WPT Op Gauba

Western
Political Thought
O. P. GAUBA
Formerly Reader (Associate Professor)
Department of Political Science
School of Open Learning
University of Delhi
All rights reserved. No part of this book, including its style and
presentation, may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means—electronic, mechanical, photo
copying, recording or otherwise, nor translated into any language for
publication or transmission in any form, without the written consent of
the author & publishers. __________
Mayur Books
4226/1, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj
NEW DELHI 110002
© O. P. Gauba
Price: ^ 350
First Edition 2011

Second Edition
Third Edition 20J7 (Revised)”^ “d E",argCd>
First Reprint 2017
Second Reprint 2018
Printed at
Lucky Enterprises
Shabdara, Delhi
e-mail: ™yurbooks201
Preface
Western political thought is extensively used as a reference point for the study of
political science, history, philosophy, literature, economics and even sociology.
The present study of Western political thought is intended to introduce the major
trends in this field with special reference to the contribution of prominent thinkers
in a simple, jargon-free and self-explanatory style which could be followed by the
students of all relevent disciplines.
The study of Western political thought cannot be confined to a fixed account
of its historical development. John Hope Franklin (1915-2009), black American
scholar and historian, has significantly observed: “The writing of histoiy reflects
the interests, predilections, and even prejudices of a given generation.” This
also applies to the history of political thought. So each generation may tend to
reinterpret the theories advanced by the political thinkers of the past in the light
of its own experience, apprehensions as well as hopes. A student of Western
political thought ihust be constantly apprised of these developments in order to
update his understanding. I have tried to do the needful as the things stand at the
present moment. This exercise will have to be carried on by the new generations
of brilliant authors and academicians.
A few examples will be sufficient to illustrate this point. When Karl Popper
wrote The Open Society and its Enemies (1945), he declared Plato, ancient
Greek philosopher, as the first exponent of ‘totalitarianism’ — a term that was
not heard before the onset of the twentieth century. This gave rise to a new
debate on the status of Plato as well as Hegel (1770-1831) and Marx (1818-83),
German philosophers, as exponents of totalitarianism. A similar debate about the
status of Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, was raised when J. L.Talmon
published The Rise of Totalitarian Democracy (1961), declaring Rousseau as the
intellectual forerunner of twentieth-century totalitarianism. Then Lucio Colletti
(From Rousseau to Lenin: Studies in Ideology and Society; 1972) interpreted
Rousseau’s philosophy in terms of understanding the origin and nature of modem
capitalism. Again, the philosophy of Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian thinker, is
M
i
j
now linked with the contemporary concept of ‘dirty hands’. In recent times, John
Rawls (1921-2002) and Robert Nozick (1938-2002), American philosophers,
have built their respective theories of justice following John Locke (1632-
1704), English philosopher’s theory of the social contract, and they arrived at
substantially different conclusions. Contemporary Canadian political philosopher,
i
C.B. Macpherson (The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism—Hobbes to
j Locke; 1962) initiated a new debate on political thought of Hobbes (1588-1679),
! and Locke, English philosophers, by identifying the underlying assumption
! behind liberalism as ‘possessive individualism’. Macpherson also identified the
essence of democracy as ‘power to the poor’ which echoes Aristotle’s definition
of democracy as ‘rule of the poor’. Many more examples of reinterpretation of
political thought of the past can be cited to prove this point.
The present study begins with a discussion of the nature ofpolitical thought and
the problems of its interpretation. Then it gives an account of various traditions of
political thought and the leading thinkers of each tradition. Among the traditions, it
covers Early Classical, Renaissance, Liberal (including Neo-liberal), Conservative,
Utilitarian, Enlightenment, Idealist, Marxist (including Neo-Marxist), Feminist,
Communitarian and Environmentalist traditions. Among the leading thinkers'
it dwells on the contribution of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes,'
Locke, Rousseau, Rawls, Nozick, Burke, Bentham, J.S. Mill, Kant, Hegel, Greeni
Marx, Engels, Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Mao Zedong and Gramsci apart from a
host of thinkers associated with Feminist, Communitarian and Environmentalist
traditions. All aspects of political thought have been examined in a comparative
and critical perspective.
The book is written in a reader-friendly style. Intricate concepts are elucidated
through suitable headings and subheadings, explanatory diagrammes, flow charts
and comparative charts. On-the-spot definitions of important terms, a brief
description of historical references nd some crisp quotations are given in boxes.
The present endeavour represents a thoroughly revised, enlarged and upgraded
edition of the original version of Western Political Thought which includes two
philo^hers' °n Arendt 3nd MiChad °akeshott’ contemporary political
accentable^to'lflH6 “ 6diti°n .°f this book wil1 Pr°ve more useful and
acceptable o the academic community. Constructive suggestions will be most
welcome. Please e-mail your valuable suggestions to [email protected]
New Delhi
O.P. Gauba
l vi]
i '
Flow Charts, Comparative
Charts and Diagrammes
1. Genesis of Political Thought 6

2. Terence Ball on the Strategy of Interpretation 22
3. Distinction between Knowledge and Opinion: Socrates’ View 38
4. Relation between Knowledge and Virtue: the Greek View 39
5. Plato’s Theory of Justice 49
6. Distinction between Plato’s Communism and Modem Communism 53
7. Aristotle on the Nature of Authority 67
8. Aristotle’s Theory of Justice 69
9. Aristotle’s Classification of Constitutions 70
10. Aristotle on the Cycle of Change of Governments 71
11. Comparative Study of Aristotle and Marx on the Theory of Revolution 74
12. Aristotle’s Formula of the Mixed Constitution 76
13. Machiavelli’s Classification of Governments 87
14. Broad Streams of Liberalism 115
15. Exponents of the Social Contract: Comparative Study 120
16. Rousseau on Distinction between State of Nature and Civil Society 148
17. Rousseau’s Analysis of Inequality 151
18. Genesis of the General Will 153
19. Transition from Particular Will to the General Will 153
20. Composition of Utilitarianism 198
21. Utilitarian Theory of Punishment 201
22. Mechanism of Hegel’s Dialectical Process 236
23. Hegel’s Positioning of Family, Civil Society and the State 239
24. Broad Streams of Marxism 259
25. Comparative Study of Hegel and Marx 266
26. An Outline of Historical Materialism 271
27. Distinction between Socialism and Communism 275
28. Genesis of Class Conflict 276
29. Marxian Account of the History of Class Conflict 277
[v/i]
30. Gramsci’s Analysis of the Capitalist Society 301
31. Broad Streams of Neo-Marxism 306
32. Issues Relating to Sex and Gender 317
33. Genesis of Communitarianism 335
34. Distinction between Liberalism and Communitarianism 337
35. Hannah Arendt's Analysis of Human Activity 360
36. Hannah Arendt's Analysis of Power 362
37. Hannah Arendt's Analysis of the Nature of Politics 366
38. Oakeshott on the Composition of Civil Association 370
[v#7i] -
Contents
Preface v
Flow Charts, Comparative Charts and Diagrammes vii
1. UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THOUGHT 3

I. Nature of Political Thought 3
II. Significance of Interpretation 7
III. Textual Approach 9
IV. Contextual Approach 13
V. Strategy of Interpretation 19
2. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CLASSICAL TRADITION 27

I. What are Classics? 27
II. Utility of Classics 28
3. PLATO 35
I. Nature of Greek Political Thought 35
II. Plato: General Introduction 41
III. Plato's Theory of Justice 43
IV. Communism of Property and Wives 50
V. A Critical Appraisal 53
4. ARISTOTLE 58
I. General Introduction 58
II. Nature of Politics 59
III. Family, Private Property and Slavery 62
IV. Concept of Citizenship 64
V. Concept of Justice 68
VI. Search for a Stable Constitution 69
VII. Causes and Remedies of Revolution 71
VIII. Comparative Study of Aristotle and Marx on Revolution 73
IX. Concept of the Mixed Constitution 75
5. NATURE OF THE RENAISSANCE 81

[ix]
85
6. NICCOLO MACHIAVELLY
85
II. Machiavelli's Method 91
III. Separation Between Politics and Ethics 94
IV. Machiavelli's Statecraft
7. BROAD STREAMS OF LIBERALISM 101

101
I. Historical Setting 108
II. Basic Tenets of Liberalism 109
III. Types of Liberalism
IV. Significance of the Social Contract 118
124
8. THOMAS HOBBES
124
I. General Introduction
126
II. Analysis of Human Nature
III. Origin and Nature of Sovereignty 130
9. JOHN LOCKE 136

II. Concept of the Social Contract 138
III. Justification of the Right to Property 141
10. JEAN-JAQUES ROUSSEAU 145
II. Analysis of Inequalities 146
III. Social Contract and the General Will 151
IV. A Critical Appraisal 156
11. JOHN RAWLS 160
II. Rawls's Theory of Justice 161
12. ROBERT NOZICK 167
II. Nozick's Theory of Justice 168
^CONSERVATIVE TRADITIOI
13. BASIC TENETS OF CONSERVATISM 175
I. What is Conservatism? 175
II. Advent of Neo-Conservatism 180
14. EDMUND BURKE 182

II. Justification of Conservatism 183
ij$yi. UTiiii
15. BASIC TENETS OF UTILITARIANISM 191
^6. JEREMY BENTHAM 195
\x]
II. Bentham's Political Philosophy 197
17. JOHN STUART MILL 203
II. Revision of Utilitarianism 204
III. Defence of Liberty 207
IV. Reflections on Democracy 211
V. On Subjection of Women 213
il^llÊNLIGHTENMEN1|fRADITtONia|
18. NATURE OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT 219
19. IMMANUEL KANT 223
II. Kant's Moral and Political Thought 224
|®«IDEAUS1fRADITIONSU
20. BASIC TENETS OF IDEALISM 231
21. G.W.F. HEGEL 234

II. Philosophy of History 235
ID. Individual's Quest for Freedom 237
IV. Emancipation from Slavery 243
22. T.H. GREEN 246
II. Concept of Moral Freedom 247
III. Theory of Rights 249
IV. Foundations of the Political Obligation 251
HimMARXISîRADlFlOl^ll
23. BASIC TENETS OF MARXISM 255
I. What is Marxism? 255
II. Broad Streams of Marxism 258
III. Contemporary Debate on the Nature of the State 259
24. MARX AND ENGELS 264
II. Dialectical Materialism 265
III. Historical Materialism 267
IV. Theory of Revolution 272
V. Doctrine of Class Conflict 275
VI. Concept of Surplus Value 277
VII. Concept of Freedom 279
VIII. Role of Private Property 283
IX. A Critical Appraisal 288
25. LENIN, ROSA LUXEMBURG, MAO ZEDONG AND GRAMSCI 291
I. Lenin 291
[xi]
II. Rosa Luxemburg
III. Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung)
IV. Antonio Gramsci
26. NEO-MARXISM
I. What is Neo-Marxism?
II. Critical Theory
27. BASIC TENETS OF FEMINISM

I. - What is Feminism?
II. Spheres of Discrimination Against Women
28. BROAD STREAMS OF FEMINIST THOUGHT
I. Liberal Feminism
II. Socialist Feminism
III. Radical Feminism
IV. Recent Trends
29. BASIC TENETS OF COMMUNITARLANISM

I. What is Communitarianism?
II. Distinction between Liberalism and Communitarianism
III. Exponents of Communitarianism
30. BASIC TENETS OF ENVIRONMENTALIST TRADITION

I. What is Environmentalism?
II. Concept of Sustainable Development
III. Broad Streams of Environmentalism
31. HANNAH ARENDT

II. Concept of Freedom
III. Concept of Power
IV. Views on Revolution and Totalitarianism
V. On the Nature of Politics
32. MICHAEL OAKESHOTT
II. Nature of Politics
III. Scope of Freedom
Further Reading
Index
\xii]
WB>
....... - -
INTRODUCTION
You can't do without philosophy, since everything has its hidden meaning which
we must know.
Maxim Gorky (The Zykovs)
Understanding Political Thought
^NATURE OF POLITICAL THOUGHT
Philosophers, sages and intellectuals since ancient times have been reflecting on the
problems of the universe including those of human life and society. Their observations
on human nature, human predicament, human ingenuity and the possible way to
human emancipation and human progress provide us with a rich heritage of social
thought which includes economic and political thought also. In order to understand the
nature of political thought we must, at the outset, identity the nature of the ‘political,
and then inquire into the characteristics of the thought about the political aspect of our
social life.
WHAT IS POLITICAL?
When an organization is designed to regulate the whole community, it takes the
character of polity. Polity, therefore, denotes an organization where rules are made
and decisions are taken for the whole community, and authority is exercised over
each member of the community. The term ‘political’ refers to something that is
‘public’, as distinguished from private or something applicable to a limited number
of persons. Sheldon S. Wolin, in his Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation
in Western Political Thought (I960), has beautifully summed up the characteristics of
the ‘political’ as follows:
Of all the authoritative institutions in society, the political arrangement has been
singled out as uniquely concerned with what is ‘common’ to the whole community.
Certain functions, such as national defense, internal order, the dispensing of justice,
and economic regulation, have been declared the primary responsibility of political
institutions, largely on the grounds that the interests and ends served by these
functions were beneficial to all of the members of the community.
13]
4 Western Political Thought
Thus polity or the state enjoys a unique position among social institutions. It is
so important that Aristotle, ancient Greek philosopher, described man by nature a
political animal’. In his view, living in a state was so natural for a person that he who
lived outside the state or who did not need a state was either a beast or a god!
The terms ‘polity’, ‘politics’ and ‘political’ are derived from the Greek word
‘polis which stood for ancient Greek city-state. Greek city-states were relatively
small communities which were separated from each other by geographical barriers
like forests, mountains and seas. Each city-state had evolved a compact social life and
culture where all institutions and activities were knit together. These institutions and
activities which were aimed at securing ‘good life’ for the community were regarded
to be the part of ‘politics’. However, in the present-day society the scope of politics
is not regarded to be so comprehensive. Today we draw a distinction between public
and private spheres of human life, and confine the usage of the term ‘politics’ to the
institutions and activities falling in the public sphere. Thus the decisions of cabinet
and parliament, election campaigns and other activities of political parties people’s
movements seeking change in law and public policy, etc. belong to politics but the
object of our faith and worship, the content of our education, art and culture, etc. do
not properly belong to the sphere of politics until some regulation thereof is required
to maintain public order and safety! 4
niTfer,imP°rtant characteristic of the ‘political’ in modern times may be
identified as its concern with the use of ‘power’. In popular parlance, the term ‘power’
may be used in multifarious contexts. For instance, we talk of the power of man over
nature or material things, and the power of man over man. In the political context we
lower is traditionally defined as one’s capacity to attain compliance from others
policies and decisions.

Authority = Power + Legitimacy
Power
Legitimacy
“rzr-sMird- - ~.„7»d
WHAT IS POLITICAL THOUGHT?
aspect of our social Iifelargfly phi,“ophers regarding the political

characteristics ofsocial thought namely thefrJ ^ h°Ught 11 comprehends most of the
* Understanding Political Thought 5
Political Philosophy
Political philosophy refers to a branch of learning which is primarily concerned
with moral and substantive dimensions of politics. Its central problems include
the pursuit of good life, questions pertaining to norms and values, good and evil,
virtue and vice, means and ends, right and wrong, and visions of an ideal state
and society. Political philosophy also inquires into the foundations of political
life, grounds of political obligation, and moral worthiness of different political
systems. It makes use of philosophical and historical method in determining the
goals of public life. A major part of political philosophy coincides with moral and
social philosophy.
Political philosophy can be defined as philosophical reflection on how best to arrange

our collective life—our political institutions and our social practices, such as our
economic system and our pattern of family life... This usually involves analysing and
interpreting ideas like freedom, justice, authority and democracy and then applying
them in a critical way to the social and political institutions that currently exist.
David Miller
Among various forms of the study of politics, political philosophy or political

thought may be distinguished by its ‘critical’function. As D.D. Raphael (Problems of
Political Philosophy: 1976) significantly observed: “It is true that some of the classical
political philosophers have set out ideal forms of society, but... this has not been their
central concern. Even in Plato, the purpose of depicting an ideal society is to criticize
existing society and to promote understanding of general social concepts such asjustice.”
The term political thought’ has been defined by several writers largely in this context.
According to A Dictionary of Political Analysis (Geoffrey K. Roberts: 1971),
political thought refers to the “area of political philosophy concerned with the study of
the ideas and philosophic systems of those thinkers held to be important, on grounds
of their interests, influence, relevance, etc. in relation to the development of politics as
a practice or a study.” Dwelling on the relation between political thought and political
philosophy, Roberts observes:
Political thought is often taken as an equivalent term to political philosophy, though
in fact it omits the study of philosophic problems in its concentration on thinkers
and their ideas, or to political theory, though it has little interest in the development
of empirical or analytic theories.
Again, according to A Dictionary of Political Thought (Roger Scruton: 1982),
“political thought includes the theories through which people attempt to explain each
other’s political behaviour, the values by which they judge it, and the mechanisms
(such as law) whereby they attempt to control it.” Illustrating the close relation between
political philosophy and political thought, Scruton observes: “The concept ofjustice,
which may form a part of ordinary political thought, may also be subject ofphilosophical
ana ysis, with a view to determining its grounds.” In short, a large part of political
philosophy not only coincides with political thought, but political thought serves as an
important source of political philosophy.
Political Thought
Broadly speaking, political thought refers to an account of the ideas of prominent
political thinkers — past and present — aboutthe problems of politics, particularly about
the nature and purposes of state and government and the proposed measures for the
achievement of those purposes. These ideas are generally presented in a chronological
order indicating the historical and geographical setting wherein these ideas
were born. A comparative and critical study of these ideas is also included in the
study of political thought.
Genesis of Political Thought

Reflection on the Existing
Human Predicament
1
Vision of a New/ Ideal
Social Order
Reflection on Human Nature

and Potential
I
Presenting a Scheme of Reconditioning the Power
Structure with a view to Realizing the New Vision
(This also includes a critical review of
____ the existing ideas on all these issues)
\ George H. Sabine
A History ofPolitical Theory (1937)
William A. Dunning History of Political Theories (3 vols: '1902; 1905; 1920)
Raymond G. Gettell History ofPolitical Thought (1924)
Francis W. Coker Recent Political Thought (1934)
Andrew Hacker
'v—C.C. Maxey
James V. Downton Jr.,
Dav.d K. Hart (eds.) : Perspectives on Political Philosophy (3 vols: 1971
; 1971;
‘political
with various themes like Freedonf Equality JusHre n polltlcal Phll°sophy’ would deal
‘political thought’ would deal wto*?TTCy’Pr0gress>etc-whe«as
Hobbes, Locke,IW„, K.m, Hegel, Mm,Mill,
Understanding Political Thought 7
theory’ comprehends a wider field as it includes political science (scientific study of
political institutions and behaviour) as well as political philosophy (conceptual study
of political ideas and ideals).
II i
?SIGNIFICANCE OF INTERPRETATION
Interpretation is not an option but a necessity for the meaning-seeking

creatures that we are .... Our prehistoric ancestors interpreted the meaning
of animal entrails, omens and other signs that might make their world more
intelligible and perhaps portend their future. They, like modern
meteorologists, attempted to forecast the weather by looking at clouds and
observing the behaviour of birds and other creatures.
Terence Ball (Handbook of Political Theory; 2004)
Reading a social and political philosopher through his or her works is a serious
business. It is different from the ordinary way of reading a newspaper, a magazine or a
book of fiction which conveys its content in a simple and direct style. On the contrary,
reading political philosophy involves an intricate problem of interpretation, technically
called hermeneutics. So in order to proceed further, we must understand what is meant
by hermeneutics.
WHAT IS HERMENEUTICS?
At the outset, it would be interesting to recall the origin of the term ‘hermeneutics.
This term is derived from the name of ‘ Hermes’. According to Greek mythology,
Hermes was the winged messenger of gods who conveyed divine messages to human
beings in a very ticklish form, that is in an encoded and allusive way. His listeners
were required to interpret the meaning and significance of his messages according
to their own wisdom. Sometimes they got it right, but often they failed to grasp it
properly and had to face disastrous consequences because of their fault.
Now political philosophers, who are human beings, may have to convey their
intent in a somewhat similar way. In the first place, they are dealing with very
complex issues which are beyond the comprehension of ordinary mortals. Secondly,
they usually run the risk of ‘speaking truth to power’, with consequent persecution at
the hands of tyrant rulers or intolerant multitudes. Finally, their message could be a
mixture of two types of statements: some statements of perennial relevance, and others
of contemporary relevance. Segregating these statements for our guidance would be
really a daunting task. This task can be accomplished with the help of hermeneutics.
In a nutshell, ‘hermeneutics’ refers to the task of interpretation of text of the
classics on social and political philosophy in order to grasp its real and hidden meaning
and to determine its relevance for ourselves. Charles Taylor (1931- ), in his essay on
‘Hermeneutics and Politics’ (in Critical Sociology, edited by Paul Connerton; 1976),
equates hermeneutics with ‘interpretation’, and defines it as “an attempt to make clear,
to make sense of an object of study. This object must, therefore, be a text or a text
analogue, which in someway is confused, incomplete, cloudy, seemingly contradictory
in one way or another and unclear. The interpretation aims to bring to light an underlying
coherence or sense.” When we choose a text for interpretation, it should be an important
text which was produced m the past or in ancient times but which has not lost its
significance over time; secondly, it should be a difficult text which calls for an in-depth
Classics
mgss=s=s=
The seminal works of political theory
are kept alive and vivid - keep their
classic status, so to speak — not
but, on
from a
Terence Ball (2004)
APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION
Approach
on T"“" *"• » his essn,

Theory, edited by Gerald R Gaus andf Chandran “ ândbook °f Political
the following ‘schools of interpretation’- Mi U & haS’ 2004)’ has enumerated
interpretations; Psychoanalytic interpretation- Re™“, lnterpretation; Totalitarian
mte.pretation; Postmodernist interpretation- CambriT,lnte'Tretationi ‘Straussian’
and Problem-Dnven interpretation. This list is bv nrf 6W H‘storyand Pluralistic
hese interpretations largely correspond to Z ^ mCanS exhaustive. In any case
■n the realm of political,SCh°°1S °f thou8ht prialeS
of social and political reality from various^! f V™51 SUlted t0 the interpretation
chosen a particular text for ‘reading th P° nts of VIew. However, when we have
the relative significance of ‘textual^ M "T practlcal waY would be to consider
for taorpLS «d .hen
approaches, we must
n author is fit for subjecting
to textual approach, and which part is fit for subjecting to contextual approach. Any
inadvertence in this matter might lead to disastrous consequences.
Textual approach exemplifies the application of hermeneutics to the interpretation of

classics. It implies that we should focus on the language of the given text in order to
understand its real meaning. It is based on the belief that the text of a classic contains
the expression of eternal truth. The text should not be treated as an occasional
response to the author’s peculiar experiences or to the historical or sociological
circumstances of his times. Leo Strauss (1899-1973), American philosopher, is
regarded the chief exponent of this approach. Strauss claimed that the works of Plato,
ancient Greek philosopher, and a handful of other authors contain the Whole Truth
about politics, and accessible only to the fortunate few. However, it is by no means easy
to find its real meaning. We must read this text in a special way before interpreting
its content.
Strauss was a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany who emigrated to the United
States when Hitler started persecution of the Jews in Germany. Hitler and his Nazi
thugs had come to power in Germany through a liberal-democratic system called
‘Weimar Republic’. Strauss was convinced that Western-type liberal democracy had
no answer to the problems of humanity. He saw the history of modern Western liberal
political thought as a story of degeneration and enfeeblement. He contrasted it with
the vigour of classical Greek and Roman political thought and came to the conclusion
that we should look for the remedy of the ills of modern society in classical political
philosophy. In his famous essay on ‘Political Philosophy and the Crisis of Our Time’
(included in The Post-Behavioural Era, edited by George J. Graham and George W.
Carey; 1972), Strauss declared: “The crisis of our time is a consequence of the crisis
of political philosophy.”
Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy refers to the system of governance based on the principles of
liberalism and democracy. Liberalism seeks to mould human relations into market
relations by evolving such rules and procedures that would ensure the reconciliation
of conflicting interests. Democracy implies the formation of government
with the consent of the ordinary people. In a liberal democracy, people can
exchange their votes for the policies of their choice as in a market-place
they can exchange their money for the goods of their choice. They are guided
only by their self-interest, and not by any higher moral values.
Strauss and his followers sought to diagnose and cure the maladies of the present in
the realm of classical political philosophy. They realized that the history of political
thought was full of valuable insights that would guide us to find our way during the
prevailing crisis. They repudiated the ‘historicist’ view that different ages have different
mentalities and outlooks which were no longer relevant to the present age. They argued
that if we could decipher the real meaning of the encoded messages of the old
philosophers who were fearful of persecution by the rulers of their times, we would be
certainly benefited by the extremely valuable knowledge embodied therein.
Strauss warned that interpretation of ancient texts involves reading between the
lines so as to reveal its ‘real’, albiet hidden, meaning as if it were written in a kind of
invisible ink. It means, if we come across an intriguing statement of an author, we
should try to determine its meaning in the light of his line of argument which may be
found in his own writing. This may be illustrated by some examples from the writings
of various philosophers.
Aristotle, ancient Greek philosopher, said: “Man is by nature a political animal.”
What did he mean? He did not use the term ‘political’ in the modern sense. In modern
times, politics is despised as a ‘dirty game’ in which people organize themselves to
fulfil their designs by outwitting their rivals. Aristotle could not have this meaning of
politics in his mind. For Aristotle, politics meant living in a state in pursuit of ‘good
life’. Man is different from other living beings as he has an aim — the aim of securing
‘good life’. To fulfil this aim he is inclined to live in a state. So he is by nature a
‘political animal’.
Let us consider another important statement of Aristotle: “State is prior to man.”
How is it possible? How could a state come into existence before men themselves
came into existence? Remember, Aristotle is not giving here an account of historical
evolution of the state. His statement is based on logic. You cannot think of ‘man’ (the
civilized human being) until you think he is living in a ‘state’ (otherwise he is just like
other animals). So the idea of state comes before the idea of man, as the idea of ‘full’
comes before the idea of its ‘part’. You cannot think of a hand before thinking of a
body whose part it is. If hand is separated from the body, it becomes redundant. So a
man outside the state loses his identity. As Aristotle argued: he who does not live in
a state or who does not need a state is either a beast or a god! From the point of this
logic, we must concede that “State is prior to man.”
Let us take another example from the field ofeconomics. Gresham’s Law formulated
by Sir Thomas Gresham (1519-79) postulates: “Bad money drives out good ” We cannot
understand this statement until we find out the meanings of ‘good money’ and ‘bad
money’ as intended by the author. On further inquiry we find:
Good money = the money whose intrinsic worth is higher than its face value
(ue. legally determined value), like gold and silver coins;
Bad money the money whose intrinsic value is lower than its face value like
paper money.
to beJfrene ” h iseaS R°USSeaU (1712'78)’ French Philos°Pher> wrote: “Man can be forced
. s,aman
can be justified only by understanding his
line of argument. Rousseau believes that man enjoys his freedom when he is motivated
by his ‘real will* which represents his higher self, and not by his ‘actual will’ which
represents his lower self. Actual will comprises his momentary impulses, passions
and the thought of his immediate self-interest; real will is guided by sound reason
and directs him to the goal of the common good which comprehends his own ultimate
good. Actual will impels different individuals to different directions; real will directs
them towards the common goal. Where real will of all members of the community
converges, it takes the form of the General Will. So when an individual acts under the
direction of the General Will, he may be required to suppress his actual will, and feel
being forced. But in essence, he is being directed to secure his real freedom. While
using road, we have to stop at the red light to ensure everybody’s safety. This includes
our safety also which is the necessary condition of freedom. Thus we are forced to
stop there against the possible temptation of jumping the red light, m the interest of
our freedom. From the point of this logic, we are forced to be free.
It would be interesting to note that different philosophers may use a particular
word in a particular sense. We should not infer the meaning of that word according to
its present-day usage. Moreover, the same word could mean different things in the
language of different philosophers. This may be illustrated by the following examples:
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains."
(Jean-Jaques Rousseau, Social Contract; 1762)
“Workers of the world, unite. You have to lose nothing but your chains. ”
(Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto; 1848)
The word ‘chains’ occurs in both the quotations. But it means different things in
the different contexts. For Rousseau, ‘chains’ signify those restrictions which men
have to face because they established their civilization after leaving the ‘state of
nature’. For Marx, ‘chains’ stand for the onerous conditions of the workers created by
the capitalist system. Rousseau tries to find out whether the chains created by the
human civilization can be made to play beneficial role for human beings. Marx wants
to restore workers’ freedom by exhorting them to overthrow the capitalist system.
State of Nature
State of nature refers to the hypothetical condition in which people lived before
the formation of the state. Rousseau depicts it as a state of natural abundance
where greed and strife were unknown. ____________________________ __
Textual approach may be recommended for the interpretation of genuine classics,

i.e. the works which retain their relevance ovei centuries. But as Strauss himself held,
the real meaning of the classics can be understood only by those who already possess
a sound knowledge of philosophy. So textual approach may not be helpful in all
cases. Apart from the problem of understanding an alien language, written in an alien
historical setting, it may involve many other difficulties. In the first place, there is no
sound method of identifying as to which of the classical texts embody the whole truth.
Moreover, most classical texts may contain a mixture of statements and principles that
are relevant for all times and those relevant to their own time. For instance, Aristotle s
doctrine of ‘the golden mean’ enunciated in his Nicomachean Ethics may be relevant
for all times whereas his justification of slavery enunciated in his Politics may be
dismissed as blatantly biased. How can we treat both as the expression of ‘absolute
truth’?
The Goiden Mean

The golden mean refers to an ethical principle enunciated by Aristotle, ancient
Greek philosopher, which holds that virtue lies in finding a middle path between
two extremes which would otherwise turn out to be vices. For example, courage is
a virtue that lies between cowardice and rashness which are vices in themselves.
Significance of the textual approach may be examined in many spheres of human

life. In a court of law, judges are expected to pronounce their judgements according
to the letter of the law. They may use their discretion only where law is silent or
its language is ambiguous. In the United States and India, judges may invoke the
prevailing social consciousness in order to deliver ‘progressive’ decisions. In England,
judges may invoke the ‘common law’ (which remained ‘unwritten’ so far) in order to
set a precedent. Ancient texts may sometimes be invoked, particularly in India, only
when they are conducive to arriving at a ‘progressive’ decision.
In the religious sphere, textual approach may impel us to treat the ancient scriptu res
as sacrosanct, and thereby preserve certain unfair, unjust and irrational practices. This
attitude may in some cases promote dogmatism, obscurantism and fundamentalism. It
may even involve justification of an inhuman practice like Untouchability.
Progressive
The term 'progressive' implies an attitude, policy or decision that makes a departure
from outmoded thought and practices and seeks to reinforce the rights of deprived
and oppressed sections of society.
Common Law
common sense, reason and judicial interpret^ oTcustomth'atwas'"regarded to
are
by identifying significant precedents. C CaS6S 0n'V be dlscovered
Dogmatism
ssasassfar?*
te]„atMo„ je"edr™
; ■«•<»«««
Obscurantism
Obscurantism refers to an approach, policy or viewpoint which tends to project
the world in such a form that ordinary people are unable to attain true knowledge
thereof. It believes in concealing the truth and preventing its knowledge to reach
the ordinary people who continue to be guided by obscure beliefs and superstitions.
Fundamentalism
Fundamentalism refers to an extremely orthodox view of religion which regards
the contents of its scripture to be literally true, and firmly adheres to its teachings.
So it accepts the description of supernatural events and divine miracles included
in the scripture with full faith. It does not recognize any scientific knowledge that
contradicts the contents of the scripture.
Untouchability
Untouchability refers to a widespread practice of orthodox Hindu society under
which certain outcaste Hindus were treated as untouchable by the caste Hindus;
their touch was believed to pollute the body of the caste Hindus or anything of
their use. Those branded as untouchable were refused entry into temples, and
were not allowed to use common wells, ponds, inns and other common services.
IV
PCONTEXfUAIrAPPROACH*
WHAT IS CONTEXTUAL APPROACH?

Contextual approach to the interpretation of classics as distinguished from the textual
approach insists on reading a classic with reference to the full context in which it was
produced. George H. Sabine (1880-1961), in the Preface to the first edition of his
celebrated work A History of Political Theoty (1937), made this significant observation;
This history of political theory is written in the light of the hypothesis that theories
of politics are themselves a part of politics.
Sabine held that political theories of any age are the product of the social milieu in
which politics itself operates. The political process also involves reflections upon the
ends of political action, the means of achieving them, the constraints of political
situations, the possibilities of achieving one’s ends, and the obligations imposed by the
political purposes which are sought to be achieved. Political communities continue to
review their achievements and failures, learn from experience, and revise their goals
in pursuit of good life according to their perception. Accordingly, political theory
continues to evolve over time. Sabine, therefore, maintains:
Thus conceived, the theory of politics no more reaches an end than politics itself,
and its history has no concluding chapter.
Sabine like many other writers uses the terms ‘political theory’ (or ‘theory of
politics’), ‘political philosophy’ and ‘political thought’ synonymously. In his view,
political theory stands for the ‘search of truth’; it cannot claim that it has found the
truth. Any political theory would contain judgements of fact, or estimates of probability
which may eventually prove to be right or wrong. It may try to combine certain
elements, but their logical compatibility may be in question. It may be influenced by
certain values and preferences of its exponents which may distort the perception of
the fact. In short, no political theory can be accepted as perfect or universally valid.
Contemporary thinkers cannot claim that they have rectified the faults of the past
thinkers and have evolved a set of foolproof principles.
Sabine conceded that apolitical theory is always advanced in ‘reference to a pretty
specific situation’. Its interpretation calls for reconstruction of‘the time, place and the
circumstances in which it was produced’. However, its significance is not confined to
the specific situation in which it was created. In his famous article ‘What is Political
Theory?’ (Journal ofPolitics: 1939), Sabine dwelled on the wider significance ofpolitical
theory. He argued:
For obvious reasons the political philosophy that remains alive is just that which
can weave itself into the developing tradition of the subject. The greatest political
theorizing is that which excels in both respects, in analysis of a present situation
and in suggestiveness for other situations.
According to Sabine, political theories arise in a situation which is believed to be
bad, and men want to do something about it. Political theories flourish only when men
feel concerned about the prevailing predicament. Those who are genuinely indifferent
about the future do not take trouble to make political theories. Sabine maintains that
a political theory covers three kinds of factors: it includes factual statement about
the state of affairs wherein it arises; it tends to identify the cause of events that have
taken place; and finally, it contains a statement as to what ought to be done in order to
control the situation. Sabine sums up these factors as factual, causal and valuational
He asserts that political theories ‘play a double role’ : in the first place, they belong
to the abstract world of thought; and secondly, they influence the conduct of people
because they believe in those theories. F
Since political theories uphold certain values, a student of political theory must
undertake the rational criticism of these theories so as to ascertain the validity of those
LthV "T find °Ut 3810 h0W a Particular th^ry can be rationally
adjudged to be true or false. A sound theory will prove to be right and acceptable iJt
VIEWS OF QUENTIN SKINNER
££££
examining what they have to tell us about the perennial issues. According to Skinner,
properunderstanding ofatext should be based on an inquiry into what they were intended
to mean and how that meaning was intended to be taken. Skinner has particularly
recommended the approach involving a dialogue between philosophical analysis and
historical evidence. To accomplish this task one should focus on conceptual innovation
and the study of relationship between linguistic and ideological change.
To understand what a writer may have been doing in using some particular
concept or argument, we need first of ail to grasp the nature and range of
things that could recognizably have been done by using that particular
concept, in the treatment of that particular theme, at that particular time.
We need, in short, to be ready to take as our province ... the complete
range of the inherited symbols and representations that constitute the
subjectivity of an age.
Quentin Skinner (Visions of Politics; 2002)
Skinner has particularly recommended contextual approach in order to avoid certain

pitfalls of the textual approach. In his Visions ofPolitics (2002), Skinner has elaborately
dwelled on these pitfalls. He has observed that if we focus only on the text of a classic,
we run the risk of lapsing into various kinds of historical absurdities. Each of such
absurdities may be termed as a mythology.
Mythology
Mythology refers to a set of traditional narratives about supernatural events
involving gods, goddesses and other imaginary persons and things. These narratives
are designed to explain the origin of the world or mankind in order to justify
certain religious beliefs and social customs. Since history should be based on
an authentic account of events and persons, use of mythology denotes a clear
departure from historical method.
Skinner has identified three types of mythologies involved in the use of textual
approach: (a) Mythology of doctrines; (b) Mythology of coherence; and (c) Mythology
of prolepsis.
Mythology of doctrines is the most persistent mythology created by historians
who expect that each classic writer on moral or political theory would enunciate some
‘fundamental concept’. This mythology may take several forms. In the first place,
some scattered or incidental remarks by a classic theorist may be treated as a doctrine
on one of the expected themes. For instance, Marsilius of Padua (1275-1343), in his
Defensor Pads (1324), made some occasional remarks about the executive role of rulers
by contrast with the legislative role of the people. One follower of textual approach
sought to interpret these remarks so as to acclaim Marsilius as the founder of the
doctrine of ‘separation of powers’ which is the cornerstone of American Constitution
(1787). A deeper analysis will show that there was no possibility of Marsilius having
any idea of ‘separation of powers’. This doctrine was first enunciated by a famous
French philosopher, Charles de Montesquieu (1689-1755), in his notable work The
Spirit of Laws (1734). Attributing it to Marsilius of Padua, Italian thinker of early
fourteenth century, is nothing more than a mythology of doctrine. ' ‘— ----- -------
Secondly, there is a danger of anachronism, that is a given writer may be ‘discovered’
to have held a view on the strength of some chance similarity of terminology. For
example, Sir Edward Coke (1552-1634), English jurist, observed that the common law
of England may sometimes override statute. An American commentator found in this
remark the resonances of the doctrine of‘judicial review’ (another important feature of
American Constitution)! Coke himself could have no idea of such a doctrine in his own
historical setting.
Again, there is the crude possibility of crediting a writer with a meaning that he
could not have intended to convey, or finding expected doctrines in classic texts. For
example, Richard Hooker (1554-1600), English theologian, in his account of The Laws
ofEcclesiastical Polity (1593-97), made a remark about natural sociability of man. A
modern commentator has hailed Hooker as an early exponent of the theory of ‘social
contract’! This comment is another example of mythology of doctrine.
The second type of mythology, viz. mythology of coherence is also common with
the historians of political thought relying on textual approach. According to Skinner,
some classic writers are not altogether consistent; they even fail to give any systematic
account of their beliefs. A historian who treats one of such writers with a sense of
veneration, tries hard to find coherence or consistency in his doctrine to prove his
greatness! For instance, Karl Marx (1818-83), German philosopher, had left his earlier
work unpublished. It has now been published as his Economic and Philosophic
Manuscripts of1844. His later works, particularly Capital (3 vols.: 1867; 1885; 1894),
are characterized by scientific rigour. Marx’s humanist thought contained in his earlier
work is usually contrasted with his scientific thought contained in his later works.
However, many contemporary writers try to demonstrate that both types of his thought
constitute a single, coherent system of thought. Skinner would term this attempt as
‘mythology of coherence’.
Finally, Skinner elaborates the ‘mythology ofprolepsis’. The Oxford Encyclopedic
English Dictionary defines prolepsis as “the anticipation and answering of possible
objections in rhetorical speech” or “the representation of a thing as existing before it
actually does or did so”. Skinner defines the mythology ofprolepsis as “the type of
mythology we are prone to generate when we are more interested in the retrospective
significance of a given episode than its meaning for the agent at the time” In other
words when an observer tends to mix up the assumed significance ofa given historical
episode with the meaning of that episode itself, his attempt is characterized by the
mythology ofprolepsis. For example, Karl Popper (1902-94), in his The Open Society
and ts Enemies (1945), declared Plato, ancient Greek philosopher, as an exponent of
S ofTSIh ■, T 7 t0 COmpare PIat0’S method for perpetuating his proposed
nf thPl! hP t SOfe Kng With the meth0d of totalitarianism in utter disregard
of the long historical gap between Plato and the emergence of modern totalitarianism
Totalitarianism originated m early twentieth century. It was largely practised in
communist and fascist countries. It involved mass mobilization aggressive
use
of propaganda and strict regimentation of thought including the techniques of
brainwashing It is no fair to brand Plato as a totalitarian who was trying to establish
and perpetuate the rule of most competent persons, constantly devoted to welfare of
the people. Looking for the symptoms of totalitarianism in Plato’s mode of thought is
nothing but an example of the mythology of prolepsis.
Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism refer to a system of governance in which the State seeks to regulate
and control all aspects of life of its citizens — whether public or private. In other
words, it seeks to direct all political, economic, social-cultural and intellectual
activities of people toward fulfilling certain aims which are determined by the
State itself. No citizen has the right or opportunity to criticize the State, or to
propose any new aim.___________ ____________________ ___________ ______
Propaganda
Propaganda refers to an action involving distortion or exaggeration of facts and
drawing arbitrary conclusions therefrom in order to serve some political purpose. It
is designed to reach out to a very large public so as to produce a strong sensation
in favour of or against an idea, principle or party. _____
According to Skinner, these problems can be overcome only by understanding the

proper context of a given text, as suggested by Cambridge ‘New Historians’. These
historians view works ofpolitical theory as forms ofpolitical action. They try to discover
the intentions of the author and the linguistic resources and conventions available to
him or her. A work of political theory is a form of political action in the sense that it is
intended to produce certain effects in the reader: to warn, to persuade, to criticize, to
frighten, to encourage, to console, etc. A political theorist is engaged in high level
propaganda and persuation on behalf of some political cause. He or she may defend or
criticize the cause of democracy, royal absolutism, religious toleration, capitalism or
socialism, emancipation of slaves, empowerment of women, coexistence or revolution.
This approach seeks to restore a text to the historical context in which it was produced,
and to identify the questions to which it offered an answer.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CONTEXTUAL APPROACH
Many works of political philosophy have been produced to attack or defend the views
of other thinkers. Marx wrote The Poverty of Philosophy (1847) to contradict the
view held by P.J. Proudhon (1809-65) which was dubbed ‘the philosophy of poverty’.
Proudhon was an anarchist who had rejected communism because it involved the use
of authority to replace the existing system of property. Engels wrote Anti-Diihring
(1878) in response to Eugen Dtihring’s ideas on Revolution in Science. A reference to
these historical contexts would be found very useful in the interpretation of the texts
in question.
Significance of the contextual approach may be illustrated by some more examples
from the history of political thought. Plato’s criticism of democracy was based on his
bitter experience of Athenian democracy where Socrates, the greatest intellectual ot his
times, was given death sentence for his radical views. In such a system the people were
not properly equipped with education ‘to select the best rulers and the wisest courses .
Democracy enabled the men with the gift of eloquence and oratory to win votes of the
people and secure public office, but such men were thoroughly selfish and incompetent
who ruined the State. Plato sought to remedy this situation by recommending the
‘rule of the philosopher-kings’. Then Aristotle’s search for a stable government led to
the idea of the ‘mixed constitution’ — a combination of aristocracy and democracy,
where high-ranking people rule with the approval of ordinary people. Aristotle hoped
that the introduction of the proposed ‘mixed constitution’ would break the vicious
circle of political instability.
Among the exponents of the social contract theory, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
commended absolute sovereignty because he was perturbed by the experience of Civil
War in England (1642-49). John Locke (1632-1704) defended constitutional government
because he was encouraged by the events leading to the Glorious Revolution in England
(1688). Then Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712-78) evolved the concept of popular
sovereignty because he witnessed the emergence of popular movements in France.
Some more examples of the contextual interpretation of political thought may
now be added. G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831) attempted the glorification of the State as he
was deeply impressed by the ascendancy of German nation-state. Karl Marx (1818-83)
stood for internationalism as he was at home in England and France though he was a
German. Again, Marx’s concept of class conflict was inspired by the newly emerging
movement of the working class in England. John Stuart Mill (1806-73) wrote an
excellent defence of liberty as he was perturbed by the rising strength of mediocres
and the consequent isolation of intellectuals in England. Again, his criticism of the
subjection of women’ was the outcome of his experience of the valuable intellectual
contribution of his wife, Harriet Mill (1807-59).
Then Max Weber (1864-1920) evolved the ‘ideal type’ of bureaucracy on the
basis of his experience of a well-functioning bureaucracy in Germany. And Mahatma
Gandhi (1869-1948) evolved his concept of Swaraj (self-rule) on the basis of his
courageous struggle of the coloured people against the white rulers
in South Africa. He himself had actively participated in this struggle. In all these
rriophy whoseforre,e™“
as a guide ”s “ “”«”d
all humanity in all ages.
It is necessary to realize that the contextual approach cannot be vindicated
government, On, it e,,, „e
futile to look for the concept of‘service state’ or ‘welfare state’in his though!
Republic
Republic refers to a system of governance where the supreme legal authority is
vested in the ordinary people of a country, and not in a single ruler or a ruling
class. It is based on the idea that every citizen has equal status, it is, therefore,
contrasted with monarchy and aristocracy.
Monarchy
Monarchy refers to a system of governance in which a king, queen or any other
royal personage reigns over a country who is technically regarded the supreme
legal authority in that country. On his or her death or retirement, the authority
will pass to another member of his or her family. ______ .
Aristocracy
Aristocracy refers to a system of governance in which supreme legal authority is
shared by the chosen few who are regarded superior to ordinary citizens either
by birth or because they hold some special titles. The class of persons enjoying
such authority is also called 'aristocracy'. _____________________
The aim of scholarship is to seek and to tell the truth, as best as one can discern
it, and not to promote any partisan cause......The worth of one's work is to be
judged, not according to its 'political correctness' (or lack thereof), but according
to its scholarly (in)adequacy. One historian of political thought may agree with
another about politics but disagree strongly about the other's use of evidence
and argument.
Terence Ball (Reappraising Political Theory; 1995) j
V
#«TRATEG¥OPihmRPREWtON?
Like a great poetry the text of a great classic may contain wonderful flashes. It
may include certain accomplished expressions whose full implications may not be
realized by its author or reader immediately. Subsequent generations may interpret
those expressions in wider contexts and find new meanings therein. In other words,
apart from what author had intended, these may have some unintended consequences.
Some commentators may even be inclined to give a new turn to the intention of the
author for which adequate evidence may or may not exist. As a result, interpretation
may turn out to be a long-drawn process including reading and re-reading of a text,
its interpretation and reinterpretation, appraisal and reappraisal, etc. without any
concluding part.
Interpretation is, so to speak, a kind of triangulation between the text and two
(or more) interpretations of it. Hence we cannot but take others' interpretations
into account, reappraising their adequacy and value.
Advocates of the textual approach reject any departure from the meaning of the
original text. But you cannot be sure of that meaning. The author wrote at a different
time, perhaps in a different language, and of course under different circumstances.
We cannot understand his or her intention in the current idiom of our language.
Wntmg is a creative activity; interpretation is a scholarly activity. As scholars, we
try to find linkages between the thought of different authors whether they themselves
acknowledge it or not. For instance, we regard John Locke (1632-1704) as the ‘father
of liberalism’ although Locke never made this claim. Now C. B. Macpherson (The
Political Theory of Possessive Individualism; 1962) asserts that Locke was trying
to defend property rights of a rising bourgeoisie, although Locke did not claim to
make such attempt. All such assertions and conclusions emanate from the contextual
approach.
Bourgeoisie
In Marxist theory, the term bourgeoisie stands for the class of modern capitalists
owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labour.
mmmmm§
Reliance on the contextual approach does not warrant that reference to the
Macpherson s
Then Karl Marx (1818-83) is reported to have made this
comment: ‘All I know
TTT" *S * “-“Sad worldview
(1869-1948) emphatically denied that h ' ^ W* Simi,arIy’Mahatma Gandhi
But this did not prevent us from recolmV^th V ^ °f anything like ‘Gandhism’,
conceded that the history of politicaf thought16 Ga“dhlansch°o1 °f thought. It may be
- is largely indebted t.L
Worldview
shape its future. *,p,r,he ™ »<»■ -

ltS problems' and determines the way to
Once the essay or book in which we are interested has been put before the
public, it takes on a life of its own .... Works outlive their authors, and take
on lives their writers might be perturbed to see.
Alan Ryan (Property and Political Theory; 1984)
TERENCE BALL ON
THE PROPER STRATEGY OF INTERPRETATION
Terence Ball, in his Reappraising Political Theory (1995), dwelled at length on the
relative merits of the textual and contextual approaches to interpretation. After a
thorough examination he came to the conclusion that both may prove to be useful
in different contexts. So we can decide as to which approach would be suitable for
a particular occasion in order to find a solution to the problem under study. Ball has
made five important points to enable us to evolve the proper strategy of interpretation.
In the first place, Terence Ball has recommended the problem-centredperspective.
He has argued that the method of interpretation should vary with the particular
interpretive problem being addressed: “A method is not like a stretch sock: one size
does not fit all feet.”
Secondly, the interpretive problems can come from any source, whether historical,
contemporary, literary, political or whatever. These problems may arise from the text
or from its interpretations advanced and defended or contradicted by subsequent
commentators. Examples of such problems include: whether the theories of Plato or
Rousseau were ‘totalitarian’, and whether Bentham was a feminist.
In the third place, the text should be placed in two contexts: the context of
composition (i.e. inquiry into its author’s intentions), and the various contexts of its
reception (which may or may not take the author’s intention into account).
In the fourth place, we should consider how far an earlier theorist or a subsequent
interpretation can throw light on our contemporary problems.
Finally, in the fifth place, we should examine as to what we can hope to achieve by
adopting a pluralist and problem-driven approach to interpretation.
If we follow these points meticulously, we may hope to evolve an efficient strategy
of interpretation. Appropriate interpretation of a classic will benefit us not only in
understanding and solving our own problems, but also in leaving important hints for
posterity in understanding and solving their problems.
Strategy
Originally a military term, strategy refers to the art of planning as to where to
place armies and weapons in order to gain the best advantage in a war or a
warlike situation. Symbolically, strategy denotes a plan adopted to overcome a
difficult or challenging situation in the field of politics, economics, business or an
intellectual activity.
Strategy For Interpretation Of Classics

Textual Approach = Read the author in his own words: What he actually
said? What he intended to say? What is his message?
Contextual Approach = Why the author said so? What he saw and felt? What
he wanted to achieve or accomplish? Different
interpretations might have been offered by different
commentators. Some distortions might have crept into
the available interpretations.
Recommended Strategy = • Select the problem to be addressed.
• Read the relevant text and try to follow the
author's line of argument
• Read at least two diverse interpretations of the text.
• Compare these interpretations with the text and the
underlying line of argument.
• Draw your own conclusion.
(He = he or she)
Terence Ball on the Strategy of Interpretation

Approaches
f
A
Type of Approach Textual Contextual
Chief Exponents Straussian School Quentin Skinner and

Cambridge 'New History'
School
Guiding Factor
I 1
.Focus on the Text Consider the Intellectual,
itself as it contains the Political and Linguistic
Whole Truth (Read the Contexts of its writing and
Text to Understand its the Subsequent Interpretations
Message) and Reinterpretations
Recommended
Strategy
Pluralistic and Problem-Driven
** Approach (Select suitable method
for the problem being addressed)
anywhere and be addressed via a varied G j?rob em can come from

the resulting interpretive solutions must be ass^^^'^S^
scholarly criteria.

