliament. |
|
1688 | Bloodless Revolution: William and Mary (protestants) were invited to become king and queen by the English parliament. James 2nd fled to France. 1689/90 Locke's Two Treatises of Government published. |
SIR ROBERT FILMER who died 1653:
Patriarcha published 1680
The crux of Filmer's argument is that nature and the Bible show us that state of nature theories of political authority are nothing but figments of the imagination. The Bible is not now accepted as the authority that it was in Filmer's day, The argument that authority is "natural" rather than created by the will of the ruled has not dated.
According to Filmer: all government is absolute. There is no natural
freedom. No one is born free. Filmer argues that all authority is absolute
(unlimited)
|
If you click on King Adam you can read what Rousseau thought of Filmer's arguments |
Filmer's Bible argument is that God made Adam general lord of all things - and this father-power model is intended for all time. "God gave to Adam not only the dominion over the woman and the children that should issue from them, but also over the whole earth to subdue it...so that as long as Adam lived, no man could claim or enjoy anything but by donation, assignation, or permission from him..." FILMER BUILDS ALL AUTHORITY ON THE FAMILY His Biblical basis for all authority being based on the family is the 5th commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother". |
FILMER - HOBBES - LOCKE - ABSOLUTISM - DISTINCTIONS The following points are to help to distinguish Filmer's argument from Hobbes and both of them from Locke. Filmer says a father's power is "like that of absolute monarchs - absolute power of life and death" That is what Filmer means by absolute, unlimited power: Absolutists say a sovereign's power is and should be unlimited. Filmer and Hobbes are both absolutists. But Filmer uses natural law whilst Hobbes uses state of nature theory.
Locke is not an absolutist. He wants to limit power.
a) that civilisation has some independence from the sovereign b) that rights exist independent of the sovereign
|
THE FRENCH REVOLUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS
The Declaration of the Rights of Man will focus your thoughts on the relation of theory, philosophy and science to the revolution. It was made by the French National Assembly (Parliament) in August 1789. It is a set of general philosophical principles that were supposed to be universal: Addressed to man man in general. Logically, applies to everyone who is a "man". It tried to make politics rational and scientific:
"ignorance ... neglect ... and contempt for the rights of man are the sole causes of public misfortune and the corruption of governments"If politics is "founded on simple and irrefutable principles" it will lead towards the "happiness of everyone". It tried to make a general science of government: The Declaration: set out the "natural" rights of man, so that acts of governments could be compared with the purpose of every political institution. Note "the purpose of every political institution" (not just those of France).
|
LOCKE'S STATE OF NATURE
Is not a Hobbesian war of all against all, but |
|
An egalitarian state governed by the law of nature. |
Unfortunately, the state of nature topples easily into:
A STATE OF WAR |
|
which is why people in a state of nature
chose to enter a state of society: |
The people in the state of nature voluntarily form a state of society and
constitute a government.
The important points here are: The monarch's actions are governed by laws, The laws embody the general principles by which the nation chooses to govern itself The laws are rooted in natural reason, so reason governs force
|
||
Legislature: Sovereign |
Law |
King: Executive |
SOCIETY |
REASON AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
Hobbes and Locke both used
State of Nature
Theory. That is they
imagined human beings in a state of nature and their theory showed how the
human beings became civilised. The movement from the state of nature to
civilisation is based on some kind of agreement. This was called a
"contract". So we get "social contract" for the agreement that forms
society. The idea of "contract" is linked to that of "exchange". A great
deal of social theory is based on the idea that society can be explained as
a series of exchanges between people.
HOBBES' IDEA OF REASON: We will look at how this fits in with
Hobbes' idea of reason. Hobbes believes that natural reason is individual
reason. Something you use to obtain your individual ends. Reason
starts
with impressions Trains of these are memories Some trains have ends
Reason is linking the items of the chain in the right order. In a state of
nature: We can see that following our ends creates "war of all against
all" (an end we do not want) We can also see that if someone makes us
follow rules of behaviour we can have civilisation (an end we do want)
Hobbes argued that when people were conquered in war the conqueror has the right to kill them. However, there could be a bargain which said: "be my slaves and I will let you live". [See Leviathan chapter 20: Margin: Despotical Dominion how attained].
Rousseau argued that real human society requires consent and has to be based on reason.
"Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men" Force is not a human to human relation: It is the kind of relation you have with a chair not the kind of relation you ought to have with another human being. This means that slavery is unnatural - it goes against the natural basis of human society.
Sociologist Frank Pearce uses this argument to explain why there was so
much violence in the relations of slave owners and slaves in the West
Indies.
Rousseau used this argument to attack absolutism in France. It can also be applied to slavery in the French West Indies. relations between men and women. relations between adults and children.
See Social Science History chapter 4,
section on Rousseau and the General Will
Particular will is private, individual desire. It is like Hobbes' private reason. It is the pursuit of an end where the other person only exists as a means to the end, or an obstacle. Rousseau argues that this is not a fully human form of will. It does not distinguish humans from animals. It does not show how we moved from our animal state of nature into our human social nature.