Q. 1. Elucidate the nature and genesis of political thought.

2. Distinguish between textual and contextual approaches to the interpretation
of classics. Which strategy of interpretation do you recommend for serious
scholars? Illustrate your answer with suitable examples from the history of
political thought.
3. Write short notes on:
(a) Quentin Skinner's views on textual and contextual approaches to
reading a text;
{b) Terence Ball's strategy for the interpretation of a text.
«J3>*
EARLY
CLASSICAL TRADITION
^“t0 imaS'ne a single key concept of political science which does
have its roots in one of the classics of political philosophy. not
Dante Germino
Significance of the Classical Tradition
The task of the historian of ideas is to study and interpret a canon of classic
texts. The value of writing this kind of history stems from the fact that the
/ classic texts in moral, political, religious and other such modes of thought
contain a 'dateless wisdom' in the form of 'universal ideas'. As a result we
can hope to learn and benefit directly from investigating these 'timeless
elements', since they possess a perennial relevance.
Quentin Skinner (Visions of Politics; 2002)
Classical tradition of political thought refers to the series of reflections on the

problems of politics as recorded in various ‘classics’ of political philosophy. In order to
understand the significance of the classical tradition, we must focus on the nature and
utility of classics.
I
^WHA^P Are CLASSICS?
CLASSICS REPRESENT THE WORKS OF

ACKNOWLEDGED EXCELLENCE
The evolution of human civilization is marked by a long tradition of the study of
literature, history and philosophy, etc. Some works concerning these subjects are
masterpiece’; they are timeless. These great works are known as ‘classics’. Some
of these works deal with political philosophy. They are widely used in the study of
politics. In short, a classic is a great work whose utility transcends time and space.
It has enduring importance for all human beings. Oxford English Dictionary defines
c assic as a work that is a class” by itself, a work “of the first rank and of acknowledged
exce ence. Dante Germino (‘The Contemporary Relevance of the Classics of Political
[27]
Philosophy’, included in Handbook of Political Science, ed. by Greenstein and Polsby;
1975) identifies classics as “certain treatises of political philosophy” that “stand
forth as so notable for their depth and penetration of insight, conceptual luminosity,
freshness of vision, and quality of thought.”
Some examples of classics are: Plato’s Republic and Laws; Aristotle’s Ethics and
Politics; Augustine’s City ofGod; Aquinas’ Treatise on Law; Machiavelli’s Prince and
Discourse on Livy; Hobbes’s Leviathan; Locke’s Second Treatise of Civil Government;
Rousseau’s Social Contract; Hegel’s Philosophy ofRight; J.S. Mill’s On Liberty; Marx’s
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts and Communist Manifesto, etc. These works
were produced in response to different conditions in different countries at different
times. They deal with different problems and prescribe different solutions for similar
problems. In any case, they deal with perennial problems of human society. As Dante
Germino has significantly observed: “What unites them is not the conclusions reached
but the questions to which they address themselves.” Germino has identified three
questions which are sought to be answered by the great treatises of political theory:
(a) What is man? (b) What is society? and (c) What is history?
discloLhmCJS°7 eX3mination of the masterpieces of political literature

discloses the continual reappearance of certain problem-topics, ... such as the
power relahonships between ruler and ruled, the nature of authority, the problems
ooliHralV 7“ f' ^ StatUS °f certain goals or Proses as objectives of
ITZ'ZZIr ■■■wtat is response. *

Sheldon S. Wolin (Politics and Vision; 1960)
of writing
3^T-,52h h«btey(S8™r"For
and John
formation of ‘civil society’JSJT" °f 3 State °fnature’ befo^ the
examine their beliefs in the light of moder ^ ®s®nptlons thereof. But when we
them to be baseless. Yi we amprecfate tSem ^ we find
different historical junctures ^ °f their Symbolic significance at
II
UTILITY OF CLASSICS
In order to solve our political problems we are ren,,,^ . , .

rights and obligates of ci.ideas J princip
Significance of the Classical Tradition 29
thinking about these problems from the very beginning, our task will prove to be
very difficult and stupendous. If we seek the help of the history of political thought,
we will get a substantial relief. Thereby we shall learn what the great philosophers
of the past have to say on these questions. Then we can draw our own conclusion.
For example, on the question of relation between individual and the state, Hobbes,
Locke, Rousseau (1712-78), Hegel (1770-1831), Green (1836-82) and Laski (1893-1950)
advanced different theories of political obligation. We can argue about the validity
of their line of thinking, but we cannot give a final verdict in this behalf. Similarly,
we can argue that Locke’s theory of natural rights cannot be vindicated on empirical
basis, but we can recognize its logical structure.
Political Obligation
Political obligation refers to the view that an individual living in a state is obliged
to obey law and the commands of political authority. This may be accompanied
by such duties as the payment of taxes, participation in voting, jury service and
military duty, etc. which are necessary for the maintenance of political institutions.
In short, the tradition of political thought may not provide us with authentic
information about facts, but it can sharpen our conceptions regarding the goals and
purposes of human life. As each generation need not invent the, wheelfor constructing
a new vehicle or a new machine, so we need not formulate new concepts; and new.
terminology to construct our political argument. We can evolve a reasoned view after
examining the prevalent debates on the issue with our own experience and wisdom. For
example, Aristotle had defended slavery on the ground that freemen alone were capable
of virtue, slaves were not capable of it; hence a slave could avail himself of the benefit
of virtue by serving his master. Slavery is no longer in vogue in modem society, but
social inequality is widely prevalent. Familiarity with Aristotle’s argument will help us
in analysing the present situation.
Rousseau’s distinction between natural inequality and conventional inequality
provides us with a sound criterion for the analysis ^f social inequality. But the
defenders of social inequal ity tend to repeat Aristotle’s argument in a different style.
For example, champions of colonialism advanced the theory of ‘whiteman’s burden’
which implied that non-white races were incapable of self-rule and that they must
accept the rule of white races in their own interest. If we are aware of the weakness
of Aristotle’s argument, we will at once detect the fault of the theory of ‘whiteman’s
burden’, and refute it most effectively. We can then argue that the so-called ‘capability
of virtue’ is an obscure notion; that human capabilities cannot be compared on this
ground! These can be compared only on the basis of physical strength, intelligence
quotient (IQ) and aptitude test, etc., and not on the basis of their predetermined social
status! And individual differences in society cannot be so sharp that one category of
people should be entitled to become masters, and the rest should be reduced to slaves!
Natural Inequality and Conventional Inequality

The distinction between natural inequality and conventional inequality was drawn
by Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, in order to recognize
two types of inequality. According to him, natural or physical inequality consists
in the differences of age, health, bodily strength and qualities of mind and soul.
Conventional inequality, on the other hand, consists in the different privileges that
some men enjoy to the exclusion of others, such as inequalities of wealth, prestige
and power. While natural inequality is not dependent upon human choice, being
more-or-less ordained by nature, conventional inequality is largely man-made,
being more-or-less deliberately designed by men themselves. It is significant that
the recognition of this distinction between two types of inequality has paved the
way for review of the basis of existing social distinctions and restructuring social
relations according to new concepts of social justice.
In this context, the argument advanced by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German

philosopher, would be found most convincing. Kant held that each human being, by
virtue of being a human being, is endowed with dignity, which cannot be weighed
against any worldly values. Every human being should therefore be treated as an end-
in-itself; nobody should be treated as a means to another’s end. Nature has not made
anybody a slave of anybody else. All human beings are made free and equal. No
human being can accept any obligation toward another except at his free will and in
consideration of mutual benefit. Nobody can accept any obligation to compromise
his dignity which makes him relinquish his freedom and become another’s property.
Hence slavery is absolutely ruled out. It is important to note that John Rawls (1921-
2002), contemporary American philosopher, has adopted Kant’s model of ‘rational
negotiators’ for arriving at his theory of justice.
, In ,the trad|tl®n of Marxian thought, debate on the relative status of ‘base’ and
superstructure has produced new insights regarding the alternative strategies
e olution. Karl Marx (1818-83), German philosopher, had postulated that
superstructure (consisting of legal and political structure, religion morals social
anhd literatT KetC° Was entirely dePende1' « base (mode ot
pte cLTnPOTrZtT"lH*nhd “,bliS'”nE m°d« of production in its
eventually spread to the whole fabric of social relationships. UperStrUCture'11 would

Base and Superstructure

The terms 'base' and 'superstructure' are used in Marxist theory to describe the
relation between economic structure of society and other aspects of social life.
In this building-like metaphor, mode of production (i.e. the economic structure of
society) constitutes the base, while legal and political structure, religion, morals,
and other expressions of social consciousness, such as social practices, culture,
art and literature, constitute the superstructure. It is believed that any change in
the base results in corresponding changes in the superstructure.
CLASSICS ARE THE SUBJECT OF UNIVERSAL

AND PERENNIAL DISCUSSION
Some critics argue that the old political thought was presented under certain specific
conditions which no longer exist; hence it has no relevance under the present-day
conditions. This argument is not well-founded. It is true that old political philosophy
was concerned with the problems of its own times, but it also contains the expression
of some eternal truth regarding human beings and society. It raises some problems
which transcend the limits of time and space, that is which are relevant for all ages
and all countries. Such thought might be the product of particular conditions, yet it
would touch upon certain issues of universal and perennial discussion. Some part of
the thought of a great thinker could be the expression of his own circumstances and
purposes, but a substantial part thereof may embody eternal truth. If we undertake
its detailed analysis, we can identify that part of his thought which would be relevant
for all times and all people. On this basis we can build our own political argument.
For instance, Plato’s depiction of his ideal state may be rejected by us as incapable
of practical application, but his description of the ways of unworthy politicians in
a democracy coincides with our present-day experience. Today we cannot accept
Aristotle’s defence of slavery, but his description of the causes of rebellion in different
types of states would be relevant even today.
Again, we cannot give credence to Machiavelli’s wall of separation between
politics and ethics, but we can benefit from his wonderful insights in the field of
diplomacy. We cannot accept Hobbes’s description of human nature as such, but we
can treat it as the reflection of the behaviour of ‘bourgeois man’ (i.e. the new middle
class) and use it for analysing the character of early capitalism. It shows how a man in
civil society constantly endeavours to fulfil his self-interest at the expense of others.
Today we realize that Hobbes was a spokesman of law and order state; there was no
room for the concept of service state or welfare state in his system of thought.
The philosophical basis of the right to property, as expounded in Locke’s political
theory, was essential to sustain the newly emerging capitalist system. Today we do not
agree with Locke in treating the right to property as sacrosanct, but we still subscribe
to his faith in constitutionalism based on treating government as a ‘trust’. Rousseau’s
theory of the ‘general will’ still serves as the source of the doctrine of ‘popular
sovereignty’ which is the foundation of modern democracy.
Constitutionalism
Constitutionalism refers to the theory that a state is set up for the fulfilment of
certain noble objectives. The extent of its authority is defined by the requirements
of fulfilling this responsibility. It is therefore bound to exercise its authority within
the prescribed limits. No organ of the state can be allowed to exercise absolute
powers.
Popular Sovereignty
Popular sovereignty refers to the theory that ordinary people are the real source
of sovereignty, that is the supreme legal authority of a state. Jean-Jaques Rousseau
(1712-78), French philosopher, sought to locate sovereignty in the General Will
which represents the point of convergence of real will of all the members of a
community. Real will is the will which directs them toward the attainment of good
of each of them. Since their good lies in the common course of action, their real
will directs them to the fulfilment of the same objectives.
has 'rwed “ , civil

communism, the state has eclipsed civil
society. For the protection ot civil liberty, society must get rid of the both types of
distortions.
developed by Marcuse in the contemporary perspective. — has been
r and enable
(1748-1832) and J.S. Mill (1806 73) utlhtanan Stand of Jeremy Bentham
libertarianism, sought to revive Herbert Spencer’s (182'o adV°Cate °f

of argument. Thus the concepts used in nolit . um 903) eighty years old line
iebates and thereby serve as the food for new tho ^ °SOphy glve rise t0 continual
Libertarianism
Libertarianism refers to a contemporary principle of politics which regards
individual's liberty as the basic principle of public policy. It rejects welfare state
and treats free market economy as an essential condition of liberty. It stands for
minimum intervention of the State in mutual dealings of individuals.
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism refers to a contemporary principle of politics which regards equality
as the basic principle of public policy. It holds that no rational grounds have to
be stated while conceding equal opportunities, equal rights and equal benefits
to different individuals; justification must be given only when inequality or
discrimination among them is sought to be introduced or maintained.
CONCLUSION
Many more examples of continuity of political thought can be gathered. Sometimes old
concepts are used for the analysis of new problems; sometimes these are revised;
sometimes new concepts are evolved. Similarly, sometimes old arguments are revived
to give expression to new consciousness; sometimes old arguments are refuted;
sometimes these are revised. The classics on politics do provide us with adequate help
and insight for the analysis of our contemporary problems and for the construction of
our own political argument.
In short, we have to rely time and again on the classics of political philosophy for
dealing with the problems of politics even today. As Dante Germino has asserted:
It is difficult to imagine a single key concept of political science which does not
have its roots in one of the classics of political philosophy. The very word “politics”
comes to us from the Greeks; the symbol “state” was articulated as a result of the
attempt in early modern times to free the governmental power structure from feudal
and ecclesiastical control; and such terms as power, sovereignty, consent,
representation, tyranny, democracy, and the public interest have a precise prehistory
in the Western i ntellectual tradition (‘The Contemporary Relevance of the Classics
of Political Philosophy’ included in Handbook ofPolitical Science, edited by Fred
1. Greenstein, Nelson W. Polsby, Vol. I; 1975).
Thus the study of the history of political thought would prove highly beneficial to
us in understanding the intricacies of political theory today.
A continuous tradition of political thought presents many advantages to
both the political thinker and to the political actor. It gives them the sense of
traveling in a familiar world where the landscape has already been explored;
and where it has lost, there still exists a wide variety of suggestions
concerning alternative routes ... A tradition of political philosophy also
contributes to the endless task of accommodating new political experience
to the existing scheme of things.
Sheldon S. Wolin {Politics and Vision; 1960)
A major lesson we can derive today from the study of the classics is that we
should beware of reifying the symbolic formulations of our philosophical
opponents and of rejecting out of hand political teachings at variance with
our own.
Dante Germino (Handbook of Political Science; 1975)
(reifying = treating an abstraction as a real thing)
Q. Write a short essay on the nature and utility of the classics of political
philosophy.
I
Plato
i
«NATURgOP GREEK ROUTICACTHOUGHR*
Plato (427-347 B.C.) was ancient Greek philosopher who is regarded to be the first
• systematic political thinker in the Western tradition. Socrates (469-399 B.C.), his
mentor, did not produce any writing; his political thought is known to us chiefly
through Plato’s works. So for all practical purposes, Plato is the pioneer of Western
political thought.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ‘POLIS3
In fact the origins of Western literature, art and culture, science and philosophy-
including political thought may be traced back to ancient Greek philosophy. Euclid, the
founder of geometry, was born in Greece, in the third century B.C. The methodology
of geometry proved immensely useful in the development of scientific thinking. Then
many Greek philosophers and teachers of philosophy dwelled on certain fundamental
questions which are considered to be relevant even today. For example, they inquired
into the nature of truth and justice, knowledge and reason, types of virtue, foundations
of authority and rule of law, etc. The whole tradition of Western political thought
originated in thinking about the life of the ‘polls’ that refers to ancient Greek city-
state. The terms ‘politics’ and ‘political’ are derived from the word ‘polls’ itself.
Ancient Greece consisted of several city-states the tracts of land which were
separated from each other by natural barriers like mountains, dense forests, and the seas,
etc. These city.-states were so isolated that'transport and communication between them
were very difficult. So each of them was required to develop its own self-sufficient
economic life as well as independent political system. However, in spite ofgeographical
separation, these city-states were culturally very close to each other because they spoke a
|35]
uniform language, and largely followed common religious traditions. All of them
believed in multiplicity of gods. The most prominent of these gods — Zeus and
Apollo were very close to the Greek heart.
In early Greek history till the eighth century B.C., kingship or monarchy was the
most widely prevalent form of government in the city-states. But from around 700
B.C. most of the city-states came to be controlled by oligarchies. In due course, these
oligarchies had to face internal conflicts. By 500 B.C. many city-states came to be
ruled by tyrants. Originally these rulers cared for their subjects, but later they became
corrupt and cruel. Then in most of these city-states, aristocracies were established
with the popular support. Later, in many city states aristocracies were replaced by
democracies. Greek political thought flourished against the backdrop of all these
experiences.
It is important to note that the so-called democracy found in some Greek city-
states was not a democracy in its modern' sense. Today universal citizenship is
regarded to be a necessary condition of democracy: it is a ‘rule by the people’ as
such, not by the selected few. But in a Greek city-state like Athens, there were about
400,000 inhabitants; of these about 250,000 were slaves or aliens who had no political
rights of any kind. Then of the 150,000 freemen or citizens, women had no political
rights. Of the remaining citizens (excluding children and ‘retired’ citizens), only a
small number was active in politics. Since it was a ‘direct democracy’ (i.e. where
citizens directly ran their government, and not through their representatives), only the
active citizens presented themselves at the ‘general assembly’ which discussed and '
determined the policies of the state. They also had a ‘supreme court’ which consisted
of over a thousand members, selected from the citizens by rotation. So in the Greek
model of democracy, political rights were restricted to the privileged few. However
within the qualified citizens, they made no discrimination between rich and poor
or high and low social strata; all citizens enjoyed equal political rights and equal
opportunities to participate in public decision-making. In this sense, the Greeks were
fairly familiar with the essence of democracy.
ETHICS AS THE FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICS
It is important to note that in Greek philosophical tradition, politics as a discipline
developed as.a sequel to ethics. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics had closed by
thenatur°ofl^justice,0fob>^,^T ^'Z’ P‘at° ^ treated the problem of'discovering
: central
common and politics was responsible for the
eth.cs which reaches its logical conclusion in the institution of the“ ‘SSl'e °f
Plato 37
Ethics
Ethics refers to a branch of learning concerned with the principles of good conduct.
It inquires into moral beliefs and rules about right and wrong. This term is used
as a synonym of moral philosophy as well as a set of principles of good conduct
concerning a particular profession, such as 'medical ethics’ or 'business ethics'.
The Golden Mean

The golden mean refers to a famous ethical principle enunciated by Aristotle (384-322
B.C.), ancient Greek philosopher, in his Ethics. It holds the key to personal as well as
social morality and serves as a guide for political action. The doctrine of the golden mean
implies that virtue or excellence lies in finding a middle path between two extremes,
which would turn out to be vices in themselves. For example, courage is a virtue that
lies between cowardice and rashness; liberality, between stinginess and extravagance;
ambition, between sloth and greed; modesty, between humility and pride; and friendship,
between quarrelsomeness and flattery. Buddhism also commends 'middle path' as
the road to virtue.
The Mixed Constitution

The mixed constitution refers to a mixture of aristocracy and democracy, prescribed
by Aristotle as a remedy to cure the ills of political instability of his contemporary
Greek city-states. He observed that none of the prevailing forms of government {viz.
monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, polity and democracy) proved to be stable
because concentration of power in the hands of any ruler or ruling group gave rise to
discontent among those who were deprived of power, and also corrupted the rulers
because 'power and virtue cannot coexist'. He came to the conclusion that a judicious
mixture of aristocracy and democracy would prevent the possibility of corruption of
rulers as well as rebellion against the government. Under this arrangement, power
would be exercised by the chosen few who were rich, educated and cultured, but
their decisions would be subject to approval of the ordinary people, Aristotle argued
that though ordinary people were not capable to rule, they would prove to be the
best judge of the merits and demerits of a public policy.
GREEK THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

The Greeks dwelled elaborately on the nature and types of knowledge. Their theory
of knowledge is regarded to be particularly illuminating even today. The Greeks
used a single word ‘episteme’ for ‘knowledge’ as well as ‘science’. It means that
they recognized ‘scientific knowledge’ as the real knowledge. Moreover, they were
convinced that true knowledge was inseparable from virtue. In other words, a person
having true knowledge would automatically follow the path of virtue. Knowledge made
a man wise and virtuous. Pursuit of true knowledge or wisdom led to the evolution
of philosophy. Philosophy literally means ‘the love of wisdom’. Hence philosophy
implies an effort for the acquisition of true knowledge. In modem times, we distinguish
between ‘science’ and ‘philosophy’ on the ground that science deals with the natural
or material world whereas philosophy deals with abstract and conceptual entities. But
the Greeks did not recognize this distinction. For them, science and philosophy were
coterminous.
Socrates’ distinction between knowledge and opinion provides the key to the
Greek theory of knowledge. In his view, knowledge was based on sound principles,
and it could be proved like a geometrical theorem. On the other hand, opinion or belief
was merely based on impression; it was not bothered about finding the proof of what
we held. Knowledge was objective; opinion was subjective. Knowledge was uniform
and universal; it did not change with time and place, or from person to person. As the
proverb goes: “Wise men think alike.” On the contrary, different people held different
opinions about the same thing; their differences were symptomatic of their lack of
knowledge. Socrates argued that traditional morality was based on opinion which
changed with time and place, but true morality was based on knowledge which was
universal and eternal.
Then the Greeks also distinguished between ‘pure knowledge’ (theorea) and
‘applied knowledge’ (praxis). Pure knowledge was an end-in-itself; it represented the
‘knowledge for knowledge sake’. On the other hand, applied knowledge was a means
to an end; it embodied the knowledge for practical use. For example, the knowledge of
truth, good or beautiful was not meant to serve a worldly purpose; it belonged to the
category of pure knowledge, that is knowledge for knowledge sake. On the other hand
knowledge of agriculture, carpentry and other crafts was meant to produce useful things
. it belonged to the category of applied knowledge. The Greeks regarded pure knowledge
ge.
Distinction Between Knowledge and Opinion: Socrates'
View
Subject of Inquiry
1
f
Knowledge
Opinion
I 1
Based on sound principles
which can be proved (like a Based on impression;
geometrical theorem) not concerned with finding proof
I I
Subjective
Objective
I I
Different people have
Uniform and Universal
different opinions
applied knowledge embodied an ina.anmeni.l v„ne (, X ."ha, wf”,te»sTo

Plato 39
end). The Greeks held that in order to attain good life (which was the goal of politics),
applied knowledge should be subordinated to virtue.
Relation Between Knowledge and Virtue: The Greek View

Knowledge
(Episteme)
1
I
Applied Knowledge
Pure Knowledge
{Theorea) (Praxis)
I
Knowledge for Knowledge Sake
1
Knowledge for Practical Use
I I
Lower Order Knowledge
Higher Order Knowledge
(Superior Knowledge) (Inferior Knowledge)
I
Inseparable from Virtue
I
Neutral to Virtue and Vice
I
Represents an Intrinsic Value
I
Represents an Instrumental Value
* In Greek view, knowledge and science were synonymous.

* Socrates held that a person having true knowledge shall not depart from the
path of virtue.
* Vicious behaviour is the symptom of lack of true knowledge.
* Applied knowledge must be deliberately subordinated to virtue.
DOMINANT THEMES OF POLITICAL INQUIRY

The Greeks were chiefly interested in philosophy. In this pursuit, they sought to
inquire into the laws governing the universe. They believed that the universe was the
product of the creative reason. All natural phenomena were therefore governed by
certain uniform and immutable laws which could be discovered by the human faculty
of reason. Initially the Greeks focused on the analysis of the external world. But by
the fifth century B.C. they became interested in the analysis of human nature — the
internal world of man. They noticed a world of difference between their own culture
and the culture of non-Greek people, whom they called ‘barbarians’. They began to
investigate the reasons behind this perceptible difference.
The Greeks who were intensely inspired by their religious beliefs and wonderful
narratives of their gods and goddesses, had become fearless about their destiny. They
firmly held that man himself was capable of moulding his society into an excellent
form. Indeed their intellectual curiosity was not bound by any limits. They realized
that man was endowed by nature with certain faculties; it was his duty to develop
and use them. In other words, man should apply his faculty of reason to improve
his life. This led to the need of political organization — the necessary instrument
of good life. Aristotle declared that ‘man is by nature a political animal. He argued
that a man who can live without a state is either a beast or a god. A man acquires and
develops his human qualities only by living in a state which enables him to secure the
conditions of good life. Whereas other countries of the Orient - Egypt, Babylonia,
Assyria and Persia considered the submission to law and the state an act of submission
to an external power, the Greeks regarded it an act of following the dictates of one’s
own higher self.
Since man is treated an integral part of the state in Greek political thought, he
is expected to participate actively in its functioning. The environment of small, self-
sufficient city-states was quite suitable for such participation. All the citizens —
particularly the freemen in these states knew each other; so they could assemble from
time to time to take public decisions about their city. As an indispensable instrument
of good life, it was the state that regulated the entire life of man. There was no scope of
thinking that man has any natural rights (i.e. the rights derived by man from the nature
itself), or that the state was created for the protection of these rights. For Greeks, the
objectives of the individual coincided with those of the state; so they did not draw
a line of demarcation between the public and private affairs. Democracy in Greece
authorized men to constitute the state, and thereby provided them with political rights
but it did not recognize any rights of individual against the authority of the state’
I There was no scope for the concept of civil rights (i.e. the rights restricting the state
trom exercising its control over the individual).
The laws of ancient Greeks were rooted in their long-existent custom. So there
was no ôpe for the idea that law is the expression of anybody’s will, or it is the
product of dehberation of a legislative organ. The Greeks generally agreed that a true
pohs rehed on ‘rule by laws, not by men’. Even absolute monarch"' whemtthey
one that fl “ny " laW' Similarly’ no democratic regime like the .
uUr'Shtd thenS’ S°Ught t0 make any new law- Eventually the Greeks
not the
£? »fS.™ tr kwimd
and not its
be argued, defended ch„|enged by tan,™™ i," "y ““ "S “
ROLE OF SOPHISTS
sSSSSS^Massr' They
and
rather than outwards upon the world of things' M Up0n*e,r own thought and nature
of philosophy. The sophists did not constitute n any of tkem had Profound knowledge
of them developed his own ideas on the suhieetc ^k'.schooi^thought because each
wide variety of subjects. Will Durant (The Stonnfm,^ mq/ry- They Squired into a
observed: “There is hardly a problem or solution if™ ' °S°Phy: J954) has significantly
conduct which they did not realize and discu«” tu c“rrent Philosophy of mind and
cuss . They asked questions about anything
%
Plato 41
on earth or elsewhere. They took nothing for granted, and fearlessly proceeded to
challenge the prevailing religious beliefs and political restrictions. They sought to judge
everything from the perspective of reason. Illustrating the variety of the viewpoints
evolved by the sophists, Will Durant has further observed: “One, like Rousseau, argued
that nature is good, and civilization bad; that by nature all men are equal, becoming
unequal only by class-made institutions .... Another school, like Nietzsche, claimed
that nature is beyond good and evil, that by nature all men are unequal, that morality
is an invention of the weak to limit and deter the strong ... ”(ibid).
Protagoras sought to justify the profession of sophists as they helped to develop
the rational faculties of people. He argued that all men were endowed with the capacity
to share in the process of decision-making, but not in equal measure. Only good
educators would help to enhance their capacity in this respect and to prepare them
for political leadership. However, later sophists abandoned their quest for truth and
sought to use their skills for attaining material success and.developing their clients’
ability to argue a case in a convincing manner irrespective of its merits. Politicians of
those days widely learnt the art of oratory from many sophists for winning votes of
the people, but they neither acquired necessary competence nor developed a sense of
' duty to serve the state. Socrates and Plato were particularly disillusioned with such
politicians so much so that they were inclined to abandon democracy and switch over
to the rule of philosopher-kings to save the state from disaster!
~ ' : ” .... ^ ........................................................
SOCRATES’ INFLUENCE
Plato (427-347 B.C.) was the most brilliant disciple of Socrates (469-399 B.C.).
Socrates was an Athenian philosopher who moved from place to place, gathered
inquisitive young men around him, asked them questions after questions with a view
to revealing the nature of certain basic issues like truth and justice. Plis method of
educating people somewhat resembled that of sophists, but he was certainly different
from them. Although Socrates was primarily interested in humanistic studies, like
most of the sophists,.yet he strived to expose the hollowness of the views held by
the sophists. While sophists taught their clients how to achieve success in dealing
with public, Socrates taught his pupils how to gain scientific knowledge about the
basic issues. While the sophists held that goodness could be attained like an art
through professional knowledge, Socrates believed that goodness could be acquired
only through the knowledge of ultimate reality. Above all, while sophists chose only
rich people as their clients and demanded fee for the instruction imparted to them,
Socrates met and talked.to all sorts of persons, rich as well as poor, and never charged
any fee for his instruction.
Socrates was a real explorer of knowledge who was particularly conscious of
the ignorance of the so-called knowledgeable people. He utterly despised arrogance,
and very modestly accepted his own ignorance even when he was ‘the wisest of all’.
According to the legend, once the Oracle of Delphi pronounced: ‘ Socrates, you are the
wisest man of Greece.” Socrates very modestly replied, “Because I am the only person
in Greece who knows that I know nothing!”
In his earlier career, Socrates served in the army. But he always acted according
to his conscience, and maintained his independence. He was likely to be executed
for defying the order of ‘Thirty Tyrants’ to arrest Leon of Salamis. But he was saved
because the ‘Thirty Tyrants’ were overthrown before they could fulfil their designs.
Later, when democratic party came to power and Socrates became a philosopher-
educator, the rulers suspected that he was undermining their authority by motivating
the youth to question all sorts of authority. They awarded him death sentence on the
>
ground that he did not recognize gods that the city recognized, and sought to introduce
other new divinities, and also corrupted young men! This event had a profound impact
on the young mind of Plato who then turned to most vigorous pursuit of philosophy.
Plato sought to immortalize Socrates by developing his basic ideas into a full-fledged
philosophy. Socrates had not produced any writing; Plato wrote many Dialogues
(including his celebrated work the Republic) in which Socrates is the chief spokesman
of his philosophy.
Plato himself was born in a noble, aristocratic family, and brought up in comfort.
His original name was Aristocles. He grew up as a handsome and vigorous youth. It
is said that he was called Plato because of his stout body with broad shoulders. He
turned out to be a great soldier and an excellent sportsman. But instead of following
the worldly pursuits, he was fascinated by philosophy — particularly by the style '
of his mentor who smashed all dogmas to focus on the search of truth. Plato paid a
rich tribute to his master in these words: “I thank God that I was born Greek and not i.
barbarian, freeman and not slave, man and not woman; but above all, that I was born
in the age of Socrates.”
r;;“les ,he fn"c,”in8 ot Hi*«■»*»»

LATER LIFE
he tad turned to be a great

Plato 43
the Republic which is regarded to be a masterpiece on philosophy. The Republic is the
most outstanding contribution of Plato with a lot of flashes. It covers a wide range of
philosophical ideas which flourished before him, during his times, and even in later
ages. As Will Durant {The Story ofPhilosophy; 1954) has succinctly expressed: “The
Republic is a complete treatise .... Here we shall find his metaphysics, his theology,
his ethics, his psychology, his pedagogy, his politics, his theory of art. Here we shall
find problems reeking with modernity and contemporary savour: communism and
socialism, feminism and birth-control and eugenics, Nietzschean problems of morality
and aristocracy, Rousseauian problems of return to nature and libertarian education,
Bergsonian elan vital and Freudian psycho-analysis — everything is here.” After
dwelling on all aspects of the ills of the state and their possible solutions, Plato came
to the conclusion: “Until philosophers are kings, or the kings and princes of this world
have the spirit and power of philosophy, and political greatness and wisdom meet in
one ... cities will never have rest from evils ... nor the human race.” So Plato’s concept
of the ideal state implied the rule of philosopher-kings.
In 387 B.C. Plato received an invitation from King Dionysius of Syracuse, capital
of Sicily, to convert his kingdom into the ideal state. Plato accepted this invitation,
but his attempt to train a tyrant to become a genuine philosopher failed. This led to
a bitter conflict between the two. It is said that the king condemned Plato to become
a slave. He was sold in market where he was freed only when a friend of his paid the
price. These experiences of Plato are reflected in his later works the Statesman (the
Politicus) and the Laws. These represent an effort to combine his ideal state with the
real world. Here Plato tends to consider natural weaknesses of man and concedes that
his ideal state cannot be realized on earth which is to be ruled by philosopher-kings.
So he proceeds to envisage a ‘sub-ideal state’ — ‘the second best’ — which would
be ruled by laws, not by men. This state would be far inferior to the ideal state, yet
it would be acceptable for its practicability. In short, in the absence of philosopher-
kings, supremacy of true knowledge in Plato’s sub-ideal state would be established
through the rule of laws.
Plato returned to Athens in 387 B.C. Shortly after this, he founded his famous
Academy which produced many brilliant philosophers including Aristotle (384-322
B.C.).
III
^PI?ATO!sNhEOR%'QFJUSTICE'.
PLATO’S METHODOLOGY
Discovering the principles of justice is the central problem of Plato’s Republic. It is
even subtitled as Concerning Justice. It follows the style of dialogue between Socrates
and his pupils who represent various streams of thought evolved by the Sophists.
Socrates asks them searching questions, and demolishes their views one by one, and
ultimately offers his own answer which embodies Plato’s theory ofjustice.
The style of dialogue represents the dialectical method which was introduced
by Socrates himself. It was meant to undertake a thorough examination of the
various schools of thought, known in his times, and bring forth their inconsistencies,
contradictions and shortcomings with a view to arriving at a tenable position. Following
Socrates’ methodology, Plato sought to demonstrate that when mutually contradictory
ideas clash with each other, they tend to destroy each other’s untenable parts and only
truth is left behind. This dialectical method was applied in modern times by G.W.F.
Hegel (1770-1831), famous German philosopher, to evolve his theory of historical
development. Hegel argued that ‘idea’ (or consciousness) was the substance behind the
universe; that several rounds of clash between ‘thesis’ (the initial idea) and ‘antithesis’
(its opposite idea) results in ‘synthesis’ (a combination of truer parts of both ‘thesis’
and ‘antithesis’), and this process goes on until it reaches ‘the absolute idea’, which is
eternal.
Plato also follows his master’s footsteps in the use of‘analogies’, that is the style of
referring to simple and familiar things in order to explain the complex and unfamiliar
things which operate in a similar manner. Like Socrates before him, Plato uses the
analogies from the fields of arts as well as nature in order to explicate the problems of4
i morality, politics and human character. In dealing with the problems of administration
■ of the state> Plat0 uses the analogies of craftsman and physician. He complains that
whereas in simpler matters — like shoe-making — we think that only a specially-
trained person will serve our purpose, in politics we presume that every one who
knows how to get votes knows how to administer a state. When we are ill, we call for
a qualified and trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation
and technical competence - we do not ask for the most handsome physician or the
most eloquent one; well then, when the whole state is ill, should we not look for the
service and guidance of the wisest and the best?
some
uses the analog/ 7 dfne the functioning * « statesman; in another, he
rules in annlvfnP h 7 ^ purpose' NoW an artist is not b°und by any
Ws a®VeJST CntS’ WlTaS 3 PhySidan is always bound ^ ™L ia
time? ’ sponsible person can play these basically different roles at the same
the nature'of ‘° COn<*Ptualize an ideal ^ ^ order to understand

geometry in his quest for truth He aTeued thar ’nfluenCCd by the loSic underlying
drawing line diagrammes although we know W ^ l° discover laws by
on paper. For example, we conceptualize a DUre tr, dlagramme cannot be drawn
three sides consisting of right lines havino nr, h ,l, ang|e (le■ a tr*angle which has
governing a triangle in the actual world limilarlv we^h ^ t0 UnderStand the laws
state in order to understand the nature and Wi“ ,concePtuali“ a perfect
like Socrates, Plato used teleological method in sturi°n ^ a°tUal State' Again’
teleological method, we determine the nature of thin"18 th.® nat.ure of the state- In
cause or ultimate purpose for which they exist. Accordreference to
for which the state exists, we will be enlightened ahnlUV**WC identify the PurPose
S ned about the nature of the state itself.
Plato 45
Purpose of the state can only be understood with reference to concept of an ideal state.
Plato argues that ‘justice’ is obviously the ultimate purpose of the state. Hence, an
ideal state must be based on justice. Being concerned with the study of the state, Plato
begins with politics. But since justice is primarily an ethical concept (i.e. concerned
with moral philosophy), study of ethics becomes necessary. Justice in society can be
established by determining the proper status and functions of various social classes, so
we are required to enter the realm of sociology. Analysis of social organization requires
us to understand the nature of man because the state or society is the ‘individual writ
large’. So we must be concerned with psychology. Development of natural capabilities
of man is the function of education, so we have to deal with theory and practice of
education. Plato devoted so much attention to this aspect of his study that Jean-Jaques
Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, declared the Republic to be the best treatise on
education. Finally, philosophy is an essential content of education. Hence the Republic
also includes an elaborate study ofphilosophy. According to Ernest Barker (1874-1960),
Plato’s the Republic embodies an effort to elucidate the whole philosophy of human
life.
Plato undoubtedly made an excellent effort to represent the whole body of
knowledge in a single work, but it must be conceded that further development of
knowledge depended on classification of various disciplines — a task that was
accomplished by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), Plato’s illustrious disciple. While Plato was
an idealist, Aristotle was a realist. However, like Plato, Aristotle also founded his
politics on ethics. Aristotle criticized his mentor on the ground that he failed to detect
the natural weaknesses of man, and created a Utopia in the name of his ideal state.
Utopia
Utopia refers to the image of a perfect society or state that is very fascinating,
but unrealizable in actual practice.
THE QUEST FOR JUSTICE

Plato’s political thought begins with this dictum of Greek political thought: “The state
comes into existence for the sake of life and continues for the sake of good life.” Plato
argues that the state arises from the necessities of human life. Each human being
depends upon others for the fulfilment of his needs. That is why people live together
in a state or society. Can we think of any other reason behind the origin of the state?
Indeed ancient Greek philosophers did not distinguish between state and society.
While other living beings merely seek the means of their survival, human beings
further seek the means of good life. Justice is obviously a necessary condition of good
life. So the quest for justice assumes priority in the sphere of political philosophy. This
comprises the theme of Plato’s monumental dialogue, the Republic.
Discussion of this issue takes place in the house of Cephalus, a wealthy aristocrat.
Other participants in this discussion, apart from Socrates himself, include Glaucon,
Adeimantus and Thrasymachus. At the outset, Socrates asks Cephalus: “What
do you consider to be the greatest blessing which you have reaped from wealth?”
Cephalus replies that wealth is a great,blessing because it makes us generous, honest
and just. Since Cephalus refers to ‘justice’ as one of the virtues derived from wealth,
Socrates asks him to define ‘justice’. Cephalus tries to answer that justice consists in
speaking truth and paying one’s debts. But Socrates is not satisfied with this simplistic
definition. In the meantime, Cephalus’s s.on, Polemarchus, joins the discussion. He
clarifies that justice consists in giving each person his due, which implies doing good
to friends and evil to enemies. But Socrates rejects the very idea of doing injury
to any one as a part of justice. After each answer, he asks a further question until
Thrasymachus challenges Socrates to answer this question himself. But Socrates is
undeterred, and asks Thrasymachus to try to answer.
Then Thrasymachus, in his typical style of a Sophist, shouts: “I proclaim that
might is right, and justice is the interest of the stronger... He argues that different
forms of government make laws with a view to serving their respective interests.
Whatever serves their interests, is eulogized as ‘justice’; anything that hinders it,
is condemned as ‘injustice’. This typical view of justice may be said to anticipate
the doctrine of Friedrich Nietzche (1844-1900), modern German philosopher, who
challenged the traditional morality and sought to institute a new morality founded on
power and dominance. This view was also articulated by Plato in another dialogue,
Gorgias where Callicles, a Sophist, denounces morality as an invention of the weak to
neutralize the strength of the strong.
Socrates does not accept the stand taken by Thrasymachus. In its response, he
argues that government is an art. Like the art of healing or navigation, its aim is the
well-being of its clients. The true function of a physician is to cure the patient, not to
make money. The object of a shepherd is to tend the sheep, not to slaughter them to
make his food. Similarly, a government does not govern for its own advantage but tor
the well-being of the governed. Further he argues that a just person is happier than
the unjust one, because he observes the principle of limit and performs his appointed
function.
... . Thrasymachus does not retort. But Glaucon and Adeimantus are not fully
rf 1 u 6 \ concec*e tbat justice is good-in-itself as well as for its consequences,
u ow to convince those who do not believe in this principle? So Glaucon attempts
He*rgues that man by nature seeks his own satisfaction; that
doine iniustirp 1 ^ ['gratlfication- In some cases, man may get satisfaction by
accented as a mla°r 1** WCrC possibIe to do this consistently, it could have been
more from m ^ State of nature. the weak who constitute majority suffer
as far as thevmnlH6 tv" ^ gain by If a11 were allowed to suppress others
themselves from nnH 1S S*ateof affalrs woulcl be simply intolerable. In order to save
to do injustice^™'i SUffenng’ theT enter int° a contract among themselves neither
made which c^Sw ‘h hT °therS t0 d° * In this way ,aws come t0 be
view anticipates the mnH i!” 3rd duman cor|duct and the code of justice. This
whereby they relluTsh thTh m ‘ m S°dal COntract: an agreement among me0
to secure ‘self-preservation’ o^to A T • °f nature’ and enter ‘"to civil society
the ‘state of scarcity’ as pin a .W'tb tbe anli"social elements, or to overcome
(1632-1704). »d ^
Plato 47
NATURE OF JUSTICE
The question oftrue nature ofjustice is still required to be answered. So Glaucon requests
Socrates to explicate the nature ofjustice as an end-in-itself. Socrates proceeds to explain
that justice is a relation among individuals, depending on the type of social organization
in which they live. If we create the image of a just state, we shall be in a better position
to describe a just individual. Using the analogy of^testing a man’s vision, Socrates
argues that we make him first read large type, then smaller; so it is easier to analyse
justice on a large scale, i.e. on the scale of the state, than on the smaller scale of
personal conduct.
In fact, in Plato’s system of thought the issues of a just human conduct and a just
social order are intertwined. He argues that if men were simple, an anarchist
communism would suffice. But in the actual world, because of greed and luxury,
men are not content with a simple life. They are acquisitive, ambitious, competitive
and jealous. So they tend to encroach upon the land or property which belongs to
others. War is one expression of this tendency. Other expressions of this tendency are
trade and finance which bring new class divisions. Plato gives a graphic description
of this situation: “Any ordinary city is in fact two cities, one the city of the poor, the
other of the rich, each at war with the other; and in either division there are smaller
ones — you would make a great mistake if you treated them as single states.” In this
process, the class that comes to acquire large amounts of wealth (e.g. landowners and
merchants, etc.) assumes the position of the ruling class, and one form of government
(e.g. aristocracy) is replaced,by another form (e.g. plutocracy or oligarchy). However,
when rich classes fail to control the state because of their scramble for power or
wealth, the poor organize themselves, stage a revolution against the rich, and establish
democracy — the rule of the poor. But eventually democracy also fails because the
ordinary people are not properly equipped by education to select the best rulers and
the wisest courses.
Plato also gives a graphic description of the mob behaviour which is responsible
for degradation of democracy: “Mob-rule is a rough sea for the ship of state to ride;
every wind of oratory stirs up the waters and deflects the course ... the crowd loves
flattery, it is so ‘hungry for honey’ that at last the wiliest and most unscrupulous
flatterer, calling himself the ‘protector of the people’ rises to supreme power.” So
democracy also gives way to tyranny or autocracy.
In order to prevent the recurrence of a crisis under every existing form of
government, Plato turns to the problem of selecting best rulers for the state. He argues
that statesmanship is a highly specialized function for which duly qualified persons,
with impeccable moral character, must be chosen. Plato laments that people are very
meticulous in searching competent persons for their day-to-day needs, like shoe
making and treatment of bodily ailments; but in the matter of most important and vital
issue of their life, i.e. selection of rulers, they are misled by demagogues. They must
be made aware that mere oratory is no proof of a person’s competence to hold public
office! But how to determine who would prove to be best rulers? That is the central
problem of political philosophy.
Demagogue
The term 'demagogue' refers to a type of political leader who tries to win support of
the people by appealing to their emotions rather than by giving rational arguments.
The first step in this direction consists in understanding the nature of man. becaust
governments are made of men: “Like man, like state”. The state is what it is because
its citizens are what they are. If power is held by wrong persons, any reforms in theii
way of working will prove to be as ineffective as cutting away at the heads of a hydra!
On the other hand, when right persons rule the state, they would tide over every crisis
and secure well-being of the people under all circumstances. If we understand human
nature properly, we can determine proper functions of all human beings and decide
who would be fit to rule.
Plato claims that human behaviour flows from three main sources: Desire (or
Appetite), Emotion (or Spirit), and Knowledge (or Intellect). These qualities are found
in all human beings, but in diverse degrees. Some men seem to be the embodiment
of desire, restless and acquisitive, constantly devoted to material pursuits. They arc
particularly fit for trade and industry. Others are predominantly reservoirs of emotion
and spirit who are always inclined to fight for victory. They are pugnacious rather than
acquisitive; they take pride in power rather than in possession. They are particularly
fit to work as soldiers. Finally, there are the few who find delight in meditation and
understanding, who yearn not for goods, nor for victory, but for knowledge and
learning. They find solace not in possession, nor in power, but in realizing the truth.
1 hese are men of wisdom who are particularly fit to rule the state.
Once we understand
. .. . the standards of fitness of different persons for different
functions, we
o >eY T ore"01 rft 7 fit3ry f0rC6S W0UW Pr°teCt th" State but they wouM
‘ ’ the/orces of knowledge - science and philosophy - would be nourished
and protected, and they would rule. When people are not guided by knowledge they
desires They cante^ 77 ^ m°Vmg haPhazardly to fulfil their conflicting
enlightenment<of knowIeH^T 7 ^ the State if^ are blessed with the
eventhe forces of emo,7 7 of 8uidance by the forces of knowledge,
a state is doomed if wealth h* W°U d Create Undue °PPression. Plato argues that
authori;77e lducer 77hn| K " soldiers to assume absolute
in the battlefield; they are both'L the'1" the econo™c fieldi the warrior is at his best
requires statesmanship which is a sciene^^ ' n PUbl‘C °ffice' Function of governance
devoted his life to philosopher who has
character (because knowledge is inseparable 77 7 ?V° Ved “ lmPeccable moral
Plato 49
man ... cities will never cease from ill, nor the human race.
This theory ofphilosopher-kings is the mainstay of Plato’s political philosophy. In
short, Plato prescribes different duties for different classes of citizens whose fulfilment
would be instrumental in building up a perfect state that is thoroughly in formed by the
spirit ofjustice. Justice results from each element in society doing its appropriate task,
doing it well and doing it only. In order to achieve perfect harmony of these different
elements, which exemplifies justice, it is imperative that reason must rule within man as
well as within the state. So, in a just or ideal state, the reins of government shall remain
in the hands of a tiny class of philosopher-kings who represent living embodiment of
Reason, whereas material production and military defence shall be entrusted to the
producer and warrior classes (i.e. traders and soldiers) respectively. So in Plato’s perfect
state, “the industrial forces would produce but they would not rule; the military forces
would protect but they would not rule; the forces of knowledge and science and
philosophy would be nourished and protected and they would rule” (Will Durant, The
Story ofPhilosophy; 1954).
In his scheme ofjustice, Plato also identifies the virtues befitting each social class.
Then he defines ‘justice’ as the virtue befitting the state. Accordingly, he enumerates four
Cardinal Virtues which must be attained in a perfect state. These are: (a) Temperance
(befitting the traders’ class whose dominant trait is Appetite or Desire); (b) Courage
(befitting the soldiers’ class whose dominant trait is Emotion); (c) Wisdom (befitting
the philosophers’ class whose dominant trait is Knowledge); and (d) Justice (befitting
the state or whole social order). In Plato’s perfect state, each class will develop its
befitting virtue, and still traders’ and soldiers’ classes will accept the supremacy of the
philosophers’ class in order to achieve harmony in the functioning of all parts of the
state, which is a necessary condition of justice. In Plato’s view, justice is a blessing. It
is not only conducive to happiness, it is the necessary condition of human happiness.
Plprfo'Z % Plato's Theory of Justice

Social Class I J Dominant Trait Befitting Virtue
Traders Desire (Appetite) Temperance

Soldiers Emotion Courage
Philosophers Knowledge Wisdom
Virtue befitting the State Justice
(Harmony in ail parts of society)
Plato’s theory, of justice has been described as Architectonic Theory of Justice. It

draws an analogy between social organization and architecture in order to explicate the
nature of justice. Plato argued that during the construction of a building, fabrication of
different parts thereof (e.g. walls, ceiling, floor, windows and doors, etc.) is assigned to
different artisans, but a competent architect will combine all of them so nicely that each
of them would strengthen the other parts and contribute to grandeur of the building.
Similarly, in the ideal state, the first three cardinal virtues (viz. temperance, courage
and wisdom) would be cultivated by different social classes (viz. traders’, soldiers’
and philosophers’ classes), but the fourth cardinal virtue (viz. justice) would be
manifested in a harmonious combination thereof so that all of them would contribut*
to strengthening and perfecting the state.
IV
ivnvi u N i^m
If our state is required to be ruled by philosopher-kings, how shall we proceed to
identify the eligible rulers, and how shall we ensure that our rulers remain indifferent
to worldly temptations and throughout maintain a high standard of statesmanship? Id
order to solve these problems, Plato gives an elaborate description of his educational
system and the proposed style of living of the guardian classes.
PLATO’S EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
Plato’s educational system is founded on the principle of compulsory education and
full equality of opportunity for all citizens, with no discrimination on ground of birtli
or gender. So all newly bom children, boys and_girls, would be separated from theii
parents and placed in the custody of the state) All would be brought up and educated
under similar conditions. Till ten years of aê, they would be given predominantly
physical
u. reducation. Each
t school will have gymnasium and a playground. Main
subject of the curriculum will consist of sports. In these ten years, the foundation of
futoeHfe S*W1 bemadeS°Str9n§*hattheySh0Uldneetrnomedicinesinthen
so t *8' *" chiMre” wi" b' i» rnosi

so as to supplement their physical toughness with spiritual softness Durum theii
.ho sixteen,h .ill .he ,ge of ,.e»ty.

exemination fn Thiel'S ivelonemiligw'jl bx'.'s.cd t, h«H'^
twenty first till the age of thirty years. At thf ’ m®"tal Md moral •traini“g fromA
in another grand examination. Those who fai^wiii ®y Would-be squired to appeal
\ ba*1S soldlers in the army and navyf The ver, f 06 Sent to becoiT>e auxiliaries,
Plato observes that the nhilosn u * Wl J(5*n ranks of auxiliaries.
ttissszs* ns:
Plato 51
degeneration of the state. Best rulers are never covetous after power.
GUARDIANS AND THEIR STYLE OF LIVING
Plato has clubbed the philosophers and soldiers together and described them as the
guardian class. In order to keep theip fully free from corruption, he has prescribed a
typical style of living for them which is known.to be the communism ofproperty and
wives. In the first place, the guardians will keep minimum goods for their day-to-day
use, and whatever goods they keep,/Would be shared by all. They will live together,
eat from a common kitchen and will not keep any private property. In this sense, they
will follow the principle of communism of property.
Then the guardians will not have any private families. All guardians — men and
women — will be isolated from the ordinary population, enter into group marriage,
and become each other’s commorrhusbands and wive$. So all men will have common
wives and children. All newly bora children will be' separated from their parents and
placed in the custody of the state for their education along with other children of the
community. No man or woman would be allowed to know the identity of his or her
child. No child will be allowed to know the identity of his'or her parents. All men and
women of the guardian class will become parents of their common children. When no
man will be attached to any woman or child, no woman will be attached to any man
or child, and no child will be attached to* any particular parents, no member of the
guardian class will have any weakness for anybody. All will be devoted to the service
of the state with a sense of detachment. In this sense, they will follow the principle
of communism of wives. They wTTTnot be tempted to amass gold or silver or other
forms of wealth for anybody, nor for themselves. The twin principles of communism
of property and communism of wives will strengthen the character of the guardian
class so profoundly that they will become impervious to all sorts of temptation and
corruption. ^
DISTINCTION BETWEEN PLATO’S COMMUNISM

AND MODERN COMMUNISM
Modern communism refers to an economic ideology designed to counter the ill effects
of capitalism. It does not trace its origins to Plato’s communism. Modern communism
is largely concerned with common ownership of property although Charles Fourier
(1772-1837), early French socialist, also envisaged a system resembling Plato’s
communism of wives as well as property. On closer analysis, we find some substantial
differences between Plato’s communism and modern communism although they
embody the basic idea of communism in their respective spheres of application.
Capitalism
Capitalism refers to a modern system of industrial production in which the means
of social production (land, buildings, mines, forests, machinery and capital),
distribution and exchange are owned by private entrepreneurs, large numbers of
wage labourers are employed at market rates, and economic activity is primarily
devoted to private profit. Here workers are free to work anywhere according to
their skills, capacities and market demand. _____
Broadly speaking, modern communists allege that capitalism results in large scale
exploitation of workers because the owners of capital tend to maximize their profits,
taking advantage of the vulnerable position of the workers. The Communists therefore
want to replace it by a system where all means of social production will be placed
under social ownership, production will be devoted to fulfilment of social needs, and
workers will be required to work under most congenial conditions. Under this system
the disparity between haves and have-nots will disappear, old institutions and religious
beliefs will be replaced by a new social morality, and even ‘the state will wither away’.
Here people will live together, work together and eat together. Everybody would have
equal right to goods and services available to the whole community.
Exploitation
Exploitation refers to a form of social oppression in which one party takes undue
advantage of the vulnerable position of another party. The stronger party uses the
physical and mental capacities—resources, talents and skills, etc.— of its victim
for its own profit or gratification of its own desires.
Karl Marx (1818-83), chief exponent of modern communism, described it as the

advanced stage of socialism where all able-bodied persons will voluntarily work to
their full capacity; there will be no parasites; hence the society will become classless.
Here all social means of production will be placed under common ownership; forces of
production would have been fully developed; hence it would become possible to fulfil
everybody’s material needs.The rights of citizens will be governed by the rule: ‘-Trom
each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. As Marxists regard the
state an instrument of the dominant class, there will be no need of the state in a classless
society. As Friedrich Engels (1820-95) has elucidated, in the communist society p ower
will be replaced by authority and the state will be replaced by administration.
Communism ... is the complete return of

man to himself as a social (i.e.
human) being.
Karl Marx (Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844)
through an communism IS S0Ught to be achieved

established throw* dw > modern communism is sought to be
common I . t -hrs °f—

odern communism laruelv insists on the
Plato’s communism LSeffatisfaSion^the6 °f S°daI production- Then
guardian class that would be accustomed to‘n h i ™1™ matenal needs of the
modern communism envisages the satisfaction tfJS™8.andhl6h' th>nking’, whereas
communism accords primacy to moral values , 3 ‘al needs of PeoPle-PIat0’s
primacy of material satisfaction. Finally in Ph J ro C0I™ism accepts
vested in philosopher-kings whereas WOuld b°
in the working class. 1Sm see^s to vest all authority
Plato 53
Dinstinction Between Plato's Communism and Modern Communism

The Issue Plato's Communism Modern Communism
Sphere of Application The Guardian Class only The Whole Society
Way to Transition Elaborate Educational Revolution
System
Nature of Communism Sharing of Common Common Ownership
Property and of Property
Common Wives
Goa! Satisfaction of Satisfaction of all
Minimum Needs Material Needs
: Philosophical Primacy of Moral Primacy of Material
Basis Values Satisfaction
Authoriry to Philosopher-Kings The Working Class
j?,y„
V
0
*A CRITICAb APPRAISAL?
Plato’s theory of justice focused on the moral foundations of politics which will
continue to remain relevant for all times. Different generations may discover new
aspects of justice or evolve new criteria of justice according to their changing social
consciousness, butjustice will always remain the prominent goal ofpolitical philosophy.
In our own times, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian social philosopher, laid
renewed emphasis on moral foundations of politics, and his philosophy is being widely
invoked to find the way to emancipation of humanity in the face of various typesôf
global crises before us. In any case, Plato’s theory of justice has many shortcomings
to which several critics — ancient as well as modern — have drawn our attention.
DILEMMA OF DOMINANCE
Plato believed that different people are characterized by the predominance of anyone
of the components of human nature: Desire, Emotion, and Knowledge. That is why
they are fit to be placed in different social classes: Traders, Soldiers and Philosophers
respectively. Although all citizens start with equality of opportunity from the hour of
- their birth, their placement in different social classes is determined through certain
tests at various stages of their educational career. The tests are so rigorous and people’s
placement in different classes is so rigid that after a particular age, all the doors of
switching over to a higher class are permanently closed. This is not fair because
many persons may become more enlightened with time, but they remain deprived of
opportunities for advancement.
Again, when each social class is advised to develop its befittjng virtue (i.e.
temperance for traders; courage for soldiers; and wisdom for philosophers), would it
not be sufficient for each of them to attain good life? Then why traders’ and soldiers’
classes are advised to accept the control of philosophers’ class over them? Even if it .
is thought to be necessary, then how these classes who are endowed with economic
and military powers respectively, will be persuaded to obey the commands of the
philosophers’ class who have no concrete power? It involves the problem of making
material power subordinate of moral power which is by no means an easy task. It
seems, Plato was fully aware of this difficulty.
In order to prevent or suppress any voice of protest, Plato prescribed censorship of
art and literature. He held that these media will be used for the propagation of a ‘noble
lie’, variously described as a ‘myth’ or a ‘royal fable’ to convince people that the
present arrangement is best for them because it is ordained by God. It embodies a ‘lie’,
or a ‘myth’, or a ‘fable’ because it is not based on fact. At the same time, it is ‘noble’
or ‘royal’ because it is intended to serve a noble purpose — to secure the supremacy
ofjustice in society.
Censorship
Censorship refers to a practice under which a state or some other authority like
church undertakes examination of the contents of a publication, a report, a work of
art, artistic expression in any other form (such as a play or a film), any other form of
message (such as a personal letter) or communication (such as broadcast
or telecast) before reaching its target so that its objectionable parts could
be dropped before hand. The reasons of objection thereto could include
such grounds that its content does not conform to social morality, or it is
likely to hurt sentiments of some section of people, or it implies insult to an
honourable person, or it may cause strained relations with a foreign country, or
it may jeopardize security of the nation, etc.
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
Potter Stewart
:SS^®kswssss
f'™'» *» differently. Some of you ha*
husbandmen and craftc™ u u ° auxi*lanes; others again, who are to be

generally be preserved inchildren °f b'"S’ lr°”; and ““ sP“ics
its °PP0,“"i,y “ pr”e “S “d

__ to achieve
follows: irrespective of its parentage, the myth proceeds as
silver son, or a silver parentTIddeifsonAnd ^d1 WiU sometime have a,

a golden or a silver parent has an admixture of bra°n pr°Caims - that if the son of
(him) to descend in (he scale to become a husbandman oTan anlsanjust'a^lhera
Plato 55
may be others sprung from the artisan class who are raised to honour, and become
guardians and auxiliaries. For an oracle says that when a man of brass or iron
guards the state, it will be destroyed.
Plato was far ahead of his times when he sought to obliterate all discrimination on
grounds of birth or gender. He may be termed the first feminist philosopher who
recognized equal talents and equal rights of men and women, as in his ideal state women
were treated on par with men to join the ranks of guardian class. He was severely
criticized for this ‘bold5 stand by his conservative disciple, Aristotle, who dubbed it
‘unrealistic’ .
WAS PLATO A TOTALITARIAN?
In recent times, some critics have alleged that Plato was a totalitarian. Of these, Karl
Popper, Bertrand Russell, and R.H.S. Crossman are particularly important. There is
some substance in their criticism, but it will not be fair to accept such a sweeping
statement. We must examine as to in what sense Plato’s thought approximates the
tenets of totalitarianism, and where it is far removed from these tenets. Since Plato
was a strict disciplinarian and he stood for vesting absolute powers in his rulers — the
philosopher-kings, and still he sought to create consent in society by artificial means
(e.g. by propagating the ‘noble lie’), it may be conceded that he had some inclination
toward totalitarianism. And since totalitarianism is opposed to democracy and
freedom, it is also alleged that Plato was anti-democratic and antagonistic to freedom.
Are these charges well-founded?
Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism refers to a political outlook which upholds supreme authority of
the state over ail aspects of the life of its citizens. A totalitarian state tends to
direct all political, economic, social-cultural and intellectual activities of people
towards fulfilling certain aims which are determined by the state itself. Under this
system, nobody has the right or opportunity to oppose or criticize the state, or
to propose any new aim. The state keeps all sources of information, education,
religious or cultural activities — including sports and entertainment — under its
exclusive control. It does not tolerate trade unions or any other organizations
purporting any objective beyond those determined by the state.
It is widely held that totalitarianism is a typically modern phenomenon, made

possible by the development of modern technology, particularly the modern media
of mass communication. This term was first used by Benito Mussolini (1883-1945),
Italian dictator, in 1932 in his contribution to Encyclopedia Italiana. Mussolini
observed that his philosophy of Fascism was totalitarian in the sense that it sought
to interpret, develop and energize the total life of the nation; any human or spiritual
values could not exist beyond its ambit, not to speak of their significance! Later,
communist regimes in Russia and elsewhere were also dubbed totalitarian because
they sought to establish the supremacy of their ideology over total life of their people.
An ideology — whether fascism, communism or any other — is accepted to be true by
its upholders without examining its rational foundations; they are emotionally attached
to it; they are prepared to fight for it and to make supreme sacrifices to defend it. In
this sense, it would not be fair to regard Plato a totalitarian because the socio-political
order outlined by him in the Republic is based upon reason and understanding; and
the emotional commitment to that order springs from these rational qualities, not
from a blind faith. In the Laws, Plato particularly attacked those who, like Spartans,
eulogized military values as the core of their value-system.
I Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I: The Spell ofPlato; 1945)
argued that freedom was possible in an open society — a society that allowed social
mobility and that was always prepared to accept new ideas whereas Plato was a champion
of a closed society — a society that claimed to have found truth, and did not allow
anybody to express any new idea. Plato believed that once the philosopher-kings were
installed, they must be given absolute power to act without any interference or criticism
from the citizens. When we regard any class of persons howsoever learned and tested
for their impeccable character, to be infallible and ban all sorts ofcriticism against them,
we fall in the trap of totalitarianism. In this sense, Plato was a totalitarian. Aristotle
was right that if a virtuous person gets unbridled power, he is bound to degenerate
because ‘power and virtue cannot coexist’.
Similarly, Bertrand Russell (History of Western Philosophy; 1945) dubbed Plato
a totalitarian. His view should also be taken cautiously in the light of the relevant
shades of the term ‘totalitarianism’. Then R.H.S. Crossman (Plato Today; 1959)
alleged that Plato was peculiarly anti-democratic because he was an admirer of the
military discipline prevailing in his contemporary Sparta, and he sought to have a
similar discipline in his ideal state. He also attacked the ways of democracy that
prevailed in his contemporary Athens. In fact, his opposition to democracy was a part
of his project to replace the rule of demagogy by the rule of wisdom. But it should
not be forgotten that he was deeply concerned with welfare of the people which is the
substance of democracy. In today’s context, he would not have favoured procedural
sutoamTved USe °f.ltS, pltfalIs in actual Pfactice- On the contrary, he stood for
waJ certaTnfv" °Wn Way' Plat0’s idea establishing the rule of wisdom
implied siagnatkm and denial XSX SS."* ”h ^
Procedural Democracy
Substantive Democracy
Substantive democracy refers to a mnHoi * j
to the goal of democracy (e.g. social democracy which accords primacy
prepared to accept necessary adjustment in b people's welfare), and which is
franchise, periodic elections, free comDetitirm / procedure (e-9- universal adult
achieving its goal or substance. P *°" for P°wer, etc.) in the interests of
Plato 57
Q. 1. "Rule of philosopher-kings is the logical conclusion of Plato's theory of

justice." Elaborate and comment.
2. Explicate Plato's theory of communism of property and wives. Compare and
contrast it with the theory of modern communism.
3. Critically examine the view that Plato was a totalitarian.
(a) Greek theory of knowledge
(b) Plato's methodology
a
Aristotle
!•■-: . •-•• ■'. ' ■ -V -. I-.. -
Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was an ancient Greek philosopher who is regarded the father
of the science of politics. He was the illustrious disciple of Plato (427-347 B.C.) and the
tutor of Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.).
Aristotle s father was a court physician to the King of Macedon, Alexander’s
grandfather. Hence Aristotle was brought up in the odour of medicine which gave him
an opportunity and encouragement to develop scientific outlook. That is why he has
widely used biological and medical analogies in his discourses on ethics and politics.
At the age of thirty he went to Athens to study philosophy under the guidance of Plato.
Plato was so deeply impressed by his talent that he called him the brain of his academy.
However, Aristotle later developed his thought independently and severely criticized
his master’s radical views.
■ , ^ ,a”y Sf’ Anstotle’s own bought shares many concerns with Plato. Both saw
instability of the state as the major problem of the Greek city-states and held moral
\ 5? St3t! °f 3ffairS-Both held the view *at the state comes into
ZZ7 f ^ 7e °fbfecand co»tinues for the sake ofgood life. Both accepted the
manual labour to th 7 T”5 "S WeU 38 rulers and waatsd to pass the burden of
manual labour to the slaves. However, Aristotle sought to build his philosophy on
scientific foundation while Plato had largely relied on speculative method,
areaôf their i77!eati7*7^ V.ar'°US bra^ches ofphilosophy and specified the distinct
deductive logic and mathematics should not be ,S tv fT 7 7

neither of these disciplines should be treated as a 7o<2 f ° 7 °f natUre’ a"d *
Aristotle’s co.triMon to various areas of ph,los„pS?™^“ SZS
[58]
Aristotle 59
following categories: (a) Logic; (b) Natural philosophy; (c)Metaphysics; (d) Philosophy
of Mind; (e) Ethics and Politics; and (f) Literary Criticism which includes Poetics and
Rhetoric. In the area of ethics and politics, Aristotle held that the understanding of
the natural and essential aims of human beings would reveal the guiding principles of
moral and political practice. An elaborate description of these principles constitutes
his treatises on Ethics and Politics respectively.
Deductive Logic
Deductive logic refers to the method of drawing conclusions on the basis of 'general
to particular'. In this method, the inquirer first grasps a general rule and then
proceeds to observe particular cases for the verification or falsification of that rule.
-• |{' 4
POLITICS AS THE ‘MASTER SCIENCE’

While Plato had combined the knowledge of philosophy, ethics, education, psychology
and sociology, etc. into a single system in his most prominent work ‘RepublicAristotle
sought to draw a distinction between different branches of knowledge, viz. physics,
biology, meteorology, natural history, aesthetics, rhetoric, poetics, logic, metaphysics,
ethics and politics and wrote separate treatises on these subjects. In the Western
tradition before Aristotle all branches of knowledge came within the purview of
philosophy. Aristotle was the first to introduce the classification of knowledge and
paved the way for their independent development.
Thus Aristotle not only laid the foundations of the science of politics, but made a
significant contribution to its development which is contained in his famous work
‘Politics’. Moreover, his work on 'Ethics’ and ‘Rhetoric’ also deals with some
important problems pertaining to politics, justice, law, equality and classification of
constitutions.
Aristotle commended the science of politics as the ‘master science’ or ‘master art’
because it is concerned with the end of human life while other sciences merely provide
for suitable means for achieving this end. Politics plays a decisive role in regulating
various relationships within the human society. Men learn to control their destiny with
the help of politics. All other branches of knowledge are merely the instruments
of organizing their political life. Politics comprehends all the activities, rules and
regulations, organizations and institutions which are meant to secure good life.
----------—----------------------------------- -—„--------------------------------------
The supreme good... must be the object of the most authoritative of the sciences—
some science which is a master craft. But such is manifestly the science of politics;
for it is this that ordains which of the sciences are to exist in states, and what
branches of knowledge the different classes of citizens are to learn, and up to
what point.
Aristotle (The Nicomachean Ethics)
Aristotle postulated a ‘hierarchy of ends’ in order to show that the ends of all other
branches of knowledge ultimately merge into that of politics. For instance, physical
exercise gives us some enjoyment but its significance lies in improving our health.
Health is meant to promote good life which is the end of politics. Again, efficieni
household management is designed to increase wealth. Wealth is a means to*good life
which comes within the purview ofpolitics. Now let us take an elaborate example. The
art of bridle-making is meant to raise efficiency of horse-riding. Significance of horse-
riding lies in showing chivalry in the battlefield and winning the war. Victory in war
is meant to glorify the state which is the prime concern of politics.
Then politics is concerned with determining as to which sciences and arts should
be taught to various categories of citizens. The ends of all other sciences and arts like
medicine, military science or economics are concerned with securing good life in
different spheres of human life. Taken together they tend to evolve a comprehensive
view of good life which represents the end of politics. Hence all other sciences and
are subordinate to the science of politics. arts
Aristotle’s notion of politics is not only concerned with the duties of all citizens il
contrTovJwife She™1 T TT USe °fauthority- & involves husband’s
Sr r?0<1'- Tb,?r «*«■&»*» -*£35

principles ofpolitics. according to the
is today. In those days socialTife andpolitkaflif10116'8 tlmeS n0t aS Coraplex as 11

no need to study them senaratelv ftlnlil f S° interminSled that there was
as superior to household management yet heT^ 6 TSt3te mana8emenl
elaborately as an essential instrument of good life. h household management
Greek notion ofpolitics* Howeve^ die ^1C^SCOpe °f Politics which represents ancient
was not more than one-third of the totfl nn T ?^ CIty'state the number of freemen
slaves or aliens who had absolutelv no rnlpPU & ^ rCSt °f the PeoPle were eitIier
had no role in the decision-making process “ P ^ freemen, women
-Aristotle’s notion ofpolitic' rt
Today under normal conditions' potoLaT‘° the modern view ofpolitics.
political community, butpoliticsisconcernedwitiT1"6 *° a11 the merabers of 3
be regarded as an instrument of total control flasPf;|ficaspectofsociallife;itcannot
Many aspects of social life, such as religion5* ,lfe as Aristotle had postulated,
deemed to be autonomous and sought to beSTTT and litera‘ure, etc. are now
notwn ofpolitical authority is notfitfor afSIT T P°litics' Hence Aristotle’s
pplwahon to the modern society.
Aristotle 61
STATE AS A NATURAL INSTITUTION
For Aristotle state is necessary as well as natural for human beings. He argues that a
lonely person is unable to sustain himself. Man and woman join together to set up a
family or household. The expansion of family into many branches leads to the formation
of a village community. A combination of several village communities results in the
formation of city or state. In ancient Greece, city and state were conterminous.
Aristotle observes that with the formation of the state, human community becomes
self-dependent. Thus the process of social organization begins with an attempt to
fulfil ordinary needs of life and culminates in laying the foundations of good life.
State is as natural an association as a family or village community. Other associations
are imperfect as they provide for one or the other aspect of good life, but the state is
meant to secure all aspects of good life.
For Aristotle, living in a state is as natural for a man as to be a human being.
In other words, a man is like any other animal until he lives in a state. The urge for
leading a good life is the distinctive characteristic of human being which necessitates
formation of the state. You cannot think of a human being as different from other
animals without thinking of the state. Thus Aristotle postulates: State is prior to man.
Historically the state appears after the appearance of man. But from the point of view
of logic, the idea of state comes before the idea of man, as the idea of ‘full’ comes
before the idea of its ‘part’. You cannot think of a ‘hand’ or a ‘foot’ without thinking
of the body of which it is a part. If a hand is separated from the body, it becomes
redundant. So a man outside the state loses his identity as a human being. Politics is an
essential part of human character. That is why Aristotle postulates: Man is by nature a
political animal He who does not live in a state or who does not need a state is either
a beast (subhuman) or a god (superhuman).
Other living beings, such as bees and elephants may live in groups; so they may
be regarded as ‘social animals’ (or ‘gregarious animals’ in modem terminology); but
they have no aim in life beyond mere survival; they have no idea of good life. But
man is always interested in pursuing good life; so he lives in a state which is the
indispensable instrument of good life. That is why in Aristotle’s view, man is not
merely a ‘social animal’, but he is by nature a ‘political animal’.
Aristotle’s notion of politics is different from its present-day notion in this context
also. In the present age, conflicting demands and pressures are considered to be the
common characteristics of politics. The state is expected to evolve such policies and
decisions which could be made acceptable to the conflicting parties, at least for the
time being. Such a notion of politics was alien to Aristotle’s political philosophy.
Aristotle treated the state as a moral as well as a natural institution. He upheld
organic theory of the state and maintained that the relation between individual and the
state was similar to that between an ‘organ’ and the ‘organism’, that is the body. As
different organs of the body perform different functions according to their differential
capacities, so different individuals in society have different status and function. The
division of labour among different groups of individuals benefits all of them by
making use of their di fferent faculties of mind and body. This gives rise to the sense of
responsibility, mutual regard and cooperation and strengthens their moral character.
They realize that their common interest lies in maintaining the social system.
F
; Ill
PRINCE PROPERT#^ND SiÊRil
Family is the first institution to provide for good life. Aristotle pays due attention
to household management which included family, property and slaves. He concedes
that family is the cradle of virtue. Property is an essential ingredient of household.
Ownership of property gives a sense of security and an urge to increase one’s wealth.
It is an instrument of hospitality, generosity, friendship and affection. So Aristotle
defends private ownership of property and ridicules Plato’s scheme of common
ownership ofproperty among the guardians. Aristotle holds that while property should
be held under private ownership, its owners should make it available for common use.
He hopes that proper education will inculcate this type of generosity among citizens.
Extending the analogy of organic theory to the realm of human relations, Aristotle
maintained that as some organs of the body are superior to others, so some individuals
are superior to others. He argued that men were superior to women, freemen were
superior to slaves, and Greeks were superior to barbarians. He likened the relation
between man and woman to that between master and slave. He held that men were fit
for command and women for obedience. He rejected Plato’s pleafor equality between
men and women within the guardian class as it was not based on experience.
Aristotle argued that woman is weak of will, and therefore incapable of
independence of character or position; her best place is a quiet home life. While she is
ruled by man in her external relations, she may reign supreme in domestic affairs. No
attempt should be made to obliterate the natural difference between man and woman:
“The courage of a man and that of a woman are not, as Socrates supposed, the same:
the courage of a man is shown in commanding; that of a woman in obeying ... As the
poet says, ‘Silence is a woman’s glory’.” Thus woman’s role should be confined to
the sphere of family which is a natural institution; it caters to the good of woman as
well as man. Aristotle seeks to exclude women from the domain ofcitizenship on this
ground. r
Again, men differ widely in their intellectual capabilities. The great majority of
men are natural dunces and sluggards; in any system whatever these men will sink
o the bottom. These people must be ruled in politics and directed in industry with
their consent if possible, without it if necessary: “From the hour of their birth some
woTat byâmre5 iS0ed^ **rU'e” Th°Se wh° are Pîent in mental
— a. . po„ ™ sssjse^:*. s -*
Aristotle 63
similar work. Thus a slave was at best a tool or the counterpart of a domestic animal.
Aristotle even declared the slave to be incapable of virtue or moral excellence. He
argues that manual orphysical labour blunts one’s mind and renders one incapablefor
performingpoliticalfunction which requires high calibre. It is therefore the prerogative
of a freeman who alone is capable of virtue. Moreover, a freeman needs ‘leisure, for
the exercise of virtue which is created by assigning all physical work to the slave. The
slave could get the benefit of virtue only through serving his master. So slavery was
beneficial for the master as well as the slave. While Aristotle wanted the slave to be
dutiful, he also advised the master to be kind to his slaves.
In this context, ‘leisure’ does not mean the escape from work. It simply means the
freedom from physical labour to enable a person to devote himself fully to the study,
contemplation and pursuit of art. Those who work to fulfil material needs of society
do not need ‘leisure’ in this sense. Hence mechanics, labourers, peasants and salves
are not fit to rule. They are not entitled to the status of citizens.
Here Aristotle uses the term ‘slave’ in a wider sense. Even merchants and
financiers are thought to be slaves in this sense. However, Aristotle concedes that
learning the theory of finance is not unworthy of philosophy, but to be engaged in
finance or in money-making is unworthy of a free man A fa* man » .constantly
devoted to intellectual work — the way to actualization of good life which is an end-
in-itself. On the other hand, anybody who is required to do a fixed job, and repeat it
everytime, is not fit to be a citizen.
Aristotle further believed that only the Greeks had the ability to do inleUectual
work, hence they were fit to be free men. On the other hand, barbarians were able to do
physical labour only. Hence they were fit to be slaves. On the whole Anstotle tands
for supremacy of men over women, of freemen over slaves and of
barbarians. It is therefore rightly said that Aristotle was a spokesman of patriarchal
society, institution of slavery and the supremacy of the ree s.
Patriarchal Society
Patriarchal society refers to a type of society in which all decision-making power
is vested in men, like a patriarchal family in which rather or the eldest male is
regarded to be the full and final authority in all important matters.
Aristotle’s justification of slavery was designed only to defend th| interests of

the Greeks who were mainly freemen. His assumption regarding the differenceôf
SSI—
pain!
In short, Aristotle’s defence of patriarchy and slavery can best be understood onty
in terms of his political realism and expediency rather than onthe of a ^log£
The Greek economy during those days was founded on householdorganJ
productivity was largely dependent on slave labour. In any case, Anstotle s defence
slavery was based on the false assumption of inherent qualitative differences between
different races. This argument was widely used in early modern times by colonial
powers in order to justify their exploitative rule in a large part of the world. The^
claimed to spread enlightenment among the allegedly ignorant people of non-white
races.
IV
M©
He who has the power to take part in the deliberative or judicial administration
of any state is said by us to be a citizen of that state.
Aristotle, Politics
DEFINITION OF THE CITIZEN (

In the Book I of his classic work Politics, Aristotle dwelled on the importance! of
households and village communities and defined the state as an ‘association lof
associations’. But in Book III thereof he described the state as an ‘association of
freemen’. In this sense, constitution of a state is an attempt at determining the status
of its residents in a specific way. Here Aristotle conceded that the state is made
individuals. It is therefore necessary to examine the status of different individuals in the
state. We must likewise identify as to who are citizens of a state, and who are not so.
According to Aristotle, all the residents of a state are not its citizens. In ancient ''
Greek city-states women, slaves and aliens were not regarded as citizens. In thosfe
days there was no scope of development of the concept of citizenship in the sense
which developed in England after the Glorious Revolution (1688) and which reached
its logical conclusion in the concept of welfare state.
Glorious Revolution
t
Ts Sr aCCepf0therSSoTofnruh|ingwitJhThe aTvSofSn aSSn

this bloodless revolution, an absolute monarchy in England
was replaced by a
constitutional monarchy.
I In shorti Aristotle recognized ‘citizenship’ as the privilege of the ruling class.

In his times, the right to participate in public decisions was confined to the dtizens
So Aristotle equated citizenship with effective participation in the exercise of power.
Aristotle regarded this privilege of the ruling class as it*
performance. He held that when all members of the ruling class would ftdfil thislt’y,
,he ”mb"“f"“
Aristotle 65
The peculiar conditions prevailing in ancient Greek city-states were responsible
for drawing special attention to the problem of citizenship. Internally these small
states were inflicted by the conflict between the' rich and the poor; externally they
were threatened by the attacks of their neighbouring states. Under the circumstances,
maintenance of peace and stability in the state was the chief concern of political
philosophers. Would it be safe to vest all power in the hands of the few or should it be
dispersed among large numbers? Should they allow the aliens to acquire citizenship
easily? Athenians had the harrowing experience of the regime of Thirty Tyrants’, and
they had not yet forgotten the experience of a slack democracy which did not hesitate
from pronouncing a death sentence for Socrates — the wisest man of Greece. Plato
had proposed to set up the rule of ‘philosopher-kings’ to deal with this situation. But
Aristotle felt that this scheme was far-removed from ground reality. So he focused on
the problem of citizenship in order to solve the problems of the city-states.
Aristotle argued that mere residence in a city or a state cannot be treated as a
qualification for becoming a citizen thereof. For example, slaves or resident aliens cannot
be treated as citizens. Nobody becomes a citizen of a state by virtue of being entitled
to certain legal rights because such rights can ensue from a commercial contract or a
treaty Then the criterion of birth, too, cannot be accepted as the basis of citizenship
because the question of citizenship of parents, grandparents and so on will still remain
to be decided. It will be better if citizenship is defined on the basis of one s function.
Accordingly, political rights alone can be treated as a qualification of a citizen These
include the right to share in the administration of justice and the right to share m
political office. Aristotle believed that only those members of a state can be regarde
its citizens who are entitled to ‘take part in deliberative or judicial office. It is not
y necessary that each citizen should be actually holding a political office tor the tim
being. For example, where people are chosen as members of a jury by rotation, all
those eligible for election shall be considered as citizens.
■
STATUS OF THE CITIZEN

is different from all other types
constitutions of the state. For example, citizens under a despotic rule would not enjoy
the same privileges as those under a monarchical role.
In spite of conceding these variations in the nature of political
different constitutions, Aristotle also dwells on the distinctive feature of pol.t ca
authority as such. In what sense political authority >s different authority
authority? Aristotle argues that husbands authority over wi e , ■ f j t
nature,
over citizens cannot be allowed to follow this pattern.
FUNCTIONS OF THE CITIZEN

Aristotle is now convinced that ruler’s authority over citizens cannot be regarded to be
despotic. He argues that in the eye of law, all citizens are equal — whether one is rich
or poor, whether one is holding a political office or one is an ordinary citizen. It would
be worthwhile to extend citizenship to all those entitled to be citizens of a state, but
those enjoying the right to vote should be adequately rich so that they are not tempted
to grab others’ wealth by means of their political power.
It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.
Aristotle, Nicomacheon Ethics
Aristotle sought to make a clear distinction between a ‘good man’ and a ‘good
citizen’. It is important to note that in his classification of various forms of government,
Aristotle drew distinction between ‘normal’ and ‘perverted’ forms of government.
Under ‘normal’ or ideal form of government, rulers were devoted to good of the
state. Under this form of government, there was no conflict between the demands of
individual righteousness and the demands of political righteousness. In other words,
in the ideal polis (i.e. city-state) there was no clash between the roles of a good man
and a good citizen. However, under ‘perverted’ form of government, rulers were •
devoted to self-interest at the expense of the state. Under this form of government, the
requirements of good citizenship might run counter to the requirements of individual
righteousness. For example, under aristocracy which is a normal form of government,
a good citizen would prove to be a good man by obeying the commands of the state.
But under oligarchy which is a perverted form of government, a good citizen, obeying
the commands of the state cheerfully, will not be able to uphold the good of the state;
he will not be able to remain a good man. Thus Aristotle was aware of the dilemma
of a good man living in a bad polis, but he did not elaborate his obligations in detail.
This problem was relegated to the background for centuries together until T.H. Green
(1836-82), brilliant English philosopher, sought to tackle it effectively.
Aristotle endeavoured to show that citizenship did not imply mere subjection
to political rule. The citizen himself should play an active role in shaping that rule.
The function of citizenship can be properly performed only by those who have the
competence to analyse political problems thoroughly and who have sufficient ‘leisure’
at their disposal. According to Aristotle, only the Greeks were endowed with this
competence There was little scope of evolution of citizenship in the very cold regions
o ersm and the North. The people in those regions could hardly manage the means
? êir survival- s° for them, there was no scope of engaging in politics. On the other
hand, the people of,hot regions were very indolent. They would accept the despotic
tht^regfons ***** WOrk* So the idea of citizenship could not flourish in
Again, a city with a very large population no longer remains a state in the proper
sense of the term; If a city s population of active citizens exceeds ten thousand, they
fail to evolve personal acquaintance. Consequently they become unable to develop
Aristotle 67
friendship among themselves which is essential for maintaining citizenship. Thus the
Greek city-states of those days alone were fit for evolving an effective citizenship; no
other country would qualify for its practice. Citizenship was an exclusive quality of
the Greeks; it was an exclusive prerogative of the ‘freemen’ among them. Labourers,
peasants and women were not eligible for citizenship, not to speak of slaves!
Aristotle on The Nature of Authority

Authority
I
f 1
Type of Authority Natural Political
1 I
Sphere of Application Superior over Inferior Freemen over their
[e.g. man over woman; Equivalents (e.g. political
master over slave) office-holders
over other citizens)
I Common Observance
Method of Application Command and
Obedience of Law
I 1
Rule of Law
Nature of Authority Despotic Rule
A CRITICAL APPRAISAL
Aristotle’s concept of citizenship particularly eulogizes the Grejk cwilization of h,s
was
Shin tenThousand. In the present-day world all these
seem to be irrelevant.Today all countries and all races are regardedAcbe> fit for
citizenship; every adult member of a political commumty is now entitled tothe ng^
of citizenship irrespective of region, religion, race, cas e lies jn obeying
The view that woman is by nature inferior to man an Todav we regard
» «»T» SiSSL-15
status to women does not s
Feminism
Feminism refers to a modern idf
of men and women, and aims^th^ and share in political power. |
terms of their rights, o
Again, today we treat slavery as totally inhuman and unnatural. It is improper to
treat manual labour as inferior to mental labour. Then we cannot accept the view that
nature has made some people fit for manual labour, and others for mental labour. This
view was induced by a racist ideology; Aristotle resorted to this ideology to establish
that Hellenic people (the Greeks) were fit to rule over the so-called ‘barbarians’ (the
non-Greeks).
In any case, for a proper appreciation of Aristotle’s views we must keep the
conditions of his times in mind. In those days, slavery was not only in vogue, it was the
backbone of their economy. Inferior position of woman and the right to property being
confined to men also comprised the basis of their social organization. Aristotle, as a
pragmatic philosopher, did not like to destroy these features of social organization.
He insisted on strengthening these features for the preservation of moral life. He was
not in favour of harsh treatment of slaves, and pleaded for showing generosity toward
V
*CONCEPTOFUUSTICEs
"■*«,
In Aristotle the conception of human
has a
i:sselrP:*rr' ,d“'
George Santayana
that >rticiPation « a common understanding of justice
Aristotle’s v!eiv is"° nt”8' *? «“■* *m, \

of keeping the »iI7S2 ,0 as he was in f.von,
Conservatism
and institutions, and insists on mainmfnina ^ d ptl0n of new and untried ideas
test of time. Aristotle is regarded an earlv evT lns^tut,ons which have stood the
exponents include David Hume (1711-76) ScottishTh l° C°"servatism' lts modern
(1729-97), Irish statesman. Burke beheved ZTlt ^ EdmUnd Burke
philosopher, is ,W , eoS^^^°» ?«■»»

Aristotle 69
Corrective, Rectificatory or Remedial) Justice; and (c) Commutative Justice. The
legislator should be concerned with distributive justice whereas the judge should be
concerned with retributive and commutative justice. Distributive justice deals with
the allocation of honours and wealth. Its basic principle is ‘treating equals equally
and unequals unequally. Aristotle preferred to rely on the prevailing custom and
customary law for deciding as to who were equals or unequals.
Retributive justice deals with imposition of punishment and payment of damages.
It requires full restoration of any loss involuntarily sustained in the course of
transactions between individual members of the community. Finally, commutative
justice seeks to determine the amount of one sort of goods or services to be rendered
in return for another sort in voluntary transaction of buying and selling, or letting and
hiring. Its guiding principle should be full equivalence.
Aristotle's Theory of Justice

Justice
\
■ I
Distributive
j
Retributive
I
Commutative
1
Concern of the
I
Concern of the
1
Concern of the
Legislator Judges Judges
I
Allocation of
I
Punishment and
1
Regulation of
Honours and Payment of Voluntary
Wealth Damages Transactions
1
According to Merit
I
Full Restoration
1
Full Equivalence of
(as per Customary of Loss Goods and Services
Law) to be transacted
Justice ... is perfect virtue ... that is displayed toward others; ... there are many
who can practise virtue in their own private affairs but cannot do so in their
relations with another.
Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics)
-y'm
VI
*• SEARCH FOR A STABLE CONSTITUTION*
CLASSIFICATION OF CONSTITUTIONS
Aristotle sought to evolve empirical method of studying politics and to combine it with
the comparative method. He was particularly perturbed by the prevailing instability of
government in his contemporary Greek city-states. So he sought to develop a model
constitution that would ensure political stability. He sent his disciples to various places
for the purpose of preparing case histories of their constitutions. In this process
158 case histories of various city-states were prepared which were examined by
Aristotle himself. On this basis he produced his famous classification of constitutions
Unfortunately these case histories, except that ofAthens, have been lost. But Aristotle’s
observations regarding the various forms of government, the causes of their instability
and the steps required to overcome this instability are still accessible to us. J
Empirical Method
Empirical method refers to the method_p£ study based nn the ohsprvatinn 0f
facts for whichjtxelies only on sense-experience (that is the experience obtained
through sight, sound, smeil, taste and touch), and not on speculation. Under normal
conditions, sense-experience of all human beings is bound to coincide, hence their
observation and description of facts will always be identical. Thus we can verify
our observation by comparing it with others' observation. Empirical method is the
foundation of all scientific investigation.
statels'Sedhvn^^r'r of constitutions focused on two factors: (a) Whether a

state is ™led by one, the few or many persons; and (b) Whether the ruler is devoted
pervertedordeviamfo^ “°nnal*,nn of institution) or to his self-interest (the
P deviant form). From this perspective, the following classification was
derived:
___Aristotle's Classification of Constitution " >

Dominant
Form of Government
Characteristic Normal Form Perverted Form
Rule of One
Monarchy (Kingship) Tyranny (Despotism)
Rule of the Few
Aristorcacy Oligarchy
Rule of the Many Polity
Democracy
(Constitutional
Government)
Normal Form = Where the ruler is devoted
Perverted Form = Where the ruler is devoted to interest of the state,
to self-interest, against the interest
of the state.
5BS£=£g=S5£g
Aristotle 71
degenerated into democracy (the rule of the larger numbers seeking self-interest). This
was eventually overthrown by a single virtuous man who set up monarchy in its place.
This marked the beginning of a new cycle of change.
Aristotle on The Cycle of Change of Governments
Monarchy
(Normal Form)
Democracy Tyranny
(Perverted Form) (Perverted Form)
t
Polity Aristocracy
(Normal Form) (Normal Form)
Oligarchy
(Perverted Form)
Kings rule over willing subjects but tyrants over unwilling subjects; the king
pursues honour, the tyrant pleasure.
Aristotle (Politics)
4
VII s
CAUSES AND REMEDIES. OF REVOLUTION
Aristotle realized that the political instability of the Greek city-states was the outcome
of frequent revolutions in those states. So he proceeded to inquire into the causes and
remedies of revolution.
While Plato in his ‘Republic had proposed a radical solution to the problem of
political instability by postulating the rule of philosopher-kings and communism of
wives and property for the guardian class, Aristotle took a conservative stand. He
rejected these proposals as they contradicted the experience of the hitherto society. He
argued that politics cannot remake human nature; it should be accepted as it was.
Analysing the causes of revolution, Aristotle observed that dissatisfaction with the
existing distribution of power and prestige gave rise to rebellion. Dissatisfaction may
be widespread or limited to a small group. It erupts in violent form. Hence sedition is
the first step to revolution. If revolt is suppressed, it fails; if it succeeds, it results in
the overthrow of the existing regime. In this process power passes from one party to
another whether constitution is changed or not.
What is the source of dissatisfaction that leads to revolution? Aristotle observes
that the seed of revolution grows in the mind of the people. The sense of injustice is
the source of all dissatisfaction. When some people feel that they have been deprived
of power and honour which they deserved, they feel dissatisfied and start organizing
themselves to fight for their rights. Thus signs of conflict appear in society and the
sense of unity disappears.
In Aristotle’s view dissatisfaction chiefly stems from the desire for power and
honour rather than wealth. However, he does not ignore the impact of economic
inequality altogether. He observes that faster the division of society into the rich
and the poor, greater the chances of revolution. The poor would never tolerate the
luxurious ways of living of the rich. However, if a large and strong middle class
exists to maintain balance between the two, the probability of revolution would be
minimized.
The first and foremost remedy to revolution lies in preventing dissatisfaction in
any section of the community. If a constitution is founded on consent of all the citizens
and it is enforced impartially, it would prevent the growth of ‘sense of injustice’ If
consent of all the citizens cannot be obtained, it should be based on the consent of
houldbeTlIow'H i h the m’n0rities should not be Seated. No individual or class
po“c" °ffl“ “ ”•*ita“i
ssr1 rrfor ibc— »“■

!°hodw,1‘a"d.co°Perat,on. It will make the people law-abiding,
tend ESSXSS ofetSedlSCiPlme ^ ^ ** laW S° that a11 **
constitution should^âlhDwed'toâke arf extra6 T” tC>Hthe m.n°r changes’ No

ethical principle of ‘the eolden > a ,eme ôrm‘ êre Aristotle invokes his
and a middle path should be adonted h ^ 311 extremes should be avoided
middle course betwmmaristwracyatx/dernnr1 ““l '
among the rich and the poor. Aristotle's concern of .r'. preV^'H the feeling of injustice
based on this principle. P the mixed constitution’ is precisely
The Golden Mean
Of character lie, in finding , mld* <««“<«»« escellenc.
to virtue. middle path as the road

Aristotle 73
VIII
m ©
iM
Karl Marx (1818-83), German philosopher, gave his theory of revolution about two
thousand years after Aristotle. In fact, both these theories were propounded in different
historical epochs, from different perspectives, and to serve different purposes.
Aristotle advanced his theory of revolution in the context of ancient Greek city-
states when household-centred activity was the predominant mode of production.
On the other hand, Marx put forward his theory in an advanced stage of industrial
production when conflict between capitalists and workers was brewing up. Aristotle
saw revolution as a threat to political stability and wanted to prevent it for the smooth
running of society. On the contrary, Marx saw revolution as a vehicle of progress and
encouraged it to stop exploitation of the working class.
According to historical materialism as propounded by Karl Marx and Friedrich
Engels (1820-95), another German philosopher, forces of production develop slowly
but at one stage they turn into fetters on the existing relations of production. When
their pressure becomes unbearable, the old relations of production give way, as an
embankment is swept away by flood. This process gives rise to a new set of social
relations. That is how a revolution takes place. For instance, with the advent of
industrial production the feudal relations between landlord and serf give way to the new
type of relation between capitalist and worker. Thus revolution is ‘the indispensable
midwife of social change’. Each new epoch of social history is, therefore, a product of
• revolution. The capitalist system was established by a revolutionary overthrow of the
feudal system, as exemplified by the French Revolution (1789). But as the capitalist
system itself had turned into fetters on the new forces of production, this was bound to
be overthrown by the new revolutionary class — the working class — in a revolution.
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare
that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social
conditions ... The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have
a world to win.
Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels (Communist Manifesto; 1848)
In short, Aristotle as a conservative opposed revolution, but Marx as a radical

strongly supported it. Both agreed that social inequality acted as a spur to revolution.
Aristotle wanted to maintain inequality; he only wanted to prevent the feeling of
injustice arising from such a state of affairs. Marx, on the other hand, exhorted the
oppressed classes to rise against this inequality and establish a new social order to put
an end to their exploitation.
Radical
Radical refers to someone who is utterly dissatisfied with the existing order and
seeks to change all aspects thereof in order to create new institutions and rules
of behaviour.
Comparative Study of Aristotle and Marx

on the Theory of Revolution
The Issue Aristotle's View Marx's View
Philosophical Conservatism Radicalism
Basis
Nature of the Any change in the A thorough-going change in social,
Revolution form of government economic and political order in which
or the ruling class a newly emerging class overthrows
the existing ruling class
Cause of the Sense of injustice Sense of injustice within the
Revolution and discontent among dependent class, identification of
the members of the the source of its exploitation,
non-ruling class and the consciousness of its strength
Impact of the Political instability Advent of a new era of social progress
Revolution
Is the Revolution No (It is necessary Yes, Certainly (It is necessary in modern
Desirable? to take effective times to motivate the proletariat to
measures to prevent evolve a strong organization in order
revolution) to overthrow capitalism)
Dependent Class
According to Marxism, dependent class refers to the class which
neither owns the
means of social production nor enjoys any real political power.
Proletariat
Under capitalism, proletariat refers to the class of modern
do not own the means of social production, wage labourers who
labour power in the open market in order to Hence they are forced to sell their
earn their living.
Capitalism
sssicrtrjsr:age-,arge,v based
mines, forests, machinery and capital) distrih « prod“ct,on (|a"d, buildings,
by private entrepreneurs, a large number of workers' ^ 0Wned
at the market rate, and economic activity is are employed on wages
Here workers are free to work anywhere primarily devoted to private profit,
as well as market demand. according to their skills and capacities
Aristotle 75
IX
MIXED CONSTITUTION^
Since no form of government was found to be stable under the existing conditions,
Aristotle sought to consider whether a judicious mixture of any two forms was likely
to prove stable. This idea was consistent with his doctrine of ‘the golden mean’
which held that virtue or excellence lies in the middle of the two extremes which
would otherwise turn out to be vices. Earlier, Plato (427-347 B.C.), in his Laws, had
observed that a combination of monarchy and democracy could provide for a stable
political system. However, Aristotle drew his conclusions from his own style of logic
independently. He observed that since you cannot find perfect men on earth, as Plato
had imagined, it was imperative that the state should be placed under the rule of laws.
In that case, rulers would be obliged to enforce the laws which had existed since time
immemorial, and which had stood the test of time. As an adherent of conservatism,
Aristotle argued that it was unwise to change the existing laws in the hope of bringing
about a better political order. He warned: “Characters are not so easily changed as
laws.” He firmly asserted: “Political science does not make men, but must take them
as they come from nature.” Aristotle’s notion of the rule of law may be regarded as a
precursor to the modern concept of rule of law.
Rule of Law
Aristotle conceived the rule of law (or the rule of laws) as a practice in whichjaw
is properly established and the rulers as well as the ruled are strictly bound by
that law. It may be contrasted with the rule of the philosopher-kings as envisaged
by Plato where the rulers were empowered to declare law according to their own
wisdom.
In modern times, the rule of law requires that law of the land should be
properly defined and notified so that the citizens know as to how it will affect
them; any action against an individual can be taken only under that law, and not
on any other basis.
Now each form of government was ruled by its own law. We must examine its
merits and demerits before considering its claim for mixing it with any other form in
order to prepare a judicious mixture of two forms that would serve our purpose. At
the outset, Aristotle observed that monarchy involved the exercise of absolute power,
hence it was more prone to be corrupted. Aristocracy was preferable because it allowed
for some dispersal of power. But in the absence of effective control on its power,
this too was corruptible. Let us consider whether this tendency can be prevented by
combining it with democracy.
Aristotle identified democracy as ‘the rule of the many’, that is the more
numerous members of the community, particularly the poor ones. In his classification
of governments into normal and perverted forms, Aristotle placed democracy among
perverted forms since it referred to the rule of mediocres seeking to serve their selfish
interests rather than the interest of the state. Here Aristotle makes very interesting
observations about the merits and demerits of democracy:
This rule by the poor has some advantages. The people, though individually they
may be worse judges than those who have special knowledge, are collectively as
good. Moreover, there are some artists whose works are best judged not by
themselves alone but by those who do not possess the art; for example, the user or
master of a house will be better judge of it than the builder... and the guest will be
a better judge of a feast than the cook.
Again, the involvement of larger numbers in the process of governance has its own
advantages. As Aristotle observes:
The many are more incorruptible than the few; they are like the greater quantity of
water which is less easily spoiled than a little.
Moreover, the larger number are less likely to be swayed by anger or passion.
Hence their judgement is likely to prove more sound than that of one or the few
persons.
But the demerits of democracy.no were less striking. Aristotle argued that
democracy is based on a false assumption ofequality. It arises out of the notion that
those who are equal in one respect (such as in respect of law) are equal in all respects;
those who are equally free, claim to be absolutely equal. The upshot is that ability is
sacrificed to numbers, while numbers are manipulated by trickery. Because the people
are so easily misled, and so fickle in their views, the ballot should be limited to the
intelligent. Proceeding on this line of argument, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that
a judicious mixture ofaristocracy and democracy, described as the mixed
constitution,
would prove to be the best form of government
Aristotle's Formula of The Mixed Constitution

(Likely to prove as a Stable Form of Government)
Constituent Forms of Government
\
I
Aristocracy
(Rule of the Chosen Few - Democracy
the rich, educated, cultured (Rule of the Many —
and competent persons) the poor and ordinary people)
Mixed Constitution -«—-------------
sSSSSSstissr;
absolute powers, because its decisions will be STecTl ' d °Wed t0 exercise
citizens, in this sense, it will adopt an important feature ofT °f the
represent ‘the golden mean’ between aristocracy and democracy "^' “ *
Aristotle 11
Plato is an Idealist; Aristotle is a Realist

Plato looks for philosophers who are thoroughly incorruptible even when they are
armed with absolute power. In his view, the ills of the state can be cured by finding
such philosophers and giving absolute power to them.
On the contrary, Aristotle is convinced that "power and virtue cannot coexist".
Hence the ills of the state can be cured by giving conditional authority to virtuous
persons, and creating a sound mechanism to keep their power under check. Aristotle
thinks that this is possible in a 'mixed constitution'.
In short, Plato subscribes to an ideal which is not realizable in practice. That is why
Plato «s called a 'utopian'. But Aristotle builds his theory on the experience of the real life.
CONCLUSION
As a champion of the rule of law, Aristotle was more concerned with political stability
than progress. He sought to prevent the causes of revolution by stressing the virtues
of the prevailing inequalities. His belief in differential levels of moral excellence not
only between master and slave (the racial factor) but also between man and woman
(the gender factor) was not based on sound logic; it cannot be accepted in the modern
times.
However, his idea of the mixed constitution can be considered worth adopting
in the modern age, with necessary modifications. For our purpose, aristocracy as a
component of the mixed constitution should be redefined as a group of those with
high character and competence rather than the rich and the high-born; and democracy
should be redefined as the provision of equal political rights of all citizens without
discrimination (e.g. between freemen and slaves which was conceded by Aristotle).
The people should not only approve the policies proposed by the rulers but should
choose the rulers themselves. The rulers would be chosen from the general body of the
people on the basis of competence and high character. This would mean the adoption
of the existing model of liberal democracy with the proviso that duly qualified and
tested persons should be eligible to hold political office.
Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy refers to the system of governance based on the principles
of liberalism and democracy. Liberalism seeks to evolve such rules and
procedures that would secure liberty of individual and reconciliation between
conflicting interests of the citizens, while democracy implies the formation of
government with the consent of the ordinary people. Accordingly, liberal democracy
is largely identified by the following characteristics: (a) Representative government
based on majority rule with due recognition of minority rights; (b) More than one
political parties freely competing for political power; (c) Periodic elections based on
universal adult franchise; (d) Political offices not confined to any privileged class;
(e) Accountability of government to the electorate; (f) Protection of civil liberties
of citizens (such as freedom of thought and expression, movement, association and
assembly, etc. including freedom to criticize the government); and (g) Independence
of judiciary from executive and legislative control.
Aristotle is right when he says that the ordinary people should have the right
to approve public policy as ‘the wearer knows where the shoe pinches’. But the
responsibility of its implementation should rest with the specialists who have given
substantial proof of their competence and character.
Although Aristotle deprecated democracy in its raw form, yet his definition of
democracy as ‘the rule of the poor’ cannot be set aside as totally irrelevant in modern
times. C.B. Macpherson (1911-87), contemporary Western political philosopher,
has pleaded for the revival of the classical concept of democracy (which roughly
corresponds to Aristotle’s view). Macpherson (Democratic Theory: Essays in
Retrieval; 1973) argued that the truly classical concept of democracy saw democracy
as the cry of the oppressed, their claim for recognition as equally human beings; a
means by which, or a society in which all men could enjoy and develop their human
capacities.
In a nutshell, Aristotle’s definition of democracy may be recast as ‘the
empowerment of the poor’ in order to convert it into ‘substantive democracy’.
Q. 1. Examine Aristotle's view on the status of politics as the 'master science'.

2. What is meant by Aristotle's observation that "State is prior to man"?
Explain fully.
3. Critically examine Aristotle's views on the status of women, private property
and slaves.
4. Discuss Aristotle's concept of citizenship. Why is it regarded outdated and
retrograde in modern times?
5. "Aristotle's theory of justice reflects his adherence to conservatism."
Elaborate and comment.
6. Examine Aristotle's analysis of the causes of revolution. Compare and
contrast it with Marx's theory of revolution.
7. Examine the status of democracy in Aristotle's political thought. Elaborate
his concept of 'the mixed constitution'.
,•
]
RENAISSANCE
TRADITION
Because the times and human affairs are constantly changing whereas
men
Machiavelli's letter to Pier Soderini

Nature of the Renaissance
From a historical perspective, the tradition of modem political thought emerged against
the backdrop of the Renaissance. That is why Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian
philosopher, who is hailed as the first modem political thinker, is called the child of
the Renaissance.
‘Renaissance’ is a French word which means ‘rebirth’ or ‘revival’. In the European
history, it refers to a period of cultural revival which began in late fourteenth century in
Italy, travelled to France in the fifteenth, and to England and Germany in the sixteenth
centuries. Broadly speaking, Renaissance was a humanist movement which spread to
the spheres of literature and art-painting, sculpture and architecture, music, education,
scientific learning, philosophy, social and political thought, etc. Historically, it marked
the transition from the Middle Ages to the modem age.
The Middle Ages

In the European history, the 'Middle Ages' refer to the era which roughly coincides
with the period from the fall of the Roman Empire in late fifth century to the advent
of the Renaissance in late fourteenth century. During this period the social and
economic organization was broadly based on the principle of Feudalism; political
organization was based on the supremacy of the Church over the state; and the
intellectual life of people was confined to learning and communication of religious
teachings and beliefs. Consequently, this period was characterized by the stagnation
of intellectual development of society. That is why the Middle Ages are described
as the Dark Ages in the history of political thought.
Some historical developments in the European scenario from the thirteenth
century led to the close of the Middle Ages. Broadly speaking, these include the
growing interchange of ideas among people in the wake of cross-cultural encounters
among tradesmen; the increasing economic power of the cities; and the growth of
new political ideas and institutions as exemplified by the issuance of Magna Carta
(1215) in England (affirming the authority of law above the absolute authority of
the King) and the constitution of representative bodies like the Estates-General
>n France and Parliament in England.
I 81 1
Feudalism
Feudalism refers to the system of economic, political and social organization
which flourished in the medieval Europe. Economically, it was based on large-scale
agriculture where social status of different sections of society was determined by
land tenure. Land was held by various levels of landlords in return for homage
and military service to be rendered to the King. It. was tilled by serfs who were
obliged to render labour services and dues to the landlords. All sections of society
including clerics, soldiers, administrators and toilers were tied to each other by
mutual obligations. With the advent of Industrial Revolution in mid-eighteenth
century, it became necessary to break this system to ensure freedom of the new
entrepreneurial class as well as the new working class.
Renaissance signifies a renewed interest in the ancient civilizations of Greece and

Rome. It was attended by several historical events which brought about momentous
changes in the prevalent mode of thought. With the fall of Constantinople (1453) and
its occupation by the Turks, a large number of Greek scholars fled to Italy along with
a lot of ancient manuscripts held in their possession. So they brought many brilliant
ideas with them which were new to the medieval thinking. They had a profound effect
rfrdchrure WhlCuh n0W became the medium of 1expression of human sentiments
instead of religious teachings. Besides, the invention of the printing press (1455) and
discovery of America (1492) played a prominent role in promoting new ideas In a
d.2h"a'd“' 'e™' °f “ ,nd ,eaming "»<!« the influence of
new2“22“d"*1'' “? “ bmi hi> Ptetfeteraiined s,ms. The

pre-existing obligations WhiiTh™10 ^ P5ved tde way for his freedom from his
century the demfnd for n^ni eXpanS1°n oftrade and commerce since the thirteenth
new avenues of employment ^ gr°Wing in the market' This Prided
of the landlord"" S° *living the life of a ^mi-slave
to earn wealth- so he was notn„ J "0t dePendent ownership of land
In due course a new class of"n‘° “reStraintS in his sPhere ofactivity.
business and industry to make a fortun^Th em®rged who could aPP'y new ideas in
economic power from , tiny d,st „f la„dlJ“0 222'^
monopoly ofChureh in (he malmof2Thehaitisr!r0n °1am aild crafts-This broke t*12

His social and economic status also consider^ became free for self-expression,
longer confined to the expression of religious teacK^fh ^ SUbj6Ct °f ^ W3S "0
of expression of human feelings and emotions hh, beCame a p0Werfbl medium
for the people whose own life situatioTSS^n 3 S°UrCe ofaesthetic pleasure
reflected in the works of art as weTS 3nd COnStraintS werS
religious outlook gave way to a new secular outlook n,,.; process’ the all-pervasive
class including thinkers, writers, philosophers scientists Inh ^ Pen0d’the intellectual
themselves from the divine and other-worldlv maiterc t nd artists gradually withdrew
affairs. Instead of exploring the unknown paths of hea^Hnd'heut ^
cudymg the intricacies of the real life of men ,„d womeu o„ earth i„12
Nature of the Renaissance 83
of new awakening, common people mustered courage to challenge religious dogmas
and turned to believe in scientific facts which were being discovered by some brilliant
scientists like Copernicus (1473-1543), Polish astronomer, and Galileo (1564-1642),
Italian astronomer and physicist. Their discoveries about the position and movement
of sun, moon, earth and other planets proved that earth is not the centre of the universe,
as claimed in the scriptures. In this situation of conflict between faith and reason, the
reason seemed to be placed in a stronger position.
Renaissance is generally regarded to be coterminous with humanist movement in all
spheres of human life. Petrarch (1304-74), Italian poet and scholar, is often considered
the first ‘Renaissance man’ or the founder of humanist movement in Europe. He was
particularly attracted by the values and rhetoric eloquence of ancient writers. He turned
to reject medieval Scholasticism in favour of human-centred forms of philosophy and
literature. Renaissance artists — painters, sculptors and architects, inspired by the
heritage of ancient Greece and Rome — turned to depict the visible world in accordance
with the mathematical principles of balance, harmony and perspective.
Scholasticism
In the medieval Europe, scholasticism signified the practice of disputations adopted
by the Christian scholars, about religious subjects on the basis of learning of
scriptures. The arguments advanced in the whole debate drew their strength from
faith, and not from reason. From the Renaissance onwards, scholasticism came
to be identified with the excessive emphasis on unimportant points, needless
subtlety, obscurity and undue complication of issues. So it was rejected in favour
of rational attitude and focus on human-centred subjects.
The humanist movement recognized the literary, scientific and philosophical works
of ancient Greece and Rome as the best guide for learning and living. This led to an
intense interest in the study of humanities — the subjects that developed human qualities
in men and women. Teachers of humanities were expected to teach the principles of
living a moral, responsible and successful life on earth. Humanist or liberal education
implied the teaching of the way to foster good character, learned and eloquent style
of speech and writing. Initially, humanities included the study of grammar, rhetoric,
poetry, history and moral philosophy. Later it came to include the study of law, art of
government, and even the science of medicine.
In the sphere of literature, Renaissance encouraged the concern with human
problems. This is reflected in many important literary works. For example, William
Shakespeare (1564-1616), the greatest English playwright, produced works that focused
on the intricacies of human character. Many of his plays drew their themes from the
classic sources.
In the political sphere, the power of Holy Roman Empire was steadily declining
during the Renaissance period. This Empire was originally set up in the tenth century
for the protection of papacy. Although it formally existed till the beginning of the
nineteenth century, its power had started declining since the thirteenth century when
its borders had been confined to Germany. In 1648, the Treaties of Westphalia robbed
the Empire of much of its power by recognizing the independence of German princes.
n dlSapPe!r fr°ra PeoPIe’s political awareness much earlier. As Voltaire
( - 78), noted French philosopher, wittily observed: it had remained “neither
Holy nor Roman, nor an Empire”. By and by the Kings and other rulers ofvar o,
Q- What is meant by Renaissance? Outline the

main trends associated with the
Renaissance in the European history.
Niccolo Machiavelli
GENERAL INTRODUCTION I
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Italian philosopher, is hailed as the first modem

political thinker although he is hardly recognized as a profound political theorist. He
was bom in Florence, the centre of Italian culture where influence of the European
Renaissance was the strongest among all areas. Machiavelli sought to incorporate the
cultural values promoted by the Renaissance into the realm of political thinking: he was
the first to do this. But he also propounded certain standards of statesmanship, variously
interpreted, reinterpreted, and sometimes misinterpreted, which are responsible for his
reputation as well as disrepute.
Machiavelli was the son of a civil lawyer. Relatively little is known for certain about
his early life. At a young age, he probably became a pupil of a renowned Latin teacher,
Paolo da Ronciglione. There are some indications that he attended the University of
Florence. It is revealed from his writings that he received an excellent humanist education
that was informed by the Renaissance values. Machiavelli’s early years in Florence were
marked by Lorenzo de’ Medici’s ascendancy who was succeeded by his son Piero de5
Medici. Piero de’ Medici’s expulsion in 1494 was followed by four turbulant years of
republican government when Machiavelli was declared to be ineligible for political
office due to his alleged loyalty to the Medici family.
However, with the change in the republican regime in 1498, Machiavelli was
aPpointed as the Second Chancellor of the Republic of Florence when he entered into
public view. For the next fourteen years Machiavelli functioned as an official envoy
°n some thirty-five diplomatic missions, including four to France and Siena, two to
Cesare Borgia and to the Papal Court, and one to the Emperor in Germany. In 1512,
[85]
consequent upon the restoration of the Medici, Machiavelli lost his office and underwent
a brief imprisonment. Then he retired to his farm outside of Florence and embarked on
a literary career. In his attempt to gam the favour of the Medici, he wrote his famous
monograph the Prince in 1513 which is addressed to Lorenzo de’ Medici (1492-1519)
the son of Piero de’ Medici. Simultaneously he started writing another important work
— the Discourses on the First Ten Books of Titus Livius (in short, the Discourses on
Livy) which was completed in 1517. However, both of these works were published
posthumously in 1531. Machiavelli also produced some minor literary works but his
reputation as a political thinker rests on these two books.
The treatment of government in the two books is significantly different Some
wnters, including Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, believe that
Machiavelli has expressed two different views which are inconsistent with each other,
ome commentators talk ofthe two faces of Machiavelli. Unfortunately, people including
In this m SCM?:r[d 6 /WaS the rCal rePresentat've ofMachiavefii’s thought
In this monograph, Machiavelli has propounded two different sets of rules of conduct'
one for the prince, that is the ruler, and the other for the ordinary people The upshot
of this approach is that the people should remain sincerely committed^ the rules of
stateVeanri°na T*'1*’ ^ Pr'nCe sh°uld °nly be committed to the interest of the
ond’u t yrret t0 f0"0W m°rality With0Ut beinS bound by it in his actual
because
-nd love of their people, ,„d resort * „„
suspension of commonplace ethics in Ltt ? T * pra6mat,st’ wbo advocated the

moral values have no PWe in fte ^0^ °f P°llt,CS' MaChiaVelli had realized that
to take. Then Ernest Ca ,WrL Tf, ITT™ ** P°litical ,eaders are squired
scientist- a kind of‘Galileo o^nc1946 } eUl°gizes Machiavelli as a
Vol. One; 1947) considers Machiavelli’, f^V?t?T{Mas,ers °fPolMcal Thought,

and not necessarily immoral. In his view MachiaveH^°S°Phy ‘° ^ m°rally neutra1’
of technical rules for the acquisition ^nd’“ Slmply p™ides a system
of carpentry which supplies a system of techn^TT °f power’ 11 is like a handbook
person who has mastered these Jules uses them7 ? *1 f°r th* workinS of wood. If a
purposes, the handbook cannot be held resnon,;w /u 'nt° h°USeS or for other illicit
GeorgeH. Sabine (A History ofPolitical Theory-mUSt'

has rightly observed i„ fee, there is „o ineorsisteoey bele. CI^-sT*
Niccolo Machiavelli 87
leading books— the Prince and the Discourses on Livy. Both deal with the same subject
— the causes of the rise and decline of states and the means of making them permanent.
The Prince deals with monarchies or absolute governments, and the Discourses
mainly with the expansion of the Roman Republic. Quentin Skinner has also argued
that Machiavelli was basically a republican; that it is wrong to treat the Prince and the
Discourses as part of different literary traditions. When these are read together, it is
established beyond doubt that in his view Republic was the ideal form of government;
the conditions of founding and maintaining it are elaborated in the Discourses. It can
be founded only when people themselves are virtuous. Where people are vicious, as in
the case of Italy in Machiavell’s times, the founding of a Republic was impracticable.
So in the Prince, Machiavelli recommended the founding of a Monarchy which was
practicable under the prevailing conditions.
Machiavelli's Classification of Governments

Types of Government
f
Ideal Form Practical Form
1 1
Monarchy
Republic
1 1
Recommended for
Recommended for
virtuous People Vicious People
Republic
Republic refers to a form of government under which people _are treated _as_
'citizens' having equal status, and not as 'subjects' of a sihgle ruler or a ruling
class. -Government derives its authority from the people, and not from any other
source. In practice, a republic is contrasted with Monarchy or Aristocracy.
Monarchy
Monarchy refers to a form of government in which a King, Queen or any other royal
personage reigns over a country and who is technically regarded as the supreme legal
authority in that country. The people are treated as his 'subjects unless the whole
system is governed by a Constitution. On his death or retirement, the authority will
pass to another member of his family, according to the prevailing custom or law.
Aristocracy
Arlscracy refers to a form of government in which supreme authonty is shared by
the chosen few, such as the nobility, who are regarded superior to ordinaryf citizens
either by birth, possession of wealth or by virtue of a specia status derived from the
prevailing custom. Ordinary citizens are treated as 'subjects' of the aristocratic class.
$8 Western Political Thought
“l3!!"1’5 motive behind siting the Prince was to obtain employment m
for which Machiavelli has been especially known, such as indifference to the
r“ t rrss“trirr™ *p“ds ^
KsasSS
of government; he accepts monarchy onlv . °f the RePublic as the ideal form
of his time and place. In fact his writinJfiardl C°nfsslon to the practical necessities
■s chiefly interested in the mecL^cs of ! % beI°”g t0 P°,itical the°^ proper; he
measures by which states could be madef stom^T"1' He f°CUSeS 0,1 the means and
their weaknesses could be overcome He tend,?’ P°Wer C°Uld be exPanded, and
considerations if they come in the way o sut "l?1* reHgious’ " and social
Machiavelli ,s “for the most part.... nofso much in ! misSi°"- In Sabine’s words’
Machiavelli >s scale of n f h 3 38 non-moral”.
;
possible.
:
II
IfrMACHlAVEU'ie
I’S METHOD .•*.
i
'
In the history of political thought, Machiavelli is '
sometimes distinguished as ‘the
first modern political scientist . This claim rests on his reliance on empirical method,
particularly in the study of political behaviour. William T. Bluhm (Theories ofPolitical
System: Classics ofPolitical Thought and Modem PoliticalAnalysis; 1978) has described
Machiavelli as the pioneer of behviouralism. In fact, it was Machiavelli who emancipated
the study of politics from the predominance of metaphysics and theology and placed
it on historical and realistic foundations. Instead of treating politics as a means to the
realization of some transcendental or other-worldly objectives, Machiavelli conceived
it as the instrument of acquisition, preservation and expansion of power which could be
accomplished by harnessing the faculties of the people as they exist in the real world.
Empirical Method
Empirical method refers to a method of study which relies on observation of facts
through sense-experience (that is the experience obtained through sight, sound,
smell, taste and touch), and not on speculation. Under normal conditions, sense-
experience of ail human beings is bound to coincide, hence their observation and
description of facts will always be identical. Thus we can verify the results of our
observation by comparing them with others' observation. Empirical method is
regarded to be the foundation of all scientific investigation.
Behaviouralism
Behaviouralism refers to an approach to the study of politics which does not
focus an abstract institutions and ideas but undertakes an indepth study of the
observable behaviour of various actors in the realm of politics, such as voters,
legislators, high officials of the executive and the judiciary, etc. It seeks to present
its results in the form of quantifiable data which can be used for further research.
Metaphysics
Metaphysics refers to a branch of philosophy which inquires into the nature of reality
behind the universe that is beyond our comprehension through the scientific method.
Since our knowledge of natural sciences is based on empirical observation, it is believed
that the subject-matter of metaphysics is beyond the reach of our sense-experience.
Theology
Theology refers to the study of the nature of God and of God's relationship with the
world we perceive as well as other mystical entities like soul, heaven and hell, etc.
in accordance with the teachings and practices associated with a particular religion,
such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, etc. which offer different explanations of
these issues. Theological knowledge is a matter of faith rather than a matter of
scientific or philosophic inquiry.
Machiavelli claimed that he had introduced a new method of studying politics

which was not used by his predecessors. In his Preface to the Prince, he defined his
Method as “drawing maxims or rules for successful political behaviour from history
and experience”. It is true that he tried to substantiate his guidelines for
success§
statesmanship with suitable examples from his contemporary or historical events R
followed this method almost in all contexts both in the Prince and the Disco ^
For example in the Prince, he observes that if a ruler seeks to acquire reputation f
generosity, he is bound to come to grief. So a prudent prince will not mind being calls'
a miser. To substantiate this point, he continues: 6 5
S=p~E“SEES-
many wars without taxing his subjects excessively only because his long-stan*
lrZ™vy enafb‘edhlm t0 meet additional expenses involved Were fc
lit™:™"*he would«h"' — -
. 'ST he f? * ™le if a -» “ “““I of camrtj
blame as Romulus was absolved'8 ? ’ U Wil1 aIways absolve him from the
underlines these examples berm 01 ^ m ^ ofmurdermg his brother. Machiavel
bring similar result. He was sure thatth 3r aCtlon ln a SImilar situation will always
who have and always have had the 6 3 •aifS °f the world are conducted by mes
result. Machiavellils method has bee™ Wh'Ch °fnecessity Produce the same
scientific W
particular to general’. He did not scan historical ^ metIloc* °f Proceeding from
aid down a rule on the basis of his own understandhT t0 T™6 313 generaI mle’bul
r
Est Hem ” Th3t iS Why hâchiavelli is seldom'^ ^ did he ^ to give any !
He was perhaps toE ,^?1 n°thin8 «ccpt Sc? tE “Machiavelli... trite* |

simple he had of all hisV^ f° be philos°phically profound*^’ 3nd the art of war" /
insight into the general te °[,£emP°raries the greatest breadth ’ r” P0,itics pure and \j
8 «d the cl«„«t I
!
It is misleading to say... that Machiavelli followed an 'historical' method, because

his examples were often drawn from the past. He used history exactly as he used
his own observation to illustrate or support a conclusion that he had reached
quite without reference to history... His method, in so far as he had one, was
observation guided by shrewdness and common sense.
George H. Sabine [A History of Political Theory; 1973 ed.)
IIS
^SEPARATION between POLITICS AND ETHICS:
Machiavelli is widely denounced because he erected a wall of separation between

politics and ethics. In the classical tradition, particularlglhThe tradition of Greek political*
thought, ethics was viewed as the very foundation ofpolitics. It is ironical thafm the
age of revival of classical models, that is the Renaissance, Machiavelli made a striking
departure from this classical ideal. 4 _______________
Ethics
Ethics refers to a branch of learning, concerned with the principles of good
conduct. It inquires into the foundations of our moral beliefs and rules about right
and wrong. This term is used as a synonym of moral philosophy as well as a set
of principles of good conduct concerning a particular profession such as 'medical
ethics' or 'business ethics'.
Classical political philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who regarded
politics as the pursuit of good life, treated ethics as the foundation
... of....politics.
But Machiavelli (1469-1527), early modern thinker, who believed that politics was
governed by its own independent standards, pleaded for êp^.tl°n e
politics and ethics. In the contemporary world, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948),
Indian political activist and social philosopher, insisted that in a uman ac
the end; he recognized ethics as the indispensable
means should be as pious as
foundation of politics.
Machiavelli firmly held that politics is

separation b^veerfpoUfics Mid etKcîaprtaciple^he'^red^that republican government
were basically selfish'greedy and corrl.pt, the^Wbe controlled only by a strong and
Prudent m„„.rch. i, principle the r*r >l-d1 will
his word, but in practice nobody could have al q » prince should focus
does not contend that ‘end justifies the means’ (as sometimes alleged); rather he claims
that a ruler’s success will be judged by popular verdict, and that he will be excused
using dubious means if he is successful at the end, for in politics “where there is no
court of appeal, one judges by the result”. If political expediency requires the Prince to
set aside traditional morality, he should go ahead in the interests of successful politics
Let a prince set about the task of conquering and maintaining his state; his methods
-r
will always be judged honourable and he will be universally praised,
Niccolo Machiavelli (The Prince)
In the popular imagination Machiavelli is an advocate of immorality. A more refined

interpretation... sees him as a defender of political amorality. Politics, that is to
say, obeys its own logic, follows its own rules, and judges actions in accordance
with its own standards of success or failure.
Joseph V. Femia (Political Thinkers from Socrates to the Present,
L- , ed. by David Boucher, Paul Kelly; 2009)
In the contemporary debates on the nature of politics, it is sometimes argued that