General will:
For Rousseau, the general will is the foundation of real human reason.
General will is your
will as
a social being. It is the will you have to do things that are for the
general good.
Locke says
that human reason exists in a state of nature.
We learn it naturally by
interacting with one another.
It allows civilised relations to exist
between people before they create political society.
The difference
between a state of nature and civilisation is not as great in Locke's
theory as it is in Hobbes'. This is a point on which Rousseau disagrees
with Locke.
Rousseau thinks human reason only comes into being with society. He
sees human beings as totally transformed by the passage from nature to
society:
The general will makes us human. Our particular, individual, wills may
want to pursue selfish ends with no regard for the other person's
interests. But there is a nobler voice within us, a will that wants to do
what is best for everyone. Within us there is a conflict between these two
wills.
|
Adam Smith (born 1723, died 1790). For some time, Professor of Moral Philosophy at Glasgow University.
Books:
Francis Hutcheson (1694-1746), whose ideas influenced Adam Smith, said there is a natural order which is superior to anything humans can devise. The Invisible Hand: Smith wrote that every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. "He...neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. He intends only his own gain. He is...led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention...By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." (Smith, 1776, Book 4, Ch.2. Click for fuller extract) Theory of Moral Sentiments, argues that human conduct results from six sentiments, balanced in pairs. This balance makes a natural harmony, so that people left to follow their sentiments naturally promote the common good.
Although there are six sentiments that Smith thought control human nature and lead to a natural harmony, for the purposes of economics he thought self love is the one that leads to harmony. Rousseau thought the nation's good depends on citizens being concerned for the general interest. When selfish "particular" interests override the general interest society is corrupted. As far as economics is concerned, Adam Smith disagreed. Economically we are egoists. We like to make profits. But all this self love does not lead to disharmony. The selfish decisions together behave as if someone is controlling the system in the general interest. He calls this the invisible hand. ( Click for extracts on the Invisible Hand) Wealth of Nations You can think of a nation's wealth in two different ways:
Adam Smith criticised a school of economic thought called mercantilism. Mercantilists thought national wealth the result of a country exporting more than it imports - so that money flowed in instead of out. The mercantilists recommended high tariffs to deter imported goods. The tariffs also contributed to the income of the government. Adam Smith argued that high tariffs also deterred trade. Free trade, he argued, would lead to the largest national product. The large national product would mean the government would be able to get more income from less taxes. Laissez faire. Adam Smith was influenced by a French school of economics called the Physiocrats. They thought that everything good comes from nature. They believed in a natural order, directed by natural laws, superior to anything made by human beings. The state, therefore, should not try to control the economy. It should interfere as little as possible with the natural order. This is what is meant by "laissez faire" (leave alone). Economic Policy. The mercantilists wanted taxes to deter imports and bounties to encourage exports. Adam Smith and the physiocrats urged their governments to leave the economy alone. Britain was just entering the industrial revolution when Smith wrote and his policy of free trade and a neutral state was seized upon by political leaders like Pitt. Smith's arguments, therefore, helped the development of industrial capitalism in Britain. According to Smith, government has only three duties although these are "of great importance":
The National Product "The annual labour of every nation is the fund which originally supplies it with all the necessaries and conveniences of life which it annually consumes". ( Click for fuller extract)The average wealth of individuals is the National Product divided by the number of individuals. This proportion is regulated by two different circumstances:
" Among savage nations of hunters and fishers, every individual who is able to work, is more or less employedþ. Such nations, however, are miserably poorþ. Among civilised, thriving, nations a great number of people do not labour at all, many of these consume the produce of ten or a hundred times more labour than the greater part of those who work; yet the produce of the whole labour of the society is so great that all are often abundantly supplied, and a workman, even of the lowest and poorest order, if he is frugal and industrious, may enjoy a greater share of the necessaries and conveniences of life than it is possible for any savage to acquire." (Smith 1776, Introduction. Click for fuller extract))Productivity is the ratio between the number of people employed in production and the output. Division of labour Smith says the most powerful influence on productivity is the division of labour. This increases productivity because of:
Smith on value Click for extracts) What makes on thing more valuable than another? Smith says there are two types of value: USE VALUE and EXCHANGE VALUE. The Water Diamond Paradox: Which is the most useful? Water. Which is the most valuable in exchange? Diamonds Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, Robert Owen, James and John Stuart Mill, William Thompson and Karl Marx all shared a belief in the labour theory of value and in the importance of distinguishing between use value and exchange value. Click for a fuller outline of value in economics) |
SMITH - OWEN COMPARISONS Notes made on the basis of student discussion notes in autumn 1996
Adam Smith and Robert Owen. Liberalism versus Socialism?
|
UTILITARIANISM
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that claims "good" is what avoids
pain and maximizes pleasure. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), the founder of
Benthamism, said that the guide for good legislation should be the:
Bentham believed that society can be restructured to maximize the
universal interest and minimize the "sinister" interest of the
private. Such a society would maximize human happiness.
|
We have already compared Adam Smith and Robert Owen I will begin this lecture by comparing Adam Smith to Rousseau, because Robert Owen is more like Rousseau than Smith. I will then introduce you to Owen's ideas by outlining his life story. Rousseau's General Will:
we can solve the problems of civilisation by bringing the laws into accordance with the collective will: The will of all when we are nor thinking about our own selfish (particular) interests but about the general interest.
Adam Smith: "I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Robert Owen argued that:
Owen believed that people are not wicked, corrupt, drunken, idle etc by choice. People's characters are shaped for them by a combination of biology and environment.
Between 1812 and 1816 Owen published four "Essays on the Formation of
Human Character" (collectively called A New View of Society).
"The character of man is.. always formed for him.. Man..never did..form his own character". Owen was not taking sides in any "nature-nurture debate". It is a common misrepresentation of what he argues to say he thinks people are formed by their environment rather than their biology. Owen believes they are formed by both. The issue that Owen is arguing is not this, it is whether we are responsible for our characters. Do we have the free will to shape ourselves, so that wrong doing is the result of choice? Or are we shaped by circumstances (biological or environmental). If this is the case, the rational course for social action will be to alter the causes of anti- social character.
He was a phrenologist. He believed that the different human faculties
are located in the different lobes of the brain. The main British
phrenologist was George Combe. Combe said that Owen's
teachers "studied the dispositions and faculties of the children more than
any teachers I had met with". Combe and Owen both believed that character
is the result of the
interaction of an individual's inborn faculties and social environment.
i.e. faculties are innate, but can be moulded. The same biological being
can become a saint or a villain according to how he or she is brought up.
A plan for the relief of the poor At the end of the war with France, in 1815, there was widespread poverty and unemployment. At this time Owen became involved in trying to make his ideas part of the national social policy. In 1815 (via Peel) he promoted A Bill to Regulate the Employment of Children in Textile Factories. In 1817, he published a Plan for the Relief of the Poor. Because of rising unemployment the taxes to relieve poverty (the poor rate) were rising steeply, and this made social policy on poverty a prominent public issue. Many people were coming forward with plans for reform. Owen's plan was that the unemployed should be provided with employment in villages of cooperation.
|
1 Early 19th century arguments about poverty. [Malthus, Ricardo, Owen] 2 The 1834 Poor Law, Utilitarianism and Laissez-faire
Look at the picture
It looks rather like a prison yard. But it is not a prison. People were
free to leave at any time - but if they did they stopped receiving state
benefit, they had to find their own food, lodgings and clothes.
Swing Riots 1830 Reform Act 1832 Poor Law Report 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act. Placed the emphasis on deterring people from claiming relief. The Act did not introduce workhouses, but workhouses multiplied under the Act. The idea of the workhouse was that people should not receive relief unless they sold their possessions and entered the workhouse. It was a deterrent. The workhouses succeed in deterring able- bodied people. The inmates tended to be the young, the old, single mothers, sick, mentally distressed and people with learning difficulties. 1908 Old Age Pensions Act. Brought in after a long campaign. Provided old people over 70 with a pension of 5/- a week. Pensioners were able to remain in their own homes, with their own possessions. One author (Brian Watkin p.71) describes this Act as the first legislation in replacing the "hated Poor Law" by the "Welfare State". 1838/1839 Poor Law Extended North ::: fuelled Chartism. 1846 Andover 1847 Poor Law Board Now that we have seen what the workhouse is and where it fits in to social history, let us look at the ideas systems mentioned in the lecture title: Laissez-faire and Utilitarianism. We have suggested: that scientists and ordinary people interpret the world through complex bodies of ideas. The world will look different according to which body of ideas you look at it through. Utilitarianism and Laissez-faire have been two very influential bodies of ideas. They are very much alive today, but we are looking at them in the context of the 19th century poor law. I will link the issues to three theorists you have already heard about Adam Smith Robert Owen Rousseau Adam Smith's ideas were applied to the Poor Law by two of his disciples: Malthus and Ricardo. ROUSSEAU-SMITH-OVERHEAD ROUSSEAU'S GENERAL WILL: we can solve the problems of civilisation by bringing the laws into accordance with the collective will: The will of all when we are not thinking about our own selfish (particular) interests but about the general interest. (Similar to Owen's view of human nature) ADAM SMITH: I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. Adam Smith and Rousseau both believe that we have egoistic and compassionate desires. Adam Smith believes that there are sets of balancing desires within us. Self Love is balanced with sympathy. But self love is the most effective in the market place, whilst sympathy is most relevant to our family and friends. In general social policy, therefore, the followers of Adam Smith took an individualist line, basing effective social policy on self-love. Rousseau and Owen, on the other hand, saw individualistic self-love as corrupting public affairs. Both of them looked for a way in which self-love could become love of all. Rousseau found this through the idea of the general will. Owen found it through his argument that rational self interest is the general interest. Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus and Laissez-Faire Laissez-faire means let alone, or let be. It refers to the idea that the wealth of the nation will increase most rapidly if Government does not interfere in the economy. This idea we associate with Adam Smith. His ideas were developed by Malthus and Ricardo, who applied them to the poor law. Here are two issues linking laissez-faire to the Poor Law:
MALTHUS-LIFE-STORY-OVERHEAD MALTHUS+RICARDO+THE-POOR-LAW Malthusian ideas on population RICARDO-LIFE-STORY-OVERHEAD MALTHUS+RICARDO+THE-POOR-LAW Ricardo's ideas on wages and poor relief LABOUR-EXCHANGE-CONTRACT-OVERHEAD OWEN+HUMAN-CHARACTER-OVERHEAD OWEN+NEW-LANARK-OVERHEAD OWEN'S-LIFE-STORY-OVERHEAD PLAN-FOR-RELIEF-OF-POOR-OVERHEAD Ideas on self interest OWEN-COMMUNITY-PLAN-OVERHEAD Communes of paupers OWEN'S-IDEAS-ON-ECONOMICS-OVERHEAD This idea that the Poor Law should be abolished was not put into practice. Instead the Poor Law was retained, but modified in a way that took account of the laissez-faire criticisms. I will now look at how this happened, and at the way the second body of ideas, Utilitarianism, played a part in this. Click here to go to the definition of Utilitarianism that I gave earlier on in the course. (Use the "Back" button to return to this point) Click here to go to the description of the version of utilitarianism developed by James Mill. (Use the "Back" button to return to this point) James Mill was the most widely read and influential of the Utilitarians in the 1830s. It was his version of the doctrine which most people would have recognised.