Sanl aPPr°;id fte USe of immoral means for achieving political ends, and he
Jesuit o h USe T meanS W°Uld be 1163161138 honourable after seeing its salutary
Iêd that MW h- mSt t0 T°Urage the use of ‘dirty hands’ in politics It is further
this attitude argue that once'heTe' “'nsm,m'"tof a“mm8 liumao values^lilies of
to a right destination. In anvâse Mat-hit, ’irfCaUSe 3 Wr0ng way Wl11 never take m
any case, Machiavelh’s position on this issue needs a closer
examination.
Dirty Hands
Dirty hands refer to
politics necessarily involv^ft^ f°r the view that the practice of
policies or decisions which could be harmful ?16anS; lt recluires one to adopt some
that politics Is always conducted with vr t k mnocent PeoPie. It is contended
clean hands. This view corresponds to th y a?^S' cannot he handled with
game'. It implies that (a) Politicians are JLrT* that politics is a 'dirty
to pursue a clean profession, should abstain fro101™0-^ and ^ Those who wish
The origins of the concept of 'dirty hands''“'l’P°llt,CS-
philosophy who held that the use of ^ usually traced in MachiaveIJi's
nêans
would be treated honourable by oonub, verdict for achieving political ends
__on seeing its salutary results.
While Machiavelli advised the ruler to set aside moral bindings in order to achieve
his end, he did not think that the conventional morality was totally irrelevant or redundant
in the context of politics. He conceded that moral corruption in a people makes good
government impossible. As Sabine has argued: “Machiavelli...had nothing but admiration
for the civic virtues of the ancient Romans and of the Swiss in his own day, and he
believed that these grew out of purity in the family, independence and sturdiness in
private life, simplicity and frugality of manners, and loyalty and trustworthiness in
performing public duties... An army fights with morale as truly as with guns, and the
wise ruler sees that both are of the best quality.” In this way Machiavelli enunciates
a double standard of morals, one for the ruler and another for his servants as well as
citizens. The ruler’s moral implies his undivided commitment to strengthening the
state and enhancing his power in order to maintain law and order within the state and
to ensure effective defence from foreign invaders. His performance will be judged by
his success in fulfilling his responsibility. He is allowed to depart from the conventional
morality only to enable him to carry out his own moral responsibility. But his servants
and the citizens are not allowed to depart from the conventional morality, otherwise the
purpose of the state itself will be defeated.
Moreover, Machiavelli is quite sensitive to the significance of morals in social life.
He is fully aware that if the Prince himself is righteous in his conduct, his legitimacy as
a ruler will be immensely enhanced. So he advises the Prince to maintain high standards
of morality as far as feasible, and depart from it only when it is absolutely necessary to
do so in the interest of the state. Even where he is constrained to depart from morality,
he should pretend to be righteous. In his Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli observed:
It is well to seem merciful, faithful, humane, sincere, religious, and also to be so,
but you must have the mind so disposed that when it is needful to be otherwise you
may be able to change to the opposite qualities... A prince...must not deviate from
what is good, if possible, but be able to do evil if constrained.
Machiavelli wants the Prince to act so carefully that he is held in high esteem among
the people. The Prince must be conscious of the prevalence of universal egoism .
It means that human nature is essentially selfish: men always seek security but they
also know that they are too weak to provide for it from their own ability or resources.
Government is founded to provide them security from internal offenders as well as
external enemies. Besides, men are also aggressive and acquisitive but their possessions
are bound to remain limited due to natural scarcity. It is government that keeps their
aggressive tendencies in check. A wise ruler will frame his policy with a view to creating
an atmosphere of security of life, property and honour of the people. People’s love of
property was powerfully expressed by Machiavelli in his famous saying in the Prince:
Men sooner forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony.
In Machiavelli’s view, a prudent ruler may kill people, but he will not plunder
them. As regards the protection of honour, Machiavelli advises the Prince to take steps
to provide for effective security of women in his state. People will be loyal to their
ruler when they are sure that their life, property and women are perfectly safe m his
guardianship.
When all these conditions are taken into account, we find that Machiavelli did not
intend to undermine the foundations of morality in society. As a sincere patriot, he was
particularly anxious to build a strong nation-state in Italy which was then fragmented
into five parts: Florence, Venice, Naples, Milan, and the territory of Roman Catholic
Church. He wanted his country that isjtaly to win a respectable place among other
nation-states of Europe: England, France, Spain and Germany. He was also worried
1 about the prevailing moral corruption among Italians. He would have liked to setup
a republic, that is a popular government in Italy, if possible. But the decay of private
virtue as well as civic probity and devotion had made it impossible. He realized that
when civic virtues had decayed, there was no possibility to restore them, or to carry oa
an orderly government without them. The only course left before him was to recommend
he setting up a despotic rule. Machiavelli held that when people lack virtue, the ruler
him ‘DeT a- ^m3ke UP f°r lhe deficiency-11 wil> be patently unfair to call
him Devil s disciple or Despot’s tutor’. In fact, Machiavelli „
was trying to establish
the pnmacy of political virtue and to show that moral virtue was
-■ a necessary but not a
sufficient condition of political virtue
spec“ dirions F h u’ ^ ^ Sh°uId be reSOrted t0 only “nder two
establish,1^ control 8 3 St3te °Ut of:fomented little cities; and (b) For
by gating’peopletomeshTf ^ 3 ^ * f°Unded’il could be sustained
property and honour. Sabine has apdy^xJTsS M^chm^llil^"
follows: “Despotic violence is a powerful political meScW aZ™ P°mt “
and for special contingencies in all k 7. n med,Clne’ needed ln comipt states
the greatest e.ution" (A Historyo/PolUc'ol ThVcry" ft,™ jh'°h ”**
governments
Niccolo Machiavelli (Discourses on Livy)
IV
Government consists in nothing7H7777

be able to nor have the cause to do you ha™"'"8 that they wi" not
— Nlccol° Machiavelli [The Prince)

condemnation is based on the misinterpretation of his message.
Statecraft
Statecraft refers to the art and the set of techniques that are applied for managing
state affairs. In a broader sense, it includes the art of consolidating state power,
particularly in the face of threats from foreign powers. In this sense, it is very
close to diplomacy which implies the art and procedure of dealing with foreign
nations with a view to protecting the interests of one's own country.
It is important to note that Machiavelli thinks of a statesman not only as a person who
builds a state and manages its affairs, but also as one who creates laws and government
that determine the national character of his people. Moral and civic virtue grows out of
the law that a statesman gives to his people. Machiavelli believes that when people are
corrupt, a state should be founded by a single man who would not only create a political
structure but also shape moral and social character ofpeople. He will function as lawgiver
as well as the architect of state and society. He will apply his political genius to create
a military power strong enough to build a nation-state through unification of disorderly
little cities and to intuse new public spirit and civic loyalty into the people. According
to George H. Sabine, Machiavelli’s prince is the perfect embodiment of shrewdness
and self-control who makes capital of his virtues as well as vices. Machiavelli had a
temperamental admiration for the resourceful type of ruler, even if he was unscrupulous.
He deprecated half-way measures in politics which betray a ruler’s weakness rather
than his conscientious behaviour. Machiavelli goes to the extent of suggesting that even
cruelty should be done with a firm hand, for half-hearted cruelty will bounce back on
the ruler. As he asserts in the Prince: r
Men should be either treated generously or crushed, because they take revenge for
slight injuries — for heavy ones they cannot.
Machiavelli conceded that compassion is better than cruelty. But if cruelty is
necessary to bring about an orderly government, and it is so proved by the results, it
would be considered to be more admirable than compassion. As illustrated in the Prince:
A prince should want to have reputation for compassion rather than for cruelty;
nonetheless, he should be careful that he does not make bad use of compassion.
Cesare Borgia was accounted cruel; nevertheless, this cruelty of his refomied the
Romagna, brought in unity, and restored order and obedience. On reflection, it will
be seen that there was more compassion in Cesare than in the Florentine people,
who, to escape being called cruel, allowed Pistoia to be devastated.
(Pistoia was a subject-city of Florence. In 1501-02, it was devastated due to the
conflict which broke between two rival factions. Then order was forcibly restored
there by Florence.)
Machiavelli advised that a prince should not worry if he incurs reproach for his
cruelty so long as he keeps his people united and loyal. By ordering executions of only
a few individuals he can save the whole community from a disaster.
Machiavelli concedes that under normal conditions a prince would like to be loved
as well as feared. But it is veiy difficult to combine these two conditions. When he is
required to choose between the two, “it is far better to be feared than loved ifyou cannot
be both”. This advice is particularly meant to deal with the people who are “ungrateful
fickle, liars, and deceivers”, who “shun danger and are greedy for profit”. Machiavelli
warns: “Men worry less about doing injury to one who makes himself loved than to one
who makes himself feared.” Then he elaborates: “The bond of love is one which men,
wretched creatures that they are, break when it is to their advantage to do so; but fear k
strengthened by a dread of punishment which is always effective.” Even if a prince is
unable to win the love of his people, he should carefully avoid becoming an object of
contempt or hatred. So Machiavelli warns: “The prince... will be hated above all if... he
is rapacious and aggressive with regard to the property and the women of his subjects.
He should refrain from these.”
Another important issue of statecraft is: How princes should honour their word?
Machiavelli concedes that under normal conditions a prince should always honour
his word and be straightforward rather than crafty in his dealings. But contemporaiy
experience showed that princes who had achieved great things were those who had
aken their word lightly, and who had achieved success through trickery and cunning.
finhHw'fhaVelR TQtifie„S ^ ways 0f fighting •' men would fi8ht bylaw; beasts would
bâdem^ h 3 C PnDCe mUSt realiZe th3t Wh6re the firSt method P™es t0
to make a nt; IT * ** S° “a prince must understand how
rancL„t writing I t, M381 “?the man” Here MachiavelIi cites an example from
:;:=r:r?d many °ther princes °f the « ^ were sen.
w to act as
not survive! situation; otherwise they would
the fox and the lio^1 He^ûes^ha^^ Ii^JChl HV?H ^ PrinCC t0 leam ^
defenceless against wolves” So a nrinr h ^ defenceless aSamst traps and a fox is
T.PS, .nd . ifo. ,o «Hgh,“ off wX"“ ?“* *» i» «d« ,o recogni*
Those who have known best how to knkatedwfii t' *“ lto m
(sixth century B.C.) fox is deniotpH „ , x ilave c°mc off best. In Aesop’s fables
a prince acts like a fox, he makes promise T °dment of CUMing and trickery. When
but he will “not honour his word wh” J ° T * ^ himseIffr™ their wrath,
reasons for which he made his promise no longer' eX’Mf d.!Sadvantage and when **
have been advisable for the prince to keen hi« , Tu men Were good’11 wou d
creatures who would not keep their word to won ^ ^ “because men are wretched
A prince will never lack good excuses to colZ’i T^ "0t keep your word t0 them”'
the natural weakness of men: “Men are so simple and f Here Machiavelli hints a‘
creatures
that the deceiver will always find someone ready to be deceived ” of circumstance,
, Niccolo Machiavelli 97
Machiavelli advises the prince to pretend to be good in the eyes of others in order
to win their praise and loyalty. But he should always be ready to act as a practical man.
As elucidated in the Prince: A prince... should appear to be compassionate, faithful to
his word, guileless, and devout. And indeed he should be so. But his disposition should
be such that, if he needs to be the opposite, he knows how.”
In short, Machiavelli s discussion of the statecraft is quite illuminating which
compares favourably to the unique wisdom of Kautilya, ancient Indian exponent of the
art of government.
Q. 1. Critically examine Machiavelli's views on the relationship between ethics

and politics. Do you hold him responsible for the moral decline in politics?
2. "Machiavelli made a unique contribution to the discussion of statecraft."
Elaborate and comment.
3. Write short notes on: (a) Machiavelli's method; and [b) Machiavelli as the
first modern thinker.
HR
±
Mir mf*
.few.
THE
LIBERAL TRADITION
Minds are like parachutes: they function only when open.
Thomas R. Dewar
Broad Streams of Liberalism
i %
HISTORICAL SETTING
In the history of political thought, liberalism represents the first great system of thought
which grew out of the combined effect of the factors behind the advent of the modem
age, although it took about two centuries to evolve its own identity. Liberalism is a
dynamic idea which has been growing into new forms since its inception with the
changing social, economic and political conditions although it never compromised its
basic feature — the commitment to ‘liberty’,
Broadly speaking, the origin of liberalism is traced to late seventeenth-century
English political thought although the term ‘liberalism’ itself came to be used as late
as early nineteenth century. Its close connection with liberty is so obvious: the terms
‘liberty’ and ‘liberalism’ both are derived from the same Latin root liber which means ‘to
liberate’ — another English word derived from the same root. So the basic idea behind
‘liberty’ as well as ‘liberalism’ is to liberate the individual: to set him free. Free from
what? At the outset, we must recognize some sort of bondage, chains, constraints or
restraints from which we seek to ‘liberate’ the individual. With the changing conditions,
our perception of the alleged constraints may undergo change. Moreover, the scope of
the term ‘individual’ is also subject to change, because more and more people, placed
in a variety of positions, may join this stream and they may demand ‘liberation’ or
freedom from different constraints not so far recognized by the spokesmen of liberalism.
For example, liberty for the entrepreneur and liberty for the worker would mean two
different things. So the philosophy of liberalism has had the potential of expanding to
larger areas, and to transform its character over time and space.
Liberalism sought freedom of the individual in order to promote self-directing power
of personality. It was believed that a true community can be built on the foundations of
1101 ]
this principle. As L.T. Hobhouse (Liberalism; 1911) significantly observed:
Liberalism is the belief that society can safely be founded on... self-directing power
of personality, that it is only on this foundation that a true community can be built,
... so that its foundations are so deep and so wide that there is no limit we can place
to the extent of the building.
Similarly, David G. Smith (.International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences;
1968) has explained: “Liberalism is the belief in and commitment to a set of methods
and policies that have as their common aim greater freedom for individual men.” Smith
identified three prominent features of the attitude underlying the principle of liberalism:
(a) A valuing of the free expression of individual personality; (b) A belief in men’s ability
to make that expression valuable to themselves and to society; and (c) The upholding of
those institutions and policies that protect and foster both free expression and confidence
in that freedom.
Before the advent of the modem age in the European history, life of man was
dominated by various types of authoritarianism. In the intellectual sphere, man was
subjugated to religious beliefs and superstitions; in the sphere of his faith he was
dependent on religious authority; in the economic sphere, he was first subordinated
to landed aristocracy, and later to an absolutist state which adopted mercantile policy.
Those aspiring for freedom rose against different types of authoritarianism and became
parts ofvanous movements. Of these, Renaissance, Reformation, Scientific Revolution,
Industrial Revolution and the Enlightenment were particularly important. Some ofthese
factors exerted a formative influence while others served as the immediate cause of the
rise of liberalism.
Authoritarianism
oêvervthing'tfTrn6^^ ^ 3 political outlook or attitude that requires everybody
set of beliefs. Ts^bordinate^r^ * customarY ?ractices
or a
concerned to a person or a group which is
regarded as the guardian of that order.
Absolutism
a single entity. PowerstfThfruler ar^nT ^ P°WerS of governance are held by
such as those based on custom DreredT re5trlcted by anV external limitations,
SET
Mercantile Policy
to be necessary for enhancing national prosperity ’’ The$e ^ W6re
Initially liberalism focused on the demand of freedom for the new merchant-
Broad Streams of Liberalism 103
industrialist class, later the scope of this demand was extened to cover all sections
of society. When a new class wins its liberty, it tends to demand its share of political
authority. This applies to liberalism also. As Harold J. Laski {The State in Theory and
Practice; 1935) has elucidated:
The birth of the liberal tradition can only be explained by the shift in the residence
of economic power which accompanied it. At bottom it was a way of justifying the
transfer of political authority from a land-owning aristocracy to a commercial class,
and, like all philosophies which seek to justify such a transfer, it stated its principles
in terms of a logic wider in theory than it was prepared to admit in practice.
RENAISSANCE
Renaissance was the first great movement that heralded the advent of the modem age.
It refers to a period of cultural revival in the European history which began in late
fourteenth century in Italy, spread to France in the fifteenth, and to England and Germany
in the sixteenth centuries. Renaissance was prompted by the renewed interest in the
ancient civilizations of Greece and Rome. This process was stimulated by the Fall of
Constantinople (1453) and its occupation by the Turks. On this occasion, the Greek
scholars who fled to Italy brought with them a lot of ancient manuscripts that contai ned
some brilliant ideas, and these had a profound effect on the intellectual atmosphere.
Initially this trend transformed the content and style of art and literature under the
influence of classical models. Eventually it brought about a total change in man’s outlook
on life which extended to philosophical, scientific, technical and economic spheres.
Another historical development which stepped up this process was the rise of a
new merchant class in Europe around this time. In due course, this new wealthy class
became the patron of art and thereby ended the monopoly of the Church in this sphere.
The art and literature now became the medium of expression of human sentiments instead
of religious teachings. They became an effective medium to delight the senses of man
and to enrich his life. They sought to reflect common man’s experiences, hopes and
aspirations and thereby promoted humanism in this field. All these trends contributed
to the development of new social and political ideas which promoted the spirit of
secularism. Attention of the people was now diverted from other-worldly issues to the
problems faced by men in the material world.
Humanism
Humanism refers to a philosophical outlook that treats human beings as the centre
of attention in all spheres of life-philosophy, art, literature as well as politics and
economics. Focus on human needs, human sensitivities, hopes and aspirations as
well as human dignity is the hallmark of humanist outlook.__________________
Secularism
Secularism refers to a political outlook which holds that religion should play no
Part in non-religious spheres of social life, such as education, clubs, politics, law,
administration, business and professional dealings, etc., the role of religion should
be confined to religious institutions and religious matters.
REFORMATION
Reformation refers to a religious movement of sixteenth century Europe, led by Martin
Luther (1483-1546), German theologian, which culminated in the rise of Protestantism.
From Germany this movement spread to France, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries
England and Scotland. Luther initiated debate on various aspects of Church practice
and doctrine prevalent in his times. In particular, he challenged the practice of granting
indulgences (exemption from punishment for sins), often in return for financial and
other favours given to Church authorities. Luther saw this practice as an evidence of
corruption of the Roman Church involving the misuse of its authority. So he decided
to challenge the absolute authority of papacy. Luther produced an authentic German
translation ofBible (1522) from its Hebrew and Greek texts which was understood only
by classical scholars and the priests. Thanks to Luther's efforts, it become the people's
book in Church, school and house. Luther became the founder of Protestant theology
which ruled out the necessity of priests for establishing communication with God.
Subsequently John Calvin (1509-64), French theologian, developed the main tenets
of Protestantism. Stressing the inherently sinful nature of mankind, Calvin argued that
this could only be redeemed through absolute faith in Christ and fidelity to the word of
o . ue course, the message of Protestantism gained a vast following throughout
Europe, resulting m cultural transformation of society.
d°ctrine Pr°testantism Promoted belief in rational nature of man who was
a nrinP I f ff !"8 trUth indePenden% This belief eventually became
a guiding principle of liberalism. According to Max Weber (1864-1920) eminent
Pr°",n,i™ th“ “ foundations of cptalism »d
SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION
SSiSSSi?',h' ”A“ P0M f"» “»d advent of the „od«
of production transDort and p°nS and dlscovenes not only revolutionized the methods
settlements « »P -w areas for human
thoroughly transfonned. On intellectual side Wh’ S°/he economic hfe of society was
smashed a lot of suDerstitinnc a a ' S'de’ advent Of the scientific revolution
t-th. It also inôSr tJiS^Sr d“g the
social structure. For examole a arfare which had a wider impact on the
eleventh century, but they had not evdvedThe^h™ l° ^ Chinese as early aS tht'
of war. It found its way to Europe in larivl® techumilues of ™ng it in the weapons
in the weapons of war began by the middle of rhtnfi1kCent^ry‘ However>its regular use
aristocratic knight (the heroic swordsman) wa Century' Consequently, the
the first blow to the power of aristocracy Iv k 7T &°m the battle-field- This was
the medieval class structure in due course h h had Wlder lmPlications in destroying
In any case, the scientific revolution in fiiii ^ t

the sixteenth centuiy when some brilliant scien il?^ term began in the midu
intricacies of the world ofnature with necessary nr attempt to understand the
on various fronts overturned the authority of the Middle Ages and the ancient world
If the Renaissance had discovered new aspects of man and nature, it was up to the
scientific revolutionaries to verify the contents of their knowledge. With its beginning
in Europe, the scientific revolution became cosmopolitan. Unlike the language of faith
the language of science became universal.
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher and statesman, is regarded the
chief exponent of scientific method in modem times. Bacon rejected the deductive
method (the method of proceeding ‘from general to particular’) for discovering truth
He advocated inductive method (the method of proceeding ‘from particular to general’)
which required vast observation and verification of results through experimentation
for arriving at valid information. Bacon maintained that our knowledge of the external
world is distorted by four types of‘idols’ which must be smashed in order to attain true
knowledge of things: (a) the idol of the tribe; (b) the idol of the cave; (c) the idols of
the market; and (d) the idols of the theatre.
The idol of the tribe implies the teleological ways of looking at nature. It drives us
to read purely human ends and purposes into physical and biological phenomena. The
idol of the cave implies that our conception of the external world is distorted by the bias
which arises from our particular stations in life, our vocations or our class statuses. Then
the idols of the market imply that we tend to conventionalize meanings of words and
then those meanings are taken for granted. Finally, the idols of the theatre imply that we
receive some stereotyped conceptions from the past and accept them uncritically, as they
come to us from the authority of a prestigious figure. All these idols must be carefully
destroyed before starting our empirical observation in search of true knowledge.
Empirical Observation
Empirical observation refers to the observation based on the experience obtained
through our sense organs—sight, sound, smell, taste and touch, which can be
verified through similar observation by different persons.
Bacon refuted the Greek idea of‘knowledge for knowledge sake’ and asserted that
‘knowledge is power’. He argued that the accumulation of knowledge was desirable
because it enabled men to increase their happiness. Bacon urged men to acquire
knowledge and to use it for their own benefit by increasing their power over nature. In
his view, knowledge was not directly a source of happiness. It was a means to power,
and power was a means to happiness. The knowledge which Bacon recommended as
worth acquiring pertained to ‘natural philosophy’ (that is the natural sciences). He pinned
his hopes for mankind on this new type of knowledge which was to be obtained by the
experimental method : the greater the men’s understanding of the material world and
the greater their ability to harness nature to their purposes, the better for them.
Bacon, of course, stressed the importance of empirical method for scientific
investigation. But the mathematical dimension to this method was added by Johannes
Kepler (1561-1630), German astronomer and mathematician. Finally, Galileo Galili
(1564-1642), Italian astronomer and physicist, sought to refine the scientific method by
introducing the principles of mechanics thereto. Whereas the earlier scientists believed
that ‘rest’ is the natural state of all objects of the universe, Galileo postulated that ‘motion’
is the natural tendency of all objects, whether animate or inanimate. He insisted thu
at the
task of the scientist is to discover the most primitive motions, for the complex motions
arise from the aggregate of simple motions, and those can be understood in terms of
the simple motions. Galileo argued that ‘quantification’ is the key to scientific method.
Invention of the printing press (1455) was the most notable contribution of the
scientific revolution to the intellectual development of society. With the help of the
printing press, books could be typeset in an elegant form with a little labour, a laJ
number of their copies could be produced at an economic cost, and these could be
sold to a large number of customers at a low price. So the printing press proved to be
aumque instrument of spreading knowledge, particularly the newly acquired scientific
The scientific revolution also implied the discovery of new forms and sources of
energy— thermal, hydraulic, wind energy, electricity and magnetism, etc. which could
be apfjhed for operating the newly invented machines. Now standard goods could be
produced with less labour, at an economic cost, and supplied to people to fulfil their
t T hP y the S°UrCeS °f thdr COmfort and recreation, etc. In fact, industrial
revolution itself was a sequel to the scientific revolution.
The scientific revolution tended to promote liberalism i
in another way also. The
invention of machine for human purposes -showed that like a
including the state, „ . ,r machine, social institutions,
viewareJ;rheated for *e fulfilment of human purposes. This idea led to
the mechanistic vi
view of the state which became a part of the tenets of liberalism.
Mechanistic View of the State

inven'teTb^men for the orotectin ^ * COmpared to a machine which was
the structure of the state can bemnriifiamtenance of their rights. Like a machine,
according to their judgement, who constituted*^ ^ by
INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION
power in
and a substantial saving of human labour fni? quantity and speed of production,
economic and political life of people The °W? ^ a tota^transformation of social,
the replacement of agriculture by indmtrv * ^St °^t^le industrial revolution was
„ <" ■ nutshell, indnaria, re»o,„
the British mode of production in the eighteenth Senes °f changes which started in
economy into an industrial economy TW h Centllr>' and transformed an agrarian
period 1760-1840. They began with the mechanilT their zenith during the
other important areas like mining, transport and ind,,^0 °‘h Industry> and sPread t0
many Indus*,1 dries emerged; roads, canals, bridges, JSTS^fffr
Broad Streams ofLiberalism 107
were built up. In the course of time the impact of industrial revolution spread to all parts
of Europe and some other parts of the world.
With the advent of the industrial revolution, agriculture was replaced by industry
not only as the chief mode of production, but also as the main source of wealth. Earlier,
the wealth of an individual depended on the ownership of land. This had led to a rigid
division of society into ‘landed aristocracy’ and the peasant class. As land could not be
multiplied, and the pattern of its ownership could not be drastically changed because of
the fixed sources of income of all members of society, there was practically no scope of
any wide-ranging or far-reaching change in the social structure. But with the introduction
of industrial mode of production, a small piece of land was sufficient to set up a factory.
So men with novel ideas and the spirit of enterprise could look forward to making a
fortune by setting up industries. The serfs who tilled the land and lived at subsistence
level as semi-slaves of their landlords, could now find employment in industries, leam
new skills and increase their income, and afford an improved standard of living. Then
the industries produced a variety of goods on a large scale which needed new markets for
their distribution. This led to the opening of new frontiers of commerce and expansion
of the service sector.
Thus industry and commerce offered new and promising fields for the men of ideas,
who could launch new enterprises, raise and multiply their capital, and control the newly
developed means of production. In this process a new industrialist-merchant class came
into being which acquired more and more economic power, and advanced its claim for
a share in political power as well. Initially the philosophy of liberalism arose in order
to win prestige, prerogatives and political power for the new industrialist-merchant
class, but it pretended to serve all humanity. Moreover, the slogan of freedom ot man
was also found to be necessary to secure freedom of the serfs also so that they would
be released by their landlords to enable them to serve as workers in the newly set-up
industries. In any case, the demand for ‘freedom of man was a dynamic idea which had
the potential to expand the scope of freedom for all sections of society. That is why the
philosophy of liberalism evolved into various streams over time, and it is still evolving.
ENLIGHTENMENT
In the European history, the Enlightenment refers to a general intellectual movement of
eighteenth-century France, Germany and Great Britain. The era of Enlightenment is also
described as the Age of Reason. It was a period when people s religious and political
life was set free from obscure and orthodox beliefs and new light was shed on the
conduct of human affairs. This led to the growth of a new outlook, informed by reason
and committed to the authority of scientific research and discovery. Old superstitions
were discarded, old fears were dispelled, and a new faith in the knowledge obtained by
scientific method was developed.
The Enlightenment was a sequel to the scientific revolution in the intellectual
sphere. It was inspired by the exponents of scientific method which included among
others, Francis Bacon (1561-1626), John Locke (1632-1704), Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
and David Hume (1711-76), all from England. John Locke is regarded the father of
liberalism’. In fact, the Enlightenment contributed to the growth of several schools of
Philosophical thought; liberalism was only one of them.
II
BASIC TENETS OF LIBERALISM
Liberalism is a principle of politics which regards ‘liberty’ of individual as the first and
foremost goal of public policy. Liberty, in this sense, implies ‘liberation’ from restraints
— particularly from the restraints imposed by an established order. This principle was
evolved in the West in late seventeenth century in order to liquidate feudal privileges of
the land-owning class and to create favourable conditions for the new entrepreneurial
class to enable them to contribute to social progress.
Liberalism is not a fixed mode of thought, but an intellectual movement which
seeks to accommodate new ideas in order to face new situations and new challenges.
However, its basic tenets may be identified as follows:
(a) Man is a rational creature. He has immense potential to contribute to social
progress as well as to his own good;
(b) There is no basic contradiction between an individual’s self-interest and the
common interest of society. In fact the common interest denotes a point of
reconciliation between the diverse interests of individuals;
(c) Man is endowed with certain natural rights which cannot be transgressed by
any political authority;
(d) Civil society and the state are artificial institutions created by individuals to
serve the common interest. They are entitled to demand obedience to their
orders from individuals on the condition of fulfilling this function;
(e) Liberalism believes in the primacy of procedure over the end product. It
“ procedure for arriving at a decision is rightj the decision may be
accepted to be right. Liberal view of freedom, equality, justice and democracy
is a search for the right procedure in different spheres of social life-
W thou?h‘;7nHPr0m0teS-CiViLlibertieS °f *e k,dividua1’ includ;ng freedom of
freedom TwhiTT011’ °f association and movement, personal
freedom (which rules out search or arrest without a warrant) and strict
“dP'lanCh V7fl egal and ■iudlclal Procedure. Any restriction on individual
freedom should be meant to ensure equal freedom for others;
(g) Liberalism upholds freedom of contract. No individual can accept any
benefi The^'ii°Ut 17° C°DSeDt’ without consideration of mutual
benefit. The state would function as an umpire in the enforcement of contracts.
(h) Liberalism holds that public policy should be the

product of free bargaining
between different groups of individuals formed to pursue their specific
interests.
In short, liberalism treats market society as the model of social organization where
role of the state should be confined to the protection of individuals’ life and property,
enforcement of contracts, and maintenance of minimum common services which would
not be voluntarily undertaken by private entrepreneurs. In liberal view, the state is a
necessary evil. Liberalism treats the state as the means and individual as the end. It
rules out absolute authority of the state.
;v7
111
Broadly speaking, liberalism developed into three streams since its inception in
late seventeenth century: (a) Classical liberalism (Negative liberalism); (b) Modem
liberalism (Positive liberalism); and (c) Contemporary liberalism (Neo-classical
liberalism or Libertarianism).
CLASSICAL LIBERALISM
(Negative Liberalism)
Early exponents of liberalism include John Locke (1632-1704), Adam smith (1723-
90), Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-73). All of them were
English philosophers. Locke is known as the father of liberalism; Smith, as the father
of economics; Bentham, as the founder of utilitarianism. All of them defended the
principle of laissez-faire which implies least interference of the state in the economic
activities of individuals. They are the founders of classical liberalism which is called
negative liberalism because it contemplates negative role of the state in the sphere of
mutual dealings of individuals. J.S. Mill wrote a brilliant treatise in defence of liberty,
which pleaded for restricting the state from interference in individual’s self-regarding
actions. In late nineteenth century, Herbert Spencer (1820-1903), English philosopher
sought to reaffirm negative liberalism through the application of the principles of natural
science to social organization. ________
Laissez-Faire
Laissez-faire is a French term which literallv means
w™in"SrC * — -d industrial -cles in nin=h-
century England and other parts of the world, to express a belief in the freedom
of commerce and industry from state interference.
John Locke {Second Treatise ofCivil Government; 1690) argued that I

are equal by nature, and therefore, nobody can be placed under another saudionty except
He regarded civil society as an artificial contrivance invented for the convenience of
man, particularly for the protection and maintenance of his natural rights. He contended
that political authority was different from other familiar relations of dominance, e.g
master and servant, man and wife, parent and child, victor and vanquished, etc. because
it applied to the public sphere while other relationships were confined to the private
sphere. In any case, political authority was armed with power that was necessary to fulfil
its functions (i.e. the protection and maintenance of natural rights of man); it could be
overthrown and replaced if it failed to fulfil its responsibility. Political authority was
not empowered to interfere in the sphere of voluntary transactions between individuals
Locke is regarded as an early champion of the newly emerging capitalism in Europe,
Capitalism
Capitalism refers to an economic system of the modern age, largely based on industrial
production, where means of social production (land, buildings, mines, forests, machinery
and capital), distribution and exchange are owned by private entrepreneurs, a large
number of workers are employed on wages at the market rate, and economic activity
is primarily devoted to private profit. Here workers are free to work anywhere
according to their skills and capacities as well as market demand.
Adam Smith (Inquiry into the Nature and Causes ofthe Wealth of Nations; 1776)
; emerged as an ardent champion of capitalism. Smith asserted that everyone has a natural
\ propensity to trade. If given a free rein, this tendency would stimulate economic activity,
whSng ‘n 3n mCreaSe "?the Prodllction °f goods. The profit motive is a natural instinct
I neteTrS ever>;trader t0 exPa,ld his business. The selfish motive of the enterpriser
nrosneritv thprAtT'k uclêt0 Pr°motion of the general good. It harmonizes with national
as well as'the consumer. ^ 3 ~ government’ business, agriculturist and the worker
1789)2 anmnLm" Intr°fction t0 the P™ciples of Morals and Legislation;

utihLrianf^ Benth^rra i?^11,00 l° the the0ry ^laissez-faire as an exponent of
and absolute justice had nf^TOTthe^ ,°tf abs°'Ute rights’ absolute sovereignty
absolute standard for regulation ofitlan nff °f ‘T"'llfe; there W3S °n'y ^
a decision is to be taken for the whole

community, the guiding principle should be ‘the
number’. greatest happiness of the greatest
Bentham saw the state as an instrument j .
happiness of the community, but he did not contemnl ? the promotion of the
He believed that men are moved to act solelv h™P. 6 ,a Wlder SC0Pe of state activity-
avoid pain, and that each individual is the best judge of hk^ l° Seek pleaSU1'e “d H
his followers came to the conclusion that the main owr'interests. Bentham and
and that the chief objective of legislation is to remove Ik °f the state ,s leg‘slatl°n’
.!« freedom of action of individuals. The „Me should,
Broad Streams ofLiberalism Ill
activity to restraining individuals from indulging in activities which affect the general
happiness adversely. The state should punish the offenders, but it should not interfere
in the voluntary activities of law-abiding citizens who are the best judges of right and
wrong. J.S. Mill (On Liberty; 1859), another eminent utilitarian, similarly made a
distinction between self-regarding actions and other-regarding actions of individuals.
He argued that the state should not interfere in individual’s self-regarding actions, that
is the actions affecting the individual himself. On this point, Mill advocated laissez-
faire individualism. But in his subsequent work, that is the last edition of his Principles
ofPolitical Economy (1866), Mill advocated the taxation of property and diverting its
proceeds to the welfare of the working class. This marked his qualified departure from
the position of negative liberalism.
Finally, Herbert Spencer (The Man versus the State; 1884 and The Principles of
Ethics; 1892-93) argued that the process of natural evolution was the key to social
progress. In this process, the state had a very limited role to play, that is the protection
of people, and administration of the law of equal freedom. Spencer wanted the state
to function as a ‘joint stock protection company for mutual assurance’. It should not
assume any other function, nor otherwise interfere in the process of social evolution.
Spencer went to the extent of applying the rules of biological evolution — the struggle
for existence’ and the ‘survival of the fittest’ - to social life. He argued that the state
should not undertake public health, nor give any relief to the poor because that would
defeat the operation of the law of natural selection. He contended that if family ethics
(the rule of diverting common resources towards maintenance of the weak) was applied
to the sphere of the state, it would retard progress by giving the weakling more than it
deserved, and perpetuating an undeserving life. In short, Spencer s political philosophy
represents an extreme form of negative liberalism. ______ _____________
Natural Selection
Natural selection is a corollary of Charles Darwin's (1809-82) theory of biological
evolution which upholds the twin principles of strugg e or ex wherehv the
of the fittest’. Accordingly, natural selection refers to thei process w^reby the
nature selects only fit creatures to survive and ehm.nates the unfit ones. Herbert
Spencer (1820-1903), English philosopher, recommended thei mode c>f natural
*»■ <»r .„»»«.'»»-»> “ "i**-r sx >
modern liberalism
(Positive Liberalism) .
In late nineteenth and early this period is
and vulnerable sections of society whose condition had not yet substantially improve
The political rights and economic freedom demanded earlier by the classic-
liberalism for the new middle class had already been achieved by this time. But ft,
rapidly expanding working class had not yet gained much. In fact the unrestraint
freedom in the economic sphere had rendered the poorer sections helpless. The ‘freed on
of contract’ so highly valued by the classical liberalism had largely benefited the %aves’
in the bargain at the expense of the ‘have-nots’. It was realized that in the age ofexpand^
franchise, effective mass communications and rising social consciousness, liberalism
had principally served the interests of the new middle class of the French Second
Republic or the textile manufacturers of Manchester, but the condition of the working
class and other poorer sections of society was still deplorable. This was being effective!
highlighted by Marxian and other socialists who called for a thorough transformation oi
the social order. So the liberalism that survived after the mid of the nineteenth century
had to accommodate itself to democratic, nationalist and socialist sentiment.
The earlier model of liberalism had raised the hope to secure freedom for everybody.
But it was falsified by later developments, especially the growth of cities as well as the
?? W°r d,7ldf netW°rk of commerce and industry. An ordinary individual found
hrmsetf o be totally deprived of his freedom under these conditions. As David Smith
iTaZvZT EnCyT°pedia °fthe SocialSciences; 1968) has aptly illustrated: “Great
Simdari! freeTn P°Wer ma, °ne man’S economic freedom another’s oppressioi
mea and had?" a “dltles ~ such as child labour, slum housing, poisoned
workers'still ifved’int *etC0I!™0n benefit of 1regulation obvious.” A large numberof
and Germanv Wnr. ih tC °f extreme poverty, even in prosperous England, France
disaSliândoMa? h T W£?^ lnsecurity because êmployment, sickness,
civic liberty had beentx??^?? °f'th®lr llvelihood. Even when the right-to-vote and
civic liberty had been extended to them, they lived in an extremely miserable condition.
The mounting pressure of the working class for
state to revise its policies . , a better deal forced the capitalist
phase, therefore turned toe™cTtZT™0™™0 Sphere- Libe™lism in its modem
worse effects of canhalism Th ! a T5™011 k the economy ^ ameliorate the
adopting the principle ofThe^ ‘hep?'S.ofthe ^sez-faire^
the twentieth century to the middle of the l 8 penod 15:0111 the thlrd decade of
most of the Western nations. ntury, the welfare state was established in
Welfare State
free education, public health, poor relief^suon u V °f ^ °ther calamity)'

like foodgrains, milk, fuel and transport ? the g°°ds and serviceS
undertakes the protection of cultural heritage inch.H ^ 3t subsidized rates-
libraries, art galleries, botanical gardens and -ooloeicaln8 ,monuments' museums,
higher education and scientific research etc to iL P ks' etc' 11 also Promotes
development of society. 7 p up lnteBectual and cultural
Philosophical justification of positive liberalism came from many brilliant liberal
thinkers themselves. Early hints for the revision of liberalism came from J.S. Mill {On
Liberty; 1859 and Utilitarianism; 1861) who introduced two points of departure from
negative liberlism: (a) By drawing a distinction between self-regarding and other-
regarding actions, Mill sought to justify state intervention in such actions of individuals
which affected the lot of larger society; and (b) By introducing qualitative differences
between different pleasures (a departure from Bentham’s stand who had only recognized
their quantitative differences), Mill allowed the state to determine what was good for
the people, even if it marked a departure from their own preferences. Then in his last
edition of the Principles of Political Economy (1866), Mill argued that individual’s
right to property was not absolute or sacrosanct, and went to the extent of advocating
considerable restrictions on the rights of inheritance and bequest. He recommended
taxation of the increasing income, particularly of landlords, and diverting its proceeds
to the welfare of the working classes.
Then T.H. Green (1836-82), another English philosopher, sought to add a moral
dimension to liberalism and thus advanced a full-fledged theory of the welfare state.
This tradition was further developed in the twentieth century by L.T. Hobhouse (1864-
1929), Harold J. Laski (1893-1950) and R.H. Tawney (1880-1962) — all of them were
English philosophers. Thus the theory and practice of welfare state flourished m the first
half of the twentieth century in England. This theory contemplates a positive role of the
state in securing a dignified life to individuals. It is therefore called positive liberalism.
The classical economists thought that the economic insecurity of the working
classes is the fundamental motive behind the production of wealth as, wit out ear o
want, men would neither work nor save. However, some enlightened modern economists
believed that economic insecurity of the working classes was inhuman and detI™e“
to social stability. The British economists like John M. Keynes ( - )*n .. ,
Beveridge (1879-1963) argued that economic security to people should e p
through legislation for full employment at reasonable wages, an soc*a r , ,
would serve as incentive to higher production. Welfare state: also undertook labour
welfare legislation involving fixed working hours, wee y res ,socia ajjzatjon
oft^
capitalist base.
CONTEMPORARY LIBERALISM
(Neo-liberalism/Neo-classical Liberalism/Libertarianism)
Neo-liberalism, neo-classical liberalism on

version of classical liberalism which seeks ^ in{ervention and control
new grounds. It denounces the welfare state, PP ^ .rolling back> the state
In the second half of the twentieth century, these thinkers realized that the theo
the welfare state was inimical to individual liberty, as it involved the forced transfrye
resources from the more competent to the less competent. In order to restore individ °
liberty, they sought to revive the principle of laissez-faire not only in economic sph^
but also in social and political sphere. In a nutshell, neo-liberalism upholds full autoncp
and freedom of the individual. It seeks his liberation from all institutions which tend)'
restrict his vision of the world, including the institutions of religion, family and custo
of social conformity, apart front political institutions. Philosophically it repudiates it
deterministic outlook of human life, and maintains that human personality characb
thought and actions cannot be construed as the outcome of his circumstances In oil!
words, it treats man as the maker of his destiny. It is, therefore, hostile to all social
legal restrictions on individual’s freedom of action. In the political sphere, neo-liberalis,
particularly insists that man’s economic activity must be actively liberated from a!
restrictions to enable him to achieve true progress and prosperity.
All neo-liberals believe in the primacy of the ‘spontaneous order’ of hum
freedom without fulfilling thei gU 3 61 ese’ activities, it would amount to curtailing their
such deckionstoîe maricet^lhch'wTl nee^S’ ^ wo^ therefore be advisable to transfer
. Liberalization
Liberalization refers to the oolic f
or restriction on economic activity °r relaxatlon °f government control
seeks to reduce the state's liability toward l!l'feW t0f maximiz'ng its efficiency. It
PrOm0tfi
. . Privatization ~ ~~
Privatization refers to the policy of trancf* •
of any sector of economy to private ownershi60^™6"* ownershiP and control
the standard of its management and to DrpVfm.P and
i contro1 ‘n order to improve
the public exchequer.
Globalization
Policy of globalization holds that economic efficiency can be increased to the
maximum if economic activity is allowed to benefit from the resources available at
the global scale. It encourages the utilization of capital and machinery available in
one part of the world, raw materials in another part, labour in still another part for
the process of production and search of markets for the final product all over the
world. Its objectives include the minimization of cost of a product, enhancement
of its quality, and the maximization of profit from its marketing.
Broad Streams of Liberalism

Liberalism
I
I
Modern Contemporary
Classical
I 1 I
Negative Liberalism Positive Liberalism Neo-Liberalism
\ I (Neo-Classical Liberalism/
I I
Utilitarianism
Welfare State
Libertarianism
Individualism
1
Liberalization
I
Privatization
1
Globalization
Individualism
mutual advantage.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism refers to a school ^ ^/pl/g^^fnd^paâTthe chief motive
1832), English philosopher, which.treats plea! .|easure 0ver pain derived from a
force behind all human actions. The 1
bala f ^ source of 'happiness'.
Sri; TZZZZvZ Principle of public policy should be 'the greatest
happiness of the greatest number.

Liberalism is, no doubt, a dynamic political philosophy which has responded t .
changing needs of time. However, like any other ideology, it has failed to h° ''
mankind from its predicament. In fact, liberalism has clung to capitalism so finl?
jXTi.’sr",o be °ew devlces for !ua"ni"8 i,,e c'>>i,,iist;

Liberalism Retains Its Bourgeois Character
limhtag .he power of ,„e Stt„ ],

government, a
housing refonn, to interference with the adulteration ^ faCt0IT leg,slation’t0

sanitation of private houses. iteration of goods, even to compulsoiy
sacrosanct ewn whenh ^pfosibllfoTw'd Ul’ *■^ right t0 ProPertyis held

indignities and injustice on the bulk of mankind SOCIO"econormc disparities, inflicting
•hemselvSS^^^î^^RevolutiDn (1789) when the bourgeoisie
support an ever larger degree of regulation Tt ^nctions of the state and to

w are state5 was evolved not out of symnathvT0^6 denied tbat tbe concept of the
ofthhePeiSantS’W°rkers and oînary peonle Vulnerable actions of society
ese c asses in order to maintain the statu n & V*6W to enhsting the support
capitalist system or mixed economy which X ^ m practice> liberalism upholds
inrlfe°lTit(?mamtain their h°ld o/economir? favourabIe conditions for the
Economy Mixed
Mixed
câCShS:iS'* combine
some features of
Private sSr^KrV' the means °f social
sector. All sectors are required to function unde'^ and cooperative
economic activities are
sought to be coordinated th TSnt 8uldelines, and all
=====^!!^°ogh state planning.
Actual Imbalance of Group Interests ====i

Contemporary liberalism upholds representative a
state represents the interests of all groups within sociândThauf6 aSSUmption that the
ensures reconciliation
of conflicting interests. This could be true in the case of some societies but it cannot be
demonstrated as a universal phenomenon. In the developing nations, it is particularly
evident that various groups are not equally conscious of their interests, nor are they
equally well-organized, nor equally vocal. Usually, these countries are dominated
by vested interests . For instance, in India a handful of business interests are very
well organized, active and vocal while the tremendously large body of consumers is
not adequately organized. Thus, in spite of decisions being taken by representative
institutions, in practice, theie is an obvious imbalance in the sphere of protection of the
interests of the various groups.
Contribution of Liberalism
The greatest merit of liberalism lies in initiating the process of replacing traditionalism by
modem rationalism. In other words, it asserted that socio-economic relations of men in
society, which were hitherto based on ‘tradition’, should now be based on ‘reason’. Since
this process was started by the new middle class — the merchants and the industrialists
— they were the first to benefit from this change; feudalism was replaced by capitalism
not only in the economic sphere, but corresponding changes were brought about in the
political sphere as well. This had some evil effects also. The condition of the working
classes deteriorated with the success of classical liberalism. But once the process of
redefining social relations from the point of view of ‘reason’had started, it could not
be stoppedfrom reaching its logical conclusion: commitment to social justice. Social
justice seeks a better deal for the working class and other disadvantaged sections on the
same principle of‘reason’ which was initially invoked by liberalism. Faith in ‘reason’ is
a dynamic force. Liberalism, therefore, did not hesitate to transform itself as and when
it was faced with new challenges. This has led to new insights as regards the essence
of freedom, equality, justice, democracy, progress, and other human values.
Social Justice
Social justice refers to a social policy which seeks to prevent concentration of valuable
resources of the community (wealth, prestige and power) in the hands of the chosen
few, and to create a social order which will enable the deprived and under-privileged
sections to gain a respectable share thereof by virtue of their ability, effort and need.
In fact liberalism is invoked today in two important contexts: (a) as a theory of

capitalism, and (b) as a theory of constitutionalism. So long as liberalism is commended
with a view to vindicating the economic relations of capitalist society, it is bound to
suffer from its inner contradictions which must be resolved by invoking human values.
On the other hand, when liberalism is invoked as the foundation of constitutionalism,
it embodies lasting political values. It is, therefore, bound to survive on this front.
Constitutionalism
Constitutionalism refers to the principle that insists on organization and working of
the state according to a constitution so that no organ or office-holder of the state
is allowed to use arbitrary power. A constitution not only provides for a framework
°f government but also prescribes powers of various organs of government and
the limits of those powers.
•r; *•'■■■
IV
SIGNIFICANCiOfeTHESOClAfeÔN^RjvbTi1
EXPONENTS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

The theory of the social contract may be treated as an early expression of the philoso f
of liberalism. In a nutshell, the social contract refers to an agreement among men whe !*
they relinquish the hypothetical state of nature, and enter into civil society TW
Hobbes (1588-1679), English philosopher, John Locke (1632-1704), another Enslid
philosopher, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, are regarded!
chief exponents of the theory of the social contract. They have given different account
of the state of nature, the terms of the contract, and the nature of sovereignty whiri
comes into existence in consequence of the social contract.
, .U “ lmP°rta"ft0 note *at Hobbes, the first exponent of the social contract stoops
was
Philosophy ^ LocH thtd°Ctrme of social contract as the bulwark of liber,
Cminfas a utnuW °f Kberalism’ Finally, Rousseau begins te
note (‘Man can be forcedto be free? Thlt ^ b ^ ^ “P W‘th “ abs°“
sometimes Questioned aitin u )• That is why Rousseau’s status as a liberal is
his liberal credentials. ’ ou8 a c oser analysis of his philosophy would vindicate
give us a broad idea ofttheirreS°Pb? °f ^ tbree exPonents of the social contract wil
In this context, the state of nam T St£md °n Various issues Pertaining to this theoi)
live before the’ formation of theâ^Tln^?6 bypothetical condition in which peopii
behave according to their inherent nature hm??06 °f any extemal control, peopii
by nature. So in his view the state ? Hobbes believes that man is selfish and crud
everyone. Locke holds that man ic k? was a state of war of everyone against
nature was a state of peace good wil/m^ * rational bein£- So for him the state of
of the view that man is inherently sim’ni U a .ass*stance and preservation. Rousseau^
in the state of nature; so it was a state of Md ™°Cent' behaved as a ‘noble savage
In the state of nature peonle had • ness
rights . Hobbes thinks, natural rights n^lts wb^cb may be described as ‘naW
but everybody was also endowed with ! * natUraI powers of man to oppress others
right to ‘life, liberty and property’ as se^"Preservation. Locke treats^
natural rights as the natural liberty afTl* natUral rights- Then Rousseau conceive;
world as Jong as there was natural abun2 t0 &,fil aI1 nêds from the natujj
the state of nature and to set up a civil ên wb^ People decided to relinq^
Hobbes argues that the ‘commonwealth’ r ^ T'^ contract?
the purpose of creation of an all-powerfiil . the civil s°ciety) was set up
would control everyone and protect evervonp ^Supreme legal authority), ^
set up a government that would protect their *ke contends tbat people decided10
because a few of them tend to depart from tilrights and Punish the offend
lr mward morality’ and oppress othef>
for their personal gain. Then Rousseau explains that when due to cumulative increase
of population, the treasures of nature are depleted, and a scarcity situation arises, people
are required to do labour to fulfil their needs; in such a situation, civil society must be
formed to provide security of the property earned by people’s own labour. The terms
of the social contract are closely linked to the purpose for which the civil society is set
up.
According to Hobbes, the covenant (i.e. the social contract) requires every man
to give up his natural rights and powers to a ‘common power’ who would keep them
in awe and give them security. Hobbes equates this ‘common power’ with Leviathan,
that is a sea-monster “which is but an artificial man... and in which the sovereignty is
an artificial soul” (Leviathan; 1651). Locke postulates a contract whereby men agree
to pool their natural powers and uphold one another’s rights; they particularly give
up the right to be the judge in their own case. Rousseau envisaged the social contract
whereby all individuals surrender their natural liberty to the power of the community
that provides them civil liberty; what they lose as individuals, they gain it back as
members of the community. The concept of civil society introduced by the exponents
of the social contract coincides with the concept of the state as understood in the liberal
circles. Sovereignty is an essential feature of the state. What are the characteristics of
sovereignty envisaged by each of these thinkers?
Sovereignty
Sovereignty refers to the supreme legal authority which is an essential element
of the State. It is by virtue of this authority that a State can make binding laws,
command obedience to its orders, punish those who fail to abide by law or obey
its orders. Only a sovereign State can enter into a treaty with other States for
mutual benefit, and conduct war against enemy States.
Now Hobbes contemplates the supreme and absolute authority of the sovereign,
because an act of defiance of the sovereign would mean return to the state of nature
— a state of total insecurity. Locke envisages limited sovereignty because he regards
government as a trust of the community which is answerable to the community. On
the other hand, Rousseau postulates absolute, indivisible and inalienable sovereignty
of the General Will which represents the real will of the community, that is the point
of convergence of the real will of the members of the community which takes care of
their common interest. _________________
General Will
According to Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, the General Will
refers to the point of convergence of the real will of all
« reflects free Infer,., „ £
the whole community. Rousseau believed that man
submitting his particular will to the direction of the general will.
Finally Hobbes’s theory of the social contract corresponds to the theory of

absolutist/: it does not concede any right to resistance by the people Locke s theory
of the social contract corresponds to the theory of constitutionalism which requires the
government to exercise limited powers and not to act beyond its specified functions. It
concedes people’s right to revolution; they can overthrow the government if it faiis t0
carry out its responsibility, and set up another government in its place. And Rousseau
propounds the doctrine of popular sovereignty where right to resistance becomes
unnecessary.
Exponents of the Social Contract: Comparative Study

The Issue Hobbes's View Locke's View Rousseau's View
Human Nature Selfish and Cruel Rational Being Simple and Innocent
('noble savage')
State of War of everyone State of Peace, State of 'idyllic
Nature against everyone Good Will, Mutual blissfulness'
Assistance and
Preservation
Natural Natural powers Right to life, Natural liberty to
Rights to oppress others liberty and fulfil all needs from
+ natural urge for property the natural world
self-preservation as long as there is
natural abundance
Purpose of Creation of an all- Setting up a
the Social When the scarcity
powerful Sovereign Government that situation arises, civil
Contract who would control would protect society must be
everyone and natural rights offormed to provide
protect every one men and punish security of property
the offenders earned by people's
own labour
Terms of
upehisâtum|eS h* ^6n agfee t0 P00‘ AI1 lndividuals
the Social
and dowph; t *8 S their natural powers surrender their natural
Contract
who would kppn

"“'“r
u efS r,^tSf
»•-«p—
°f the community
Ti-zztz Sir1”
give them
security
^ the
JUdge ,n the,r 0Wn
c,v,, liberty; what they
lose as individuals,
Case gain back as
members of the
Nature of community
Supreme and
the Limited Sovere
Absolute Absolute, Indivisible
Sovereignty ignty — Govern
Sovereignty and Inalienable
ment as a Trust
Sovereignty of the
of the Community
Relevant General Will
Absolutism; no Constitutionalism;
Political scope for right Popular Sovereignty;
People's right to '
Theory to resistance right to resistance
revolution conceded
not necessary
on
philosopher, argued that the state is the product of the social contract. Through this
contract, men surrender their external freedom in order to restore their true freedom
as members of a commonwealth. They relinquish their wild, lawless freedom in order
to secure perfect freedom that would never diminish because it is the product of their
free legislative will. Kant believed that men enter into relations with each other only at
their free will. Hence no contract shall be valid unless it is based on the consideration
of mutual benefit, and not designed to promote the interests of any one party. However,
Kant was primarily an idealist, and not a liberal in the conventional sense of the term.
Some contemporary philosophers have also invoked the idea of the social contract.
John Rawls (1921-2002) applied Locke’s methodology of the social contract to arrive
at the principles of justice. Rawls starts as a liberal and ends up at the convergence
of libertarianism, egalitarianism and communitariarism. Robert Nozick (1938-2002),
another American thinker, invokes Locke’s argument about the origin of the state, and
terms it as the dominant protective association, hired by men for the protection of their
property holdings. Nozick ends up as a hardcore libertarian. Finally, Carole Pateman
(1940- ), American writer, pleads for the reformulation of the social contract in order
to make it feminism-friendly. In short, the idea of the social contract continues to be a
live issue in the debates on political theory.
CRITICS OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
The social contract theory of the origin of the state has been described as ‘bad history,
bad logic and bad philosophy’. It has been subjected to searching criticism from various
angles.
David Hume (1711 -76), British philosopher, argued that government was not created
through a deliberate decision of the people. It arose because people realized that it was
to their advantage to support any authority that enforced the rules of justice effectively.
Hence the idea of the social contract as depicted by Hobbes, Locke and others was both
historically improbable and philosophically unnecessary to explain allegiance. As Roger
Scruton has elucidated: “Hume attacked the doctrine of the social contract, arguing that
the criterion of tacit consent is inapplicable, most people being inevitably constrained
by cultural, linguistic and habitual ties to stay where they are, whatever the government
that should exert jurisdiction over them” (A Dictionary ofPolitical Thought, 1982).
Critics argue that the theory of the social contract is not founded on any historical
evidence. When we trace the origin of an institution like the state, it is not proper to
rely on mere fiction, like that of a social contract. There is no historical validity of the
assumption that men originally lived in a so-called state of nature, and then they thought
of creating political institutions by mutual agreement to establish order and security.
The Mayflower Pact of 1620 is often cited to show the possibility of a social contract.
It embodied a statement drawn by English emigrants to America travelling by the ship
Mayflower: “We do solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God and one another,
covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil body-politic for our better ordering
and preservation.” This historical illustration, however, cannot be treated as an evidence
of a social contract. Even the illustration is not adequate. The Mayflower Pact was drawn
up by men who were already familiar with government; they were not emerging from
a state of nature as the exponents of the social contract theory have imagined.
In the second place, Sir Henry Maine (1822-88), British jurist’s historical research
on early political institutions, has found no evidence to show that social and political
organization owes its origin to any deliberate contract among men. According to Maine’s
theory, the movement has been from one of‘status’ to one of‘contract’. Thus, in primitive
society, membership of a social group determined the status of an individual. The idea
of a contract began with the dawn of the modem era, when the individual could change
his status through a free contract.
Accordingly, the tendency to shift the modem idea of the contract to the earliest
times is, therefore, bad logic. The idea of contract is an individualist idea; it makes
the will of the individual, the basis for political authority. Primitive man was not at all
aware of this idea. Life of the primitive man was largely governed by custom at the
various levels of groupings — family, clan, phratry, tribe, gen, etc. Law, sovereignty
and political institutions grew from this process in a very slow and gradual manner, not
by a compact of freely contracting individuals.
Moreover, a contract, in order to be valid, requires the force or sanction of the state,
5 which exists above and apart from the contracting parties. The so-called social contract
had no such sanction behind it, because it precedes the establishment of the state itself.
Again, the theory of the social contract postulates the existence of natural liberty
and natural rights in the state of nature, that is before the formation of the state. This
does not stand up to logic. Rights are the product of a developed social consciousness
and are enforced by institutionalized law. How could natural rights have existed in the
earliest stage when political awareness and institutionalized law were totally absent?
Edmund Burke (1729-97), British philosopher, argued that the natural rights, if at all
they could exist, would have become redundant with the conclusion of the so-called
social contract. Burke sought to replace the idea of one-time social contract by that
? a ContinuinS contract between past, present and future generations. As he asserted:
Society is indeed a contract... it becomes a partnership between those who are living,
those who are dead, and those who are to be bora” (jReflections on Revolution in France;
Fr°m thfi phllosoPhlcal P°int of view, it is not fair to treat any contract as eternally
fo ?in I0greSS- HrSSerted: “Evety age and Seneration must be as free to act
that the idea If fhSpefi-aSHhe ^ generations which preceded it.” It is significant
the seventeenth centuj tolhfninlteenSn^11 WaS.regarded as sacrosanct fro®
thinkers of the modem age. ^ *S n° '°nger Upheld ^ progreSS1Ve
of harmonizing the interests of all individuals and all sections of society. But, in any
socety, particularly in modern capitalist society, some dominant sections or the chosen
few are so well-organized and vocal that they become self-styled representatives of the
will of society, and seek to justify their authority on this ground. The complex problem
of social inequality and injustice needs a more searching analysis. It cannot be solved
through a simplistic formula of the ‘social contract’.
It is significant that the theory of the social contract was advanced at a juncture
when the system of feudal relations was giving way to the norms of market society,
which laid the foundations of the capitalist system. The relations of the feudal society
are determined by tradition; those of the capitalist society are determined by contract.
The doctrine of the social contract played a historical role by providing for a theoretical
justification for the new pattern of human relations necessitated by the emergence of
the capitalist society.
Q. 1. Describe the historical background of the rise of liberalism. Discuss the main
tenets of liberalism.
2. Distinguish between negative liberalism and positive liberalism. In what
sense neo-liberalism marks a departure from the two?
3. Bring out the significance of the theory of the social contract in the evolution
of liberalism.
Thomas Hobbes
i
tGENERAL.INTRODUCTION
It is not wisdom but Authority that makes a law.