Let us recap the relevant history
"If the condition of persons maintained without property by the labour of others were rendered more eligible than that of persons maintained by their own labour then...individuals would be continually withdrawing themselves from the class of person maintained by their own labour to the class of persons maintained by the labour of others."
eligible = desirable
"The real use of a workhouse is to be an asylum for the able-bodied poor.. But it should be such an asylum as will not be resorted to except by those who have no other resource.. The able bodied tenant of a workhouse should be made to feel that his situation is decidedly less comfortable than that of the industrious labourer who supports himself."
CENTRALISATION AND UNIFORMITY Transparency:
|
The reality of society is the key issue on which we can contrast Durkheim with Weber:
Durkheim believes that society is real
He believes it is this external reality that sociology is about. Weber believes that it is the individual that is real. He thinks society is an abstraction He believes sociology is about individual actions that are socially orientated.
His has two major theme: 1) that society is real and 2) the reality of society is the subject matter of sociology.
So you should ask yourself two questions:
In this lecture I will first name Durkheim's main books and point out how these themes run through them all. With each book I will suggest a phrase that highlights the issue of the book. Clicking on the title of a book will take you to extracts from it
1893 Division of Labour in Society " Societies are real - they have solidarity" This book tried to show that societies are real and that the reality of societies lay in something that Durkheim calls "solidarity".
See Social Science History
Durkheim and Adam Smith: Division of Labour (1893) and
Solidarity
1895 Rules of Sociological Method This argues that if we want to be sociologists we should "consider social facts as things". This is a very mysterious statement, and the first thing I will do in the lecture will be to explain what I think it means.
See Social Science History
Durkheim and the Thing: Rules of Sociological Method (1895
"society is so real that it controls acts as (apparently) individual as suicide."
About this time: Durkheim gave lectures on Rousseau (Published in 1912) Durkheim argues that Rousseau bridges the gap between state of nature theory and sociology. You remember that we started with state of nature theories - so Durkheim's lectures allow us to finish by seeing how this connects to where we started.
See Social Science History
Durkheim and Rousseau
1912 The Elementary Forms of Religious Life Religious consciousness perceives the reality of society - but in a non-scientific form. Durkheim argues that human beings have always had a knowledge of the fundamental reality of their societies. This knowledge, however, was not, previously, scientific, but religious.
Durkheim does not believe that we can
1) apprehend data without
a-priori categories,
or
2) make any advance in science without
theories.
Neither of these is what he means when he tells us that sociology deals
with social facts.
Let us see if we can find out what he does mean.
WUNDT:
PHYSIOLOGY
Wundt had people sit on chairs and make careful observation of their
perceptions.
Illustration with lines:
(Two lines of equal length appear unequal if arrows are attached to the
end pointing outwards, and to the other pointing inwards)
Illustration with swastika.
Durkheim went further. He argued that there is a need for a distinct
science of sociology.
Durkheim believed that the central concern of sociology should be the
study of society. He thought that sociology should concern itself with
"social facts". By this he meant that it should concern itself with the
(social) realities external to the individual, that constrain an
individual.
You recognise a physical fact by the resistance it offers to you. If I tell
you that a wall is not there, and then try to walk through it, the wall
will resist my efforts.
If you tell me that exams do not matter, and that you intend to pass
your degree without any exams - the University will resist your efforts.
Often, Durkheim argues, the way that society resists our efforts is not
what we would expect.
For example, he argues that religion is important to society in ways
that we do not normally understand. If then, we decide to construct a
society without religion, we will find we are facing problems that we did
not expect.
He also argues that we need to be constrained by social rules or norms.
So if we managed to escape from society's control we would find our lives
so meaningless that we would be inclined to commit suicide.
SOCIETIES HAVE SOLIDARITY
Solidarity is a kind of social glue that holds societies together.
It is comparable to the "General Will" in Rousseau's State of Nature
Theory.
THERE ARE TWO MAIN FORMS OF SOLIDARITY: MECHANICAL AND
ORGANIC.
It will help us to understand Durkheim if we recall one of Adam Smith's
notions about what holds society together.
Smith suggested that we are held together by the economic advantages of
the division of labour. We associate together because by each playing
different parts in the production of economic goods we produce more.
Durkheim agreed that we are held together by the division of labour. He
called this kind of labour "Organic Solidarity".
But he thought this had not always been the case:
Human beings started in close knit societies where they all did more or
less the same thing. Such societies, he said had a "mechanical solidarity".
The division of labour developed within societies with mechanical
solidarity. (Organic Solidarity comes after Mechanical Solidarity.)
- it was not a natural propensity to truck, barter and exchange, but a
new form of social solidarity that developed in the course of history.
This leads Durkheim to the startling conclusion that societies are not
so much the product of individuals as individuals are the product of
society.
In mechanistic societies human beings were not individualistic in the
way they are in organic societies. The individual has evolved in the course
of history. This has not happened because society has fallen apart, but
because individualism (organic solidarity) provides a new and powerful way
of holding society together.
How does the division of labour glue us together in modern society?
Durkheim argues that this is a much more than an economic issue.
Society is becoming more and more differentiated (people are
specialising more and more), but as we become more different from one
another we grow closer together rather than further apart.
Although organic solidarity is a different form from mechanical,
Durkheim says that it cannot exist completely separately:
The division of labour can.. be produced only in the midst of pre-
existing society... There is a social life outside the whole division of
labour, but which the latter presupposes. DURKHEIM 1893 p.277
Contract, he argues, is a derivation of sacred ritual. If I break a
contract:
We can illustrate what he means by thinking of elementary economic
exchanges. If you exchange money with the baker for a loaf of bread, both
of you benefit and this binds you together. But it is not all that binds
you. Exchange would be a very complex thing if we only calculated our
advantage and tried to maximize our individual gain. We would always be
calculating what we could get away with. Everybody would be a shoplifter
when the shopkeeper was not looking and the shopkeeper would never dare
turn his or her back on a customer! Economic life would be impossible.
Instead, most of the time, we feel that we are under some obligation to act
honestly. The intensity with which we can react to any slur on our honesty
- even when we have been dishonest - indicates that we have very deep
feelings about the issue that are not based on a calculation of economic
gain. These feelings spring, Durkheim argues, from the mechanical
solidarity that underlies the organic solidarity of exchange. Dishonesty is
a betrayal of the community, and the community has a sacred charge in our
emotional life. So we see that the organic solidarity of exchange is
dependent on a more basic mechanical solidarity.
Generally considered (with Durkheim) to be one of the two main founders of sociology.
Lecture contrasts Weber and Durkheim, but useful if we begin
with a brief contrast with
Marx: In Weber's writings the significance is given to the
political rather
than the economic. Marx argued the primacy of economics over politics and
said that they were inextricably linked. Weber said that politics comes
first and that the two are separate. In Weber's work ideas come first. He
criticizes
Marx's historical materialism.
SOCIOLOGY: A THEORY OF SOCIAL ACTION
THE TYPES OF SOCIAL ACTION
Weber says that social action can be classified into four types:
(1)
Rational action in relation to a goal.
This would include actions motivated by self-interest. For example
actions with an economic motive, market place actions like those Adam Smith
described.
(2)
Rational action in relation to a value
(3)
Affective or emotional action
THESE ARE WHAT WEBER CALLS
"IDEAL TYPES" They are unlikely to be found in a pure form in reality, but they help us to analyse reality. In any particular action that we take there will probably be a mixture of orientations.
ANALYSING SOCIAL ACTION LETS US BE SOCIAL SCIENTISTS
These subjective motivations lead to
regularities in human conduct.
They underlie the regularities of behaviour which sociologist take an
interest in. Weber uses his ideal types of subjective behaviour to explain
the regular recurrence of
patterns of human behaviour.
Here are some examples that Weber gives. I have put the different motives
in bold. You can try to relate them to Weber's types of action.
POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY
EXPERIMENT: Ask people to note down why they obey the state in any
particular instance.
The results will be varied, but they will not all be based on rational
calculation of benefit. Even when people give this reason it is not
necessarily convincing. A person may say that they do not steal because
they do not want to be punished. But the same person may refrain from
stealing when given an opportunity to do so with no possibility of being
caught out.
Within our motive for obeying can come any of those listed by Weber as
types of social action. We can obey because it is the way to gain a reward
or avoid a punishment, we can obey because we are adhering to a value, we
can obey because the person commanding has captured our imagination, or we
can obey because it is the done thing, the normal or traditional course of
action.