Thomas Hobbes
whoTaSveHanbew J58!:1679).'Jas a '^-seventeenth century English philosopher

detvman who ah 7 , ‘u ^Stem P°litical thouSht- He was the son of a minor
European tou/wheif he had ^ ^°bbeâccornpanied his pupil William Cavendish on a

and literary figures of his time Th° ^ -° meet Galileo and other leading scientific
philosophy and attitude. During 1630swhenWs had “ 1pr°found effect in shaping his
[124]
Thomas Hobbes 125
Divine Right of King

The theory of Divine Right of King holds that the authority of King is derived from
God; hence obedience to the King is as imperative as obedience to God. In Europe,
this theory was developed during the ascendancy of monarchy. Its chief exponent
was Robert Filmer (1588-1653), English political theorist.
Instead of invoking the divine source of absolute authority of the sovereign, Hobbes
looked for the secular basis of this authority. He sought to discover the source of absolute
authority of the sovereign in the ‘will’ and ‘consent’ of‘individual’. Hence he became
an early exponent of‘individualism’. But as he ends up as a champion of‘absolutism’,
he failed to bring individualism to its logical conclusion. As he could not realize the.full
scope of individual’s‘liberty’, he stopped short of laying the foundations of‘liberalism’.
Hobbes’s individualism is based on the conception of discrete individuals involved in
power struggle, and not of rational agents who contribute to social progress as well as
to their own good.
Absolutism
Absolutism refers to a form of rule in which all powers of governance are held by a
single entity. These powers are not restricted by any legal, constitutional, customary
or moral limitations. The subjects are required to submit to the decision or commands
of the ruler; they have no opportunity to question or resist his command.______
Individualism
Individualism refers to a principle which regards individual as a rational agent It
requires that individual's dignity, autonomy and judgement should be given ful
recognition while making public policy and decisions. It upholds a legal, social
and political order based on voluntary transactions between individuals for their
mutual advantage. ______ . . —
Liberalism
Liberalism refers to a principle of politics which regards 'liberty or 'freedom' of
individual as the first and foremost goal of public policy. Liberty in this sense,
implies 'liberation' from restraints imposed by an established ■ P
was evolved in the conditions for the new
privileges of the and;own'^ claSS anJot0coCntribute t0 social progress. Present-day
Ph^^îd^l^Sltain of wisdom°and 5? objectofwelfarej
Hobbes throughout lived in turbulent Jims*. Sense of insecurity'

bonuwins and were ^thereafterS^Sie.”HjSfaTer had Med the
strong government was necessary to save human civilization from a possible disaster
He sought to lay foundations of a new science_of politics in order to articulate his
philosophical outlook. In short, the political disorder of his times furnished the occasion
for his political philosophy, while the new standards of scientific knowledge provided
him the appropriate method of inquiry.
English Civil War

In the history of England, the Civil War refers to the period of war (1642-49)
between Charles I (1600-49) and his Parliamentary opponents. It represented the
culmination of the dispute about the privileges and prerogatives of the Parliament
versus the Crown. This dispute had existed since the reign of James i (1566-1625).
Then during the reign of Charles I, the Parliament challenged the doctrine of divine
right of King, and demanded that the appointment of Ministers and decisions about
foreign and ecclesiastical affairs as well as taxation should be made on the advice
of the Parliament. Charles I did not agree, and instead he dissolved the Parliament.
Then he ruled for eleven years (1629-40) without Parliament. Thereafter the well-
known 'Long Parliament' (1640-53) was convened which unanimously decided
to divest the monarchy of all those powers that had enabled it to rule without
Parliament, in 1642, Charles I tried to imprison the Five Members who were his
severe critics. This resulted in the war between Royalists and Parliamentarians.
Charles I himself was executed at the behest of the Parliamentary army in 1649.
Charles II (1630-85) was forced into exile; monarchy was abolished, and a
'commonwealth' was set up by the 'Commons'. The English Civil War dramatically
changed the nature of English society and government. However, the attempt to
find an alternative to monarchy eventually ended in 1660 with the restoration of
Charles II in the wake of the death of Oliver Cromwell (1599-1658).
II
^^nai^ysisofhijmannatu RB#;
Analysis of human na
of the conteZora^ Dolilil ^ ^ * 3 S°dal “>’■ Hobbes’s e*PerienCe
nature’, that is the condition when there was no shie l° hyPotbesls of the sjate ,0
their innate nature. This would explain the origin of’the state.P 6 aCC°rd“’g
HOBBES’S METHOD
the door to political philosophy, and a sound foundation of political orde?. He **

^\flp@mas Hobbesl 127
Vv~v'/'
particularly inspired by Galileo’s theory of‘motion’. Earlier scientists (particularly Isaac
Newton) had held that ‘rest’ is the natural state of each object, and that an external force
must be applied to make it move. On the contrary, Galileo postulated that ‘motion’ is
the natural tendency of all objects — animate or inanimate, and that an external force
would be necessary to control their movements.
Hobbes now sought to evolve a new/science of politics’. He argued that science
tends to know the natural (that is the material world), and to eschew the supernatural.
Scientific debate must, therefore, be conducted in materialist terms. Being inspired by
Galileo’s mechanics, Hobbes relied on ‘mechanical materialism’ for analysing human
behaviour. Besides, he came across Euclid’s Elements at the age of forty. He perceived
the demonstrable certainty through geometrical reasoning. He realized that truth can
be ascertained by laying down clear definitions and correct deduction of all their
consequences. Hobbes argued that we may proceed from the philosophy of nature to the
study of politics in three steps: (a) Perception of body in its simplest form; (b) Man as
a natural body of a particular kind; and (c) Commonwealth as a type of artificial body
contrived by reason. Philosophical reasoning deals with cause and effect relationship.
It seeks to anticipate effect of the known causes and to ascertain causes of the known
effect.
Hobbes observed that in the study of natural phenomenon, we can only attain the
knowledge ofpossible causes. But in the sphere of politics, we are concerned with the
study of the commonwealth which is an artificial body contrived by reason. In this sphere,
causes can be established with certainty. These causes are demonstrable as precisely as in
the area of geometry where we ourselves draw and define various figures . Definition of
just and unjust, law and covenants, etc. — on which political order rests — are derived
from human invention and agreement. Hobbes sought to determine definitions of those
concepts from which the rules for founding a commonwealth could be deduced.
Galileo propounded the principles of mechanics that would explain the nature of all
types of motions. He argued that the task of scientist is to discover the most primitn e
motions, for complex motions arise from the aggregate of simple motions, n is
view ‘quantification’ was the key to scientific method. Deeply impressed by Galileo s
mechanistic model, Hobbes postulated that all nature including human nature cou d
be explained mechanistically. He argued that inner world o man was concerne ^ wi
‘qualitative’sense-experience which was merely subjective^ t was no a su jec^
scientific study. On the other hand, outer world was real and objective which could b
described in ‘quantitative’ terms. It was, therefore, a fit subject for the application of
scientific method.
UNDERSTANDING HUMAN NATURE
Following the grand design of new master philosophy, Hobbârgued that natuxs , man
and society - all should be explained in terms of modem. Man is one creature who
like other creatures and physical objects, is always moving; he »engag**/^cess“
Sf*He “ t““lly
struggle for power. In Hobbes’s view, man is neither a social animal nor a political animal,
but only an isolated beast or a purely egoistic creature. Eveiy individual is the
Captive0
the motions of his mind which in turn are reflections of the appetites of his bod
YM
analysis, Hobbes closely follows Gelileo’s footsteps who held that all complex
are derived from simple motions. In social sciences, this model of analysis is
as ‘reductionism’. In Hobbes’s analysis, political actions are sought to be explained
terms of psychological actions, which are then reduced to physiological actions l
further reduced to physio-chemical actions which are simplest to understand.
Reductionism
Reductionism refers to an approach that seeks to understand complex phenomena
by reducing them to relatively simple phenomena, and then to more simple
phenomena, and so on. For example, one may try to understand social life bv
reducing it to social behaviour, then to individual behaviour, and then to menta
processes, to physiological processes, and finally to chemical processes which
might be easist to understand.
»»ybrrap’,o soci‘' b"“"

a correct approach.
i
«Ssr»2a£irs25isa
maintains that functioning of r ^ ** Can ^ rePâce(^ by a similar part. Hobbes
because government itself isT g°êrnmfnt should be understood like that of a watch,
movements f’S 3 mechamcal device> similar to a watch with controlled
THE STATE OF NATURE

The understanding of human nature in iW rx
of nature’. It is introduced in Hohhes’c « ■ f glVes nse t0 the hypothesis about ‘stale
led to the formation of the ‘commnnw vvprkLev/ar/iart (1651 )as a condition W
its fuller description was given in his eifl' * ^ ’S the State or civil society). However,
from Latin into English as PhibsophlZ^TheCiVe(lM2)whichwasam]^
Society (1651). The state of nature refc^T Rl'fments. Concerning Government ^
of the state, but not in a literal or hictnnV i° 3 ^Potbebcul condition before formal011
preceding the institution ofsovereientv h fSenSe' ^ does not describe a state of affair
its dissolution. It is intended to illustrate u & cond^don tbat would certainly arise upo11
may infer that the state (/.e. the commonwpîtxf11 W°Uld live without the state; so"*
insecurity that prevailed in the state of nature ^ Created t0 get rid of the
according to their innate nator^HobbTsIhhT the state of nature), men behave

than wild animals; each individual in the stt T men are inherently in no way be«e(
to grab everything within his reach. His °* nmure is driven by endless appe“|e
“He is like a king who believes that al) emit' nCem dlinds him to the needs of otheb
creation was meant to do his bidding; and V]
Thomas Hobbes 129
acts reflect this belief. Thus he is imperious and proud; and all objects which seem to
get in the way of his appetite for power are ruthlessly crushed” (Hobbes : Leviathan).
However, when all men resort to extremely aggressive behaviour in the struggle
for power, everybody is forced to get a shock, because everyone comes to realize
that there are other men who are approximately equal to themselves. Here Hobbes
introduces the concept of ‘natural equality’. Apparently men are not equal to each
other in all respects, but on balance their differences cancel each other out. Some may
be physically stronger, hence capable to overpower others, but others may be capable
of outwitting them by their mental sharpness. It may be recalled that natural equality
of all creatures is metaphorically demonstrated in Aesop’s fables (e.g. a hare is able to
misguide a lion and kill him) as well as in the Indian classic Panchtantra (e.g. a frog
is able to discover the misdeeds of a snake and kill him). Hobbes’s concept of natural
equality also implies that if a person is able to kill another today, he would be killed by
still another tomorrow. This situation of anarchy is also exemplified by Maatsyanyaya
in ancient Indian classic, Kautilya’s Arthashastra. It uses the analogy of fishes in the
open sea where every fish is in the danger of being swallowed by a bigger fish. In short,
Hobbes’s concept of the state of nature envisages an atmosphere of extreme insecurity
for everyone where each by nature wishes to kill and enslave others, each is also aware
of a similar terror from the other side. According to Hobbes, this mutual fear “consists
partly in the natural equality of men, partly in their mutual will of hurting” (The Cive).
All men are potential enemies of each other; nobody knows what the other will do. With
the mounting tension between them, each man eventually tends to break the tension
by failing upon the other. Thus the state of nature turns into a state of war of everyone
against everyone. In such a condition, life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
short”.
No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger
of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan; 1651)
In such a state there is no room for industry. ‘Might is right is the order of the
day. Men are free to take what they can, and to rob whomsoever they can. There is
no law to prevent oppression or to contain the ‘law of the jungle’. It is a state of total
anarchy. Hobbes is quite clear that he is not describing a historical fact, but only trying
to demonstrate what would happen if there were no settled government for any length
of time.
Hobbes argues that there can be no morality or consciousness of duty or obligation
in the state of nature, because these are possible only after the establishment of law
and government. Natural rights are, therefore, nothing more than the natural powers of
men, used to oppress others. At best, natural liberty is nothing but the liberty each man
hath to preserve his own life’. This urge for ‘self-preservation ,s embodied in the aw
°f nature or natural law. In Hobbes’s views, natural law does not express the^ndes of
morality; it simply consists of the maxims of prudence and expediency. : is
which prompts men to abandon the state of nature and to es abhsh tat*'and:
It consists in the rules of self-preservation, particularly as follows, (a) Everybody shoul
aim at securing peace; (b) Men should be willing, in concert with others, to gi
their natural rights; (c) Men should keep their contracts; and finally, (d) Men slT?
show gratitude or return beneficence for beneficence. Thus, the requirement of0?
preservation itself created a sense of duty in the minds of men which prompts themt,
Hobbes’s idea of ‘natural equality’ is also conducive to the idea of their ,

agreement on equal footing. If some men were absolutely stronger than others
Sa»*» »y
III
L r
TRANSITION TO CIVIL SOCIETY

) mutual agreement between all mil! thaUsfte fCC°“phshed through a ‘convenant’ ora
the sovereign (a man or an s!™ ! s ' COntract’' Throu8h this agreement
the supreme legal authority over theôciet^1!! enfiT m!°'P°sition which represents
jurisdiction, and provides protection to , ^f°rCeS aw and order throughout its
single contract by which men abandon t/TT C S ^ anC* ProPerty- Hobbes postulates a
together. Through this historical fiction a? °* nature and establish society and state
— that the government does not rest on <<h T ^ ^ f° convey a philosophical truth
The social confront ' sheerforce; it rests on the will of the people. j
Who emerge from the’statrornata^^’^^^^^^^P60?16*11617156^
According to Hobbes’s logic the soverpi sovereign is not a party to the contract
contract — he comes into existence as a re l nft,exist before the conclusion of the
party to the contract. It is a contract of 5 *hlS contract’ hence he cannot be a
sovereign authority. By this contract everv ,?aW h “U 3nd of a11 with each to set up a
common power’ who would ‘keen them uT UP his natllral ri8hts a"d Powers 10
into the social contract to set up a mler as if"^ ^ 8'Ve them security. Men entered
authorize and give up my right of goveminVm^ m3n Sh°uld saV t0 eveiy man: “1
men on this condition that thou givelThv T° *is man’ or ‘his assembly of
like manner. ’ Hobbes maintains that thele caifh h?’ 3nd authorize all his actions in
not from some act ofhis own; all iff™ ^'gation on any man which arises
be tmCed t0 contract or consent. y andP°îcal obligation must eventual .
absolute authority. All men in society apaXrT1^6 Wh° enj°yS SUpreme ^

subjects. Ail natural rights of men are suiTendm-J? himself, become his j
The powers conferred on him cannot be withdrawn^0 S°Vereign once and for 3"'
“ n&h,s’ they would revert to the state d ’ fmen ch°se to revive theit l
total insecurity. Hobbes, therefore, does notadnritn ?haracterized by anarchy and
On this basis he condemned the English Civil War(°642 49)ht ‘° reVolt °r revolud°n' 1
Thomas Hobbes 131
Since, according to Hobbes, the state and society come into existence together
though a single contract, repudiation of the contract would result not only in an
overthrow of the government but the disintegration of society itself. That is why Hobbes
treats sovereignty as absolute, indivisible and inalienable. He creates unlimited political
obligation.
Political obligation implies that an individual living in a state is obliged to obey law
and the commands of the political authority. This may be accompanied by such duties
as the payment of taxes, participation in voting, serving on jury or armed forces,
etc. when these are necessary for the maintenance of political institutions.
Hobbes’s sovereign is contemplated to be morally neutral. In modem terminology,

he resembles a programmed robot which has no interests, no intentions and no character
of its own. He is directed to perform the function of providing security to people, issue
necessary law and orders to accomplish this task. He has a will, but his will reflects the
common will of all individuals. His own conduct is not liable to moral judgement.
JUSTIFICATION FOR ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY
As a champion of absolute sovereignty, Hobbes is regarded the chief exponent of
absolutism. His image of a sovereign is exemplified by eviat ,an ® 1S a
who is largest of all sea-creatures and most powerful of them^Hobbes descnbes th
‘Leviathan’ as ‘Mortal God, to which we owe under the Immortal God, our pea
defence’.
It is important to recall that the idea of:sovereignty was J
thou
sovereignty as “supreme power over but while arguing
wanted to develop the idea °fsoJerei^[^ZhtTpZentld it from becoming
an
SttSSSSSS
which Bodin had inconsistently left standing.
•** •» - “
Hobbes argued that society or state can be fou"d^1 "agree spontaneously to
of the unsocial inclinations of men they cann P sociai contract to form
respect each other’s rights. When they agree to en£ mm ^ them together.
the civil society, the force of mere words will not be
As Hobbes himself observed:
k to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other
The bonds of words are too wea
passions, without the fear of some coercive p
but words, and ofno strength to secure a man

Convenants, without the sword, are
at all. (Leviathan)
Accordingly, the sovereign can provide security to men only when he is powerful
enough to curb all anti-social elements. He must be fully capable of punishing all
offenders because it is the fear of punishment which makes the citizens law-abidi ng.
An effective force is a necessary tool of the sovereign whether he is required to use ft
or not. Absolute power is, therefore, a necessary condition of sovereignty.
The obligation of subjects to the sovereign is understood to last as long, and no

longer than, the power lasteth, by which he is able to protect them.
Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan; 1651)
Sabine has pointed to three disabilities in Bodin’s theory of sovereignty which were
removed by Hobbes’s theory of sovereignty. In the first place, although Bodin makes
the sovereign himself the source of law who is not legally accountable to his subjects
yet he had no doubt that the sovereign was answerable to God and subject to natural
law Sovereign is not obliged to seek consent of a superior, an equal, or an inferior while
declaring law of the land; ail other powers, such as the power to declare war or make
fmno^LT0?1 COT1SS'0nerS’t0 3Ct 35 a COUrt of last resort>t0 coin money and to
must pay attention

before declaring law of his land.
Natural Law
ofalheaconvenSnaMaw Th * ^/ g°°d C°"dUCt Which independently
through moral intuit I TT“ fr0m nature which «" be discovered
Champions of natural law regard it'as'supenor toly'oTertw.^ * reaS°"ing-
his land. HeymamtaineddthtatatheeFrenchei8n mUSt ablde by the constitlltional law of

constitutional law of France. This meant thaUheT W3S b°Und by h‘S fidelity f° ^
as a state of confusion : the sovereiim k t pub *c domain- Sabine terms this situation
certain constitutional laws which wTre neithermadeTT °f3S Wel1 3S SubjeCt ‘°
change. neithei made bY him nor he was authorized to
Constitutional Law
Constitutional law refers to the part of la h
constitution of a state, long-standing conv^nf °n th® provisions of the written
functioning of various organs of the eovemmpnt ^ practices relating to the
constitution. Legally speaking, constitutional law ifr JUd'^lal interpretations of the
law, such as statutory law, customary law or nat, 17T‘ ~ SUp6rior to anV other
land has the competence to declare any law ouhlir h W' he h'ehest court of the
or social practice as void if it is deemed tn mm aecislons/ administrative action
the constitution. ravene the letter or the spirit of
Thomas Hobbes 133
Finally, Bodin’s theory of sovereignty was seriously flawed because of his very
strong convictions about the inviolability of private property. In his view, the right to
property was guaranteed by the law of nature, that is the natural law. Bodin goes to the
extent of believing that the sovereign cannot exercise his power of taxation, without the
consent of the owners of property. He regards the right to property as an essential attribute
of the family, and the family as an independently existing unit was the comerstore of
the state itself. The sovereign could not enact even a positive law affecting the citizens’
right to property without their consent.
Positive Law
Positive law refers to the law that expresses the will of the sovereign, and that is
duly enacted by a legislative body and recognized by the judiciary. Positive law is
binding on all those coming within its jurisdiction, and its violation is effectively
met with punishment. Adherents of legal positivism regard positive law as the
only law in the real sense of the term. In their view, morals, customs or social
practices have no legal validity unless they are enshrined in positive law.
There is no room for any limitations, like those of natural law, constitutional law, or
inviolability of property in Hobbes’s theory of sovereignty. His sovereign is competent
to make any law at his will in order to fulfil the function that was entrusted to him,
that is to provide effective security to his subjects. Hobbes sought to define law as the
command of the sovereign; it could not be defined in terms of its moral content. Positive
law cannot limit sovereignty because the source of positive law les in e wi o e
sovereign himself. Natural law cannot limit it because, stnctly speaking, naniral law
is not a law; it does not express the will of a tangible entity, e 1 ea o invio a 11
of property is, at best, rooted in long standing custom or popu ar e le . ®
invoked ,o impose an, limits
powerful within his jurisdiction,
the sovereign is silent.
It is, therefore, evident that in spite of treating thetwill of the MMdud >source
on terror:
SC* »°nCr„" intimidate tk.se who might
break the newly developed harmony.
Hobbes's theos, of the social contract ...Id appear IMess
infallible person or assembly could be fount an absolute authority in
can imperfect mortals justify the exercise of such unl^rs*
the real world? Hobbes cleverly evades this fundamen q
SIGNIFICANCE OF HOBBES’S PERSPECTIVE
It is important to note that Hobbes’s theory of Jg^nci'esTn'check. Conclusion of this
artificial framework to keep men’s aggressive nQt transform the inherent
contract largely represents a mechanical chang. H d r in society, but in
nature or character of men. They learn to behave in a c.vmzeu
their heart they remain wild animals as ever before. Scratch a man and von -ir»
vio ent beast coming out. When you are negotiating business, it is quite likelvn,^1
Inghly polished man across the table is a wolf in sheep’s clothing Men’s 7* ^
egoism is not replaced by any measure of altruism. Now they tend to dominate ah*is:
even deprive them of their due by following the ‘rules of the game’ In short Hu”
natural proprietor ofliis own capacities • s lmPês that mdwidual is absolute,
market society of his times. spokesman of the emerging competitive
psychological conclusions depend are assn^’f6^11^1 or.lrnPllcit> uPon which his:

society. Here ‘bourgeois man’ refers to a nr .P.IOns Peculiarly valid for bourgeois
co'SSto wliS Tilr “If "*»'Makaret-7, ™" “ ",e 0,“"W™o" «"d

civil oearp th cou ^ So on with that- nr as ês,6ned to provide the
S n ob,laJoneytoWo°bU,d T to «*n£l dge'*7TV'ith0Ut e"da"^
able to „T ? 8y the laws of the scZrJ *hey had “ntracted to do
be expected to unT1’ ** WaS the sort of tone term0 3S !°n8 aS the sovereign was
xpected to understand and to enter °nto w2 3 busi"«*™n could
cR . a Vlew t0 his own advantage.
3Ch vers'in0"' 'lntroducti°n' to his edited
—----------- n of Hobbes: Leviathan (1968) 7
Western Chnstiandom. Entrepreneurs fSt tE"8 inCreasingly important through

obligations. Freedom of contract was the oS w ^LdbytctZo^
maximizatmn of profit. They were also fed up Jg f ‘° the™ to pursuittbSgoai of
wanted to have a strong government that wo^ld ll8,OUS Wars of the time’ ^
protection to their wealth 3s
Thomas Hobbes 135
well as their business operations. All social and political relations were sought to be
reduced to a network of voluntary contracts for the furtherance of individual interests.
Rulership was primarily designed to secure these interests.
In a nutshell, a close study of Hobbes’s political theory enlightens us about the
genesis of the new value system that was taking shape in mid-seventeenth century
Europe in the wake of the scientific revolution, and which paved the way for industrial
revolution and modem capitalist system. In any case, Hobbes regards society merely
as an aggregate of isolated individuals, each pursuing his self-interest. There is little
scope of any cooperative activity in this atomistic model of society. This model is fit
to explain the mechanism for the protection of people and for creating a congenial
atmosphere for business activity. However, this model is incapable of explaining all
magn ificent achievements of human civilization and culture, and all traditions of virtue
and greatness.
Hobbes is only concerned with the genesis and functioning of law-and-order
state. It only provides security to people, but does not promise to create the necessary
conditions of good life. It would be futile to look for the foundations of welfare state
or social justice state in Hobbes’s political theory.
Q. 1. "Hobbes's view of the state of nature is the natural corollary of his concept
of human nature." Elaborate and comment. .
2. Examine the rationale of Hobbes's view of the social contract. Why did he fail
to become an exponent of liberalism?
short essay on Hobbes's
3. What do you understand by absolutism? Write a
status as the exponent of absolutism.
(a) Hobbes's method of scientific inquiry
(b) Hobbes's idea of natural equality
(c) Hobbes as a spokesman of competitive market society.
h
John Locke :
l !
toERAlPlNTRODUGTI
> ION# ;
K
!
»
Insh scientist. He worked as a minor H' 1 sdom ofRobert Boyle (1627-91) Anglo- i
the Earl of Shaftesbury), and Secreta™ tofter^10'^|j0rdAshley (who Iater’became

also visited many parts of Europe during his vaSSe” “d Plantati°nS- He
!
am) rT c“^S^SS<2Sll7hSei °fCivil Gwe''" ()689'

L C‘t?‘ MacPherson (The Political The ^ J and Noughts on Education j
observes: Locke was indeed at the fountah h^SS6Ssive Individealism; 1962)
i
;
(*) He bought that human reason was rat'°naI being; t
(c) He recognized the natural rights of mP6ri0r t0 ‘he kn°wled ge of history; i
{d) He treated private property as the enT^
the law of nature, i.e. natural law; P t0me of individual rights consecrated by
(e) He conceived ‘contract’ as the iurirli,,,] u •
if) He regarded civil society«^?S^0f,he-«« I
>
convenience of man; and ml contrivance invented for the
[136] s:
I
John Locke 137
(g) In his view, political authority was not indivisible, and he recognized people’s
right to resistance against the established political authority.
Natural Rights
Natural rights refer to the set of rights of human being derived from nature. These
rights are not dependent on their recognition by the state or their acceptance by
the long standing custom. Natural rights exist before the formation of the state
itself. Like the Natural Law, these can be discovered by the application of human
faculty or reason.
John Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher, identified the right to 'life, liberty
and property' as Natural Rights. He postulated that the state itself was created
for the protection of Natural Rights of man.
Natural Law (Law of Nature)

Natural law refers to a set of rules of good conduct which exist independently of
conventional law. These are directly derived from nature which can be discovered
through moral intuition and by the application of human faculty of reason.
Champions of natural law regard it superior to any other law.
According to John Locke (16324704), English philosopher, the law of nature
commands that 'no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or
possessions'. It follows that the right to 'life, liberty and property' are the Natural
Rights of man. Locke maintained that the law of nature was a moral precept
absolutely binding upon man at all times._____ _________ ————==
Man... hath by nature a power... to preserve his property — that is his life, liberty,
and estate — against the injuries and attempts of other men.
John Locke (Second Treatise of Civil Government; 1690)
authority of anybody else without his own consent oc e < . and servant
political authority from other familiar relations of dominance, vi2. tVia^ au'cither
T a,,d wife, pi,, and child, vie,.,
relationships are confined to a particular fun . - analogous to any of
realm of political authority is fairly wide, and tt is by no mean, analogous any
those relations.
Divine Right of King

The theory of Divine Right of King h°'^ th^g^gstmperative as obedience to
derived from God; hence obedience to t g ^ ascendancy of monarchy.
God. In Europe, this theory was deve °P , £ jjsh political theorist.
Its chief exponent was Robert Filmer (1588-1653),Jngnsnp----- _____
I
II
^CONCEPT OF-THE SOCIAL CONTRACT#
Men being... by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of
this estate, and subjected to political power of another, without his own consent.
John Locke (Second Treatise of

Civil Government; 1690)
Locke sought to reformulate the concept of the social contract introduced earlier bv
ThomasHobbes (1588-1679), English political philosopher, and transformed it fro’
m
the philosophy of absolutism to that of liberalism. This theoiy treats the state as the
product of the mutual agreement of men, created with a definite purpose, to serve
then- specified needs. At the outset, it implies that there was a.time when men lived
theTfate ThU6 Wrr°Ut any rbcognized civil ^ and without the authority of
. , * s stage or llfe Pattern of men is described as the ‘state of nature’ At this
btatlm S 7" !iVed and behaved aCCOrdin§ innate natures,a,
1 socS or hi st H ? Van°US reaS°nS’ 3nd then men decided to set up the civil
the^sodaTcontrfc ^ 7 T" °f aH individuals- Different exponents of
accoun s thef T ““ R°USSe3U (1712-78) -have given different
soveSJwhich c l“t ’ *e ^ °f 1the c“’, and the character of the
is important to note that the° T 3S a consequence of the fomiation of the state. It
It seeks to tJace Jhfonmn ofin6 ^ ^ Cpntract is base-d speculation,
scientific evidence Locke refers to r thr°,Ugb loglc’ and not through historical or
Compact (1620) - an a~nt n u ^t0 lllustrate his Poind the Mayflower ,
(the ship), designed to unify the entemrisi™ P3SSengers aboard the ‘Mayflower’
newly found American Consent S™ 8 EUr°Pe3nS who intended to settle in the
government based on the will of the majori^Th-T* m-tended t0 Pmvidea temporary
purpose of illustration, but illustration L hls hlfoncaI event was recalled for the j
conclusion of the social contract at thp * . !stoncal evidence of the incidence of the
contract* thepnmitive stage of human civilization.
Sovereignty
of the state. It is by virtue Ttte authodw tWh'Ch 'S an essential element
command obedience, to its orders and n.mi 1 .u 3 State can make binding laws,
Only a sovereign state can enter into a treatv Wh° fail t0 obey its orders-
and conduct war against enemy states. V " °ther States for mutual benefit
THE STATE OF NATURE

Hobbes had drawn a gloomy picture of the state nf ;
poor, nasty, brutish and short’. On the contrary T r®where hfe of man is‘solitary
picte of tea.,, of nature. In his view, i, u no’,, « of™ “n.'trfi'oS
John Locke 139
contrary, it is a state of ‘peace, goodwill, mutual assistance and preservation’. It is_a
state of liberty, not a state.of licence] The majority of people at this stage obey the law
of nature, that is the law of inward morality. Men are by nature rational beings, impelled
h their inner nature to treat humanity — whether in their own person or in that of any
y person — in every case as an end, never as a means only. But still there are a
other
few persons who set aside the rules of morality in pursuance of their self-interest. In
the absence of any established authority in the state of nature, it becomes very difficult
to deal with such offenders. If men become judges of their own cases, justice would
not be secured. In this respect, the state of nature proves to be inconvenient. In order
to rectify this defect, men abandon the state of nature and enter into civil or political
society by means of a bontract.
Natural law, according to Locke, consists in the rules of morality implanted in the
human conscience. Natural rights consist in the ‘perfect freedom and equality’ of every
man ‘not only to preserve his property, that is his life, liberty and estate, against the
injuries and attempts of other men, but to be the judge of, and punish the breaches of
natural law’ committed by others. When men enter into political society, they surrender
their natural right to be the judges in case of breaches of law. This power is now vested
in the community, not in individuals. But they still retain their natural rights to life,
liberty and property’.
preserve his property—that is, his life, liberty,
Man... hath by nature a power... to
and estate—against the injuries and attempts of other men.
John Locke [Second Treatise of
Civil Government; 1690)
TERMS OF THE CONTRACT

Hobbes had postulated a single contract_whereby the stateSolved,
existence together. This implied ^‘'TTluteof'tottunarchy and the consequent
^“^r^ôssibilit, Hobbes had contemplated absolute
sovereignty.
Locke tries to overcome this difficulty by
As Jeremy Waldron has elucidated: “Contract and consent have thr^
description: first, men must âct together to uphold one another’s
and pool their natural powers so that they - by a majority vote to set
Sr; asss®*— ssss

r:sr state
they are dissolved together. On the con'ra^’-tv is the primary step; setting up of the
were created in different steps: creation ot s y dissolved, society does not
government is a secondary step. So, if the government is
disintegrate. Order will be restored by setting up another government in its place
In Locke’s system ofthought, the nature ofgovernment resembles a ‘trust’ T
words, a government, like a trust, is bound to act within the terms of its constitu^
By drawing a distinction between the process of formation of society and state
places government under the control of society. This leaves no scope for absoluf*
i$Bi
As Waldron has significantly observed: “Absolutism of the kind Thomas HofL
envisaged is ruled out on the grounds that people hold their natural rights to life
liberty as a sort of trust from God and therefore cannot transfer them to the arbitaand
power of another. Since government is set up to protect property and other rights^
clentr “th6m’the 8°Vemment may n0t take or redistribute property with*
While Hobbes creates absolute sovereignty, Locke evolves

government. Hobbes postulates an a constitutional
zEr-'r-" “■
in their own
‘commonpowôrlISeSTT ?!^ iS n0W V6Sted in the immunity,tie
Absolutism
cLomS oS
Constitutional
prescnbe structures, functions, powers and ' PfaCtices and “nvenHons which
government; the procedure of their ^f6rmaFeSP°nSibilides of ^rent organs of
etween the state and its citizens etc. ' WOrkmg and dissolution; relation
This i mphes: (a) in the first place that ^

of the people’. It is the people who are 80vem with the‘consen1
conscience, sense of morality, knowledge oinZ^ !‘th the faculty of ‘reason’ "
by the will of the people, but as an artificial devS Wr0ng' Government is create*1
and (b) secondly, if in any case the govemmpm r \ Cannot einbody ‘superior reason >
1 ^ters from its duty, the people hav‘
John Locke 141
the right to overthrow that government and set up another government in its place.
Thus Locke recognizes the people’s right to resistance or revolution. It is on this basis
that hejustifi.es the ‘bloodless’ or ‘Glorious’ revolution of 1688, which had led to the
flight of James II from England and the establishment of William and Mary on the
throne.
Glorious Revolution
In the history of England, the Glorious Revolution refers to the momentous event of
1688 when King James II (1633-1701) was dethroned. In his place, his daughter Mary
and her husband William of Orange were enthroned. James was an absolutist; Mary and
William accepted the condition of ruling with the advice of Parliament. In this bloodless
revolution, an absolute monarchy in England was replaced by a constitutional monarchy.
The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.
John Locke [Second Treatise of Civil Government; 1690)
According to Locke, men create the state by exercising their faculty of reason.
When the state comes into existence, the faculty of reason is not transferred to the state,
it is retained by the men themselves. They must constantly use this faculty to ensure
that the instrument crated by them continues to function properly. The relation between
men and the state may be likened to that between a mechanic and the machme. Again
men are like a householder who employes a nightwatchman to guar isi ou •
he himself remains constantly vigilant to see that the mg twatc man nei
his duty nor cheats the householder.
In Locke’s system of thought, property is tre Dutch jurist, and Samuel

the view of his predecessors, Hugo Grotms (1 h t’the earth and its fruits were
Pufendorf (1632-94), German natural law philosopher,^^ h^ ^ ^ distribution
given by God to men in common. But he r j deterrmned by convention. He
of this common heritage to individuals shou ^ should be determined by
argues that apportionment of natural res0“ic ces. Thus Locke is the chief
the amount of labour each man mixes with these roo every
«»"«• or the theory of propel, „s the “ »' the work of
man by nature has a property in his own Pers0. removes out of nature and mixes
his hands are properly his own. Whatsoever enough and as good left
with his labour becomes his property, ‘at least w er jenf. l69o). The authors
ln COrnmon for others’ {The Second Treatise oj iv* . m 73m who defended
the American Revolution (1 an!ooked ^pon ifprimarily as the ‘fruit of labour’.
the iinstitution of property so
142 Western Political Thought !
But the exponents of this theory failed to bring it to its logical conclusion. As Mor^
Ginsberg has pointed out:
Locke recognizes that in his view a person is only entitled to such products ofhjjj
labour as he can use and that everything beyond this is ‘more than his share and
belongs to others’...But instead of using his theory as a basis for criticizing %
existing inequalities, he accepts and justifies them (On Justice in Society; 1965)
Locke attributes these inequalities to the consent of men, and argues that nature
provides no principles for regulating inequalities. C.B. Macpherson (The Politicoill
Theory of Possessive Individualism; 1962) has termed Locke’s view regarding the
right to property as a typical expression of the idea of ‘possessive individualism’.!
According to this view, man—the individual — is the absolute natural proprietor of
his own capacities, owing nothing to society for them. He is, therefore, free to use '!
his capacities in search of satisfactions, provided he does not harm others. Freedom
is identified with domination over things as manifested in ownership or possession j
thereof. Accordingly, society is seen as an aggregate of free and equal individuals!
related to each other through their possessions, and not as those held together by •
reciprocal rights and duties. The relation of exchange, or market relation, is recognized:
as the fundamental relation of society. Finally, political society is seen as a rational I
device for the protection of property of individuals where life and liberty are also]
reduced to their possessions.
;
Possessive Individualism
The
^ term 'Possessive
„ Individualism' was coined by C.B. Macpherson (1911-87),
contemporai-Y Canadian political philosopher, to describe the underlying assumption
nr ler3-n e?ry 11 impês tllat individual is the sole proprietor of his own person
caoarmes ^ t f he °WeS nothing to societY- He is' therefore, free to use his
Freedom a Tf"3' Satisfactions Prided he does not harm others.
possessTon hereof a Tinati0n °Verthings as manifested in ownership and
individuals related t s°ciety is seen as an aggregate of free and equal
ofpropaeC|tvbvanvroneSR,aMt'<^liell|aSreC0^n'Ze<'t*lreereslr'ct'onsontêaccumll^l'<W
decay. The second restriction is transcended when the Y

property acquired by any ofle
b~'“ <:
be alienated and sold in the market. When labour is tbdt °'le S lab°Ur the
property of its buyer. In short, Locke’s political theory paves'thT^T
accumulation of the capital and smooth developmenu/capitalis ^
I
John Locke 143
Capitalism
Capitalism refers to an economic system of the modern age largely based on
industrial production where means of social production (land, buildings, mines,
forests, machinery and capital), distribution and exchange are owned by private
entrepreneurs, a large number of workers are employed on wages at the market rate,
and economic activity is primarily devoted to private profit. Here workers are free
to work anywhere according to their skills and capacities as well as market demand.
It is, thus, evident that Locke starts with a progressive idea regarding the genuine
basis of the right to property, but ends up with expediency, instead of bringing that idea
to its logical conclusion. Once even minor inequalities are sought to be justified, larger
inequalities automatically find their way. These inequalities gave rise to the conditions
where capitalism could flourish.
In a nutshell, Locke’s justification of the right to property was intended to promote
the interests of the newly emerging bourgeoisie, that is the owners of wealth under the
capitalist system. In fact, protection of bourgeois interests is the keynote of Locke s
political philosophy including his theory of the natural rights as well as his hypothesis
of the social contract. Apparently, Locke concedes that every man is a ra iona _ /
yet his line of argument implies that ‘haves are more rationa an
His concept of the state is designed to defend the present property as well as future
acquisitions of the bourgeoisie. In essence, he is a spo esman o ourge
~ _ worth noting that Locke’s philosophical andl risfoTcaptahsr^'Locke
It is
tenets of early liberalism which paved the way t t the economic
particularly promoted a line of thinki"g^han^duesSlist class, and pleaded for
interests of the then newly emerging mercha . pirstlv political
vesting political power in this class. This nature'ofman^Secondly, it
power is not a gift from God, but the produ h feudal class (i.e. the
focused on an urgent demand for the trarns err of>wei‘ fiomtt« t ^ ^
land-owning class of the Middle Ages) to the P . , ,
However, Locke's methodolosyta' phitopkers, m. Iota Rawls
the principles of justice, although they arrive became the order of the
Locke also laid the foundations of constitutiona
day.
Locke’s vindication of the right lo property jjfj juncture^whenTt'was
1S no longer held valid. However, he advancea sought {o make the „ght

necessary to promote the newly emerging cap1 sequently became the main issue
to property so sacrosanct and so powerfu a classes.
°f conflict between the property-owning and propertyles
;i
Q. 1. Bring out the basic tenets of liberalism, and examine Locke's status as the
i
'father of liberalism'.
2. "Locke sought to make the right to property a natural right, and thereby
helped to strengthen the foundations of capitalism." Elaborate and comment. 1
3. "Locke's concept of the social contract is a bourgeois concept." Do you
!
agree? Give reasons for your answer. i
;!
I;
!
i
}
!
;
f
I
;
/
■
1
i:
t
>
i
■
(El
Jean-Jaques Rousseau
r 'T r' T'
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
genius. He was bom in Geneva in a French family. His tamer was an eu, ..
took a job seriously, wandering from watch-making to dancing, due lmg^
Jean-Jaques’ mother died in childbirth. So he grew up like alneg ec
proper education or discipline. the flight of imagination
such as keeping regular hours,
which knew no limits whatsoever.
In the early phase of his life, .‘tty* tew/tfSÛnS* °te
writings.
A definitive turn in Rousseau’s academic of essay competition
of thirty-seven (1749) when he came across .. ct 0f the essay was: Has the
organized by the Academy of Dijon in Tarfc' , [Q Corrupt Morals? 'In a flash
Revival of the Sciences and the Arts He pe o
[145]
of inspiration, Rousseau realized that the progress in these spheres had the opposite
effect. He participated in the contest and won the prize. He argued that the progress in
the Sciences and the Arts was illusory; that the so-called sciences were causing the ruin
of mankind. Furthermore, the developments in modem culture had failed to make me
happy or virtuous. He maintained that virtue could flourish only in simple societies The
more sophisticated a culture, the more corrupt it is likely to be. Rousseau presented hi$
views so eloquently and in such a convincing manner that he became famous overnight
This essay was published as a monograph entitled Discourse on the Sciences and the
Arts (1750). His other important works on political philosophy include: Discourse on
the Origin ofInequality (1754); Discourse on Political Economy (1755); and TheSocial
Contract (1762). His leading literary works include: Emile (1762) which is a novel
embodying Rousseau’s educational philosophy; and The Confessions (1782) which
contains Rousseau’s autobiographical account.
Incidentally, some parts of Rousseau’s Emile contain his retrograde comments about
women. In a nutshell, he holds that women are by nature inferior to men, but nature
has made them cunning to compensate for their weakness. Rousseau favours complete
u men> “d ,d,i“s ,o avow >
r II
»ANALYSISOFINEQUAli|iFIES#
on human life. This
savage’ living a life of ‘idvllic hli fi f °f ?ature- He describes natural man a ‘noble
men in .he «. ■*“*« implicitly. He state* «
Civilization, inequalities raise their'lJd W»T 'f Bul with «* ™' of
pnvate property comes into existence with tv he develoPment of sciences and arts,
becomes wretched under the influence of ^ COnseciuent division of labour. So man
civilization. Rousseau came to the conclusi^nTw !"stltutlons created by an unnatural
happiness and innocence, he must return to natur ” man Wants t0 recover the original
Nature never deceives us; it is
Jean-Jaques Rousseau (tmile; 1762)
Rousseau’s second Discourse, i.e. the Discn

is a more profound work. Here Rousseau makesT 7 ^ °fEquality (M^)
inequalities: Nanual inequality aud Convention,, ini%” 1 »d JE*
Jean-Jaques Rousseau 147
Natural inequality among men is manifested in the differences of their
T^cal strength, aptitude and character. Conventional inequality, on the other hand,
? rtf nroduct of our civilization. This type of inequality was unknown in the state of
lS u re Rousseau thinks that primitive man’s major natural virtue is that of pity which
ZZ' him understand directly the sufferings of others. It tends to cultivate a sense of
immunity and companionship among human beings in the state of nature. Rousseau
Ctrnndv believed that primitive societies like those of the indigenous Americans and
Africans were the ‘best for man’. He argued that the rise of civilization, far from being
a boon, is always accompanied by costs that are greater than its benefits.
of civilization. He observes
o 1 ve afong the sides of rivers for better conditions of living; others continued to live
in forests in search of food. Natural catastrophies like earthquakes and lightning ted1 o
the discovery of fire; and the urge for meeting the growing scarcity of things
discovery of metals and invention of agriculture._______________________
It was iron and corn, which first civilized men, and ruined humanity.
Jean-Jaques Rousseau, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1754)
When men lean* .he ... of conho, o.e, “m”
Seghlg 5S«—»“—»—►
Civil society was founded on this conception.
The first man who, SelnougTt beS him! was the
saying This is mine,
real founder of civil society
(Discourse on the Origin of Inequality; 1754).
manifested in the moral and political
In due course, the actual inequalities as to civilization became
inequalities became more glaring, and the s avery
more widespread. his argument with the description
In his Social Contract (1762), Rousseauh ® “ealizedfhat his proposal for ‘Return
of the existing state of civilization. By now , r feasible. So he embarks on
to Nan,re’ given in his earlier
rebuilding moral foundation of civil soci ty. believes himself the
Man is born te „nd eve^h.re h. is “
master of othere, and y* to » • ^ sMe ot is , great boom
Rousseau, of course, maintains tha 1 ^ tê treasures of nature start
But in due course of time, when population 1 . jêrty ^ before. Multiplication
depleting, it is no longer possible for men to enj nature that was so beautiful and
°f people’s wants leads to a scarcity situa 1 ' When mother is old, and children
bountiful is no longer able to sustain its iss neW resources through their labour
are grown up, they must pool their energies to ^ threatened due to the changed
and ingenuity. In other words, when their na
B5S

circumstances, they must look for some alternative arrangement to save their fre
The answer is to transcend the state of nature and enter into civil society wher! orti
will be blessed with civil liberty. y e tflev
State of Nature
The hypothetical condition in which people live before the formation of the state
Rousseau on Distinction Between State of Nature and Civil s

ociety
Human Condition
I
f
State of Nature
Civil Society
I I
Small Population
Large Population
i I
Natural Abundance
Scarcity Situation l
I
No Need for Labour I
Labour becomes Necessary
I
Natural Inequality I !
Legal Equality ;
Natural Liberty
Civil Liberty
i
Freedom to Draw I
from Nature Protection of
according to Need the Fruit of
Labour
no
I
T* in““in ,ta of I
civil society has deprived manoffenatol lih^V16 P°'nt that the formation of
.gnore this question’ and attempt a justSL1 Z B.Ut he immediately proceeds to
of authority m the natural agreemenSSZ T u hange’ He êks justification
a natural authority over other men, and S mi ^ °bserves: “Since no man has j
agreements are the basis for all legitimate authorff1' nCVer makes ri8ht> il fo,lows that
the state of nature to enter into civil society fhroIlT8 men” When men aband°n
handsomely compensated. As Rousseau asserts X S°Cia' COntract’ their losS * I,
!S h,s natural hberty and unlimited right to all whirtf ‘mn '°Ses by the social contraC‘
his reach. What he gains is civil liberty and Se p^î™hand which is witllin
!
Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction
of the general will, and in our corporate capacity we receive each member as an
indivisible part of the whole.
Jean-Jaques Rousseau (The Social Contract)
Rousseau’s overall analysis of inequality sought to challenge the beliefassociated

with the Enlightenment that the historical changes of his times had brought about
‘progress’. Rousseau’s argument also implied that the Europeans had promoted social
inequality; they had subdued the primitive tribes ofAfrica and the New World by means
of violence; and they eulogized these achievements as ‘progress’.
Enlightenment (The Age of Reason)

Enlightenment refers to an intellectual movement of eighteenth-century France,
Germany and Great Britain. It was marked by the growth of a new outlook,
informed by reason and committed to the authority of scientific knowledge. Old
superstitions were discarded, old fears were dispelled, and new faith in progress
through reliance on reason and scientific method was evolved.______________
Progress
Progress refers to the notion that social change is heading toward a continuous
improvement of social conditions of mankind. It is an evaluative concep w ic *ee
In the history of social and political thought, Rousseau was the first^ to a *Jy
the prevailing inequalities in society and to demand the removal ofthosernequal
which involved social injustice. Before Rousseau all social mequalitie« ^ Plêd^
the same category which were treated to be unalterable. °Vsseai* , . th t some 0f
‘natural inequality’ and ‘conventional provides us a solid ground for
social inequalities were certainly alterable. This P • r iust:ce
making necessary changes in the social structure in order to secure social justice.
Social Justice
Social justice refers to the policy which seekstathe hands of the chosen
resources of the community (wealth, pres ^ the underprivileged sections
few, and to create a social order which will enabj the^ and need.
to gain a respectable share thereof by virtue
is the oldest and most fatal ailment of all

An imbalance between rich and poor
republics. Plutarch (Ancient Greek writer)
As long as there are rich people in the world, they will be desirous of disti
themselves from the poor. nguishing
Jean-Jaques Rousseau.
I i .1 r " ~ ........
Tfte contrast of affluence and wretchedness...
is like the dead and living bodies, ■
chained together.
-asmis
Tom Paine (1737-1809)
Sthenp°roterSfSUCh Is “equallties of wea'i P^ge and

These have been created by raanwht of ôcla* order and these are largely alterable.
inequality. When we invoke the princiDle^11 11 ‘S a" examPle of conventional

and non-white races should be enntpH * e.qua lty t0 demand that the people of white
education, employment, housins and °Pp0rtUnitieS and rights in the matter of
certainly demanding a change in'the sn 'T6,!!, & reasonahle share in power, we are
whttes should be mfde wSeTentS^ ^ dema"d that a11 “ !
inequality origmally drawrfby'Rousêau'c1 natUraI inequa% and conventional

realize that with the advance of scTenHficT ??Iied t0 a Iar8er sphere. We can now
areas of natural inequality are coSS^T!®?86 and technoloSy> more and more
and boddy strength of human beingsân be terable’ sPhere- We know that health
and hea th-care, and mental make-up of a nemoSlde/ably improved by proper nutrition
counselling, education and training^ve/nhv C considerabIy developed by proper
be prevented by timely care, protect and"T^f0rmities a"d mental handicaps can
appearance can be refurbishedby mensofi? ’ S° much so that an individual’s
i.
of a beautician 1 The availability of the e benefitTl8nd by makinS use of the skills
the distinction between natural and conventional ° d/V.mely ordamed system. Thus ;
in the contemporary society, but the impact rf ^vT! ^ iS n0t becominS irrelevan‘ !
larger and larger sphere, and our social responsible10“al1 ‘"equality is being felt in }
is also increasing. P bll'ty for the removal of this inequality ;
When all or some members ofsociety realize that
some of the prevailing inequalities
are unjust, and these are alterable by social action, then the ideal of equality becomes the
motive force behind our political life. Generally people never complain about natural
inequalities. They seek the removal of only such inequalities which have become
deep-rooted in our social system. These inequalities are reflected in social-economic-
nolitical status of people which effect the distribution of wealth and opportunities of
self-development in society. Thus Rousseau gave us a well-reasoned account of the nature
of social inequality. He demolished the age-old misconception that all inequalities in
society are unalterable, because these are ordained by nature or by a divine dispensation.
He identified the sphere of ‘alterable’ inequalities in society and thereby paved the way
for movement toward social justice.
Rousseau's Analysis of Inequality

Inequality
I
Natural Inequality Conventional Inequality
I I
Product of Society
Product of Nature
\ I
Alterable
Unalterable
I I
Unjust Inequalities
Alteration Not Sought
Sought to be Removed
Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones br"|'®a^J0a'Jcitu"0poeusseau
III
*SOCiAC'b0NfRACfANDITHE GENERAL Vtffrtll
subject him without his consent. jean-Jaques Rousseau (Social Contract)
lt refers to an agreement among men whereoy y

of nature’
kSS b°dy °f the comrnonwealth, Locke had treated Ae

tnist established by people whose authority was confined to that required fo tV,8S!
Sovereignty " -------

of the State, his bn^TTJSrr7 ^hiCh iS an essential element
command obedience to its orders and ounfch * u ™ make bindi"g '**.
Only a sovereign State can enter into treaty with th <° *° °bey its orders-
and conduct war against enemy States. V ^ ^^tates for mutual benefit,
genesis of THE general will
distinguished from gf Rousseau’s doctrine, which must be

k a HfSe mSfS that the §eneral will is alwavs ’ êy bas elucidated: “Rousseau
f' l “ whe" one thinks of the c^mon7*?^' ** k is ‘the that one has as
S 1 o^r”{TheBlack*elleZSooZ °f°ne’s own particular wiU as
real whl in h Subseciuent writers have used thZ ?• Thou8ht> edited by David
will °rder t0 exP]icate Rousseau’s disrin/t!a k mCtl0n between actual will and
man ActiilT^n06 of these two types of will iq a ° etween Particular will and general
SSp3S5Si«Ss
inconsistent; itchanges'frommt0 aCtS °f reas°". Actual'“in'IT gratification)ofh'S
and determinate. Man J °ôme!lt to moment. Real Jill j “s *hfnSlent’ unstabie 8,1
the direction of.the real « overcoming SStabIe>constant, consistent
self-interest to,the Jesses hisS doTft i
good - which is shared by^^^ - the common? SUb°rdmateS ^
interest or the common
The mere impulse of appetite is
ourselves is liberty. riavery, while
obedience to law
we prescribe to
Genesis of the General Will

Human Will
\
i
Individual
1
Community
i
Particular Will
\
General Will
I
♦
Actual Will
i
Real Will
Motivated by the Motivated by the Ultimate

Immediate Self-Interest Collective Good
i Represents Higher Self
Represents Lower Self
\
Transient Stable
Differs from Individual Common to all Members of

to Individual the Community
Transition from Particular Will to the General Will
Z3
03
*§ : Actual Real i General \ ^Real Actual! ~
>
~a
Will I IF
OJ
c
But individual by himself is imperfect. At times he may not be able to diV ■ ■
between his actual will and real will. This dilemma is resolved by the transit' ^
the particular’ to the ‘general’ will. The general will harmonizes the interests?/™5
with those of all. It does not represent a ‘compromise’ or reconciliation between
interests, but an expression of the highest in evety man. It is the spirit of citl??
m its concrete shape Man’s particular will may create confusion; but the general * i /
always shows him the right way. He must follow the right way in order tf"
™ «I* consirained 1„ other words, Z Z 7Z
ssswjssssk®- s* aK,
No man has any natural authority over his fellow
men.
;
Force does not constitute right... Obedience...
is due only to legitimate power.
nature of popular sovereignty

Rousseau's
will in society. SinceSrafJpjauthority
community, it is morally superior to anv nth ^gher self’ of each member of the j
the supreme legal authority) of the general xJu CXp?f S10n of wil1- Sovereignty (that is f
in society which would be constantly ^ would ensure the rule of the right reason;
elevated to the position of an absolute uni? f th,ecommon good. General will is |
it leflects the common will 0f all right-thinking^ ^ lnallenable sovereignty because
;
He starts with describing dlil society a?31*tr3Vels mucb ahead ofhis original position, l
with treating it as an expression of express,on of superior will'but ends up
... °Pthe state but ends up with the orean'' He Starts with the mechanistic
beral but ends up as an ardent idealist f"? °f the state' He starts as an arden. J
lime but he is also most confusing. Liberals* "s.the most brilliant writer ofbis
condemn him alike. nd ,deallsts adore him alike; they also I ;
In this metaphorical expression,' th^sra^s^ ^^ ^
3 machine which was :

- - rights, a
men according to their judgement, who conshtutedTt ' 0r 6Ven rep,aced by
Organic View of the State

In this metaphorical expression, the State is compared to an organism or a living
body, and individuals are regarded its organs. An individual separated from the
State loses his essence and identity like an organ severed from the body.
Rousseau’s concept of popular sovereignty does not rely on any principle of higher
law, e.g. natural law, divine law or divine revelation, but regards the organized power of
the people as the source of all reason to determine what is right or wrong. It therefore
embodies the best expression of the principle of classical democracy. However, it is
suitable only for a small and uniform community, preferably for ‘direct democracy’ as
Rousseau himself conceded. In the contemporary large and complex societies where
‘representative democracy’ is inevitable, it can only be accepted for its symbolic
significance.
Indeed Rousseau commended popular sovereignty for two reasons: (a) Sovereignty
should be founded on the will of the people; and (b) Sovereignty should be exercised
for the public good or the common good. The first reason considers sovereignty as a
right; the second considers it as a duty. The principle of genuine democracy calls for
their synthesis. But unfortunately, some thinkers have confused the two. They tried to
treat both these reasons as the foundation of the power of the sovereign. Thus they have
opened the floodgates of absolutism and totalitarianism. When sovereign is not bound
by his duty, he is no longer capable of upholding true democracy.
In practical politics, distinction must be drawn between the ‘state’ and ‘government’.
The principle of popular sovereignty may be invoked to concede sovereignty of tie
state which is an abstract entity. But government is comprised of human beings who
are fallible in spite of their best education and training. When sovereignty is attributed
to government, even if it is elected by the people, the possibility of its misuse cannot
be ruled out. As Aristotle had warned: ‘power and virture cannot coexist. Genuine
democracy can function only under a ‘constitutional government which implies the
existence of effective checks on the power-holders.
Moreover, Rousseau has not drawn a clear distinction between will and roasc'
Reason is mainly concerned with the questions of‘rightl and wrong wdl.s supposed
.Ob, Reason deals
lib», thee. Tb, ,Lions
of reason. Thus it enters the realm of idealist theory of caution
of absolutism. In short, Rousseau’s philosophy must be taken with a note of cau .
Idealist Theory
Idealist theory refers to the theory of i^l^bodknent^^ffleosoJand holds that
(1770-1831) which eulogizes the State as • b the ideal state. This theory
individual's freedom lies in accepting the dK tQ exercise authority
proves disastrous when an existing gover of the people who constitute
°f the ideal state without questioning the c
that particular government. _______
p-rT,-
IV
|
JgteRITICALAPPRAISAm
Rousseaus’s Contribution
In the realm ofpolitical philosophy, Rousseau is commended for many original irW t
the tradition of the social contract theory, Hobbes and Locke had contemplated that
civil society provides for a mechanism to fulfil people’s needs where people con '
to behave according to their innate nature. But Rousseau’s image of the civil soS
arom ^^ S their,n®eds’tends to transform the human nature itself. He project X
a romantic image of the state of nature, but also concedes that when scarcitTaE
due to the increasing population and multiplication of wants, it is no longer feasible to
1i
his strength into right" and obedience into du^^ ^ maSter' Unl6SS ^transfol mS
Revolution (1789) which declared ‘T ihPTncS°UrCe of lnspiration behind the French

ousseau’s theory of the General Will ^ ûadty> Fraternity’ as its watchword.
nhilnQnni,„„i:,..^„ ~
pniJos°phers like T.H. Green (1836-R?^ T was
t n ad°pted
L7r‘wu by eminent imglisfi
^ CiI1»nent English political
ponuca.
democratic theory. y girded the keynote of the contemporary

:
interpreted IIoEeiS ph^phy m JiTs ofutT " and Society; 1972)
nio em capitalism. According to this vie* x> erstancbng the origin and nature
economic development of society: WEaHv^’ °USSeau identified three phases of
simple subsistence economy of die primhE ^ marks the emergence of the
characterized by the ‘partriarchal state’ evolved f * Intennediate phase which is
needs collectively, and promoted by the technologieT ““ necessity of meeting human
phase which involves the division of labour nrival progress; and finally, (c) Capitalist
t transpires from Rousseau’s writings that origimME?61^’ exchange relationships, etc.
and the earth belonged to none. The man who encE a° ÛdS opearth belonged to all
it to be ‘his’ own, created ‘private property’ and r; u a P'ece of 8r°und and declared
y and civil socety. capitalism denotes the
ursuit of private interest, private ownership, possession and appropriation of property.
Exchange relationship promoted by the capitalism involves using other individuals as
‘tools’ for serving one’s self-interest, that is exploitation of others. It is basically unjust
and demoralizing, resulting in competition and conflict.
Capitalism
Capitalism refers to an economic system of the modern age largely based on
forests, machinery and capital), distribution and exchange are owned by private
entrepreneurs, a large number of workers are employed on wages at the market
rate, and economic activity is primarily devoted to private profit. Here workers are
\ free to work anywhere according to their skills and capacities as well as market
\
\ demand. ________________ _
Adam Smith (1723-90), Rousseau’s contemporary British philosopher, believed

that the pursuit of individual well-being by each member of the society would result
in general well-being. On the contrary, Rousseau argued that material progress of
civilization (based on competition, conflict and exploitation) led to dehumanization. In
fact, Rousseau was primarily concerned with the decadence of 'moral values rather
than exposing the exploitative character of commodity production-Hence, he could
not suggest the way to transcendence of capitalism by a superior form of economy,
without its evils. He could only suggest a system of small peasant prop
was quite unfit for adoption in the modem age. Relevance of ousseau s
be sought in the realm of moral andpolitical thought i at er t an econom ;
p»4r,y r r?” bars

Of man. That is why Rousseau is sometimes regarded a forerunner of Young^Mao;^ as
represented in Marx’s Economic ^"o-Mixism) which seeks to
secure human
Rousseau as its source of inspiration.
the desire of breaking
Slaves become so debased by their chains as to lose e
from them. Jean-Jaques Rousseau (The Social Contract ; 1762)
Neo-Marxism
prevailing in the contemporary world i duction> as the sole determinant

However, it does not recognize the mo ^ ^ subt]e form$ of dommance
of social change, but undertakes an analy society - such as economic,
and dependence at various levels of con e out the way to
political, cultural and psychological levels - and
human emancipation. _____ _
Alienation
Alienation implies a state of mind in which individual is isolated from th
significant aspects of his social existence or from the creative aspects of his
own
personality. Young Marx identified alienation as a characteristic of the capitalist
system, particularly because under this system labour was treated as a factor of
production rather than an expression of human personality.
Democrat or Totalitarian
Conscience is the voice of the soul; the passions are the voice of the body.
— ______________________ Jean-Jaques Raousseau
Rousseau postdates absolute sovereignty of the ‘General Will’. Liberal thinkers treat
wi as the basis of the state. ‘Will’ in this sense is supposed to be morally neutral
But Rousseau s concept of the General Will is not so. Genera/ Will represents the pi
self reLcfivelv I 1' if?'tw0 rePrese,lt individual's higher self and lorn.
KE Ll wi % “l mdivid“l 8“ h“ «“ freedom by obeying Ik
».iion. Ronssenn prescribe, . pa

power°toeth7sSe which ST'?? Staten?ent t0 imply *at Rousseau gives unbridld
So they allege that Roulseau wL a r T™* t0ta' C°ntro1 0ver a11 asPects of his life I
Democracy; 1961) dubbed Rom °flltanan' J,L' Salmon (The Rise of Totalitarian
totalitarianism. Brunner of twentieth-century
for the absolutist doctrine of Immannpl v n^Gd Rousseau as source of inspiration
Germ,, phi,
was the culmination of Rousseau^ ft,; v- observed that Hitler’s ideolog)
idea of dictatorship is the logical and hist mg' A Red c°bban (1901-68) held that tlie
General Will. On the other hand somem0™3 outcome°fthe democratic theory of the
profound faith in human freedom C il!1/!leIlta,t0rsbavedrawn attention to Rousseaus
regards will, not force, the legitimate W- f° 6 P889']959) argued that Rousseau
1952) thinks that Rousseau’s fdea of the fV°f °bligation- A.D. Lindsay (1879-
sociabihty. These writers believe that resne D®ra Wl11 accords priority to the sense of
moral and political philosophy. P f°r freedom is the keynote of Rousseau’s
However, on closer analysis it is rev
sincerely devoted to human emancipation a Rousseau is basically a democrat
suppression of human freedom. As a think ’ h 3 totalitarian inclined toward
and the oppressed, and proclaimed liberty imp )! drawn t0 the low|y. the weak
government. His theory of absolute sovereiemv nf ,lnd.eqUality as the ends of law ^
man should submit to law and government when it • jeneral Will simply implies that
is thoroughly committed to ultimate
d f the whole community. Moreover, totalitarianism is a late modem concept which
g0°. °t0 dominate all spheres of man’s life — political, economic, social, cultural,
sê atjonal, artistic, and so on; it tends to use all possible means of regimentation —
6 UC ganda' concentration camps, brainwashing and widespread terror, etc. How can we
propa
club Rousseau with such activities, for he was a man who always pleaded for generosity,
clemency and humanity!
"Rousseau sought to distinguish between the spheres of alterable and

Q. 1.
unalterable inequalities, and thereby paved the way for movement toward
social justice" Elaborate and comment.
2. "Rousseau's concept of the social contract exemplifies transition from
natural liberty to civil liberty." Discuss fully.
3. Try to reconcile the following statements made by Rousseau:
(o) "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.
(b) "Man can be forced to be free."
4. "Rousseau sought to bring Locke's idea of 'popular sovereignty to .ts logical
conclusion by combining it with Hobbes's idea of 'absolute sovereignty.
5 Interpretations"^/ Rousseau range from regarding him an exponent of

apostle of democracy. Where do you place him in your
totalitarianism to an
judgement?
v
John Rawls
great robberies? For what are
Saint Augustine (354-430)

If justice and righteousness
the world. perish, human life would
no longer have any value in
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)
ft;
l
IfcfeNERîNTRrin
UGTION#?
Srfer',iv,'of^''^'^srsiim“rnph'io!oph"whoseih“vo,i“i “
:, £'rPh,in ”0d“ >”«»■ He « regarded
»=» 4s £2£z!*i«*
[160]
John Rawls 161
Social Contract
The idea of the social contract refers to an agreement among men whereby they
relinquish the hypothetical 'state of nature' and enter into civil society. Thomas
Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), English philosophers, and Jean-Jaques
Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, are regarded the chief exponents of the
theory of the social contract. They have given different accounts of the state of
nature, the terms of the contract, and the nature of sovereignty which comes into
existence in consequence of the social contract
Rawls was the son of a prominent lawyer. He studied at Princeton and Oxford, and
graced the faculty at Harvard for over three decades. His major works include A Theory
of Justice (1971), Political Liberalism (1993), The Law ofPeoples (1999) and Justice
as Fairness (2001).
■'7S
II
RAWLS’S THEORY OF JUSTICE
I am for truth, no matter who tells it. I am for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
Malcom X
John Rawls, in his celebrated work A Theory of Justice (1971) asserted that.a
good society is characterized by a number of virtues. Justiceis t e rs vi e
society. In other words Justice is a necessary but not a sufficient con i ion
society. Those who argue that justice should not be allowed to come in the way of soma
advancement and progress run the risk of causing the moral degradation °“
just society, justice is established as the foundation of social structu^Hence aI pohhcal
and legislative decisions should be designed to fulfil the requirements ofjustice.
the problem of justice

According * R.wls, * problem
because in calculating the greatest haPP'"e in(jfvidual. For instance, one might
>f h leads to extreme hardship to any par 0f happiness would be produced
■niagine a state of affairs in which the jêved'by die enslavement of a
and its distribution to a maximum number P P ensalefor the sufferings
minority. Rawls has brilliantly argtied that you can
°f the distressed by augmenting the joys oj t c piosp
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism refers to a school of thought founded by Jeremv Rpnt'h
1832), English philosopher, which prescribes 'greatest happiness nf (174s-
number' as the goal of legislation and public policy. The balance of 8reateil I
pain derived from a thing or a course of action represents the amount nf 0% !
In estimating. greatest happiness of the greatest number' each I ^happine«-
be treated as one unit, but in estimating the total amount of h, dMdual sh ould -
from a thing.or action, this mode of thought does nnt „ J h pplness derived
disparity in the shares of particular individuals PV ue attention to the
(1748-1832), the founder ofutilSsm hTT^P01^ W While Jeremy Benfe

between pleasures, Mill highlighted the si’ Y recognlzed quantitative diffe im
pleasures, and thereby recognized the vaS^f^ °f,quahtative differences beta
sphere of liberty-particuWySe trtfof tholht'^1 *"*”“•* and ®
each individual’s opinion is as valuable « , gb and exPression, Mill argued 111!
of individual thinking. On these two Dointîuif1 S’and hereby recognized the vahs
of individual behind the crude formula of‘ ’ M‘ S?Ugk t0 discover the moral wodl
John Rawls’s attack on utilitarianism was .?reate?t haPP>ness of the greatest number',
o individual in determining the allocatin 'T ed.Prec'sely to restore the moral wodl
o it will not be out of place if we claim th ^ s°claI~economic advantages in societji
Individualism
sasas Ex:snin*iduai « a s* and

decisions^^H^ should be given full recoeniti * at'nd,vidua,'s dignity, autonomy
RAWUS S methodology
R-awls evolved a
discovering then^-T methodology for arri .
Rawls envisaged an W6S ?fjustice- Following the Lhv UDanimous procedure Of:
social and economic . glnal'Position’by abstractingdltlon of the ‘social contra^
a ‘veil ofignorance’wh™8^68- TheseindividuieindlV'dUaIsfr°mtheirpartiCl,ll!l
They are totally nna here 1 ley are supposed tn k S J re symb°l>cally placed beta®
the conditions which lead fir™ Wants> interests sktfl^'berating as rational
elementary knowledge of dlSCrimipation andconfli and abilitieS aS we" 28
‘sense of justice’ P?I , °nomics and PsvchoT ‘ m society- But they have*"
—-----ifflsssiaSi
John Rawls 163
will hypothetically place himself or herself in ‘the least advantaged position’ while
recommending the criteria of allocation of the primary goods. Hence each of them will
demand greatest benefitfor the least advantaged.
The conventional theory of the social contract was designed to ascertain the source
of political authority as well as the grounds and limits of political obligation. It is a
philosophical question; its answer can be found only through logical procedure, and
not through empirical investigation. So the exponents of this theory sought to visualize
a condition when people lived without a civil society. This hypothetical condition was
described as the ‘state of nature’. Then they speculated the reasons which led people to
the decision to relinquish the state of nature and enter into civil society. Finally, they
conjectured the terms and conditions on which people agreed to live together in civil
society. _____________ _____________
Political obligation refers to the set of conditions which determine as to how far,
when and why individual is obliged to obey law and the commands of political
authority This may be accompanied by such duties as the payment of taxes,
participation in voting, jury service and military duty, etc. which are necessary for
the maintenance of political institutions.
simple matter. In the state of
similar objective (e.g. self-preservation, punishing offenders, or g

situation); and they have a similar expectation from 3
««* one is placed "d“ fofwhm jlic. is sossW, m endowed
political backgrounds; they ate yety aena.O.e o * * '“ liUs ,h„

~i.l set-up. One end. « f““Jnegotiate,, who .nr
of the ‘state of nature’. So Rawls visuahz ly natural men in a state of
qualified to deliberate on the principles of J J deliberating behind a ‘veil of
primitive simplicity) - placed in the‘ongma1 P^îonsto enable them to
ignorance’. They must be‘abstracted from ^h1v imoartial and which are thought
determine the ‘rules of justice’ which.ar^J^hypothrais of’the original position is
to be acceptable to everyone. In shor, lit ofconditions which we are ready
designed “to combine into one concepti our conduct towards one another”
upon due reflection to recognize as reasona iustice are to be determined by
[A The°0> of Justice; 1971). Since the; pnnejn adopting these principles. It is
rational negotiators’, they exercise r ‘original position’ reflects the image
also important to note that the concep ion themselves as free and equal citizens”
of “a democratic society wherein pereons reg 0f the principles of justice are
supposed to have a general wisdom bu g
principles of justice ch conditions, three principles of

As a result of the hypothetical negotiation und
justice will be accepted by all, according to Rawls, in the following order: (1) prfn
ofequal liberty (i.e. equal right to most extensive liberty compatible with similar Fhfyle
of others) which postulates that nobody’s liberty will be compromised for any* erty
benefit (liberty in this sense implies equal right of political participation, freedo° *
expression, religious liberty, equality before the law, etc.); (2) Principle offaireaur "
of opportunity, particularly for acquiring offices arid positions; and finally n\r!
difference principle which implies that any departure from equal distribution of th
primary goods can be justified only when it could be proved to bring greatest hern*
to the least advantaged. In other words, a special rewardfor extraordinary abilitv mJ
individual results m ameliorating the condition of the least advantaged.

Here Rawls introduces the idea of the chain connection which implies that in order
expectations of the beff off wifi haveeff6 and.the WOrst off and that a rise in the
throughout the svstem ” tJ ^ m u f of raism§ everybody else’s expectations,
protectiondependon'the PJUS °f a"y Spedai Sessions, subsidies or
»l,ima^to%^S«?!?rI fa^whether or not such benefit filter down
; dearly a red'istributionist fn “takiTnT ^
include not merely the maintenan^ r kes the proper function of government to
justice by placing the highest sociaUaln^^ bUt the achievement of distributive
A Theory of Justice’ in ContenZlrfo T f ^ °f'the neediest” (‘John Rawls:
Crespigny and Kenneth Minogue; 1975) °htlcaI Phllos°Phers, edited by Anthony de
A critICAL APPRAISAL
argue that he has discovered^CTounTf by Various schools of thought. Collectivists

system. He has shown that if the rich w / Justl^cation of the existing capitalist
would be automatically benefited Fven -ff6 freedom t0 accumulate wealth, the poor
* stnctly enforced, the exii °f fair quality of opportunity
substantially reduced. A slight i^nmve'T:5 êen the rich and P~r will not be
sections will be treated as an excuse to the condltlon of the most disadvantaged
Some critics argue that identifi ? ^ SOci°-economic inequalities,
difficult. If iincome and wealth aretreateTth/ m°St disadvantaged sections is veff
how shall we compensate those who lack ahi1iK° C Cflt:er*a for identifying such sections,
Marxists contend that Rawl h ^ °F Wh° Suffer emotional insecurity?
John Rawls 165
libertarians argue that Rawls has sacrificed liberty for the sake of equality. Why
should we force the meritorious and industrious to work for the benefit of the most
disadvantaged sections? Moreover, enterprising persons must take risks for their
advancement in life. Rawls’s negotiators are not prepared to take risk. How would they
promote social progress?
Communitarians point out that Rawls’s political philosophy does not grade any
conception of good life as superior or inferior to others. This ethical neutrality evades
the opportunity of the pursuit of the common good.
On closer analysis, these diverse critiques seem to be based on biased interpretations
of Rawls’s theory ofjustice. In fact, Rawls has tried to combine different value systems
in order to arrive at his theory ofjustice. Some tenets of these value systems are thought
to be incompatible with each other. Any attempt to combine them must yield a complex
model. This applies to the present case also. Indeed, Rawls s theory ofjustice represents
the convergence of libertarianism, egalitarianism and communitarianism.
In the first place, Rawls is a libertarian because his conception of men negotiating
in the4 original position’ envisages a situation where each of them is trying to maximize
his self-interest. This conforms to libertarian point of view. Secondly, his first princip_e
ofjustice accords priority to liberty which cannot be compromised for any other ene t.
Then Rawls is an egalitarian because he concedes ‘equal’ liberty for all Further, he
insists that social-economic inequalities can be allowed only if they satisfy t e con 1 ion
of fair equality of opportunity for all. In other words, he accepts equa ^ *s ® ^
principle, and insists that only inequalities shall be require to e> jus 1 e . g ’
rules that any reward for merit and effort must satisfy the con ltion a 1 yie
benefit to the least advantaged. Why should the meritorious accommo a e
of the least advantaged? Here Rawls invokes the principle
operating between different individuals. More meritorious enjoy the^benefits oft
merit in association with the less meritorious lot. A chatnis no stronger
R,W'S Sh°" ’tto =103. to *= i»ge of.
successively. The idea of
communitarian.
to retain the capitalist system on some specified
It is true
conditions. that Rawlsshouldnotbeforgêônceteecondfi^^fu^d,^
However,it contemplates
capitalist system is bound to assume a new meeting the requirements of
position.
Libertarianism
Libertarianism refers to a contemporary P^^tasTc^prindp'tetf public policy,
impediments in the way of individual s conomy as an essential condition of
iibe^^TandTforminimT^^ deaUngS °f indiVidUa’S'
i!
s
Egalitarianism
Egalitarianism refers to a contemporary principle of politics which regards equality
as the basic principle of public policy. It holds that no rational grounds have to |
be stated while conceding equal opportunities, equal rights and equal benefits to
different individuals; justification must be given only when inequality or discrimination
among them is sought to be introduced or maintained.
f
Communitarianism
Communitarianism refers to a contemporary principle of politics which seeks to
restore the broken bond between individual and community. It makes the individual
realize that he owes his existence and personality to the society. Different individuals
are not isolated units but they constitute the threads of the social fabric. Their
individual good is the integral part of the common good; they can achieve their
good only by pursuing the common good, and not by seeking their self-interests
individually While liberalism insists on the rights of individual, communitarianism
focuses on his duties and obligations. Exponents of communitarianism include Alasdaire
MacIntyre (1929- ), Charles Taylor (1931- ) and Michael Sandel (1953- )
, etc.
i
i
Procedural Justice E
Sterperoced0lerfnrednral ^ hold that * * necessary to determine a just or i
,nd b“'"i - -*
Substantive Justice 1
burctens In society^tselTshoul^be0'^t^h ^ °Utcorr’e of various benefits and
to have a respectable share.that i$ * should enabie ordinary citizens
procedure for making this allocation r V'h'U6 ,°f the'r ability' effort and need; the 1
:
King this allocabon can be adjusted suitably to achieve this end. i
■:
!
i.
Moral Individualism
an end-in-itselt endowed with ^gnityÂccod^'T'13'6 Wh'Ch regardS individual aS
as a means to serve an end which lies bevond"h8 V< ^ hUma" being Can be treated
thing can be treated as more valuable thin a hn COnacious existence; no worldly
can accept an obligation except at his own free n" and n° human bei"g '
s
! ■
Q. "Rawls sought to achieve the goal of substanti _

ve justice through the methodology
of procedural justice." Elaborate and comment.
Robert Nozick
...........%
I
k (1938-2002) is a contemporary American philosopher. His reputation as

Robert Nozic
a political philosopher rests on his well known work ^T^neorv ofMe 971)
a libertarian answer to John Rawls’s monumental work A { *
tribution to decision theory and epistemology.
Nozick also made notable con
It is important to note that like Rawls, Nozick 632-1704) line of
tradition of the social contract — particular y om . metaphor to arrive at his
argument. But unlike Rawls, he does not use
conclusions.
Social Contract
whereby they
The idea of the social contract refers to> ari a,greeimen^ ^ ^ socjety . Thomas
relinquish the hypothetical 'statena' Ena|jSh philosophers, and Jean-Jaques
Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-170 ), J the chief exponents of the
~Rousseau -----------
(1712-78),- -------
French - ^kiincnnher.
philosop er, are regcj1êrent accounts
accounts uiof u.c
the state —of
theory of the social contract- They aye tê sovereignty which comes
nature, the terms of the contract, an e
into existence in consequence of the soci----- -------------- ------------J
from Russia who had settled in
Nozick was the son of a Jewish * Oxford. He worked as a Professor
America. He was educated at Columbia, nn®f . appealed to Immanuel Kant s
at Harvard University. Apart from Locke, should always be treated as an
(1724-1804) basic moral principle that huma ^ Nozick maintained an unflinching
[167]
Libertarianism
Libertarianism refers to a contemporary principle of politics which seeks to remov
all impediments in the way of individual's liberty as the basic principle of pub/
policy. It rejects welfare state and treats free market economy as an essential
condition of liberty. It stands for minimum intervention of the State in mutual
dealings of individuals.
In his Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Nozick tries to determine functions
the state on the basis of his theory of origin of the state. Following Locke’s method
Nozick asserts that individuals have certain rights in the state of nature. They would hit?
State of Nature
State of nature refers to a hypothetical condition of human society before formation
testate of nature; hence these are his 'natural rightl' Pr°PertV ^ ^
is just, but not otherwise!'Rights ar ^ ITtransfer of ProPerty without force or fraud

into existence for the perfomanceof limited^ °fv°Iuntaiyexchan8es-The state com®
of property rights of the indiviHi i mu ■ i ^nctlons’ particularly for the maintencace
does not engage in redistributive tran^fersammie cit' ie®itinjacy of minimal state which
Inequalities at the level ofproduction ?hn, w g ^ t’Zens who were ongmally its clients.
*
ofdistribution. not sought to be rectified at the level
to monopolize it. But this restrictimfsh6 °faterin a desert, nobody should be allowed
and effort. Thus, he who dlovlm the V ^ t0 the Products °f >human talents
any price for it. In this way Nozick remf,dy °f a fatal disease is entitled to demand ;
the product of individual differences in'?T ^ 'necluahties of wealth and powerare
to remove or reduce these inequalities “!?efforts and that it would not be just
argument of those liberal individua Zu J P*™ transfers- ™s is the familiar
social conditions in the differential outmifsnf f° 'Sn°re the role of differences
reflect the harsh realities of the capitalists lfferent individuals. This view does not j
capitalist system and is, therefore, ill-founded.
II
,^!£H11HE0RY of->just"
For developing his own theory of justice w„ ■ , ,
sought to advance an alternative to Rawls’s nf** Ânarchy- State and Utopia; 1974)
to moderate his libertarianism by a modicum 1fe°iy1.of justice- Whereas Rawls sougW f
CUm of 1egalitarianism and communitarian^,
Robert Nozick 169
Nozick adhered to libertarianism in its pure form. If Rawls is known as a ‘left liberal’
or egalitarian liberal advocating a substantially redistributive welfare state, Nozick may
be described as a ‘right liberal’ or a libertarian opposed to welfare state, and committed
to a laissez-faire ‘nightwatchman’ state.
Welfare State
Welfare state refers to the state that safeguards liberty of its citizens and also
takes care of satisfying their basic needs, e.g. food, clothing, shelter, health care,
elementary education and recreation, etc. — particularly of those who cannot
afford these things from their own income or other resources. It makes use of
public resources and taxation of the relatively rich to provide for a vast network
of social services and social security.
Laissez-Faire
Laissez-faire is a French term which means 'leave alone'. It implied the policy of
non-intervention by the state in economic activities of individuals. This phrase was
in common usage in mercantile and industrial circles in nineteenth-century England
and other parts of the world, to express a belief in the freedom of commerce and
industry from state interference.
Nightwatchman State
Nightwatchman state is a state whose functions are similar to those of a
....
nighwatchman, that is ensuring safety of life and property of its clients, viz. its
citizens. In other words, it is responsible only for the maintenance of law and order
within its territory and defence against external attacks. Its power of taxation is
largely determined by the needs of performing this function. Indeed, nightwatchman
state' represents the antithesis of 'welfare state._______ __ ______________
modes of acquisition
and entitlement of different individuals to own those goods. He has identified three
sources through which various goods are acquired by individuals.
(a) Their selves - their bodies, brain cells etc. They haveabsolutenght over
them. An individual is free to use his limbs and brain to do whatever he likes,
(b) The natural world - land, water resources, minerals etc.
entitlement are required to be determine acco

(c) Tile things people- make by ■PPj« 1 '“dSnênfifcmenr” these
dno"T“f
establish others’ entitlement to them.
PRINCIPLES OF ENTITLEMENT
People’s entitlement to self-ownership of their body and mind — their physic
mental faculties is obvious which needs no further justification. Their entitlement t ?
of the natural world and the products of their labour should be based on the princ° i
ofjustice. Nozick identifies three principles on which this entitlement would co^
(a) Initial acquisition: The method whereby an individual comes to appro™,

some previously unowned bits of the natural world. Those who come to
in an uninhabited continent settle
„ .fa, come, n„, Sed-*“y/<,“sT„oS^r.iZ
This is similar to the condition spelled out in John Locke’s Second Treatise<1/
of ™"r ac,~”’■" '”s - 1
i
<#) Z2ZTHr " ,PP"'!a" pr0peny whMh” “S-M through kid
rfon ’ r, ° > labour with the nutural world, u by m»
if I”seôthers’ lab Tapn“* ^ “ a market situation. ^ other words,
the product of theh-them aS P®r market rates> 1 become ownerof
force rfraud lnTl TJ 8 mUSt be baSed 0n voluntary contract, without
in-itself’ and no i an individual shall be treated as ‘end-
Prin ple’enuneTaLd KIT”8 l° 10*hera’ enck ™s * similar to the moral!
Henc^ aS^X^^1 t1?24*1804). German philosopher.
individual to slavery will be void- and 'ndlVldUal Sells himself or any other I
community will be justified/ ^ Where the state or the international

concedes that the historv nf ° mterv®ne in order to restore justice. Nozick i
as well as unjust acquisition.; 6fWOr d abounds with involuntary transfer
disparities result ffomqvoluntarvh-annftUralMreSOUrCeS- As long as eC°n°miC I
country has gained control owr “ferS’Nozickis not bothered. But if some j
their legitimate share Nozick wr, u natural resources depriving others of i
h Chamberlain becomes a millionair11 k StCP 'n t0 register his protest. If |
pay for watching him play ZskZluVû-milli°nS of PeoPle are willingI
of the cure of a dreaded disease lit ’ U ’S hlS Ie8ltlmate right. If the inventor
his patients, there is nothins wrrmf Canêr demands exorbitant charges from j
not make anybody worse off bv tr? r * J.s.dea* f°r Nozick, because he do# ;
source of water which is needed hv !n h'S patients- But if there is a single
take it into his control. y human beings, nobody has the right to |
pion of a cnmn * a11 Jluman beings, but his bias is j

petltlve market society which favour j
Robert Nozick 171
'ch and the resourceful and lets the weak go to the wall. He absolves the rich of
“f® ncial responsibility, not to speak of social indebtedness. In a very large part of the
3 temporary world, justice is thought to be the ‘voice of the oppressed’. But Nozick
C°n ts to maintain the prevailing oppression in the name of justice! Even his principle
Wf ‘rectification’ is designed to legitimize the huge riches of the manipulators, and hit
at the only assets of oil-producing countries because oil is needed world over and its
resources are confined to a small region!
Nozick invokes moral principles to demolish a redistributive, welfare state. He
annroves of taxation only for the provision of common services like streets and street
lights police and defence, etc. When a part of taxes imposed on the rich is spent on
welfare of the poor, Nozick would term it immoral, as it is akm to ‘forced labour In
Nozick’s view, it involves using abilities and efforts of one section as the means to others
ends- it involves involuntary transfer and, therefore, violates the moral principle The
lucky should have freedom to help the unlucky, if they like so! Nozick mês welfare
<»—si srrss5=
on the condition of giving gre
concern for justice.
a libertarian turn to Locke's liberal model of

Q. "Nozick's theory of justice gave
the social contract." Elaborate and comment.
OTP w _I
CONSERVATIVE
TRADITION
1
r•
i
!
;
{
i;
l
..... » ln manV generations, it becomes 60 $ °f SUch a Partnership cannot be

'ng' th°Se wh° are dead and those who PartnershiP between those who are
are yet to be born.
==r-^------__ Edmund Burke {Reflect!
ons on the Revolution in France-, 1790)
!•
i
;
1
i
Basic Tenets of Conservatism
p".................... '77 '’■*'
i
4WHAT is conservatism?
Conservative tradition of political theory is based on the philosophy °J'C0“e”’“
Conservatism is better understood as a political attitude than as a coheren poht ca
philosophy. It is identified with the desire to ‘conserve’ or ‘preserve the ex.stmg order
as the safest course of action. It seeks to in the resistance to
for revolution. In this sense, it is opposed to libera ism as _____ __________
Utopian Social Engineering

Utopian social ,ngin..ri„, "to. » • S'S". ' an
reconstruction of all social institutions according to the
imaginary world where everything would e Pe
Revolution
fast changes in social system
Revolution refers to an act of sud ower structure, economy, ways
which may affect all aspects of socia ' _ ‘ g the outcome of mass uprising,
of living, norms and beliefs, and so on. etc factors behind revolution
mass mobilization, new discovery an mv 'jnation^ but their impact is felt
may have taken time to reach the poini u
abruptly at a given point of time.
1175]
Western Political Thought <.
176
Liberalism
)
implies'liberation fromrestra P .... y rincip|e was evolved in the West in
state; or by an authontanan regime. ^ P feudal privileges of the land-owning
late-seven *“* “SSSSSX new entrepreneurial e„« en,».
class and to create
them to contribute to social progress.
Marxism
Marxism refers to a set of political and economic principles enunciated by Karl Marx
analysis, and treats history as a process of conflict between antagonistic forces

and classes. This conflict arises from the faults in the mode of production in which
one class comes to gain ownership and control of the means of social production
and compels the other class to work on the terms and conditions dictated by
the former. This conflict reaches its peak in the age of capitalism when it can be
resolved by a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, placing all means of social
production (land, buildings, mines, forests, machinery and capital etc.) under social
ow nership and control, enforcing universal labour and ensuring full development
of the forces of production.
Early hints of conservatism may be found in the political thought ofAristotle, ancient
Greek philosopher, and St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-74), medieval theologian. Modern
exponents of conservatism include David Hume (1711-76), Scottish philosopher, and
Edmund Burke (1729-97), Irish statesman. Besides, Michael Oakeshott (1901-90),
English political philosopher, is regarded a contemporary champion of conservatism-
LIMITATIONS OF POLITICAL ACTION MUST BE REALIZED
Conservatives firmly believe that the human condition is characterized by tensions which
can be mitigated but never wholly elimmated by political action. David Hume argued
that men were the creatures of limited benevolence placed in an environment in whjc
goods were scarce relative to their desires. Although naturally sociable, they tended to
think first of themselves, their families and their friends, and so found themselves i»
conflict with strangers over resources. Under the circumstances, certain convention*
rules emerged more or less spontaneously to secure social peace. These rules ensure0 J
stability of possessions and the keeping of contracts. Hume described them as ‘rules t
justice . It was m eveiybody’s interest to observe these rules but people were too shoj ;
sighted to reahze that their interests were best served by adhering to these rules. j
Accor?’2 td i SubmiSS10n t0 some auth°rity was necessary for their own protect'0'
£5====“ ssrsg |
Basic Tenets of Conservatism 177
Natural Law
‘champions of natural law r.gard it as superior to any other law. _
Social Contract
• I nntrart refers to an agreement among men whereby they
•— of !.h® SOulthetical 'state of nature' and enter into civil society. Thomas
Idea
relinquish the hyp hn , nrke (1632-1704), English philosophers and Jean-Jacques
Hobbes (1588-1679), John ^ ' regarcjed the chief exponents of the
Rousseau (1712-78) F« P ' 1 < different accounts of the state of
:r,i rsrs..
existence in consequence of the social contract.
"»
Conservatism would reject any idea of rri Jsg bdance and moderation, in
existing order. It may be defined as t e or J P1 EdmUnd Burke, chief exponent
the interests ofmaintaining a moderate styleofpoim methods would
of conservatism, argued that the pursui 0f SOCial order. Burke particularly
destroy the conditions necessary for the m stabiiity of British social and political
focused on five conditions for the mam enan ... / ^ A system of representative
institutions: (a) Rule of law; (b) An mdepemciary, U ^ policy deslgned
government; (d) The institution of private property,
to preserve the balance of power.
Rule of Law
that the law of the land should
refers to the principle which requiresas to how it will affect them; any
Rule of law
be properly notified so th3t the ,Tbe taken only under that law, and not on any
action against an individual shou ld b bitrarily arrested, nor pu nished without
other basis. Hence no one should be
a fair trial.
Balance of Power
in which a nation forms
of foreign policy
Balance of power refers to a principle prevent any one nation from achieving
alliances with other nations in °rg wor|d<
overwhelming power in any Par ____-----
f restraint’ If society is to be
. Burke rejee.s .he noli™ of free*®•»
free, he argues, Ihen the man-m-the-s| f ^ which make him a goo ^ survWaj „f a
citizen lies in the preservation of order. Burke insis -vility include
citizen and help to sustain a hea Y creators and earner 0f wealth,
society whose chief attribute is its civility^ letters> scientists creators ot
I
distinguished individuals like artists, ^ leadership to the ary
statesmen and philosophers who provi
Western Political Thought
178
f liberalism while justifying limited political tr
t'C°Anmt fromlSctinTi'titewyof the social contract, it rejects the abstract (!
conceptôf the individual, of the rights of man, and the belief in progress. Further, it
reject?Marxism altogether which holds that the primary causes of evil and suffering
are not rooted in the very nature of human existence, but originate m the structure of
society. Conservatism rules out the Marxist belief that all the principal sources of human
unhappiness can be removed by the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. i
Progress
Progress refers to the notion that social change is heading toward a continuous
improvement of social conditions of mankind, it is an evaluative concept which
seeks to compare the ongoing changes with the vision of an ideal social order.
It tries to show that any perceptible social change marks a step in the direction
realizing that ideal.
POLITICS IS A MATTER OF PRUDENCE

According to conservatism, politics is a matter of prudence and practicability. David
Hume eulogized political authority. He argued that the advantages of obedience to
political authority outweigh the disadvantages of having no government at all. We
are able to leam what is right or good for us only by living in a politically organized
society. Our knowledge of right or good is derived from learning as to what most men
have held to be right or good, that is the actions which are conducive to the extension
of pleasure and the avoidance to pain.
Edmund Burke similarly argued that social continuity was the core of good life-
He contended that revolution was evil, not only because it involves violence and
destruction, but also because it results in misuse of power by those who manage to
capture it. Burke ruled out extreme versions of reform because they destroy the social
fabric without providing for the mechanism of its repair. In his view, “Society is far
too complex a system to be tinkered with. A people’s constitution is the result of
- ‘many minds in many ages. It is no simple, no superficial thing, nor to be estimated by
superficial understandings’... A society is a delicate organism, developing and adapting
itself to circumstances. To interfere with any major institution would start a chain of
repercussions throughout the whole system, with results no man could foresee.”
in thn nt/T6f th,a.this!°rical experience is more reliable than abstract speculation
in the conduct of public affairs. He held that society is the product of organic growth,
ZSSr °f 8“i0nS Wh° had l6amt What - prudent through trial
deexstsnoto fn" “"S'treatlse on ** ‘rights of man’. The political
bets such as food hXrT8!1 but t0 secure “rtain basic needs of human
according to itsown wisdom, trktttoflhet11 C°™ity SatisfieS 111086 "t’
The, Michael Oakeshot, defad politics „ fa of imimations „f »<

f behaviour’. In his noted work Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays
traditions o observed that politics is not the science of setting up a permanently
(1962), e :ety. ^ is the art of knowing where to go next in the exploration of
impregnate /’traditional kind of society. In his view, wise politicians neither
an alr«eWes with universal guidelines such as the ‘rights of man’ supposed to be
equip them ultimate destination like the classless society
familiarize themselves with the conventions of a settled
ora
way of life-_____ ________ —-T
in political activity...
even keel...
manner
0,d“ ”
»• tt " ‘Tml
* ,r“ °' ""tetri Oakeshott ,1,62,
ESSSSS ,
Edmund Brake criticized the Fren
he eulogized the Glorious early days The English had

customary rights that Englishmen ha enjoy institutions whereas the French
changed the niling personnel without destroying their mst.tu
destroyed their institutions along with the Pers ' ----------------==\
Glorious Revolution
in the history of England, the ^^^fShroned In !ils p’lSI'in.ugMer
of 1688 when King James II (1633-170 ) throned. James was an absolute ,
Mary and her husband William of 0ra^ge * tê K-mg over all political institutions,
that is he believed in the absolute authority of He of ruling with the
On the other hand, Mary.aJ Selolution, an absolute monarchy m Englan
advice of Parliament. In this blood _____.______
was replaced by a constitutional monar__ •--------—----- :------------ _Z
French Rev°l"’“'serK of pcMcri and

French Revolution refers to the culminf°nth°e revolt of the middle classes agamst
social upheavals in France (1789) caused by^ Qf King Louis XVI, end of the
the prevalent regime, It resulted in th followed by the esta
monarchy along with the supremacy _______ ___ -______,
of popular sovereignty. __ ——” ~~ . a§
In his Reflections on the Revolution

‘a partnership in all science; a partnership» this partnership, Burke
Perfection’. Pointing to the ever-expan 6^ in roany generations, it becomes
As the ends of such a partnership cann
Western Political Thought j
180 a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those whoJ
living, those who are dead and those who are yet to be bom. Each contract of eaci
particular state is but a clause in the great primeval contract of eternal society.
Similarly, according to Michael Oakeshott, the aims of a political association lie
within the community itself which must be discovered, rather than imported from
speculative philosophy. Political activity is neither a product of contract nor of any j
mutuality of purpose. It is akin to the model of informal conversation which develops I
by its internal logic, rather than by a discourse on a well-thought out subject. Oakeshott j
described civilization as ‘a conversation being carried on between a variety of human j
activities, each speaking with a voice, or in a language of its own’. Examples of these!
activities include those involving ‘moral and practical endeavour, religious faith,!
philosophical reflection, artistic contemplation and historical or scientific inquiry and [
explanation’. In a nutshell, both Burke and Oakeshott held that society is the process |
by which different kinds of people, spread over a large area and belonging to many |
generations, communicate their thought to one another and thereby create and sustain
a civilization.
Like Burke, Oakeshott concedes that in some cases incoherence may be found in
the existing arrangements. This may necessitate legislative reform. Enfranchisement of j
women in the early years of the twentieth century could be cited as an example of such}
reform. It was the time when social custom and property law had changed the status j
of women to the point where their enfranchisement appeared as the clearing up of an j
anomaly. Oakeshott does not agree that this step was inspired by any consciousness j
of rights of women . Similarly, the creation of the welfare state in Britain after 1945 j
was the natural corollary of the process of expanding welfare legislation since 1909, j
a es ott oes not accept the position that this legislation was inspired by the newly ;
grasped principle ofsocial justice’.
|
Finality is not the language of politics.
Benjamin Disraeli (1859)
!
Change is inevitable in a
progressive country. Change is constant.
(Benjamin Disraeli (1804-81)

Benjamin Disraeli (1867) r
of England.) was a noted conservative politician and statesman
i
II
1 !:
- ADVENT OF NEO.nnMgcp----------- !
:
In the contemporary world, ni
been reasserted in
conservatism seeks to restore the status of a tv, 6 New RiSht Broadly speaking, j
“shr”d in *• •"*—°f 1■**.«
generate discipline, promote social stability and foster social cohesion. Neo-conservatism
in this sense attacks permissiveness and the cult of self-assertion.
(Permissiveness = the way of behaving which allows or tolerates things which other
people disapprove of, especially undue freedom in the realm of sexual behaviour.)
Secondly, neo-conservatism looks at the emergence of multi-cultural and
multi-religious societies with suspicion, because such societies are conflict-ridden
and inherently unstable. In order to prevent the emergence of such societies, neo
conservatives seek to insulate nations from outsiders, check immigration and prevent
the growing influence of supranational bodies like the European Union.
(Supranational Body = an international organization whose jurisdiction extends
beyond the national frontiers of its members.)
In the United States, neo-conservatives tend to oppose preferential treatment
for women and blacks. They argue that all the efforts at eradication of poverty and
discrimination in America have since failed. They allege that affirmative action in favour
of the hitherto deprived sections has led to undue discrimination against competent
people.
Affirmative Action
Affirmative action refers to the public policy which accords special concession
in matters of admission to sought-after courses of education and training
appointments, promotions, housing, health-care, etc. to those who were depnved
of adequate opportunities in an open competition, particuary
discriminatory practices of the past. It is meant to compensate he recant
sections (e.g. women, blacks, backward communities, etc.) for the injustice meted
out to them in the past. '_______ —-
CONCLUSION
liberal as well as socialist programmes, but P of social justice, human freedom
Social Justice
Social justice refers to the policy which s®e^s “ “"he hands of the chosen
resources of the community (wealth, Pres 6 deprived and underprivileged
and practicability." - Critically examine this

Q. "Politics is a matter of prudence tradition of political theory.
statement in the light of conservative
m
i Edmund Burke
I
■jrrr
GENERAMNTRODUCTION^
Edmund Burke (1729-97) was bom at Dublin in Ireland, then a part of the British
Empire. He was the son of a prosperous attorney. He was educated at Trinity College, :
Dublin, and then went to London for studying law. However, he soon lost interest in
legal practice and embarked on a career of writing and politics. He became a member
of the House of Commons at the age of thirty seven and remained there for most o
the rest of his life. Burke was always aware of his middle-class status, yet as a man o
conviction he did not hide his admiration for the role of landed aristocracy in British
politics and society. He was convinced that social stability was dependent on the cultura
continuity which could be provided by a class having sufficient wealth and leisure as
required for the cultural pursuits.
Burke was a very talented thinker and writer. He has a large number of literary)
political and philosophical writings to his credit. Of these, the most important are:
Vindication of Natural Society (1756) (a satirical writing); A Philosophical Enqu'V
into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and the Beautiful (1757); Thoughts on We
Causes of the Present Discontents (1770); Reflections on the Revolution in Frond
(1790); Thoughts on French Affairs (1791) and the four Letters on a Regicide Pe°ce
(1796-97).
In the history of political thought, Burke is regarded the exponent of conservatism1'
His political philosophy on this subject is largely expressed in his Reflections on
Revolution in France (1790). After a thorough analysis of the situation, Burke came
the conclusion that the French Revolution (1789) was inspired by certain metaphysf
.deals like liberty and natural rights which were not rooted in the realities of peoPle
social and political life; so it did not achieve much. Moreover in order to rem<>
rulers who were not acceptable to the people, the revolutionaries sought to destroy
[182]
!
Edmund Burke 183
■ tons along with personnel, and thereby paved the way for a new regime which
mStltUorse than the earlier one. ______
was w
Conservatism
r servatism refers to a political outlook that promotes respect for the long-
tanding social and political system. It discourages the adoption of new and untried
S, and institutions, and insists on maintaining those institutions and practices
' ociety which have stood the test of time. When change is inevitable or it
in s
already taken place, conservatives will attempt to moderate it with a view
has
tn ensuring minimum disturbance in the existing order. David Hume (1711-76)
Scottish philosopher, and Edmund Burke (1729-97), Irish statesman, are regarded
the chief exponents of conservatism.
II
AtyS1*lFlbAÎON43IÔNSERVOTIS^
NATURE OF THE STATE

Burke’s view of politics is tajely derived from his historical perspecHv^Ho likened
the state to a living organism. As a living organism is subJectt°^0 ’ h , than
the product of a historical process. As an organtsm ts jeate^d mo^ ^
any of its parts, so the state is greater andmmre 0”£0bserved that as an organism
Extending the metaphor of living organism, Bt purpose of
cannot survive its dissection, so the state cannot be cut nieces tor^ ^
examination, without destroying its very existen •
maintaining the existence of the sê.
necessity of some change in
of its conservation.
A State without the means of some change is without th
Edmund Burke
•u vtv So an analysis of society would be

For Burke, the state coincides with soci y. coinprised of an ensemble
necessary for understanding the nature of the sta e. reSp0nSes of individuals
of relationships which are ultimately dependen °° certain manners, customs and
who compose it. We learn to live in society y a customs and rules may be self
rules —whether expressed or unexpressed. ° them are followed as a matter of
consciously followed with a sense of duty, u m . • society. Burke describes
habit, and in that form they are more reliab e or cuStoms and rules as ‘prejudice
this habitual response of individuals to the Pre^ generations have gradually woven
'ybich ‘renders a man’s virtue his habit • ur P . the English constitution was
these Prejudices into the social fabric. In ur of common law in England ha
-—“,6C
plan.
Common Law
In England, common law'refers to the judge-made law as distinguished from the
law formally enacted by legislature. It relies on the legal principles as enunciated in
judicial rulings in particular cases which are regarded to be the binding precedents
It originated from the practice of arriving at decisions by using common sense
reason and judicial interpretation of custom that was regarded to be common
for the whole country in spite of some local variations. In English law, there are
still the large areas like the law of contracts and the law of torts which are not
codified. The principles to deal with such cases can only be discovered by identifying
significant precedents.
NATURE OF RIGHTS
I
/
Government is a contrivance of human wisdom to provide for human ■wants.
have a right that these wants should be provided for by this wisdom.
—
. Men
___Edmund Burke (Reflections on the Revolution in France; 1790)
EnglishmSh
documents as the Magna Carta (12 Ml fn t^“d.whlch had found expression in such
through the Glorious Revolution theÊneHsh'h ^,etldon of RlSht (1628), etc. Moreover, :
destroying their political institutions But th^P Cha??d.the rul,ng Personnel wlth°
along with the ruling personnel inn'a * !,the French had destroyed their institutions
(1776) on the plea that the Ameri * ^ u j’ Burlce defended the American Revolution
positive rights of Englishmen such as^no baSed their ClaimS °n the traditional ^
David Hume (1711 -761 ea I' * P°Ut reP resentation’.
from the natural process of adjustment ■-Ve’ argued ât government had grown
it was not created through a deliberate !t conflicting claims of the members of society!
social contract was historically irrmmK ^.Clsi0n oflhe people. Hence anything like the
individual’s political obligation ^ Philo^Phically unnecessary to expb®
Burke deprecated the theory of th
the hypothetical ‘stateofnature’andamjT?1 C°ntract as il was based on the login of
all criticisms of civil society that wereS^?'idea of Natural rights’. He set aside •!
The very idea of the ‘state of nature’ was H °D ^ fal!acious theories of natural righ'5'
and assuming certain imaginaiy rights fr°m an attitude of ignoring his#**
real existence. In Burke’s view, it is a follv , Mls Which were not rooted in Of
for the protection of so-called ‘natural riehk - rUPP°Se that civil society was foun<^
be said to exist at all, certainly marked t£c ° T' The ‘social contract’, if it n°ui
world? C° 6XPeCted *° maintain *ose rights^wh°ichatUral ^ ^
real
no longer existed in the
Edmund Burke 185
Natural Rights
Natural rights refer to those rights of individual which are derived from nature itself.
These rights do not depend on their recognition by the state or their acceptance
by the long-standing custom. Natural rights are supposed to have existed before
the formation of civil society. John Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher, identified
'the right to life, liberty and property' as natural rights of man. Locke argued that
civil society was set up for the protection of these natural rights.
Now Burke also rejected the theory of the social contract for explaining the origin
of the state, but he sought to reinterpret the idea of the contract as a continuous process
within the social life. So he observed:
Society is indeed a contract... but it is not a partnership in things... of a temporary
and perishable nature. It is a partnership in all science, a partnership in all art, a
partnership in every virtue, and in all perfection... As the ends of such a partnership
cannot be obtained in many generations, it becomes a partnership between... those
who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet to be bom
{Reflections on the Revolution in France; 1790).
Burke did not rely on individual’s wisdom to manage social affairs by himself. He
argued that the functioning constitutions are the products of many minds over time, socia
and political institutions are the products of cumulative efforts of many generations, no
single individual is endowed with the faculty of creating any institution. Burke rejects
the liberal belief that individual is the best judge of his own good an t att e common
good results from the actions of different individuals pursuing their own ™
asserts: ‘the individual is foolish but the species is wise . Burke a so rejec ra i »
particularly because it banks upon individual’s faculty of reason orun e
universe and for determining the course of social progress.
Rationalism
Rationalism refers to a philosophical theory that defines the natureôf
and the test of its validity. Main tenets of rationalism may b( laws;
(o) Universe consists of a fixed order; it is governed by ^
(b) Knowledge about the real nature of all things an individual
universe can be obtained only through Reason1f^sonTs preferable to
is endowed by nature); (c) Knowledge obtainedêl,_ taste and touch); (d)
that obtained through sense-experience (siglh ' one authentic explanation of
A' Phenomena can be explained; there can Y be recognized; and
any Phenomenon, hence its alternative exp an 0f the universe are interlinked
finally/- (e) All explanations of various phenomen
and constitute a single system.
Lib fiurke’s concept of liberty marks a significantdeparture f^mmon^good Liberalism
■•SaMSS SS-!®*»li™,e “c0*e 10 ,h'mles “d

conventions of social life, not in trying to satisfy one’s appetites. Liberty is a matter
aptitude, not of right. Men are blessed with liberty as long as they follow the course f
self-control, perseverance, wisdom and righteousness. Burke asserts that an impulsive
person cannot be said to be free because he is a slave of his passions. Since individuals
differ in their character and temperament, you cannot have a uniform system of rights
Government is not an instrument of protection of rights, but only a means to provid
for human wants.
Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their disposition to put
moral chains upon their own appetites.
__________Edmund Burke (Letter to a Member of the National Assembly; 1791)
SCOPE OF REFORM
As a genuine conservative, Burke deprecated the attitude of treating the idealized
Lmrr 7 a 0f m0ral 0r Political excellence. He argued that the
coverine it wjtjZt J r?Ug 3^d ctlaotic; our civilization had given it a decent form by
23id yer fVility-If We try t0 refom society by invoking certain
. ■
SCd2 are hUTS ,t0 haVe been derived from nature,layer of civility
' in paZfal°LdeStrTd- ^ reform ônld be undertaken with a noted
society ’in any case we ™derStaadm8 the process of historical development of on
like to return DOt ldentlfy an ideal stage of the past to which we would
without the means of reformation ^ t0.preserve- ’He farther argued that a society
warned that any reform must be d rt ôc,et^ wifa°ut the means of preservation. He
evil, and we must stop as soon as tr ^ ^ *n 0rc*er to aPevâte the clear and present
this or try to transform the whole Was achieved. We should not go beyond
standards. b0Ciety m conformity with some rationally inspired
By preserving the method of nature in --------- ------=====

we are never wholly new; in what we e+COnduct of the state, in what we improve
HdmundBurke(^;;;;WeareneVe-h°''v obsolete.
05 on the Revolution in France; 1790) l

STANDARD OF STATESMANSHIP
Burke’s view on the standard ofstates* u-
argued that while dealing with complex not!? 311° rcfleCtS his conservative attitude,
by the considerations of expediency, andôtT a statesman should be gu‘*d
In common parlance, expediency refers to fStraCt Principles like natural rigW
a particular situation. In some cases it tl ? °r convenience of a measure'
advantage without regard to its long-ten?ITT 38 the consideration of in®^
Burke does not use the tenn ‘expedfenZn *1 " Us moral implications. Ho**J
rac pnnctples, and not with moral principles^6' He COntrasts expediency ^
P es' He simply means that a states^
Edmund Burke 187
hould judge the suitability of any measure by its efficiency, and not by its conformity
to a preconceived doctrine.
Burke insists that a statesman’s objective should be to secure moral as well as
terial well-being of society. His method should be determined by the knowledge of
ma
th oast an understanding of human nature, the faculty of prudence, and the sense of
racticability. He should carefully study the institutional set up of his society for devising
a suitable method to achieve his objective. Burke agreed with Charles de Montesquieu
Q689-1755), French philosopher, that political institutions of one country cannot be
transplanted to another with inherently different habits and temperaments of people. In
any case, Burke’s conservatism does not imply adherence to past practices without regard
to their relevance to the present. He argues that when the reason of the old establishment
is gone it would be absurd to preserve the old habits that would prove to be a burden
on our way of working. Burke’s view on this point was succintly expressed as follows:
A disposition to preserve, and an ability to improve, taken together, would be my
standard of a statesman {Reflections on the Revolution in France; 1790).
CONCLUSION
a new situation arises or a new problem comes up whic cann imperial
power will enhance its happiness

of its colonies.
empire 3nd
Magnanimity in politics
little minds go ill together.
Conciliation with America; 1775)
Edmund Burke {On
It is important to note that Burke was onlynn also because those who
anew
t0 rednquish it peacefully. If reform brings a ou aDOreciate this change nor they
social order; the members of society are neither a
" r- --sBEsr
bought of Michael Oakeshott (1901 -90), conten p O'
rve" (Edmund Burke). Critically examine

Q* "We must reform in order to prese
this statement. __
L'
**
.£;V
L-:' -.V 7
nyiT
•* r?v^v •? ^serar
" *
i *■*'•> '; <5fWPref*7i' ■ v
.: ,<^k.
UTILITARIAN
TRADITION
i
theories have to assert and defend themselves.