This means that corresponding to types of action are types of power:
A) If a person is pursuing self-interest you can exercise power over
her by offering or withholding economic rewards, or by threatening physical
punishment. Let us call this type of power "force".
B) Force is not the only type of power. You also exercise power over
people if you win their allegiance by
a) convincing them to adhere to a value system. Religious leaders, for
example, exercise power over their followers, and religion can be used as
part of the state's power.
b) charisma: the force of your personality or your style of
presentation,
c) occupying a traditional power role. An hereditary king, for example,
has power by virtue of tradition.
These levers of power based on ideas, images and emotion, Weber refers
to as legitimacy.
According to Weber, all states are built on force. This is an essential
component of the state. But equally important, and in practice more often
relevant, is legitimacy. The grounds of legitimacy vary from society to
society and from time to time.
TYPES OF LEGITIMACY
Weber says there are three main types of legitimacy: traditional,
charismatic and rational/legal
TRADITIONAL Traditional authority is based on the sacredness of
precedent. There is a widespread belief that "old is best". A conservative
conviction that what is, is right. It is a type of authority that
is ill-suited to social change.
CHARISMATIC Charismatic authority is an innovating and revolutionary
force. It involves devotion to a person thought to possess authority by
virtue of revelation (from God), heroism or other qualities of personal
leadership.
RATIONAL/LEGAL Rational/legal authority requires obedience not to a
person, but to a system of rational rules.
Weber's definition of the modern state:-
This comes from Weber's own lecture on Politics as a Vocation. It is a
very long lecture, but we would recommend that you read part of it. I will
point out some features of the quotation:
Earlier forms of the state, for example the feudal state, do not have a
monopoly of legitimate violence. This is a distinguishing feature of the
modern state, along with the fact that it exercises this monopoly in a
given territory. In Feudal time different authorities could exercise
legitimate force over the same area.
|
The lecture is mainly a discussion of pictures.
The Greek philosophers we are talking about began the long tradition in
Western thought of systematically examining
reason.
Check that you understand the relationship of
Socrates
-- Plato -- Aristotle.
A phrase from Aristotle summarises a common theme of all three
philosophers. Aristotle wrote:
That which can foresee by the exercise of mind is
reason. All three authors argue that
reason should rule
Looking at the different origins of reason
The pictures of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle that we will look at are
taken from
The School of Athens,
a painting by Raphael in which he tried to paint the difference between
the
ideas
of the Greek philosophers.
I think that Raphael is
symbolising
features of the ideas of reason that each philosopher puts emphasis on.
Socrates on virtue Socrates argued that there is a universal virtue, which requires knowledge for its appreciation and can, therefore, be learnt.. It is through the work of his student Plato, that Socrates thought endures for us, captured in Plato's "dialogues", where Socrates is the main speaker. Socrates spoke of one virtue and type of soul, regardless of sex. Plato records the relevant discussion in his Meno ... Meno is a philosopher who argues that there are actually several virtues, their applicability depending, for example on whether one is young, bond or free.. Man's virtue lies in knowing how to administer the state while a woman's is
"to order her house, and keep what is indoors, and obey her husband".
Socrates is unhappy with this diversity of values; he establishes that health and strength are subject to the same criteria in either sex and that virtue must be similarly universal since state and household both demand temperance and justice for their good ordering:
"men and women, if they are to be good men and women, must have the same virtues of temperance and justice."
Plato argued that:
Aristotle argued that:
Plato and
Aristotle on Reason and Government
Socrates, Plato and Aristotle argue that
reason should govern. They argue that reason should govern every
aspect of life: our individual conduct, our families, our society and
government. The highest from of reason is that which governs society in the
common interest.
The just state
The aim of Plato's
Republic
is to give an account of the just state.
What emerges is a
hierarchical
and stable edifice in which each performs
the
functions
for which his or her
nature
is best suited.
Plato argues that
the "just state" and the "just soul" have similar structures. Politics and
psychology are mirror images of one another! [See
The Republic p.435]
There are three major functions, and three corresponding functionaries. The
just soul is correspondingly divided into three parts.
The rulers and auxiliaries both belong to the elite group of Guardians. In the just soul, spirit or courage mediates between reason and appetite, but is actually allied with reason - just as the auxiliaries who defend the state are allied with its rulers, the two classes having souls with a predominance of spirit and reason respectively.
Note: Platos's analysis, shown diagrammatically above, is an example
of social structure, and this is parallel to psychological
structure. Both are
hierarchical. The diagram shows the
statics of a society. For a more complete social theory we need
the
dynamics.
Mind should govern in the common interest
Aristotle wrote:
The principle that mind should govern in the common interest applies
generally. The highest form of reason is not something that seeks out
personal advantage, but the collective reason that seeks the good of all.
Look at how Aristotle distinguishes between true and perverted forms of
government
Bibliography
Aristotle Politics
Coole, D.H. 1988 Women in Political Theory. Wheatsheaf
Plato Meno
Plato Republic
|
The next lectures are about
gender,
family,
sex
and
class
in
1830s and
1840s Britain.