Will Kymlicka (Contemporary Political Philosophy-
. An Introduction; 2002)
,
Basic Tenets of Utilitarianism
WHAT IS UTILITARIANISM?
Utilitarianism refers to a school of thought which flourished m late-eighteenth and
nineteenth-century England within the broader stream of liberalism, t ouii e a i
of ethical theory which holds that the rightness of an act, poiicy decîon or choic
is determined by its tendency to promote happiness. Jeremy en am j- , \
English philosopher, is regarded the chief exponent of utihtanamsm. Ben“)e^
that pleasure and pain are the chief motive force behind all human balance
of pleasure over pain derived from a thing or a course o ac ion rep ^^
derived from a thing or a course of action, we may Tts^was

tndividual or a set of individuals mighthave^ndepnv^ ^ ^ utilitarianism
precisely the case where John
to be deficient in meeting the needs of justice.
Utilitarianism regards ‘utility’ as the criterion from^heconsiJpdon
Utility, in this sense, refers to the amountoft3"the law of^diminishing utility’,
of goods or making use of services. Accor‘™8 ....-fulness’, but with the increase
different things may be identical in terms o . each identical slice from a
!n *|?eir supply, their utility starts decreasing. F - (he first s,ice will give us
oaf of bread has equal usefulness. But when decreasing with the second
maximum satisfaction. The amount of satisfaction starts
and subsequent slices of the same bread. scientific alternative to natural
. Theory of utilitarianism was originally advance as ^ policies should not be
rights theory. Bentham argued that political ms 1 arbitrary concepts like natural
rated good or bad by their conformity with vision ry
1191]
rights; these should be judged by the amount of satisfaction produced by them, which
be empirically verified and precisely measured. However, Karl Popper (1902-94) in'1
Open Society and Its Enemies:; 1945) argued that it was difficult to ensure maximiz /(
ofhappiness in a given situation. It would be far more practicable to seek eliminoft
or minimization ofsuffering. 0/1
Natural Rights
Natural rights refer to the rights of individual that are supposed to be derived
from nature itself. Exponents of the social contract theory held that the natural
rights did exist in 'the state of nature'. John Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher,
identified 'the right to life, liberty and property' as the natural rights of man. He
argued that civil society is set up for protecting these rights.
TYPES OF UTILITARIANISM
In practice, the principle of utilitarianism is sought to be applied in two ways: (a) Act-
Utilitarianism is inclined to judge each act by ils consequences. If it results in maximizing
the amount of happiness (i.e. the balance of pleasure over pain derived from it), its!
be deemed to be right, otherwise wrong; on the other hand, (b) Rule-Utilitarianism
see to frame certain rules whose observance would be conducive to maximizing the \
amount of happiness (i.e. the balance of pleasure over pain derived from it). In this cast,
eac act will be judged by its conformity with the prescribed rule, and its immediate
consequence will be overlooked.
)
In the history of political thought, Jeremy Bentham largely stood for art-
utilitarianism. He focused on quantitative differences between different kinds of
pleasures and laid down seven criteria for measurement of the quantities of pleasures
descnbed as ‘feKcific cSlculus’): (a)'Intensity; (b) Duration; (4
Criteria[d) Pr°2lm,lty;,(e) FecUndity; W Pui%; and (g) Extent. Of these, the first®
must he a 77 Ea- W't*1 tncbv'riual cases while the seventh cirterion, i.e. extent
a public policy 01,8 W th6Se S'X °riteria m °rder t0 determine the acceptability«[
adherents^fnfiTi ^ rule‘ut'ritarianism was largely developed by other illustrious

™Sfish nh riTI\7„John Austin 0790-1859) and John Stuart Mill (180
hihS d the lPierS' Mli‘repudiated the Primacy of quantitative differences tf
than . pig mated: be,M to ba So™.e, dissa,ttaa M
Act-utilitarianism is largely identified 0

7 bf'tfj"d8ed ^
Accordingly, if it maximizes good consequences, it would be termed right, other* * :
wrong. Consequentialism does not inquire into motives or intentions of the doer. 1* j
view pervades most of the utilitanan thought; even J.S. Mill has endorsed it. Ho*eVf j
!
Basic Tenets of Utilitarianism 193
thinkers tend to differ from this view by recognizing still another variety of
utilitarianism, namely* ‘motive-utilitarianism’. ~
Some later utilitarians sought to modify the tenets of consequentialism in order to
gthen the moral appeal of utilitarianism. Of these, Henry Sidgwick (1838-1900),
(Te Moore (1873-1958), and R. M. Hare (1919-2002) are particularly important. All
these are English philosophers.
Henry Sidgwick (jMethods of Ethics; 1874) sought to introduce the principle of
notice in addition to, and independent of, his pleasure standard. He argued that a
nolicv could not be regarded to be right simply on the ground that it was conducive to
maximization of pleasure; it is also necessary to ensure that it led to just distribution of
Ztotal amount of pleasure derived from it. Sidgwick’s view seems to anticipate the
revision of utilitarianism which culminated in John Rawls’s theory ofjustice.
G E Moore (Principia Ethica; 1903) argued that pleasure or happiness alone could
not be regarded good-in-itself. Experience of beauty, apart from sensuous pleasure
should alio be considered to be intrinsically good. In his view,
azsxsttttvsssggm
between high-quality and low-quality pleasures.
two-level model of
Then R.M. Hare (Moral ‘^/^^^ds'mle-utilitarianism; and (b)
utilitarianism; (a) At the first or intuitive level it commendsrare ires us
At the second or critical level it commends act-uh i ana ^ ^ ^ ^ acts
first to grasp moral rules that would maximizetapp^, ^ ^ combine the merits
that would bring about maximum happiness
d to rectify their drawbacks.
of rule-utilitarianism and act-utilitarianism an
spontaneous judgement or feeling of what is
(Intuitive = Based on intuition, i.e., a for this belief.)
true or right, without looking for a proof or a reas
Philosophical radicalism refers lo a set ofprincipleswhiclrembody the appbedaspectmaf
were:
sc -isr p“,k" imp“ous

of Utilitarianism in the spheres of law, econom.cs and p ^
In short, philosophical radicals repudiated0f positive law. In the economic
law in the sphere of law, and establishedthe su^ • and produced an ardent defence
sphere, they deprecated monopoly and pro ec h deprecated aristocracy an
^ market economy. Finally, in the political sphere, y
advocated democracy.
194 Western Political Thought !
Natural Law
Natural law refers to a set of rules of good conduct which exist indent ,
conventional law. These are directly derived from nature which can hp H n'y°f '
through moral intuition and by the application of human faculty of
Champions of natural law regard it as superior to any other law n'ng' i
Common Law
!:
!j
Positive Law !
dulyî'rfayear1etgist|atulraeWitlisaLeXHPreSSeS ^ Wi" °f the sovereig"- Usually it is
I
and its violation is effectively metwi^punishme^t. itS jUrisdicti°n'
Monopoly
Monopoly refers
estroys the prospects of free market exchange.
!
Protectionism
Protectionism refers to the r
indigenous industries producinpVno ^ S, government designed to protect the
quota of that commodity mav b/ftC? ^ commodity- Under this policy, import
increased so that the imported nrorin r ' ,?r tarif^ on '*s import may be heavily
Price. As a result, the demand of far*? ^ $ the d°mestic market at exorbitant
indigenous industry would be saved fr gn,product w°uld steadily decline, and the
>ts own product. SaVed fror" facing a stiff competition while promoting
It is important to note that in ' ------------------

the basis for a wide range of social pohhv V611,1110, EnSland> utilitarianism prow*
utilitarianism came from many quarter, and iegal ref°rms. Although criticism0'
never ceased to occupy a central place in ^ 1S generally agreed that utilitarianisn1
moral theorizing since its inception.
Q. Define utilitarianism indicating its

broader implicati
economics and politics. ons in the field of law,
\
m
Jeremy Bentham
i
-GENERAL INTRODUCTION
The greatest happiness of the greatest number is the foundation of morals and
legislation. Jeremy Bentham
Jeremy Be„,h,m (.748-1832) wee

economist and reformerjn the history of P° ' >ca aSw’n _to_do London lawyer. He
the founder of Utilitarianism. Bentham was • ity He was a brilliant student
was educated at Westminster School and Oxford University. ^ devote his ufe
and a profound scholar. Being qualified to imprudence, as he had a strong
to scholarly pursuits in the field of philosophy and jurisprudence,
language, rhetoric and religion apart tron^p—philosophy include: A Fragment

issues^However, his major works concerning po 0fMorals and Legislation
on Government (1776), and An Introduction to liberal tradition while he sought
(1789). Bentham made an important contn u j deprecatedJohn. Locked (1632-
t0 demolish the earlier foundations of liberalism. ^ ^ dubbed the conce£teof
1704) notion of natural rights ijjogicaTanûnneâarM0
the state of nature, thTsocjaUonWt_an_^XTSf nohtical obligation. He argued that
expla"irrtheonein ofciWsoSetyor the|rou_ origin of the state, and
the notiW^Putihtyâslhe most obvious reason
the logical ground of political obligation.
[195]
Liberalism
Liberalism refers to a principle of politics which regards 'liberty' or 'freedom' of
individual as the first and foremost goal of public policy. Liberty, in this sense
implies 'liberation' from restraints, particularly from the restraints imposed by a
tradition-bound society like a feudal state, or by an authoritarian regime. This
principle was evolved in the West in late-seventeenth century in order to liquidate
feudal privileges of the land-owning class, and to create favourable conditions for the
new entrepreneural class to enable them to contribute to social progress.
Bentham presented his thought at a time when the industrial revolution had
substantially changed the social, economic and political scenario in England A new
middle class — the industriafi^rchant class had emerged, but it had no representation
m national politics. Political power was still concentrated in the hands of landed
aristocracy which dominated the House of Lords as well as the House of Commons In
order to widen the basis of representation, the new middle class supported the demand
of democracy. Earlier political writings as well as Bentham’s contemporary conservative
writings sought to support the traditional social structure based on landed property,
ascnbed status and hereditary monarchy. Only the liberal tradition to which Bentham
subscribed, stood for a new political outlook that took note of the changing pattern of
property ownership and the impact of the rising social mobility.
Industrial Revolution
Industrial Revolution refers to the series of changes which started
inZtda'i Z: eigThhteemhhCentUry and tranSf0r-d ■" iSn society in the into
British
an
Z lhev hZ ThaSe,ChangeS reached their zer|ith during the period 1760-
important arZrtW mecha"hation of cloth industry, and spread to other
many industria' m™"'"8' 3nd induStrial °^niZadon. In this process
ships were buiit ud i 6merge ' roads' canals, bridges, railways, rail coaches and
to a parts of u on! °ftime the im?act °f Industrial Revolution spread
ail parts of Europe and some other parts of the world.
Now the industrial
csssrr'- B;f,m ^ ^
servants, jurists, economists and moral philosophers became his avowed followers,
important areas : %) He i^d^T
finally, (c) He envisaged a political structure designed to achieve the ends of legislation
including security, subsistence, abundance and equality, and thereby highlighted H*
needs and aspirations of the modem democratic state.
Jeremy Bentham 197
For much of the nineteenth century Bentham was considered both as a founder
of what we now call liberalism and as an exemplar of its two main varieties :
laissez-faire and authoritarian liberalism. ... And both of these perspectives still
shape the way he is read by many subsequent commentators.
Paul Kelly ('Bentham' in Political Thinkers from Socrates to the
Present, edited by David Boucher and Paul Kelly; 2009)
r r --
II
BENTHAM’SPOLlflCAtf PHILOSOPHY*
FOUNDATIONS OF UTILITARIANISM
Nature has placed mankind under the .governance of two sovereign masters: pain,
and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out whatwe ought to do, as weH as
„ determine w„„ we shell -K2U.
we think: every effort we can
demonstrate and confirm it.
In political philosophy, Bentham is regardedth^hie^^

He begins his argument with the tenets of hedonism w ic Epicurus and his
school founded by Epicurus (341-270 BC), ancient Greek £ °S°td avoid Pîn. From
followers believed that all human beings by nature see p , ^ of philosophy,
•his ussumption the, ,nfemd
therefore, identify two types of hfdorusmn(^ (that is attaining pleasure and
all human actions seek to attain pleasure * h§at only pieasure has value, and that
avoiding pain); and (b) of hedonism. He
all pleasure is a value-in-itself. Now Bentha P nce 0f two sQxereign.mas.ters:
argues that nature has placed mankjndjmderJhe go_ ^ pajn jn this respect
Painjmd pleasure. Men always tend these sovereign masters
bentham follows psychologicaljiedpnism. He do ût a^s0 advise us as to
(pain and pleasure) not only determine as to w a 0f ethical hedonism. He goes
what we ought to do. Here Bentham becomes an aa , t0 maximize pleasure
a step further and argues that all public policy s ‘happiness1 as the balance of
** minimize pain of those affected by it He defines^ ^ he asserts: “The greatest
pleasure over pain derivedfrom a thing or course or ^ and legislation.” It would
aPpiness of the greatest number is the foun a 10“ • 0f Epicurean hedonism were
be interesting to note that while philosophical imp t d in 0mar Khayyam’s (c.
developed by Bentham, its artistic implications w
^50-1123) Persian poetry.
Composition of Utilitarianism
Hedonism
Psychological Ethical
(Men always tend to seek (Men ought to seek
pleasure and avert pain) pleasure and avert pain)
Utilitarianism
(Public policy should seek
to maximize the balance of
pleasure over pain for the
society as a whole)
CONCEPT OF UTILITY
sBoevnereSt^nadnJiShf0!10tWerS argfd th3t the concePts of absolute rights, absolute
had no relevancetortie realities abocial liOh®
expediency p~|^°^®^^hofTegulation of human affairs, viz. that of absolute
Sdt badl m Inf "S and PUbKc P°IicieS should> therefore, not be rated as /
obligations- thev shoulHh S°T V,1Su10nary and arbitrary concepts of human rights and
andKfiSi JUd§ed by th6ir This Ieads ™ ‘0 the concepts of utility
Accordingly (heconcep^f Cntenon of acceptance of a proposed option.

\
seeks to maximize his pleasure and mfnimi'ztwspahf61’81001110 ^ ^ ** ^
of diminishing utility’, Satof ?efii!.ness of a thing. According to the ‘la*

but with the increase of their supply§their uthit^611*1031 ln terms of their ‘useftaIneS^
identical slice from a loaf of bread Has po i lty starts decreasing. For example, &
first slice will give us maximum satisfaction'lUSefblness- But when we are hungry,
with the second and subsequent slices of the^s^bread^83115^1'0" *** ^
FELICIFIC CALCULUS
Bentham argued that in contrast to the hypothetical notion of natural rights, pleasure
and pain were not only empirically venfiable (that is verifiable by sense-eyerie^
denved through sight, sound, smell, taste and touch), they were also susceptible »
Jeremy Bentham 199
measurement. Ignoring the qualitative differences between different kinds of pleasure,
Bentham focused on quantitative differences between different pleasures. John Stuart
Mill (1806-73), another illustrious exponent of utilitarianism, satirically expressed
Bentham’s attitude on this issue as follows: “Quantity of pleasure being equal, pushpin
is as good as poetry.” How do we measure the quantities of pleasure or pain? Bentham
laid down seven criteria for this purpose which are compendiously described as ‘felicific
calculus’ or ‘hedonistic calculus’. These criteria were specified as follows:
1. intensity (how strong is its feeling?);
2. duration (how long it lasts?);
3. certainty (how certain we feel to have it?);
4. proximity or propinquity (how near it is to us, i.e. how early we can have it?);
5. fecundity (does it also produce other types of pleasure?);
6. purity (no pain is mixed with it); and
7. extent (how far it extends to others?).
Of these, the first six criteria are meant to judge the utility of a thing or action
for the individual while the seventh criterion (extent) must be combined with them for
determining the acceptability of a public policy as expressed in the principle of greatest
happiness of the greatest number.’
By utility is meant that property in any object, whereby it tends to produce
benefit, advantage, pleasure, good or happiness... or... to prevent t e appening
of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered.
if that party be the community in general, then the happiness o e
if a particular individual, then the happiness of that indivi ua .
Jeremy Bentham (A Fragment on Government; 1776) J
%
PRINCIPLES OF LEGISLATION
Bentham rejected the ideology of natural^tsjhe social contract and jheideaof
sovereignty âssociated therewith yet he subsen e oê, ^ affairs which
and proceeded to find a formula for the appheatio renudiated the theory
should be free from the pitfalls of metaphystcadefined
of the general will as something transcendmg the w f members who
the interest of the community as the sum of ndividuai 0n questions relating
compose it. Thus, he accorded a central pi ce to the md ^ as something
to public policy or legislation. He defined diminish the sum total of
which tends to increase the sum total of 1ns> P be disCovered by adding the
h's pains. The interest of the community c Qf happiness should not be taken
mterests of all individuals who composed it. organism, but must find
as a shadowy attribute of some super-person, c individuals. With this
acfual expression in the lives and in the expenenc calculate the pleasurable
Principle as the guiding star, the legislator is requir ^ WOuld know whether
0r painful consequences of an action, actual or prop ’ ^-s principle as the sole
lt was right or wrong, sound or unsound. Bent am P ereatest number’ which would
Criterion of determining the ‘greatest happiness o
Serve as a guide to all public policy and legislation.
Accordingly, Bentham argued that the business ofgovernment is to promote a
happiness ofsociety by a system of punishments and rewards. It had no other justifies/ *
for its existence. A good government is the one that promotes the happiness of?
subjects. A government which employs ineffectual means in this sphere, loses its t'ti
to authority. ’ Itle
Bentham insisted that in calculating pleasure and pain for the purpose ofdetermini
public policy, each individual should be treated as one unit and that none should be
given special consideration: ‘each to count as one, and no one for more than one’ Thus
he asserted the necessity of treating all men as equals. He did not base his doctrine of
equality on ‘natural law5. Instead, he proceeded on his original assumption: men were
bom to be happy that is the plain dictate of experience. Since freedom is essential to
happiness, men are entitled to freedom. But equal freedom of each individual postulates
equality’; therefore, man’s liberty must be limited and conditioned by the ultimate test
of general welfare. Bentham showed that ‘equality’ was a political good, because it
was the only practical way of dealing with large numbers of people. By paying equal ■ :
importance to the happiness of all individuals, Bentham sought to curb the legislator’s
en ency o ignoring happiness of the people in pursuance of their own moral standards
or in promoting the happiness of their choice.
THEORY OF PUNISHMENT
Utilitarian theory of punishment seeks to justify punishment on various grounds as a
oh<! ° SfT\ great?st haPP>ness of the greatest number’. Bentham significantly
act r? The unmedmte prineipaJ end of punishment is to control aclion. This
influence °f the°ffender> or of others : that of the offender it controls by its
wavofi:" “TT"1;-the of reformation or on his physical power... by
over tetSr 2 °f'^ h can influenco "o otherwise than by its influence
and Legislation; 1789). °f eXampIe” (An Eduction ,o the Principles ofMorals
(a) DeteSrn panamSm comPrehends ‘êe types of theories ofpunishment: '

theorl fmvhes PreVmt've theory> and (c) Reformative theory. Deterrent
froZZmitt ns crime ha‘nrrP0Se of-£Hnishment is to deter or discourage people
:
deterrence Individiml dot* ♦. j W° eve s- individual deterrence and general
-is
:
learn the lesson which the offender le ams for himself by undergoing punishment.
Preventive theory is based on the argument that when an offender is deprived of
freedom of movement, as m the case of imprisonment, or othZ.se disabled, hoi5
unab e to repeat the offence. Thus society is saved from further offence for some time-
This theory upholds capital punishment, i.e. death penalty for most dreaded criming
so that the society would never face them again.
o-
Jeremy Bentham 201
Finally, reformative theory holds that when the criminal is made to suffer on account
f the wrong done by him, he realizes his fault and learns to behave better in the future.
So the experience of punishment brings about fundamental changes in the personality,
ttitude and behaviour of the offender. When the offender returns to society as a law-
aiding citizen, he would be more determined to do good deeds and thereby benefit the
society It is important to note that utilitarian theories of punishment are regarded to be
relevant even today.
Utilitarian Theory of Punishment

Punishment
i
t \ 1
Deterrent Preventive Reformative
Theory Theory Theory
f
Individual General a
Deterrence Deterrence
FUNCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT
and his followers came to the c
activity to restraining individuals from indulging in activ A,nction of the state,

happiness adversely. Punishment of offenders is anot eJ.™ u./20 are the best
The state should not interfere in the activities of also upheld the
judges of right and wrong, moral and immoral. In this way,
doctrine of laissez-faire individualism. _____ rr
Laissez-faire Individualism
Laissez-faire individualism refers to a po itica ou tQ fincj what is most
is endowed with the faculty of 'reason t 3i e" .. 'non-intervention' of the
conducive to his interest in a given situation. P advocates individual's
state in the economic activities of individuals. Wine and freedom
right to freedom of trade, freedom of contract, freedom
of enterprise.
A CRITICAL APPRAISAL objective factor. Some pleasures

as an J But others are subjective that
Bentham’s felicific calculus regards pleasure
are of course sought after by all individuals and g P
U,Tftrm amounts of satisfaction to different individuals Then nenni
pleasure differently due to their differential cultural Lw *"njoy
. ^t^rAmfL^TTxhiinself an exponent ofutilitarianism, argued that
.-a^sssc^ is-rwetn: measures were as important as their quantitative difference e i
» be a human being dissatisfied than a pig slfi° '
traces ossadsiied than a fool satisfied.” 8 &t fied;
i?:Usr diirkers severely criticized Bentham’s
idealists have dubbed i{ ‘base materialism’. HowevefT
rzg; ^ held that Bentham was not averse to morality. He simply wanted
* mu.* rufer should not be allowed to impose his own standards of moral
^naiccnng them to be totally ignorant. morality on
ca Macpherson (Democratic Theory - &qy5 /« Retrieval; 1973) has minted
*~ contradiction in Bentham’s utilitarian theory. Bentham argued that2
S^He solhtTo martind,IVldUal

S?-slunWlil fr a
W3S t0 C°Unt as 0ne’and no one asi“e
ca‘ State 38 the St3te m0St calculated to maximize
£? also bel evedffat 1 r °f mdlvldual movement, security of property, etc.
SSI T S°Clety enabled each individual to maximize his
maximize the aggregate mt0 Productive relations which would thus
mffl the poofwoo l ^ °f 1S0Ciety- N°W> according to the ‘law of diminishing
or any other benefit thUr ”w SatIfactl0n from a" additional amount of income
an additional slice of bread than the one "T” TUld g<3t m°re sadsfaction from
of wealth would be most conducive to mT^° ^ 3 r63dy fed)' HenCe eqUai distribution
whole. But Bentham seeks to escane fr ^™^nig aggregate utility for the society as
~ the criterion of nrodurfil h'S dlIemma by introducing a new element
H» '!* ““ H ofinequality. He *=
accumulation’ which is inriisn ui Pf^ tbere would be no incentive for ‘capital
of claiming tha^Lt a fSabof ? *** Productivity- He goes to the extent
starvation - the market cS i f°rCe ~ wilose main incentive was the fear of
i
J>™‘1P'' ofo^WTiXSt"^"” B“‘h™
to compromise individual^ tannfw^* âs arûec* that the utilitarian theory tends
if it could be shown that the a2ereSS e saê °f collective happiness. For example
enslaving a particular individual m- § happiness of society would be increased by
standards, but it would be patentlv a mJno^lty &r°up, it would be justified by utilitarian
:
In short, any tenets ofBentham’s ^ °fjUStiCe! ..
that they are suitably modified to he anjsm can be accepted only on the condition
freedom, equality and justice. come compatible with the principles of universa
Q. Critically examine Bentham's th-

eorY of utilitarianism. Evaluate his contribution
to the development of liberalism.
m
John Stuart Mill
f?.
iGENERAfeiNfRODUCTiON^
(1748-1832), the founder of Utilitarianism. John Stuart Mill^was

with some assistance from Francis PlacemidJeremxpent 3111 ® aoolications of
of'>•» Philosophical radicals, who sough, »
utilitarianism in the spheres of law, economics and poll J ^ up as a bri,liant
be a leading figure among philosophical radical Jo St ^ gr* ^ a well.
and disciplined student. On completion of h‘s e J Qne of the m0st coveted jobs
Paid and responsible position m East India Comp Y g economic aud political
m those days. Simultaneously he was also engag House Conimons.
wntmg. On his retirement, he became a memb
was soon
. Although J.S. Mill remained adherent talent he
disillusioned with many of its practical imp ica liberal tradition of political
êloped it in many directions and thereby different from
^°nght. In fact, J.S. Mill lived in an age w i emsoflaw and administration
Bentham’s. Bentham had confined his attention o P when democracy was
which were most pressing in his times. Mi 1V ev^je»s monumental study
ln the ascent. He became familiar with Alexis identified certain pitfalls of
of Democracy in America (1835-40). Tocquevi Then Mill also realized that
emocmcy which deeply impressed Mill’s sensi ™ only quaiified persons were fit to
e business of government is fairly complex, ., responsive to the expressed
Perform it. Mill argued that the political system should be resp
[203]
wants of people and that public officials should provide for the needs of society
Mill was an ardent champion ofliberty. Since liberty is the keynote of libe r i
Mill is regarded as a great liberal. Theme of liberty runs through all aspects of his nT'
thought, including the revision of utilitarianism, his critique of democracy, his deM
of welfare state and his campaign against the subjection of women. Milks imn ITI
works include System of Logic (1843), Principles of Political Economy (1848)^1
Liberty (1859), Considerations on Representative Government (1861) UtilUnJn 1
(1863) and The Subjection of Women (1869). 5 j
Liberalism if:
Liberalism refers to a principle of politics which regards 'liberty' or 'freedom' of

l
individual as the first and foremost goal of public policy. Liberty, in this sense
implies 'liberation' from restraints, particularly from the restraints imposed by a
tradition-bound society like a feudal state, or by an authoritarian regime. This
principle was evolved in the West in late-seventeenth century in order to liquidate
feudal privileges of the land-owning class and create favourable conditions for the
new entrepreneurial class to enable them to contribute to social progress. !
i
f
II
PREVISION OF UTILITARIANIRmI
|
t
sough o revisTthif “d reStriction of the ^re of state activity. J.S. Mil
for fhe promotion ’ f °f,UtlIltarianS 80 as t0 Plead for the extension of state activityj
' ^ £ :zz: as;*,lso re—“d * °f fc sw i
happiness = The balance of pleasure i
over pain derived from a thing or an act ;
■
In short, Mill c ame to revise the original premises of utilitarianism on two import j
counts:
^ Jf phlLfisurePH?nosmi?HU<i!d qualitative differences between different kin*
than its auantitv He & ^ tlle quadty of pleasure was no less imporla [
alone Devdopment oftigUed that man does run after physical pleasure
itTortant A nC e Tra1’ intelIectual and artistic faculties was equal :
the one of low qualhy giJSg Zt'SST ”” " ‘ l
'
;
!
j
John Stuart Mill 205
to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be

It is better
Socrates ldissatisfied than a fool satisfied.
J.S. Mill, Utilitarianism; (1863)
(b) By drawing a distinction between self-regarding actions and other-regarding

^ actions, Mill proceeded to demonstrate that the state was justified in regulating
other-regarding actions of the individual, that is the actions which affected
other members of the society. This conditional departure from laissez-faire
doctrine of early liberalism paved the way for the emergence of welfare state.
Laissez-Faire
'leave alone'. It implied the policy of
“”"«S;;„Soan bv'Se o, Thl, phrj.e was
and other parts of the world, to express a

industry from state interference.
Welfare State
Welfare State refers to a state that safeguards liberty.of its citizens, and also
interests
undertakes regulation of free market: eC°n°^V''^ "orts to differential taxation
of vulnerable sections like workers and consu ■ t0 pay, and mobilizes
of different strata of society according to d and services (like
necessary resources to provide for the supp y o ess recreation, etc,,
to various social strata according t0 ê,rjabllltyntn°11^ts mUseurns, libraries,

the protection of cultural heritage mclu ing m ^ jt ajso promotes
art galleries, botanical gardens and zoologic P > u *inte|,ectua| and cultural
higher education and scientific research, e c., __nrprnecj with all aspects of
development of society. In short, welfare state is and order
welfare of its citizens, apart from the nnaintenan ---- --------------——_j=
-------------------------. ■ • Abv the idea of human development.

Mill’s revision of utilitarianism was inspire . rtant factors as the sense of
Bentham’s notion of happiness had ignore sue êge fact0rs as the sources of
honour and the sense of dignity. Mill soug it to re ^ constantly stimulate each
true happiness. He insisted that as human emg ^ order to achieve social
other to apply the superior faculties of our minaar f standardjb_rjudging all
prosperity. He still maintained that utility was expanded to make it more
ôral issues but the scope of this concept mus rhuman beings and should take
“,imy “ ,ines Mil"m “
fr&nsformed its true spirit.

Utility
Utility refers to the amount of satisfaction derived from the consumption of good
or making use of services. According to the 'law of diminishing utility', different
things may be identical in terms of their 'usefulness', but with the increase in their
supply, their utility starts decreasing. For example, when we are hungry, the first
slice from a loaf of bread gives us maximum satisfaction. The amount of satisfaction
starts decreasing with the second and subsequent slices from the same loaf of bread
;
! regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be
utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a i
progressive being.
J.S. Mill (On Liberty,, 'Introduction'; 1859) |
i
Pleasure and freedom from pain are the only things desirable as ends; and ... all
desirable things (which are as numerous in the utilitarian as in any other scheme) |
are desirable either for the pleasure inherent in themselves, or as a means to the j
promotion of pleasure and prevention of pain.
J.S. Mill (Utilitarianism; 1863)
The old utilitarians had conceded the importance of liberty but they had not regarded!
it as the essence of utilitarian philosophy. On the contrary, Mill sought to make liberty |
^ C?re.° 1S Utl Itarianism. argued that the true happiness did not lie in physical j
Jh/l T but 11 Was derivedfrom the development ofhuman character. Only a person
f mn l8. ■ characJ;er can enJ'oy the pleasures ofhigh quality. Individual liberty is the essential
tvne, °f charaf®r devel°Pment Liberty enables a person to explore and enjoy net !
f nleasur^ L,lbei^'tself 1S a source of unique pleasure which belittles all other;
trZolVZsurel *** would never be prepared to exchange* j
1
He who has tasted th

e water of Nile will not like any other water.
Egyptian Proverb
notion.’ utiU?y marks a departure from its original 1.

merely sensual uleavire* Tt i °m[ pifltual pleasures are intrinsically supenoi j
is eiven full lihertv with ° do not âve ÎS capacity. Now if each mdivid
educalion wh.d, does „.,gi.e ^ j
Again, if a policy claims to secure the ‘greatest happiness of the greatest number’ j
on the basts of a common notion of happiness, its enforcement would certainly curta
liberty of some persons who wish to explore new types of pleasure and this would no*
be acceptable to Mill!
r^JjiTrevolted against Bentham's material maximizing criterion of the social good

He could not agree that all pleasures were equal, nor that the market distributed
them fairly. He held that men were capable of something better than the money
erubbing and starvation-avoiding existence to which Benthamism condemned them.
He rejected the maximization of indifferent utilities as the criterion of social good,
and put in its place the maximum development and use of human capacities -
moral, intellectual, aesthetic, as well as material productive capacities.
C.B. Macpherson (Democratic Theory — Essays in Retrieval; 1973)
--- 1
i^BEFEISICE^QI^CIBERT^c
A State which dwarfs its men, in order that they

in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men
thing can really be accomplished.
J.S. Mill [On Liberty; 1859)
J.S. Mill was the most ardent

(1859) ranks with John Milton’s Areopagitica ( t gf thoughtj expression and
tSSSSSSSSSSS* <>*'">>• b“ !i8ni“'y ^ ot for relief from political oppression or for a

„ inion that is genuinely tolerant,
■ Hmits the amount of agreement it
that values differences in point of view, that of discovery. The threat to liberty
demands, and that welcomes new ideas as souic maiority that is intolerant of
which Mill chiefly feared was not government, but a majo y
nt minorities, and is willing
l the unconventional, that looks with suspicio them,
ress and regiment them.
to use the weight of numbers to rep
seems good to
Mankind are greater gainers by suffering; ea good to the rest.
themselves, than by compelling each to live as seem
Liberty, 'Introduction' ; 1859)
J.S. Mill [On
1
In his essay On Liberty (1859), J.S- ^'âcyWhile Bentham and James Mill
which individual liberty was exposed m a d ^ gQod of the whole of society
believed that democratic government cou mouS with majority rule, an t a
J-S- Mill thought that democratic rule was ^ Jntext<Miu was particularly inspired
Majorities may tend to oppress minorities, in
by the view expressed by Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59), French philosopher in w
celebrated work Democracy in America (1835-40). Tocqueville observed that with
extension of democracy in social sphere, the source of intellectual authority was found
in public opinion (that is the majority opinion), and this led to the ‘tyranny of majority’
Supremacy of public opinion demanded conformity to the generaliyTSlTatfitiBes
and standards. This gave rise to the belief that a dissenting position must be a wrong
one. The net result was the curtailment of individual autonomy and the loss of liberty
Whereas the principle of liberty seeks to encourage a variety of interests and opinions
the extension of democracy tends to promote conformity of opinions and attitudes, and
thereby suppress individual liberty.
Mill defends liberty of individual to ensure fullest development of his personality. He
identifies three major areas in which liberty of individual must be protected: (a) Freedom
of thought and expression; (b) Freedom of action; and (c) Freedom of association. While
he recommends fullest liberty in the sphere of thought and expression, he concedes
some restriction in the sphere of freedom of action and freedom of association.
If ail mankind minus one were of one opinion, and one person were of the contrary
opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than
he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.
J.S. Mill (On Liberty; 1859)
Freedom of thought and expression belongs to an. individual’s inward domain of

consciousness. Development of his personality calls for foilestlibirtybf His conscience:
i erty o t ought and feeling; absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects
practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological’. Mill asserts that it is
fe ^ g1 Im.a e or ei^ er government or mass pressure to intp.rfprp with the free expression
, ol unorthodox viewpoints, for three reasons : -----------------
In the first place, it is possible that the unorthodox opinion may be true while
the accepted view may be invalid. In that case, silencing of an unorthodox
f wouldhT3118 TT? mankinAo£itsJ)enefits. In other words, the people
would be deprived of the oppoTS^F^d^fo^^ trSfo
sETSiT" T® “* SUre that the accePted °P™°n * true, we still oughtnot
/be undersfnnH°nf7'ry °pini0n' Tbe ^ meaning of an accepted belief cannot
/ ZtT ■ 7 T CtUally °r emotionally, unless it is confronted with
/assume hi! IT 8’°US feith unchal>enged becomes dead, even if we
The collision TXpreSS10n 0ptruth anc* the opposing dogma is entirely fajse-
of truth Silenrin T* 8’VeS US.the clearer perception and livelier impression
of rejuvenating tErnth™8 °Pini°n WiU depriVe ma,lkind °f the °PPortUni‘y
' T real life il is unlikely that either the orthodox or the

unorthodox belief system ,s entirely true. Human beings are hardly capable of
grasping the whole truth in one go. It is most likely that our accepted beliefs
are partly true and partly untrue. Free expression of contradictor/ opinion*
would be conducive to the destruction of untrue elements of our beliefs and I
refinement of the true elements.
Mill made a strong plea for the extension of full freedom of expression to ‘cranks’
on the ground that, while nine cranks out of ten are harmless idiots, the tenth is of greater
value to mankind than all the normal men who seek to suppress him.
Mill advocates liberty of thought and expression on the ground of human dignity
also Apart from the question of social utility, he tried to show that individual self-
determination is a basic human right. It is indispensable to the development of his sense
of moral responsibility. No line of thought or action would be morally significant unless
it is followed freely and consciously, as a matter of personal conviction. No human being
can have a sense of dignity and self-esteem unless he gets an opportunity to choose from
alternative courses of thought and action. If the State denies this liberty to its citizens,
they are bound to lose their sense of dignity. Eventually the State will realize that no
great things can really be accomplished with the help of subdued citizens.
The need for intellectual freedom becomes more urgent with the extension of
democracy. Mill realized that in a democracy, public opinion -particuiady the majority
opinion - was recognized as the source of intellectual authority which demanded
conformity to the generally held attitudes and standards. It led to mF^,on 'h
a dissenting position must be a wrong one. On the contrary, if the Sê mam'ams full
freedom of thought and expression, it will encourage the expresôn of all sorts of
minorities have the full freedom to express the dissenting opinions it
opinions. When “Nation of power in the hands of majority, and thus rule out the
will prevent the
‘tyranny of majority’.
The only purpose for which power can be rightfunYêxercised^ Hjs own
of a civilized community, against his Wl*' ^ .
good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.
J.S. Mill [On Liberty; 1859)
As regains fejM. ofactio,

restrictions on these freedoms thatno one18 f0^‘se|f-regarding actions’
He draws a distinction between two types o ac 1 oremises Mill advocates complete
and ‘other-regarding actions’. Proceeding on es ~t| tbe community, i.e. in
freedom of conduct for the individual in a ma ^ ‘other-regarding actions’,
the case of ‘self-regarding actions’. However * ded the right of the community_
'■e.-in matters which[doagecUji^ t its welfare. Thus, Mill defends
to coerce the individual ^rsely affects the community,
completefreedom ofconductfor the indivi ua ^ action ^ jt was thought to be
Btit the state could also interfere in the self- g ^ ^ wouldbe perfectly justified
Particularly injurious to individual himse • known to be unsafe.
m Preventing a man from crossing a bridge which w
but by his inaction, and
Mill (On Liberty, 'Intro

duction'; 1859)
J. S.
Some critics pointed out that it is difficult to identify purely ‘self-regarding actions'
of the individual. It is alleged that by allowing the state to interfere in the so-called
‘other-regarding actions’, Mill has given sweeping powers to the state. In view ofMill*
primary concern with the welfare of society, this criticism does not seem to be well
founded. In fact Mill’s distinction between ‘self-regarding actions’ and ‘other-regarding
actions’ of the individual should be appreciated in the historical perspective. It meant a
clear departure from the early laissez-faire individualism which had tried to place most
of the behaviour of individual beyond regulation, in order to vindicate the ‘free market
society’. Mill was making an attempt to define a sphere where an individual’s behaviour
could be regulated in the interests of society. Thus he was contemplating a positive role
for the state in securing community welfare even if it implied curbing the liberty of
individual to some extent. In his mature years, Mill definitely moved beyond traditional
liberalism. Indeed, it was in pursuance of his liberal values that Mill sought to lay the
foundations of a more humane society as against the one provided by nineteenth-century
capitalism.
Then Mill also sought to transform the old, negative view of liberalism to a new,
positive view thereof which marks a departure from its adherence to the philosophy of
capitalism. He expressed a serious concern with the prevailing economic inequalities
which led him to the revision of his view on the right to property. In the first edition
of his Principles ofPolitical Economy (1848), Mill had attacked socialism, but in its
last edition (1866), he pleaded for the limitation of the right to property which was the
bedrock of the capitalist system. He argued that the right to property was not absolute
or sacrosanct, and went to the extent of advocating considerable restrictions on the
rights of inheritance and bequest. He maintained that the right to property in land was
not sacrosanct because no man made the land; it was the original inheritance of all
mankmd. Rent was the effect of natural monopoly — not a product of an individual’s
I effort: it was a fit subject for taxation. He argued that incomes of landlords continued
to increase tremendously without any effort, risk or sacrifice on their part. Hence, if
f the state appropriated the increase of their wealth or a part thereof for diverting it to
the. use of the community, it was no violation of the principles on which the right to
private property was founded or justified. The landlords had no claim to accession of
such riches on the general principle of social justice. Mill argued that these additional
nches should properly be diverted to the welfare of their real authors that is the workers
who were the real producers of wealth from the land
Social Justice
Sociaf justice refers to the social policy which seeks to prevent concentration of
valuable resources of the community (wealth, prestige and power) in the hands of
the chosen few, and to create a social order which will enable the deprived and
underprivileged sections of society to gain a respectable share thereof by virtue
of their ability, effort and need.
This approach to the problem of taxation and the limitation of the right to propel
heralded a new era ofpositive liberalism. It was further developed by later liberal thinkers
who thoroughly rejected the tenets oflaissez-faire individualism.
IV
^REFLECTIONS ON DEMOCRACY
M'll’s attitude to democracy remains a subject of conflicting interpretations. Some

^ters regard him as a great democrat; others think that his system of thought is not
in consonance with the requirements of democracy. We can arrive at a balanced view
on this question only after understanding his views on democracy in different contexts.
John Stuart Mill... may be regarded as the first serious liberal-democratic theorist,
in that he was the first liberal to take seriously, and to feel sensitively, the claims
of the nascent democracy... He rejected the maximization of indifferent utilities
as the criterion of social good, and put in its place the maximum êlopment
and use of human capacities - moral, intellectual, aesthetic, as well as material
productive capacities.
C.B. Macpherson (Democratic Theory - Essays in Retrieval; 1973)
Mill’s concept of democracy has been outlined 'n hisC^wOnUberty

Representative Government (1861) read with the re evan pa significantly
osVa.d.vmh
observed, J.S. Mill was a clear advocate of democracy as emocratie or
individual liberty in all spheres of human endeavour nhis ê pursuit of individual
According to David Held, . f , if

Mill conceived of democratic politics as a prime by a
development ... He likened periodic voting ° f tive deliberation about
juryman’ ideally .to considered I—*
Ihe facts of public affainr. no. a mere e*p ^ p0,llbl|,ty of
Mill argued that liberty and democracy, a • n are necessary conditions
‘human excellence’. Liberty of thought, discussion mQus judgement. These are
for the development of independence of nun ^ tends t0 sustain liberty itself,
conducive to the development of human reason . d enhancement of liberty as
Representative government is essential for the Pr° „0Vemment, the rulers are likely
Weh as human reason. If we don’t have a represen Representative democracy
1° make arbitrary laws and create an atmosp ere on human reason and the
ls ê most suitable device for the enactment o mafket place is the most suitable
Pnnciple of liberty, as the free exchange of goodsn , More0ver, a system of
meth°d of maximizing economic liberty an e ^j t0 the citizenry and creates
representative democracy makes government accountab
WlSer citizens capable of pursuing the Pu 1C1 seem to depart from the
other important issues
However, Mill’s views on some
conventional notion of democracy. Mill believed that different individuals ar '
of different kinds of things and only a few have developed their full capacitie
some citizens should have a larger share in the process of governance than nth ^
view of this, Mill sought to recommend a plural system of voting. According
should have a vote but the wiser and more talented should have more votes t>, i
ignorant and less capable. This implied that those endowed with greater knowled!! !
skil — who happened to have most property and privilege — should not be ouLw
by those having less knowledge and skill. In other words, the rich and the educ
atej
class should not be outvoted by the working class. Thus Millfailed to bring the idenj
democracy to its logical conclusion. As David Held has aptly observed:
Mill was
labouring classes and yet he stopped short — far short — of a commitment!
rPs", ',0"
fKSh WamS US " democracy based authority of numb®
based on the nriiV , syppress,0n of taleilts- The common notion of democracy it
Sores^;?E P L“ every one to count for one and no one for more than oneft
this notion of demnr erences 0 mtelhgence and virtue between men. Mill asserts that
Since maTorifvt mn Y h ? f° m0raI and intelleetual excellence in mankini
is bound to be redreHnrd‘0fTd'OCrâdemOCracybasedontheanthorityofnumbets
standard Mill hones to ° *'6' the raIe of mediocres or the men of pool
goveint 'based on Z'lV" °f de“cy by constituting a ‘representative
supervision and control of adminiS^6115’ “d °0nfine the r°le of government#
Proportional Representation
Proportional representation refers
constituencies are DroviHpH to, , 3n electoral system where multi-member
parliament. It allows thevot'toindllZf6^^^1'0 3 C°UnCil'
candidates or political parties This svstem t °f êlr Preference for severa
to the minorities as well as the
strength. Its, compSs,,, et,oTS T ’
> , S mtended to give due representation
<° •» *****
I relevant electoral laws. necessary rules may be provided in the
M,I1 of course gives some brilliant ideas to improve the efficiency of a democratic
government, bu ms distinction between the rights of ordinary and more quahfied
cannot be accepted, as democracy ts essentially based on a faith in extraordinary Pote»'ial
Democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities
in ordinary people.
Harry Emerson Fosdick (1878-1969)
The great postulate of our democracy is confidence in the common sense of the
people and their maturity of judgement, even on great issues - once they know
^ William 0. Douglas (1898-1980)
r
...; v ,
v
SUBJECTION OF?W0Mil^
J.S. Mill, better known as the champion of individual liberty, was also one of the early
men and women that would justify attributing di eren g__________________
Feminism
Feminism refers t0 ^^str^removal'in

terms oAheindghts/o^^rtim^ttes to self-development and share^nôlrtiMlpower^j
Mill lamented that half of mankind - the' .w0™“ 2 subTemence

subjection to the other half— the men. He ques ion ^ came t0 tê conclusion that
of women to men in the eye of law as well as cus\o • differences between men
this could not be upheld on utilitarian groun s. exclusion of women from the
and women cannot be logically invoked to jus1 _ 0f progress which have so far
suffrage, from the professions and from a *5* the sexes probably represents
remained open to men. Mill’s defence of equa lty
the most effective vindication of the feminist cans . y rests on his briUiant
We know that Mill’s reputation as a gieat P 1 bas admitted that this essay
.
essay ‘On Liberty ’(1859). In his Autobiography { ^ Harriet Mill (1807-59).
was written by him in close collaboration w wou[(i eVer be made by him.
s>nce it was as much her work as his, no a e Mill and was dedicated to her
It was published four months after the ea i a woman. He was convince t la
So Mill had the first-hand experience of the tal oftheir intellectual and spiritual
Women could not be treated as inferior to men rights of women,
capabilities. This made him an ardent champion ot
not only wrong in itself, it
Mill argued that the subjection of women to men was
was also the chief impediment in the way to human progress. A society in wiv
the reservoir of its talents remained suppressed or unutilized could hardlv he ^ ^
to realize the full potential of its progress. Hence in order to promote social
we must stop the subjection of women and establish full equality between
women. Power and privileges of one half of mankind should not be allowed to T *
the capabilities of its other half. 0 suPPr(®
»i8nm“^lhe prevailing co"dition °fs“bJ'cti“ •'»- Mill

“The subjection of women to men being a universal custom, any departure from it
nartt njâ y a,Ppe"S u™atural- Nothing so much astonishes the people ofdistan !
parts of the world, when they first learn anything about England as to be told Hw i 1
used » a tauhf' “ lhe lml de®" unuefural bec.use He, L
•ip*™ s^~^; rsr !h”M be-—

indepCen^Swoirstad%Withi,SO,me hiSt°riCal exPeri“ces, Mill noted that the
The example of rather ^ss unnatural to the Greeks than to other ancients.
less subordinate bvlJh ' Clted t0 PTOVe this point' Th°ugh they were no
the same manner with men 7 ^ ^ Were trained t0 bodily exercises in
^ss
I women^Many women have kiêed 11116 °f ’Women is based on the consentof
^ of women have even made n t v & ^T° CSt aSablst *bis rule in their writings. Thousands
women b.,e I™ 2™°“ m T'"”"” » «»d »®»S= » «■»• «»>
for entry into dis.f.iXd "h “ lh' ^ of eduction -
abuse by men have been suppressed H m°St CaSeS women’s comPînts of physical
brute force, but by enslavI^thekmhc^rH06^^women, not by the ostensible use of

is slaves with consent. The svstem nf 7° make them behave as their favourites, that
Mill’s own words: e ucab°n is designed to serve this purpose. In
of character is the vetyopposh^ to\ht7 7yearS in the belief that their ^

self-control, but submission and vipin- °f m,en; not self“will> and government by
tell them that it is the duty of wnL m8,t0 the contr°l of others. All the morality
make complete abnegation of themselves1 and! “> ‘b6’" natUre’t0 live for 0therS; J
(ibid.). lves>and t0 have no life but in their affections
throughout. An impressionhtsJdsfbeeVcrea'teSt6113"3616" °f womei! is ^Their

Mill has emphatically demonstrated that there are no inherent differences in the
ental faculties of men and women and that women are as capable of holding responsible
positions as men themselves.
On the strength of all these arguments, Mill made a fervent appeal for enfranchise
ment of women in his own time. He also recommended opening of all respectable
rofessions to the women in order to restore their dignity and to enable them to utilize
their talents to speed up social progress.
"J.S. Mill's revision of Utilitarianism amounts to its complete transformation."

Q. 1.
Do you agree with this view? Give reasons for your answer.
2. Examine J.S. Mill's arguments in defence of liberty. Discuss his contribution
to the tradition of liberal theory.
3. "J.S. Mill was a champion of democracy. Vet he failed to bring the idea of
■ democracy to its logical conclusion." Critically examine this statement.
;■
4. Evaluate J.S. Mill's arguments against the subjection of women._________

!
-
i
:
!*•&»
usu
J
ENLIGHTENMENT
TRADITION
i
■ .
!
understanding, and ends

reason.. . . -,
Immanuel Kant [The Critique of Pure Reason; 1781)
>
I
Nature of the Enlightenment
t In the history of Western civilization, the Enlightenment refers to the mode of thought
that broadly flourished in eighteenth-century Europe, particularly in France, Germany
and Great Britain. In common parlance, enlightenment means the act of throwing light
upon darkness, that is bestowing knowledge upon the ignorant. Metaphorically, the
Enlightenment denotes an intellectual movement through which people s religious and
political life was set free from obscure and orthodox beliefs and new light was s e
on the proper conduct of human affairs. This led to the emergence of a new outlook,
informed by reason and committed to the authority of scientific research and discovery.
Old superstitions were discarded, old fears were dispelled, and ai* in ®
knowledge obtained by scientific method was developed. That is w yt e lg enmen
is described as the ‘Age of Reason’.
Foundations of this new outlook were laid by several exponents of the plubsophy
°f science in the seventeenth century itself. The most prominen a Galilei
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher and states*anGahleo Gahle,
Ph5f4'16h42)’ ItaHan astronomer and P5jyS1Cton English mathematician,
SssSSiSsisssss
as a combination of critical and constructive thinking.
1219]
Encyclopedists
Encyclopedists were the editors of and the contributors to the famous Fren h
Encyclopedia of the eighteenth century (1751-52) which contained a Ch
powerful
expression of the new rationalism of pre-revolutionary France. They chiefly includ
Jean d'Alembert (1717-83), French mathematician and philosopher, and Denis
Diderot (1713-84), French writer and philosopher.
Enlightenment thinking promoted the spirit of rational scientific inquiry

humanitarian tolerance, and the respect for universal human rights. In the sphere of
religion, it insisted on the rejection of superstition, dogma and blind faith. Champions
of the Enlightenment affirmed their belief in progress. The idea of progress itself is the
product of scientific age and scientific temper. Before the advent of the scientific age
any image of a golden era was attributed to the past. But the exponents ofrationalism
Zdm7nZ f7PlZtSOtJ8h! ‘°.pmject thefut"re as a golden age. They claimed that the
® 3 *°tJm the Past due t0 the Prevailing ignorance, superstitions
retreTrSp f6d of sclentific knowledge heralded the victory overall
retrograde forces and held the promise of a great future.
Progress
improvementa.nodon that social change is heading towards a continuous
3s to coll th 0f mankind- 11 is a" concept which
tries to show thl 0ng0mg u With the vision of an ideal “dal order. It
Sg thaldea, 1 S°da' Cha"ge ™rks a the direction of
:
Rationalism
Rationalism refers to
the test of its vaNdl<Ph*C.a' theory that defines the nature of knowledge
and
universe consists of a £ed ordeîM ™y be deSCribed aS fo,iows: {°] ^
Knowledge about the real na*n ,s governed bY certain inexorable laws; (W
can be obtained only through ° 3 ,th'ngs and the laws governing the universe
superior to that obfa^Tfl Kn°W,edge °btained through ReaS°n *
and touch); (d) All natural ohen ^ Sense'exPerience (sight, sound, smell, taste
authentic-explanation ofai r * eXp,ai.ned; there can be T
cannot be recognized- and fi ^1 °™enon' hence its alternative explanations
phenomena of the universe erf il'Jfj the authentic explanations of various
=■ =~gg^£-!23£!j!!2j5gg_gnd constitute a single system.
of the Enlightenmentlu^learlindlf- “ ei8hteenth-century Europe in the wake

exponents of scientific mode of thinkins"!"1^ beRf°Und in seventeenth-ceng
philosopher and statesman, refuted the Greek ^1°" 0 561‘1 626)’PS
and asserted that ‘knowledge is power’. He argued thatTccmfulo^llwlcdge
was desirable because it enabled men to increase their happiness Bacon urged men to
obtain knowledge so as to use it for their own benefit byIncreasing their power o*
Nature of the Enlightenment 221
nature. In his view, knowledge was not directly a source of happiness. The knowledge
which Bacon recommended as useful was that of ‘natural philosophy’ or the ‘natural
sciences’. He expressed the hope that mankind would be immensely benefited by this
new type of knowledge which was to be obtained by the experimental method. The
greater men’s understanding of the material world and the greater their ability to harness
nature to their purposes, the better for them. Then other exponents of scientific method
like Galileo Galilei (1564-1642), Italian astronomer and physicist, Ren6 Descartes
(1596-1650), French philosopher and mathematician, produced a solid faith in methods
| of explanation and discovery which enormously increased man’s power to predict and to
| control the course of natural events. In the eighteenth century, Adam Smith (1723-90),
I British philosopher, showed the way to use scientific method in the field of economics.
The seventeenth century which preceded the age of Enlightenment, was notable not
only for its scientific discoveries but also for other developments which gave an impetus
to the idea of progress. These included the accumulation of an economic surplus, the
increase of social mobility, and the occurrence of major inventions that dramatically
increased human power over nature. Then during the eighteenth century, particularly
in France, an increasing number of intellectuals came to believe that the methods and
spirit of science should be applied to all fields. Voltaire (1694-1778), French philosopher,
argued that the cruelties, follies and superstitions prevailing in the past ages would now
be overcome by the dissemination of knowledge among the underprivileged. Most of
the French philosophers hoped that the cumulative increase in human knowledge and
power in the field of natural sciences would be applied for the improvement of the
organization of human society.
Marquis de Condorcet (1743-94), eminent French philosopher, in his Sketch for
a Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (1793), expressed the idea o
Progress as follows: “Our hopes for the future condition of human race can be subside
under three important heads: the abolition of inequalities betYee°^0n?’ V^ serted
°f equality within each nation, and the true perfection of ma n . nroduced an
toat in the course of history, mankind follows the path o progress. ^
account of nine distinguishable periods upto his time. He> expresse hicu wouici see
‘®th penod would folbw upon the success of the FrenchRevolunnwtachwc>uld see
the abolition of social, political and international inequalities^ ^
rationally conducted by the use of mathematical techniques. tters
to develop such techniques for application to social an po 11 ______
French Revolution
Hench Revolution refers to the culmination of the; senes^^^^ggainst
social upheavals in France (1789), caused by the revolt of he middle ^^
:
-—-
P°pular sovereignty.
nature between the elements of concord and discord until he learnt to subm't W
to a universal law prescribed by a society of nations and thus attain et 1 1miseif
ernal peace.
Q. "The Enlightenment stood for the faith in the capacity of human

reason to
promote progress." Elaborate and comment.
i
I
1
Immanuel Kant
i
UCaENERAlÎNTROpUCTION*
His father was a saddle-maker, and his grandfather was an enu^ chair rf
**" -«S'
logic and metaphysics as late as 1770
Enlightenment (The Age o f Reason)

t 0f eighteenth-century France,
Enlightenment refers to an intellectual ™°',e Deople's religious and political
Germany and Great Britain. It was a per o f ancj nevv light was shed on
life was set free from obscure and ortho o growth of a new outlook,
the proper conduct of human affairs. This of scientific research and
informed by Reason and committed to the peW fajth jn the knowledge
discovery. Old superstitions were discarded^" That b why the Enlightenment
obtained by the scientific method was deve P
■
is described as the 'Age of Reason.