This is a period when people were thinking about
how society is structured and about
how society
changes
This included a great deal of discussion about men, women and children and
their position in society.
We will look at how the following people theorised about the same events:
William Thompson and
Anna Wheeler
Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
In relation to
Plato and Aristotle
we talked about ideas, theory and reason.
These are closely related
If you know a theory's basic ideas (axioms
and concepts), reason lets you work out what its
conclusions might be
As we look at each theory try to identify its concepts and axioms and then
work out how the axioms and concepts hang together.
You should also try
to work out from the axioms and concepts what the theorists conclusions
might be about gender, sex, family and class. Then compare what you
reasoned that they might be, with what the theorist writes.
Write down what you think the theorists basic ideas are, and how you
think he or she got from their basic ideas to their conclusions about
gender, sex, family and class. This will give you your
interpretation
of the theorist. It will also give you the basis for an argument in your
essay.
JEREMY BENTHAM AND UTILITARIANISM
Bentham argued that science looks for the reality behind fictions.
Go to
an illustration of this
and the
definition of Utilitarianism. (Use
the "Back" button to return to this point)
JAMES MILL
Utilitarianism is a theory with different possibilities according to how it
is developed. The man who was best known for popularising Bentham's work
was James Mill. He linked Utilitarianism to three other bodies of theory:
1) He linked it to egoistic psychology. Egoistic
psychology is
the kind of psychology that Hobbes developed. It argues that the
foundation of any explanation of the human mind must be to trace its
content back to the self-centred desires of the individual. James
Mill wrote one of the first English text books of Psychology.
2) He linked it to democracy. He argued that if we are all
pursuing
our own self-interest it is not safe to trust government to a
minority. Every male adult must have a vote to act as a control on
the government.
Click
here
for extracts from Thompson and Wheeler.
3) He linked it to
laissez-faire economics. He linked together
the
theories of Bentham and those of Ricardo and other followers of Adam
Smith.
This is another aspect of James Mill's theory that Thompson and
Wheeler criticised.
Notice: None of these links is a necessary link.
Thompson and Wheeler broke two of the links.
What we see here is that theories can be developed in different
directions by being combined with different basic ideas. In your
essays you need to analyse the basic ideas and how they are linked
together.
WILLIAM THOMPSON AND ANNA WHEELER
William Thompson and Anna Wheeler criticised James Mill using his own
(Utilitarian) axioms. Click
here to return to James Mill's arguments.
Thompson and Wheeler combined Utilitarian and Owenite theory. They argued
that:
1 Physical strength
They argued that all other differences are fictions created to keep women
in men's power.
Thompson and Wheeler timeline and resources
JOHN STUART MILL AND HARRIET TAYLOR
Up to start of 1830s 1840s lecture
Utilitarianism
was the dominant theory of Social Science in nineteenth century Britain.
Look at
Social Science History to see how utilitarian theory uses
deductive
logic to argue from
basic axioms to (arguably) inescapable conclusions.
Look at how
James Mill's
argument for democracy is built on utilitarian axioms.
James Mill uses an egoistic (selfish) model of humanity, rather like
Hobbes
With amended axioms, different conclusions could be reached.
So
Thompson and Wheeler used
Owenite cooperative axioms to criticise James Mill's egoistic
arguments.
Each, however, argued within the utilitarian framework.
One of the features of the deductive argument from axioms that James Mill
and Thompson and Wheeler used is that they appear to reach conclusions that
are true for all times. They are "a-historical" - history is not relevant
to them.
John Stuart Mill, the son of James Mill, was unhappy with his
father's non-historical approach to political theory. John Stuart Mill
envisaged that, at different stages of history, the pleasures and pains
that humans seek and avoid will be different in ways that are significant
for social theory. The axioms of human action will change with history, and
social science needs a theory to explain history.
John Stuart Mill's articles on the
Spirit of the Age, in
1831, used the
theories of a French socialist,
Saint-Simon, to put Benthamism in
historical context.
|
Organic and Critical Periods | Chart of Saint Simon's pattern of European history |
ANCIENT WORLD | MEDIEVAL WORLD | MODERN WORLD | ||
Poly-theist ideology
[The many Gods of ancient Greece] |
Theological ideology
[Mono-theist (One God) Christianity] |
Positive or Scientific ideology | ||
Social order based on slavery | Feudal social order | Industrial social order |
The transitional (critical) period between the Ancient organic period and the Medieval organic period is the Imperial epoch of Rome | The transitional (critical) period between the Medieval organic period and Modern organic period is the period Saint-Simon was writing in |
We can argue that Bentham's ideas, which were critical of existing laws and institutions, were a feature of an age in which people were becoming uncomfortable with one social order, and had not yet found a new one. In their essay on the future of the labouring classes, John Stuart Mill and his friend, Harriet Taylor, called the old ideas "dependency theory" and the new ideas "self-determination theory"
Mill and Taylor timeline and resources
LORD ASHLEY AND DEPENDENCY THEORY
We can argue that Benthamism is a theory belonging to the
movement between dependency theory and self-determination theory. Lord
Ashley's theories are an example of what Mill and Taylor meant by
Dependency theories.
In Catherine Cookson's historical novel The Dwelling Place (1971)
Jimmy
(10) and William (8) go down the mine (pp 41-44)
This reflects the present feeling that the worst thing about coal mine
employment
before 1842 was that young children were employed. At the time, however,
the
great scandal was not children in the mines, but sexually active women.
Look at the coal mines
and sex pictures and read the text. It is not a boy pulling the
cart,
but a young woman with bare breasts.
See 1840s family, sex and crime
The following discusses the early development of Marx and Engels' theory. For its final shape see Engels' Origin Marx and Engels published The Manifesto of the Communist Party in German in 1848. This was the same year as Mill and Taylor's Future of the Labouring Classes essay. It tries to explain many of the same historic events. We will start by looking at material on the web that is relevant to this question. There are links from the quotations to the full material. First, notice some key terms in the introductory sketch of their ideas. It says that Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) produced "a scientific analysis of human history" and that they produced their scientific analysis "from the perspective of socialism". Thompson and Wheeler, Mill and Taylor and Marx and Engels all claimed to be making a scientific analysis of society. Their ideas about what science is are different, although they have features in common. You should try to form a clear idea about what the author's you are commenting on mean by "science". You need to think about what is meant by "socialism" and "communism". It will help you with this essay if you treat these as two words with roughly the same meaning. The Communist Manifesto contains one definition of Communism:
I guess they do not tell us because they thought their readers would know. After all, they begin the Manifesto "A spectre is haunting Europe- the spectre of Communism". (The Communist Manifesto paragraph 1).They are talking about a widespread belief system that was seen as a threat to existing institutions. If, therefore, we look at other writing of the time, we should be able to find what Marx and Engels are talking about. Look, for example, at what the Conservative writer, Lord Ashley, said about socialism in 1840.
Chartism was the movement for The People's Charter, which was published in London in May 1838. The chartists wanted
1) a vote for every adult male ("manhood suffrage"),
In popular agitation, the campaigns against the 1834 Poor Law and for the 10 hours Bill tended to merge with the campaign for the Charter. Chartists believed that if the working class could gain control of Parliament they would gain control of the welfare system and of the economy. In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels say:
What, then, does Lord Ashley mean by socialism? In England in 1840 the word "socialism" was used for the ideas that we associate with Robert Owen, William Thompson, Anna Wheeler and people like that. Many socialists were chartists. Many chartists were socialists. Many socialists and chartists were also Trade Unionists. It is this mixture of radical ideas and practices that Marx and Engels see as threatening the existing institutions and making possible the liberation of the proletariate, or working class. When we look at what Owen, Thompson and Wheeler meant by socialism, we find something that is rooted in a specific theory of society that is "utilitarian" in the sense that it is about human beings following their "interests". Owen believed that: "Rational self-interest" recognises the individual's interest in the good of the community. So that, doing things collectively does more to secure our interests than doing things in competition. Socialism is a system of cooperation as distinct from competition. So socialism is a contrast to the theories of Adam Smith. It is developed by Thompson and Wheeler as an explicitly utilitarian theory. Engels believed that the practicality of such cooperative system had been proved by experiments in communal living organised by people like Robert Owen. He wrote an article for the German Press to demonstrate this. Marx and Engels argued for a materialist interpretation of society and history. The idea that human societies change the material world in order to exist, was used as the key to explaining everything that humans do. Look at what Engels wrote about what he learnt from living in Manchester in the 1840s:
Another person whose ideas are described as socialist is the Frenchman, Saint Simon. Marx and Engels, as well as Mill and Taylor, were influenced by his ideas about history. Remember what we said last week: According to Saint-Simon:
According to Marx and Engels, the motor that moves history is class conflict within the modes of production preceding communism. This idea that new classes rising makes established ideas redundant, is present in Saint Simon. By Marx and Engels it is highlighted and made the moving force of all history.
When social science theories are based on general theories of human nature, we expect the premises (axioms) of the theory in one sphere of social science (economics, for example) to remain consistent when applied to another sphere (gender relations, for example). You should, therefore, be able to relate the general theory, outlined above, to what Marx and Engels say about the family, sex and gender in The Communist Manifesto. The web copy of the Manifesto has an index to help you find the most relevant passages relating to the family, sex and gender.
The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the
State (1884)
was developed by Engels from notes by Marx. The Origin provides an
overview of their historical materialism as they left it. Working on the
theories of Morgan, they incorporate "Reproduction" into the material
base, alongside "Production"
Summary of Historical Materialism based on the
Origin
Freud's final outline of psychoanalysis
Beginning to excavate his work
|
© Andrew Roberts 6.1999 - 3.2001 My referencing suggestion for this page is a bibliography entry:
Roberts, Andrew 3.2001 - Social Science Lectures
[web edition]
and intext references to (Roberts, A. 3.2001 lecture subject). For example: (Roberts, A. 3.2001 Freud) See ABC Referencing for general advice.
Study
Link
Andrew Roberts likes to hear from users: |