______________ _____ ^ jjjg scholarly friends,
Carefully circumscribed, has a natural ten

[223 ]
r
and paradoxical beliefs which could never be rationally supported.” This sim i ■
that reason should always be applied with a note of caution. Normally if i/ yin3pliti
egitimate practical application where it serves as a competent guide to
and practice. Kant believed that Reason is the distinctive quality ofhuman
,mpels each Person to treat himselfand every other person as an end-in
as a means to an end. This is the keynote of Kant’s moral philosophy. '
,p Ka"t,S rep“!at“" as a Philosopher largely rests on his following works- rv,-
lPwe Re°son (1781)i Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785V rvv?"'
Practical Reason (1788); Critique ofJudgement (1790); Toward Eternal Pea ' mJ I
Metaphysical Principles of Virtue (1797); and The Conflict of the Faculties
- — v...........*-.
|| '. "Tf." f ff. rw ■ - :
[££*:/A '
CONCEPT OF MORAL FREEDOM

proceeds'fromYh311'1 POlit‘Cal phil°SOphyis the hallmark ofKant’s
at the standards freedom’in
concept of the ‘real will’, but Kant develop^
Real Will
(1712-78), Fênch^phHosoDhl r'nd'V'dua|,s wil1 identffied by Jean-Jaques Rousseau
h: of individual's will- Actual will

Wgto „„
®*isseau distinguished between two aspects
» »® which represent his lower self a»d
■j
real will, by his ultimate and mil * m°hvated by his immediate self-interest;
stable. Actual will Tffl s SiSST f00* ACtUa' Wil1 i$ transient' real wil1 iS
|[_members of the community * d t0 individua^ real will is common to all
individual as well as society ItremLc^! ^°°d as ** 1S concerned with good of

by Reason. It is Reason which^m entstâtaspfctofindividual’s will which is inspired
should be treated as an end-in-itself^6 t 1 6 lnd*v*dual to realize that each individual
culminates in his sense of dutv fr/ &S a means to serve another’s interest. This idea
his will that is informed by his spy!* arJ?*es lât individual sfreedom lies in fulfilM
his truefi-eedom. 6 °fdut);- Hence his moralfreedom coincides with
Kant is regarded an individualist. ButhT ^ dle ^dividual himself and not elsewhere
of individualism. While liberal view of t!d' 1'?dualism is Quite different from liberal vie*
his own good according to his own iudpem^ .Ua1llsrn envisages each individual pursuing
individuals think alike because they are i!fn Ka”1 proJects a social order in which a
this respect, Kant’s view corresponds to IW?^ by an identical ‘sense °fduty '
P Rousseau s concept of the General Will-
Immanuel Kant 225
‘
Individualism
Individualism refers to a principle which regards individual a rational being. It
requires that individual's dignity, autonomy and judgement should be given full
recognition while making public policy and decisions. It supports a legal, social
and political order based on voluntary transaction between individuals for their
mutual advantage.
;
I General Will
According to Jean-Jaques Rousseau (1712-78), General Will refers to the point of
convergence of the real will of all members of a community. It reflects the true
! interest of each individual as well as the common interest of the whole community.
Rousseau believed that man would realize his freedom by submitting his particular
will to the direction of the General Will.
Kant argues that when the sense of duty imparts identical consciousness to all
individuals, it may be expressed as a universal rule. For example, when Reason irec s
all individuals ‘do not steal’, it becomes a universal rule. An aggregate of such universal
rules is identified as ‘law’ which needs the state for its enforcement. Hence the very
idea of moralfreedom is the reason behind the existence ofthe state.
According to this argument the state is the product of the social . It is
through this contract that people surrender their external ee om so a
true freedom as members of a commonwealth. They use t is in^ free(iom would
exchange their wild, lawless freedom for their perfect freedom This freedom wou
never be lost because it emanates from their free, legis ative wi
Social Contract
The idea of the social contract refers to an agree'society. Thomas
Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, are r"g .^fent accounts of the state of
theory of the social contract. They have give ignty which comes into
nature, the terms of the contract, and the nature of sovereign y
^temporary American political philosopher, m his theory J

ant s concept of men acting at their free wi •
!
226 .
Every action which by itself or by its maxim enables the freedom of each individual's
will to co-exist with the freedom of everyone else in accordance with
a universal
law is right.
Immanuel Kant [Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals; 1785)
PRACTICAL REASON AND HUMAN DIGNITY

In the sphere of epistemology, Kant argued that our knowledge about the universe is
based on the subtle and dispersed signals obtained through our sense-organs (/>. the
organs of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch) which are integrated by our mind and
translated into meaningful experience. So the knowledge of this world attained by us
is circumscribed by the capability of the knower. It is not possible for us to know the
world as it is in the real sense. In other words, our sense-organs are incapable to perceive
the true nature of the universe. We are therefore left with only one alternative, that isto
appiy our practical reason to inquire into the relation between our mind and the universe.
Epistemology
Epistemology refers to a branch of philosophy which inquires into the nature,
origin, scope, structure, types, methods and validity of knowledge. The subject-
matter of epistemology may be expressed as follows: How do we know that we
truly know what we know?
»
Kant holds that our concepts are formed within the context of various human
fCfmrleS 1/lvo^v^nS labour, science, arts, etc. which seek to mould the universe for
rumiling human needs and objectives. So philosophy should be founded on the
owledge as to how men strive to mould the universe. Man’s practical reason is not
!•
determined by cause and effect relationship of the physical world, but it is capable of
distinguishing between good and evil. It is therefore guided by the moral law which
oSveSimS,” »f ““PMcs. Thus Kunt pounds ,h.«
Metaphysics
Metaphysics refers to
!
| th.l L Shin the reach of ’ i
Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing wonder and awe, the more
often and more seriously reflection concentrates upon them the sta ry heaven
above me and the moral law within me.
Immanuel Kant (Critique of Practical Reason;
The maxim of moral law in Kant’s philosophy leads to the concept ofh,
nianifv. \\ holds that each hitman hp'mo .. . , r i.. r
r
Immanuel Kant 227

n being. In other words, every human being is by nature endowed with a unique
° ^-fWhat is human dignity which cannot be exchanged for any worldly value. In
trroundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (1785), Kant distinguished between two
hlS of ought-statements: categorical and hypothetical. The hypothetical statement
tyP6S ts what an agent ought to do when he desires to achieve some objective. On the
S thp^hand the categorical statement prescribes what ought to be done independently of
Zh condition. Kant argued that only a categorical statement suggests an action that has
Lnuine moral worth. Accordingly, categorical imperative implies what an individual
ought to do independently of any desire to achieve a specific end.
Kant identified three formulations of this principle: (a) One ought to act only
thnroglfhis'nfaxinis a law-making member of a ‘kingdom the
ends con
is of little significance and, ...has an ordinary value
Man in the system of nature morally practical reason, is exalted
But man as a person, i.e., as the subject of a to the ends of
above all price. For... he is not to be valued merelyas a.means
end in himself.
other people, or even to his own ends, but is o
I^nnel Kant (Metaphysical Principles of Virtue^Jj
NATURE OF POLITICS shouldbe closely related. He argues
draws a clear distinction between moral motives Qtjier hand, legal motive refers
to acting from good will or respect for mora aw^ for the reconstruction of legal
to acting from the fear of law. Now politics can , motive, it cannot be seen as
institutions. Since politics operates on the s en Drove conducive to moral order,
a manifestation of good will. Abetter legalJ remain inferior to moral order,
yet as long as it is based on legal motive, i is__________ t
, d tue world — can possibly be
Nothing in the world — indeed nothl"g ût qualification except as a good will.
conceived which could be called goo ^^ yietaphysic of Morals; 1785)
Immanuel Kant (Groun
------~~ ^ u ^nmlitv it would be instrumental
Kant argues that if politics couldb*.S£g Jar and insisting on ‘eternal peace’
moral sentiment.
If all individuals had good will, they would respect all others as
as members of the ‘kingdom of ends’. Then ‘ends’
existence But since men are by nature inclined to evil as well asg^rfound0"* ^
^ -■ ss
, . ghts of mao’
glanng example of misuse
that a healthy politics would be conducted on the lines of renuXv” ’ ^ !hopes
Republicanism
■~=
Q. Write a short essay on Kant's moral and

political thought
:
;
;
I
mm
mm * n mm
IDEALIST TRADITION
The history of mankind does not begin with a conscious aim of any kind... The mere
social instinct implies a conscious purpose of security for life and property; and
when society has been constituted, this purpose becomes more comprehensive.
The History of the World begins with its general aim —the realization of the Idea
or Spirit — only in an implicit form that is, as Nature; a hidden, most profoundly
hidden, conscious instinct; and the whole process of History... is directed to
rendering this unconscious impulse a conscious one.
G.W.F. Hegel (Philosophy of History; 1831)J
Genuine tragedies in the world are not conflicts between right and wrong. They
are conflicts between two rights.
, G.W.F. Hegel
I
■
Basic Tenets of Idealism
,
Idealism refers to a philosophical outlook winch^ 0f physical existence
: ‘Consciousness’ is the essence of the universe,!tot tPheyprevailing idea
as well as social and political institutions are repreSents the opposite of
at a particular historical point of time. In ’ j ‘matter’ as the essence of the
materialism. In contrast to idealism, materialism r g ^ iling condition of the
universe; and consciousness as the mere re ec 1 _tQnf idealism and materialism have
matter. In the realm of political philosophy, adher d Kant (1724-1804) and
founded different schools of thought. For examp , woridview while Karl Marx
represent another worldview. . to ancient times, idealism as a

Although some hints of idealism may ® times. prominent exponents o
full-fledged political philosophy emerge m ^ p Hegel, German philosop ers,
this school of thought include Immanue an , ^ th0Ught was initially evo ve
andT.H. Green (1836-82), English Phll.°'°Ph®f pledge. It focused on the precise
around the theme of the nature and validity (the ôwn). Its basic. 1SS“ . ?
relationship between ‘subject’ (the knower) an t0 joiow the world (w re e
be expressed as follows: When a human agentjjûical institutions), how doe the
natural physical world or the world of sotna and P offered different explanations
knowing mind relate it to itself? Different thinkers
°F this phenomenon.
Immanuel Kan, w.a .he ft.
relationship between ‘subject’ and Served that human mind is some
(1711-76), Scottish philosopher and 1S ^0m the external wor > Kant
of Passive organ which receives imPreSS‘f association. Contradicting this ^ The
of objects are fonned by a mechanism o struCtured by the hum. We
ar8ued that the objects which we expenew: transfonns them into
ntittd receives manifold chaotic sense imp
[231]
and intelligible world by means of the understanding in terms of causality, substa
reciprocity, quantity, etc. In this process, the mind also employs the faculty of intuy6’
spread over space and time. In this sense, our experience of the world is the nr ri^
of the activity of mind. In Kant’s view, therefore, our knowledge of the external 1!
comes from a transcendental source (that is something beyond the reach of our sense
experience consisting of sight, sound, smell, taste and touch). This knowledge is akin
to our sense of morality which comes from a transcendental source. If sense-experience
alone is the source of all knowledge (as Hume believed), then we would be left with
nothing from which we could comprehend our sense of morality. Kant’s ideas about
human dignity and worth are also derived from the transcendental source.
Hegel sought to develop his idealist perspective in his own way. He accepted Kant’s
insistence on the need for inquiring into relationship between ‘subject’ and ‘object’. But
he rejected the view that knowledge of‘object’ was entirely based on intuition. He tried to
produce an account of the nature of the human subject in relation to the objective world.
He wanted to make this relationship wholly transparent and rational. Hegel argued that
philosophy must cover the whole range of human thought and action, otherwise many
areas will be left out of the account of the relationship between ‘subject’ and ‘object’.
Then Hegel realized the significance of historical factor in determining this relationship.
He argued that the relationship between ‘subject’ and ‘object’ cannot be understood in
a timeless way; it does not remain constant over time. Men’s conceptions of the world
undergo change over time through a dialectical process.
Dialectical Process
; Dialectic is a term of Greek origin which refers to the 'method or art of conversation
or debate . Metaphorically, it refers to a process in which two contradictory ideas or
antagonistic forces clash with each other, and their untenable parts are destroyed.
is resu s in a situation in which the original contradiction is surmounted and
nhiincnrkStage ° deve|opment is achieved. G.W.F. Hegel(1770-1831), German
ideal nnuth t0 deSCr'b6 the dialectical process in terms of thesis (the initial
dash hetwpInTk l°PP0Site idea) and (the idea that results from the
l and Hegel argued that the initial synthesis is
a new thesis> and the process
the Absolute Idea. °PP°SlteS goeson repeating itself until it reaches the stage of
In Hegel’s
‘nhiert’ .han.Hview,
k tk our
1 understanding of the relationship between ‘subject’ an<j
artistic endeavnnr Th 7“ SUch as ôur, political action, scientific ad
artistic endeavour. This activity is designed to mould the world according to human
projects and purposes. The idealist tradition was further developed by T.H. Green. G«®
ora « of principles which is no, iiself patt „f STS » <

this question through a combination of the theories of Kant and Hegel Like Kant, Gree
holds that our mind transforms the manifold chaotic sense impressions into a unifi*
world of objects. But he rejects Kant’s view that our experience is only subjective >»
nature. Green argues that human intelligence recognizes interrelationship between Gc,s
Basic Tenets ofIdealism 233
d thereby affirms the ‘objective’ nature of the world of facts.
an
Then like Hegel, Green holds that the intersubjective power of the self (i.e. the
• d or spirit) gives rise to uniform experience in all individuals. However, he rejects
i a el’s view that the development of consciousness culminates in the Absolute Idea.
^ believes that our knowledge of relationships and objectivity is never finally
^nlete Then Green tried to combine the philosophies of Kant and Hegel in the sphere
of moral freedom. Green’s concept of liberty was inspired by Kant’s principle of‘free
moral will’ and the dictates of public morality. And his theory of rights was guided by
Hegel’s view on the role of the state in maintaining rights of citizens.
In developing their theories, both Kant and Hegel start from Rousseau's conception
of moral freedom as the peculiar and distinctive quality of man, and both consider
the State entirely in its relation to freedom .... Kant interpreted freedom as the
right to will a self-imposed imperative of duty... To Hegel, freedom of this kind
is negative because it wears the face of duty, and it is limited because it isolates
each man as an end in himself.
Ernest barker-{Political Thought in England 1848 to 1914; 1928)
Q. What do your understand by idealism? Bring out the basic tenets of idealism.
G. W. F. Hegel
^GENERALINTRQDUGfrlQNlI
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) was an eminent Gennan philosopher

and one of the chief exponents of idealism. He was bom in a middle-class Protestant
tamily. His father was a civil servant. From his childhood, he became deeply interested f
in philosophy, and took up academic career on completion of his education. He taught
. T. rLSirVaetlUTTVerSltleS '"Sw,tzerland Germany, and in 1818 he was appointed to*
‘ he University of Berlin where he remained for the rest of his life.
_____ _____________ __
Idealism
u^verse ^nhlîr f pt!l'osophical outlool< which holds that all objects of the
manifestation.Vnf:a\er)™'es as™e" social and political institutions - are the
r ... êa (Spirit or Consciousness). GWF Hegel (1770-1831),
S£r rued that the ldea has the opacity* well as tendency
process of historical change.'*'tranSf°rmed int0 the Aôlute Idea through a long
During his tenure as a Professor of Philosophy at Berlin Hegel’s reputation as a
regime, but he’If

andêan-daques^Rousseau^l^T^-?^FrenchtihUo^6 ^
the nation-state, Hegel and his

of the centre of pol itical thinking.
1 234 ]
G. W.F. Hegel 235
Hegel’s maj or works include Phenomenology ofSpirit (1807), The Science ofLogic
? Encyclopedia ofPhilosophical Sciences (1817; twice revised), and Philosophy of
■ ht (\ 821)- Besides, the collections of Hegel’s lectures published posthumously include
^ philosophy of History, History of Philosophy, and Philosophy of Religion.
those on
0f Hegel’s political thought is largely found in his Philosophy of Right. His
Political philosophy is founded on his dialectical method which was systematically set
^ jn his Science of Logic and Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences. Besides, his
phenomenology ofSpirit also contains some social and political thought.
p--’ -*r- ------ r' jj 7'”'..... —"'r
^PHILOSOPHYOFHISTORY
Hegel’s political thought is deeply embedded in his philosopWcal approach^pamcutolly
SlllecS w2lism’d\ftlntSigttteThat SlManc (1818-83) German

philosopher, who started his illustrious career as one of the radrcal follower of Hegeh
sought to combine Hegel’s dialectical method with his own matenahsm (the opposite
of idealism, because it regards ‘matter’ as the essence oft e umvers ), ^ aiectical
the principle of ‘dialectical materialism’. In a nutshell, Hege s P^P
idealism’ implies: (a) Idea (Spirit or Consciousness) is the basicsub* [t ig the
(which includes physical objects as well as social an po 1 ^ represents the
driving force behind all historical development; eac socia pojnt; (£) Idea
manifestation of the prevailing form of Idea at a p 1CU always moves in
is endowed with capacity and tendency of develpment; and ^
a dialectical path, that is the initial idea is con ron ofthe tenable parts
»”pe”8 “r
unhl it reaches the stage of the Absolute Idea. origin which refers
The term ‘dialectic’ or ‘dialectical’ is derive of disputation’, that is by the
t0 ‘the method of investigation of truth through e was successfully applied
Process of argument and counter-arguments^ & Immanuel Kant (1724-1804),
: by plato, ancient Greek philosopher, m his Dialog ■ ^ study 0f contradictions
eminent German philosopher, sought to apply t 1S . received through the sense-
arising from the employment of reason to the ^Pr Hecel applied this method to
experience (sight, sound, smell, taste and touc ). resolved for arriving at a higher
I 1 entify the process whereby such contradic 10 ^tie initial idea), antithesis
Plane of truth. He described this process in term^ . from the clash between the thesis
(the opposite idea), and synthesis (the idea thaj: reisul integration of their tenable
y a"tithesis, the destruction of their untenable Pj*. ^ om perfect; s0 it takes the
Parts). Hegel argued that the initial synthesis is y of sites will go on repeating
Position of a new thesis and the process of con a
lSelf until it reaches the stage ofthe Absolute Truth-
In other words, the initial idea or proposition or thesis does not represent ab
truth; the counter-proposition or antithesis, which is just the opposite or a negat^
thesis, too, does not represent absolute truth. When thesis and antitheses clash with^
other, they tend to destroy each other’s untrue elements (because, true elements each
cannot
be destroyed). The resultant proposition, or synthesis, which embodies the resid
elements both of thesis and antithesis is relatively free from the untrue elements of th
two; it is nearer the truth or perfection as compared to those two. But the synthesis ?
evolved, may not be the whole truth. It therefore takes the position of a new thesis Z
undergoes the same process of clash with its antitheses and the emergence of a new
synthesis. This process of negation of negation continues till it reaches the stage of
absolute idea which is free from contradiction.
r Mechanism Of Hegel's Dialectical Process

(Shown in the Ascending Order)
New Thesis..... an so on
Synthesis
New Thesis... .Antithesis

Synthesis
New Thesis........ Antithesis

Synthesis
f
Thesis, -..Antithesis
(This process will continue till it reaches the absolute truth.)
Truth is found neither in the thesis nor th

e antithesis, but in an emergent synthesis
which reconciles the two.
• G.W.F. Hegel
Although Hegel was not the first to use dialectical method, yet he was the
first to develop the dialectic into
correspondin8 idea. This does not mean that with the consecutive changes in the idea,
individual, famdy, civil society and the State do exist simultaneously, representing
an ascending order of the idea. The reason behind family 0particularistic altruism) >
superior to that behind a solitary individual (particularistic egoism)-the reason behind
civil society (universal egoism) is superior to that behind family and finally the reason
behind the State (universal altruism) is superior to that behind the civil society.
G.W.F. Hegel 237
m m
îNDIVlbuACSîÊSWFORj FREEDOM*
:
In Hegel’s scheme of dialectical process, everything passes from an ‘undifferentiated’
beginning to ever more determinate ends. This is particularly exemplified by the progress
of man himself, from the primitive undifferentiated consciousness as the member of the
tribe, to the final self-realized and self-conscious individual. In this case, the dialectical
process is characterized by a steady advance from a personal, undifferentiated caprice
towards the determinate ‘self’. As Roger Scruton (A Dictionary ofPolitical Thought;
1982) has aptly elucidated: “The individual knows himself through his efforts to create
a determinate reality: thus man realizes himself in labour, in art, in political life, and
in each case the increasing self-knowledge and increasing power represent a gain in
freedom. In this way Hegel came to view true (realized) human nature as an acquisition,
rather than a gift... In particular he argued that social interaction precedes the creation
of the individual, and so cannot be explained as a matter of individual choice.
So Hegel did not identify freedom as a matter of individual choice. He expressed
his dissatisfaction with the utilitarian impulse to define freedom in terms of a calculus
of individual satisfaction. In his view, freedom was inextricab y tie to socia nec
which led to a continual refinement of his consciousness. In this process the individually
defined goals are transcended by more and more socially defined
individual, moved by his narrow self-interest and momentary
hisfreedom. Social institutions, which represent progressively higher panes ofJta,
are not created for the furtherance of individually-oriented goals is
as the instruments of promoting self-consciousness oft e m ivi
successively performed by the family, civil society and the Mate.
FAMILY, civil society and the state

State in their dialectical
Hegel has dwelled on the role of family, civil society ^ socjety represents
relationship. The family represents ‘unity’ (thesis), n c <universality’ (synthesis).
Particularity’ (antithesis)', and finally, the StateffaPnd contribute to the sublimation of
: aken together, these institutions enrich human i ,, £ncyci0pedia ofPolitical
human nature. As Shlomo Avineri (‘Hegel’ in The Bla ethical natUre of social
ought, edited by David Miller; 1987) has o serve • totaijty encompasses the
îstence has, according to Hegel, three ‘moments, ^ society and the state. Each
ulti-faceted nature of human life. They are t e a ’ , ■ t0 a different principle;
frese is a network of human relationship orSaniê , ■ ^ gives full meaning to the
44 "is?1” -f ,hese• which

‘^Paired in his quality as a human being.
,hree ,",,i0”bi ps is d“p',
individual’s egoism is
Accordingly, family is the first social >ns‘lt“tl°" '"f lhe family that the civilizing
l anuS,Cended some sort of altruism. It is at the level i ^ up a umty w,th
r" lberating process is initiated. In a happy m^t ® spiritual objectives as well.
resPect not only to the material needs of the union but to P
Different individuals living as members of the family, sharing their pleasures and 1
with common property and common responsibility, tend to transform a physical^’
into one of mind and mind. They develop a unity of feeling, love, confidence and f ^
in each other. In a relation of natural love, each member of the family tends to tra ^
nscend
his own ‘self’ and identifies it as a part of the unified whole. In this process ofmuti
self-renunciation, each member of the family loses his existence as an independe2
individual, but regains it as a part of a larger, stronger and richer entity. In any caT
family does not provide for the final means of self-realization. As Avineri has elucidated'
“The family is the kind of human relationship based on particularistic altruism: the
willingness to act not in one’s own interest but for the good of the other members of the
family — parent, spouse, offspring, etc. In caring for the nourishment and education
of one’s children, or the welfare of one’s ageing parents, action is determined not by
self-interest but by willingness — sanctified in the social mores as a duty — to benefit
another person. It is, on the other hand, relationship limited to a particular set of people
and thus its altruism is severely circumscribed” (ibid).
Family is, of course, the cradle of virtue. It impels man to transcend his narrow
self-interest. It leads him from egoism to altruism. Yet in a group as small as the family,
neit er material nor spiritual needs are adequately served. Moreover, as the younger
members of the family are grown up, its natural outcome is ‘the dissolution of the
ami y 5 an transition to civil society. Once the children have been educated to freedom
0 persona lty and have come of age, they become recognized as persons in the eye of
law and ehgê to hold property of their own. The family disintegrates into a plurality
° amines: the sons become heads of new families and the daughters become wives
| If ° er ami ies- Further development of the human spirit, therefore, takes place in a
‘ ger socmty t e civil society. It enables the individual to transcend the particularistic
Enriilfinhli?68?8 t0ieTCa11 that the liberal thinkers like John Locke (1632-1704),
the termsP‘civiUPnpe\a”d ân"faque,s Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, used
the ‘state of nati ^p ^ ^ aS coterminous in order to distinguish them fronl
state’ as distil ‘ But He&el dr™ a dear distinction between ‘civil society’and the
as the realm 0f inHh T an(d spiritual development. Hegel saw civil society
relatkmshio It ^ & ° had left the uniW °f the family to enter into econoo*
v ew thSne o n " T? °f 1P™* ^'f-interest and open competition. In Hegel
expected to serve ^ cc— ^ °runive^
1 I ’i , , kers kke Locke, Rousseau and Adam Smith (T 723-90), British
their own interest. As Avmer, has illustrated : “Civil society is the sShere of unt**!
egoism : a person relates to all other human beings (except of course, members of l>'s
own family) on the basis of h,s own interests; he tries to maximize tlmse interests, ajd i
views the interests of all other human beings as mere means to this end. The spb***
civil society is therefore the specific arena of economic activity, since a person ",|10
G. WF Hegel 239
I s jn commerce, for example, is not working in order to ensure the livelihood of
others but is using the felt needs of others as the means through which he may satisfy
his own needs” (ibid).
Hegel's Positioning of Family, Civil Society and the State

Universal Altruism
t
State
Synthesis *-
Thesis Antithesis
I I
Civil Society
Family
I 1
Universal
Particularistic
Egoism
Altruism
Civil society is based on material needs of individuals, not on the Ideainferior

capable of flowering into ‘freedom’. Yet it represents a rudimentary Aewe\QX)Qd
form - of a higher order, that is the State. It does comprehend cetam. developed
organs of control and administration, such as the peasantry an ge facturi
producing agricultural commodities, and the business class engaged in‘ ®
êgel describes the mechanism of civil society as

with the State proper by the adherents of liberalism.
Wlosoph, indeed „„gniz, « ,».« *“ *h* ^ b“
not lower itself to the people. G.W.F. Hegel
------------------ ■ • f nn of hi °her order which should

Hegel argues that the State refers to ani instl‘u“ s0“iety couid be defined as
ot be confused with civil society. The specific en ^he j^ghts and obligations
e Protection of personal freedom and security o P -t voiuntarily. In other
ssociated with civil society are applicable on y to ^ be obviously optional. But
th°rds’ Membership of an association like civils0^ The institution that was created
is condition cannot be made applicable to t e • ^$ sense which represente
ough the ‘social contract’ corresponds to civi s civji society, lself-interest
. is
1 * ^nitV of different individuals only as a in their view. Civil society is
ba^Vmportant for individuals; all else is msig peopie together, and not on
W °n Understanding’ of the external necessl5iation
X*b**on' of the inherent ‘reason’ of their association.
r
Social Contract
Idea of the social contract refers to an agreement among men wherehu «,
relinquish the hypothetical 'state of nature' and enter into civil societv tk ^
Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), English philosophers, and jean-l^
Rousseau (1712-78), French philosopher, are regarded the chief exponents JT
theory of the social contract. They have given different accounts of the state r
nature, the terms of the contract, and the nature of sovereignty which °
comes into
n , ™°rdmg ,Hege ’ T S0Ciety C0mes int0 existence for the fulfilment ofhumar
needs. These needs cannot be met simply by the consumption of natural products oi
raw materials . So men have to add their ‘labour’ or ‘work’ to make the raC materials
ht for human consumption. As Hegel himself observed: “Through work the raw material
of different nroc Y "IT 1S,Spe"lfically adaPted to these numerous ends by all sons
them Ae r nfinw H h *"* f“ive change confere value means and elves
product of m?Tt rnenCe T" “ What he consumes is mainly concerned with the
ofRiZ IsTn i! Pr °f hUman eff0rt which man consumes” (Ptvlosopk
from the" products f ™portant t0 nole that whereas animals fulfil their need directly
iZder to cream h T!'6’ “ beingS haVe t0 add their ‘labour’ to such product
to transcend the nh v"- U i berefore’ ‘lat)our’ is the first element which enables men
«£ ritS S6t UP°n th6m ^ nature' So Hegel regards ‘labour’*
are noTpurelfn v hUman needs as distinguished from animal needs,
‘consciousness^ So rh °r "latena needs; their articulation involves the mediation of
Mibe a ,on R alittion oT l aCt'°n °/hUman needs itself is another source of to
i needs have no fixed‘l?rhurna"needs trough ‘consciousness’ also implies thatlhese

of taste and utility as critic?™ l"1?' ApPlicalion of imehigence and introduction
multiplication of human needs aluatI0n of various goods lend refinement to and
above nature, and goêyond"*^ freedom imPhes the tendency of rising

ground that Hegel repudiates the nrnTÎSfaCtIOn of mere physical needs. It is on thi
among men. No man finds himself to Jend:® to Promote universal interdependent®

G.W.F. Hegel 241
In short, men’s motives of self-interest and self-assertion within civil society result
in constant interaction between them and their recognition of each other. So Hegel
regards civil society as a necessary ‘moment’ in man’s progress toward his realization
of consciousness and freedom . Still it is a lower level of realization. Hegel, therefore,
looks for a superior institution that would secure higher level of realization. He identifies
the State as capable of performing this function.
While civil society is organized on the principle of universal egoism, the State is
organized on the principle of universal altruism. If civil society is capable to provide the
protection of ‘personal freedom’ and security of property, the State is capable to secure
‘universal freedom’. According to Hegel, the State is able to perform this role by virtue
of its unique capacity to rise above private interests and divert all energies and resources
to the fulfilment of larger, national purpose. As Avineri has aptly elucidated; “Within
the dialectical structure of Hegel’s thought the state is a synthesis of the constitutive
elements of the family and civil society. On the other hand, the state is analogous to
the family in that the citizen is expected to act not in his own interest but in ways that
promote the welfare of others: paying taxes, serving in the army, etc .. . On the other
hand, the state integrates into its structure the universal element of civil society, and
this synthesis gives rise to a consciousness of citizenship based on universal criteria... A
man counts as a man in virtue of his humanity alone, not because he is a Jew, Catho ic,
Protestant, German, Italian, etc.” (The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Political Thought,
edited by David Miller). In a nutshell, the State integrates different individuals into a
universal system informed by Reason.
STATE AS ACTUALIZATION OF FREEDOM
Hegel defines the State as ‘the actuality of the ethical idea’. In his scheme of things,
family represents the ethical idea in its immediacy, civil society represen s ’
and the State represents it in actuality. What is meant by ‘actual iniHegeI s term.no og.
't does not refer to what actually exists. In Hegel’s view, ‘the actua herafioi*1-He
even the history of the world as a rational process, culminaUng^nthe^t.o^
slate. That is why Hegel glorifies the State as ‘the march of G
divine idea as it exists on earth’. « ,
T's of development of the ethical idea serve to sec^difeent leve^ ^ ^ ^

level of freedom whereas
ln civil society^ man realizes only the lower . , , • nlipd hv the particular will of
------
ne rpiilir,— i • ,
realizes higher .level of„ freedom.
~
Civil;i cr\r
society which is manifested
®rent individuals, but the State is ruled by the u» an instrument of man’s
f e c°ulescence of rights and duties. Rights are ]n his Philosophy ofRight
Hegel fa, day is also a force of'«*«*« „„ ilefan.le
suK- ’he observes: “The bond of duty can appear a c f the natural will or of the
moJre.Ctivity °r abstract freedom, and on the impu se . finds his liberation; first,
liboa ‘trutb however, that in duty e depression which as
lbn^tion from dependence on mere natural impulse and from ‘ -
S^ secondly, M.» «*«—* -*

Cl’lr>g reality or the objective determinancy of acti
devoid of actuality. In duty the individual acquires his substantive freedom ”
In Hegel’s view, the State is based on rational freedom, as it is organized in
way that each individual can realize his freedom in conjunction with others. In corn 3
civil society enables the individual to fulfil his ends only by disregarding everv $
else’s aims. In other words, civil society subscribes to the purely individualist con ?
offreedom which imposes no limits on his arbitrary choice. On the contrary, the State
creates the ethical order which makes an individual’s freedom dependent on the freedom
of others. The State therefore epitomizes the universal and objective concept oj'freedom.
Being a larger and a more developed entity, the State also incorporates the subjective
aspect of freedom, that is the pursuit of personal and particular interests along with
universal interests. It is a typically modem concept, not to be found at the earlier sta ges
of historical development. As Hegel asserts: “The essence of the modem state is that the
universal be bound up with the complete freedom of its particular members and with
private well-being.... The universal must be furthered, but subjectivity on the otherhand
must attain its full and living development. It is only when both these moments subsist
in their strength that the state can be regarded as articulated and genuinely organized"
(ibid.).
As the State is the highest expression of the ethical idea, it is superior to all other
social institutions. Accordingly, the political relationship of man in modem society
becomes the dominant relationship. The development of the modem state postulates
that the whole of an individual’s activity shall be mediated through his will which is
expressed in political institutions. Hegel allows the family, civil society and even the
Church to exist and play their respective roles side by side with the State, but he accepts
the primacy of the political institutions. This viewpoint has been mistaken as a source
of authoritarian or totalitarian bias in Hegel’s thought. However, before accepting this
position, we should look into Hegel’s potentially critical attitude towards the State.As
Shlomo Avineri (Hegel’s Theory ofthe Modern State; 1972) has elucidated: “The state
em o ies man s highest relationship to other human beings, yet this function of the state
is conditional, not absolute. In order to qualify for such a role, the state has to reflect the
“ !v* ,ua s se^_consctousness. Hence not every state qualifies for those attributes wi
w ic i ege invests the idea of the state. Furthermore, it is the way the institutions0
the state are organized which determines whether individual’s self-consciousness does
or does not find its adequate expression in any individual state.” ____ ^
freedom0*7 ^ ^ 'S °ther than the progress of the consciousness of
[______;______ ___________ _ G.WTHeg^J

When Hegel says that the State is the actualization of the ethical idea or
he does not refer to the apparent form of political institutions as the external organ
coercion, but he conceived them in their ideal form. He is fully aware that the ef"
states may not qualify for the attributes of his ideal state. He admits that a ‘bad s
may exist as a ‘sick body exists, too, but it has no genuine reality’. His
of the authority of the State is intended only for a genuine state which ought to ^
embodiment of Reason. Only such state is capable of securing genuine freed°n
human beings on a universal scale.
G.W.F Hegel 243
IV
îiyi^Nciifî&N^FROw Slavery
Hegel’s thought on emancipation from slavery is an important part of his political

hiiosophy to which adequate attention has not been paid. It is mainly included in his
phenomenology of Spirit (1807) which is of peculiar interest to the student of social
and political philosophy. Dwelling on the relation between master and slave, Hegel
maintained that slave alone is capable of virtue; master is simply incapable of it. This
view is diametrically opposite to that of Aristotle, ancient Greek philosopher, who had
argued that only master is capable of virtue, and that slave is inherently incapable of it.
Aristotle’s justification of slavery was meant to support an economy which was totally
dependent on slavery. But Hegel was writing in early nineteenth-century Europe when
slavery did not exist in its original form. Then what did he mean by the respective
qualities of master and slave in an age of growing industrialization?
Hegel eulogized ‘labour’as a liberating force throughout his social thought.
Importance of labour had immensely increased in his own age. But the con ltion o e
worker had not improved at all! The relation between employer and employee was no
better than that between master and slave. It seems Hegel chose to discuss is re a
as that between master and slave. In Aristotle’s times, emancipation of*lav“™
on the agenda of political philosophers. But in Hegel’s time,
i
national frontiers. . ,. f th
Now coming to the status of the slave, Hegel arguesL^ps'Ieminology^t is the
master, the slave works on nature. He transforms it,in ^ -g tjie worker
negation of its original form. In transforming the nat^re’ most efficient use of his
modern context) transforms himself. He strives o un(jerstanding of nature
0Ur anc* his materials. As a worker, he gradually mcr WOrk, he extends his
°f himself. Then he also acquires self-discipline. Jn s0 many ways which
Wer 0ver nature ag wejj as Qver himself. So he acqal js the worker) proves
not open to the master who abstains from work. ietv The master (that is the
em T0lth and suPcriority as he is indispensable for ^ without him. He does not
rena °êr^ *s unahle to prove his worth as the socie man to work for him.
er auy service to society except that of forcing ^ ^{ch make him morally
.ln short, the slave acquires three componentsi of ’v'êpower over namre, and (c)
Self1H-telle°tua^y vahiable for society: (a) Know . A? Wliy is he unable to emancipate
C'-iphne. Then why he continues to remain a slave. js only fear that keeps
from the condition of slavery? Hegel obsess ge ^ master, and
'm cl°cile. If he can overcome this fear, he would be able
cease to remain a slave. His emancipation from slavery will not only change hi
position, it will transform the whole social order. When workers themselves S OWd
authority, the masters would become redundant. The future, therefore, is with the si 6
In a community of workers, everyone will accord recognition to everyone else ^
equal worker; the distinction between master and slave will disappear. It would b ^
community in which spirit attains its end and achieves full satisfaction. 63
It is evident that Hegel’s vision of the future contemplates a new social order in which
workers would play the key role, and where their dignity would be fully recognized.
So Hegel had anticipated a well-functioning workers’ state which approximates Mara’s
vision of the future whether Marx and his followers acknowledge it or not.
Hegel was a brilliant political philosopher who made unique contribution to
political theory. But in the absence of proper understanding and appreciation of his
writings, he has remained an extremely controversial thinker. George H. Sabine (A
History of Political Theory; 1961 edition) describes Hegel’s philosophy as nothing
less than an attempt at ‘a complete and systematic reconstruction of modem thought’.
Unfortunately, Hegel has been criticized so widely that his real contribution has been
obscured.
Hegel made a very important contribution to the doctrine of progress. His view
regarding dialectical mechanism of progress was a landmark in the history ofphilosophy
as well as philosophy of history. He made an important point that ‘idea’ is the driving
torce behind all historical development which is manifested in the diverse forms of social
institutions. He does not label these institutions as right and wrong, but identifies them
as less perfect and more perfect expressions of the Reason. He argues that the conflicts
ansing m the course of historical development are not between right and wrong; they are
on icts between two rights. He held that thesis and antithesis could be equally right or
behind 1eViqUfally.true °r untrue> but heir synthesis would be nearer truth. So the Reason
behind the family and civil society would be equally imperfect; only the Reason behind
bvd™\rZ°Jt Of PerfeC* m relation t0 both the family and civil society. Moreover,
combfninp fh he S fS thf synthesis of family and civil society he paved the way for
nnc r :r,n? es 0f liberty and (as prevalent in civil society) with the
an S prevalent in family). Hegel’s philosophy may be invoked as
Svtsvwin^ T f°T of indl vidua'ism of the present-day society where ever
family is giving way to the rules of civil society, not to speak of the State.
Progress
Progress refers to the notion that social change is heading towards a continuous
3s trcol0arethe on0nditi0,IS °f ™"ki"d * is - evaluate concept which
tends to compare the ongomg changes with the vision of an ideal social order. It
| ’ P<,rCe,ltlMe ,Mal -M» a i" *■ *•«“ *
developed into differentdirects byTffmmSL0OntelrnetaSs“*“

G.W.F. Hegel 245
the Hegelian dialectic to yield the materialist interpretation of history — the
to reVlse£c|ass conflict culminating in a proletarian revolution, setting up ‘dictatorship
history ° ,etarjat»9 and eventual ‘withering away’ of the state. On the other hand,
°f the o^£ascjsm sought to exploit Hegel’s deification of the nation-state in order
exponen nationalism sustained by an oppressive, authoritarian, totalitarian and
tov m K However, T. H. Green (1836-82), English philosopher, adapted Hegel’s
Strain amoderate way to yield a theory of positive liberalism.
Fascism
Fascism refers to an anti-democratic theory advanced by Benito Mussolini
(1883-1945)/ Italian dictator, which eulogized nation-state as the supreme
moral authority. It exhorted people to set aside all rules, conventions and legal
limitations, and religiously follow the dictates of their leader in pursuit of national
glorification.
histoiyê^toppedâpotat which ûhed h^contemporary ®ov^|nêlJto^^g®ge^

admitted the possibility of a ‘bad’ state which did not deserve uncondmona obidieneteas
a genuine state did, he failed to draw a distinction between e o in attention
seems to be in favour ofunlimited political obligation so much so
to the means of protest against rulers’ injustice, bureaucratic mg
"It follows from his metaphysics that true liberty cons,stem obedience t
authority, that free speech is evil, that absolute monar y misfortune... What he
organization for the peaceful settlement of disputes w°u government control.” This
admired were... order, system, regulation and intensity jjeeel embarked on
criticism would appear to be a little uncharitable. Yet it is true that Heg
a grand philosophy that failed to reach its logical conclusion________ ________
Political Obligation to how far,

Political obligation refers to the set of conditions commands of political
when and why individual is obliged to obey law as the payment of taxes,
authority. This may be accompanied by such ^ which are necessary
Participation in voting, jury service and military
0r the maintenance of political institutions. ------ —-------- ~~
■------------- .--------------------------------------------- -------- 7 7 of family and civil society

"The state represents the synthesis of the virt ^ philosophy of history.
— Elaborate this s
2* Write short notes on:
1°) Hegel's Concept of Dialectical C a" ^
(b) Hegel's view on Emancipation ro ^
T. H. Green
I
GENERAtÎNTRODUCTIONf
Green...
Englishmen5wtth^Vn6 philosophy °f Greece and of Germany, and interpreted it for
» S a pTaZ t ? meaSU/e °f EngHsh Caution- Green... is more of an Aristotelian
than a Platon,st, and more of a Kantian than a Hegelian.
Ernest Barker (Political Thought in England
-----------— 1848 to 1914; 1928)J
asarSsssSs
position till the end of his short hfe^ °f M°ral Ph,losoPhy m 1878, and retained »
working out its morarfounri'T l° P°!itical Philosophy was to transform liberalising

which originatedfrmrwV0nS- He W3S deeply influenced by the idealist tradition
and which was revrd tr"n8,S °f Pkt° and A™otle, “dent Greek philosopb J
philosopher, and developed bv Im6™ ^ by Jean'Ja(lues Rousseau (1712-78), W
1831), German philosophic r?P 6 Kant (1724-1804) and G.W.F. Hegel (gj
liberalism, which was based on the™ fr8fed that the existing foundations of
hollow and that it could be sZ nL f°f'^vidual self-interest, had b J
of franchise, public inst^cGon and So ft °n,y °n m°ral Srounds'
could be justified only on philosophical^ e8'slatl0n was the order of the day d
[ 246 ]
T.H. Green 247
directing liberalism from the morally indifferent principle of laissez-faire towards
for re
ore humane principle of social welfare.___________________________
them
Liberalism
lism refers to a principle of politics which regards 'liberty' or freedom of
U dVidual as the first and foremost principle of public policy. Early liberalism (which
hroadly flourished in eighteenth-century Europe) subscribed to the principle of
fajre which implied the policy of non-intervention of the state in economic
activities of individuals. It held that individual is the best judge of his own interest,
nfj that each individual pursuing his self-interest, tends to promote the common
interest which represents the aggregate of the self-interest of all members of
ociety However, later version of liberalism (which was broadly developed m late
nineteenth-century England) subscribed to the principle of Welfare State. J
Welfare State
W.lfat, state ref.,, to a state ft., safeguard. »«,, * «
provides various types of social services or e #- • jnc0me, death of the
assistance in the case of loss of job or any o ^^ calamity), free
breadwinner, prolonged illness or phy i goods and services like
education, public health, poor relief, supp Y subsidized rates. It makes use
foodgrains, milk, fuel and r^vely rich to provide for a vast network
of public resources and taxation
of social services and social security.
Green’s political philosophy played a ‘"âGreenC most important

and public policy in Great Britain from abou Proiemmena to Ethics (1883), and
writings that were posthumously published, 1 1 - a nutshell, Green sought to
Lectures on the Principles ofPolitical Obligation U **)- ^ philosophy. His chief
establish interlinkage between mataphysics, ethic certainly create conditions
argument was that the state cannot make man mora, {Q t0 rem0ve hindrances in
which are conducive to his moral uplift- He wan
the way of man’s moral life.
■
II
Concept of moral freedom is the keynote o , on the principle of laKS*f , ’ Green

|he existing theory of liberalism which *aS b J subscribedto ‘negative {ive
estbe described as negative liberalism, e introducing the concep
^ght to transfonn it into positive liberalism by m ized mora freedom^ he
'berty’ which is coterminous with moral ft donu H ^ ^ ‘freedom haVe
o'stinctive quality of man. In this context liberaijsm.
used synonymously, as done in all hteratu > and ‘positive freedom •
gative freedom
Green carefully distinguished between ne_
He argued that negative freedom consists in the satisfaction of one’s dP*;
according to one’s own choice or sweet will. It is the sphere where man |*’ acli»8
alone (which is the literal meaning of laissez-faire). Early utilitarians th™ [°be‘leli
as a mere pleasure-seeker’ and ‘pleasure maximizer’. So the notion of nP °flTla"
smted their mode of thought. J.S. Mill sought to introduce qualitative difW"t
different kinds of pleasures. He argued that high-quality pleasure is nhJ ,4 u®S betWee“
the superior faculties of mind and spirit. That is why Mill asserted- “IM
a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be SoctrIps w be”ertol)«
a fool satisfied.” Green went a step further and argued that human he' ISSa!‘sfied lha"
pleasure directly. Rational basis of human activit^ is will anT b §S d° notseek
or passion. Men therefore seek ‘self-realization’ whirh ■ d reaS°n’ and notdesire
sorts of pleasure. realization which ,s supenor to the pursuit of all
bu. . Ur
conscientious children or parents, citizens orpubfic Whe" ^ “
of positive freedom' Green'tler/lnfoi™ed by bis sense of duty, leads to the concept

defines ‘positive freedom’ as ‘ ofPolitical Obligation; 1885)
himself, shall be at one with the law wh twv, WhlCh man Sha11 have realized his ideal of
and so fulfil the law of his beinp n /• • hC recognizes as that which he ought to obey,,
argued that human welfare would h "8 accordin8to nature”. The early liberals had
his course of action. On the other h maxi^zed if individual was left alone to choose
choice between alternative course* ’ • feen asserted that for most people, a free
bound by the economic, cultural and° aCt!°n d*d not exist because they were already
conditions in which individual could S0Cia constra*nts- It was for government to create
choice. In order to serve this numncp ^ & °VG êSe constraints and make a truly free
education, healthy living and worki ’ g0ve™lent should provide free and compulsory
and unemployment. g C0ndltl0ns, and relief from the fear of poverty
to Reason, achieving self-realization66^01 0^ncbvidual consists in acting according

through the act of‘good will’wherPh? seIf'Perfection. Moral freedom is realized
Barker (Political Thought in EnelanJ/sjo ldentlfies himself with his ideal self. Ernest
concept of true liberty as follows- “T ih 1928) has aptly elucidated Green s
only be liberty for the pursuit of the nhi^ Ca” only be liberty for this good will, it can
is therefore no negative absence of resn? S W™cb sucb a will presents to itself. Liberty
ugliness. It is apositive power ofdoina ^ any more than beauty is the absence°,!
Green further postulates that positive freed^ Somet^‘ng worth doing or enjoying-
enjoying something worth doing or enjoyina wT realized not only through d°mfl
with others. Accordingly, David Miller (‘Introduction’ iniSeêdfied b^Daîd
T.H. Green 249
1991) has identified three distinct elements in Green’s definition of positive freedom:
“First, there is the claim that true freedom involves the capacity to do things, not the
mere absence of restraint. Second, there is the moral element: the things we do must
h ortli doing, which for Green meant that they had moral value. Third, there is the
6 al element: freedom must be enjoyed ‘in common with others’.” It means that an
•°d'vidual enjoys his freedom not by curtailing freedom of others, but in doing so he
makes a positive contribution to the well-being of others. In Green’s view, these three
conditions are independent of each other. In exercising one’s moral freedom, all these
conditions should be fulfilled together.
• '' -
III
iscHlORY OFL RIGHTS
Green argued that the exercise of true liberty postulates rights. Rights do not emanate
from any transcendental law as John Locke (1632-1704), English philosopher known
to be the father of liberalism, had imagined. Locke had maintained that man s rig
‘life, liberty and property’ comprised his natural rights because he was endowed with
these rights by nature; no empirical evidence was necessary to prove this^ In L,reen s
view, rights emanate from the moral character ofman, and not om isna ...
Green postulates a system of rights in which each individual recognizes in h.s fellow^
of clash between the rights of different individuals. ,

Green concedes that rights need recognition, statTand society, and
are legal rights. Green draws a clear distinction these are required to be
holds that genuine rights need not be recognized y ’ can p^sue his moral
^cognized by the moral consciousness of the cumwwmtyin isolation. So Green is
end and attain self-realization only in a community, an These rights can be
Primarily concerned with ideal rights, and not with leg*■ . d will’. As Ernest
âbzed in a society which is properly organize on e rights of which Green
barker (Political Thought in England) has elucl,df^ rpco2nition of which he speaks
•Peaks are relative to morality rather than law; an legislature.”
" cognition by a common moral consciousness rather h*. by
of the
According to Green, the state is also the Prod“ct ° ,iberty; liberty involves
... ——unity. As he argues, human consciousness p majnta;n an effective system
Jh,sj nights demand the state. The state is necessary ‘ holds; lt 1S not an
e It is therefore an instrument ofperfect to ,g necessary to enable men
hdiment ofperfection as idealist theory claims. <protector of rights’ as liberal
< s'. .w - * «“d“d and

in the light of the ideal purpose of the state — the moral perfection of men
Positive Law
Positive law refers to the law that is duly enacted by a legislative bodv
recognized by the judiciary. Positive law is binding on all those coming within^
jurisdiction, and its violation is effectively met with punishment.
In Green’s view, primary function of the state is to maintain such conditions of lit
m which morality shall be possible. Morality consists in the disinterested performance
of self-imposed duties, not m obeying the commands of the state. Green’s concern™ of
~ ass him “ f™r,h'

a win SoLim/P/I0H °f ?een Uph0ldS the right t0 pr0perty as a means oflrealizing
fill different v S°C’a T16 S°Clal 8°od requires that different individuals should
nroneS m nerf el'" ^ S°Clal organizati°n. So they require different amounts of
‘functional’ fm ° u? Ur Uiie*' Hence’ differences in the possession of property are
the social mns m 6 ° V16W °*tlle soc'a* 8°°d, which should be recognized by
SIT"-- H°WeVer’on this point Green is faced with
a dilemma. When the
and others am Under which some men take an unduly large share
this right becomel6" 6 u 0n? acquirm8 adequate property as a means of self-realization,
turns fo realize th /“the exercise of moraI freedom by the many. So Green
Siosi bvToJ51 maia y -the capitalist system’ but «ops short of making proper
p~!SS ”T% ~ ta ll”SJS,»°r,““
capitahst sTstemn<He<fiblame *he feudaI system of the past for all evils of the present
the creat o„ ofTirrgUet/,at ^ SyStem °f ‘landed P™perty’ was responsible for
-cqS^sstss? ?Green hiL,f)"neitEer heid:

By P""»* *• —■
bulk of ihe working class in moZ, fa“ “» «f P“*“ °"
Capitalism
forests, machinery and capita,,.
work anywhere according - “S?

T.H. Green 251
IV
FOUNDATIONS OF THE POLITICAL OBLIGATION
. , 0biiaation refers to the set of conditions which determine as to how far, when
H hv individual is obliged to obey law and the commands of political authority. Green
® e(j that the state is authorized to make law, and individual is obliged to abide by it,
argu
far as it conforms to the moral consciousness of the community and the individual
^spectively. In Green’s view, the state cannot demand unconditional obedience from
its citizens. For the purpose of determining political obligation, organized power of the
community, and not the state, should be recognized as the political authority. Accordmgly,
individual owes his allegiance to society, and not to the state.
Green tends to link the problem of political obligation with the pursuit of the
common good He argues that as self-conscious beings, men and women seek to realize
the common good which they grasp along with other members of the cammimj
They do not identify their self-interest as distinctly as they identify the common goo^
Common good not only comprehends the good of all members of the co*y; but
their conceptions of the common good are also identical. In his .ecnircs on
Ofthe state, his political obligation does not prevent him from such ciejta .
„f the common good which prompts
According to Green, it is the consciousness of seifGnterest for the sake
men to accept their duties. They are ready to sacn military service, for they
the common good, such as by paying taxes and ren em community, not as
Relieve that they can attain self-realization only as . j an(j the community
isolated individuals. The question of priority between them ^ community,
ls ^levant because individuals have no rationa exl^ •, .g p,e true basis of the
and no community can exist without its constituent in 1 .. .^/ ^ an end-in-itself
community lies in each individual treating every o e a^je 0f pursuing ideal
ccause each member of the community is regar e consists in determining
^ Jccts. The criterion of evaluation of any institu ion reason in the conduct of
hether it enables the citizens to exercise their good r of the community to
at aê conducive to moral freedom of individuals. form certain acts. But these
Woi PAeen that law can force the individuals because morality is dependent
uld be external acts only. No law can make them ^ ^ is the basis of t
«o/PTethin8 freely billed. In Green’s worfS’h|i2>n banks upon the moral natme
&nd
inspiration for later political philosophers who sought to build their theories f
obligation on the foundations of morality. For example, Harold J. Laski 0891°^
English political philosopher, following the footsteps of Green, ruled out unc d'
political obligation. Laski argued that if a government claims allegiance of itT
it will have to compete with other human associations in securing their highest ^
welfare.
Q. Elucidate Green's concept of moral freedom. Bring out its relation with the
grounds of political obligation.
■wrr-:
'ty'
®al IB
|j|RvA
]
MARXIST TRADITION
The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is
to change it.
Karl Marx (Theses on Feuerbach; 1845)
Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of organic nature, so Marx

discovered the law of development of human history.
Friedrich Engels' Epitaph at Marx's Graveyard (1883)

Basic Tenets of Marxism
wr.
&WHAT IS MARXISM?-
from that of Karl Marx (1818-83), famous German econonust^d soc^ . (o

of the nineteenth century who is the chief exponen o pêc^ch Engels (1820-95),
recall that this term was unknown in Marx’s own 1 e im • £odoWjng comment made
a close friend and collaborator of Marx, once repo ® Mm. probably said so as
by Marx himself: “All I know is that I am not a Marx • ^ pQSsible that he did
be did not claim to offer a comprehensive worldview ^ end ofthe nineteenth
not advance such a claim out of modesty. However, ounced that ‘Marxism is a
century, G.V. Plekhanov (1856-1918), Russian Marxist, d ^ be regarded as
whole worldview.’ However, despite this name, Maj. . ^ fact> comprises a rich
system of thought exclusively belonging to arx; . Se possibilities.
Edition of sodal thought - a living tradition, withu^
Worldview ent status of world
Worldview refers to a system of thought

society, tries to find solution to its problems, an ___-—’==-:=’ ~
___ - . ____ - .,.ie of the nineteenth century
. Marxism, in its proper sense, first appeared m the m capitalist system.
ad fa'*cd to create conditions of human freedom.

[255]
establishing capitalism under which a tiny class of capitalists enjoyed special
Power
and privileges at the expense of the large majority of the working class. The legal
and
political equality sought by the exponents of liberalism had been achieved, but it
accompanied by tremendous economic inequalities and consequent injustice £?
champions of liberalism had hoped that the elimination of governmental restriction ^
business and industry would usher in an era of universal improvement in the mat ' 1
conditions of life. But actual experience showed that unbridled capitalism had produced
socially disastrous consequences. The tremendous increase of wealth 1
was cornered
by a small section which happened to own the major means of production while the
large majority of the industrial population was forced to a sub-human level of living
Successful bankers and market speculators increased their wealth by leaps and bounds
while the slum-dwelling working classes were living under the constant threat of
insecurity, malnutrition, discomfort, disease and death. These developments belied all
the humanitarian hopes of universal economic progress.
Capitalism
indu t Z nH H° an ®conomic system of the modern age, largely based on
* i *here means of social Production (land, buildings, mines,
n n;r, ,y Cap:tal)' distributi°" a"d exchange are owned by private
rate and emn * ge " er °f WOrkers are ^ployed on wages at the market
free'to work , ha y “ Pn'marily deVOted to private Profit Here workers are
demand T e ^ § l° Ski"S 3"d capacities as weN as market
~SSa°'iCy °f '°iSSeZ-faire' ““-on in the
movement which ° ^ h°"lble cond'ti°ns came in the fonn of an early socialist

the deteriorating condy6 * f ?° ICy of free market competition and drew attention to
Saint-Simon 1760 1 Ss? a t ® 'ng classes- Early e*P°nents of socialism like
less1 centralized ™ 2 a * B'anC (1811'82) m France advocated a more or
of model communities governed bj 0tberS S°Ught t0 pr°jeCt
competition’as advocated hvthp »• prmciple of free cooperation’ instead of fi#
and Charles Fourier (1772-1837yn p3 System' Robert Owen( 1771 -1858) in England
model communities. P.J. Proudhon elaborate pIans of setting Ug
system of decentralized workers’ cooncmf65 m u-T06 b°ped t0 set up 3 natl0nW,ldr
for the mutual exchange of nonrk a 1VCS w^lc^ wouW bargain with one anothe
was wrong with the wo Id bm SCmCes- A1‘ tbese tbi"^s knew clearly what
suggested only visional sduiinfT? n°‘ dear 35 t0 wbat do about it, for they
other words, they had arrived at nr ar removed from the hard realities of life- n
but had no clear conception of tJorrect d,agnosis of the ills of the capitalist system,
utopian socialists’. remedy. They are, therefore, rightly described as
Utopian
257
Socialism
Socialism refers to an economic system of the modern age, largely based on
forests, machinery and capital), distribution and exchange are placed under social
ownership and control, and economic activity is primarily devoted to the fulfilment
of social needs.
The social needs are estimated by the organized power of the community (/.e.
.usually the government) which makes efforts for their fulfilment by deploying all
natural and human resources and getting the results over a definite time frame.
Socialism, therefore, relies on planning which ensures full employment, and
elimination of wastage of resources on meeting the needs of a particular segment
of customers, solely with profit motive.
During the decades beginning with the 1830s and the 1840s the ideas of the utopian
socialists were subjected to severe criticism by a group of brilliant writers committed
to fundamental social change, notably by Karl Marx, German scholar, and Freidrich
Engels, young German businessman residing in England. Marx and Engels sought to
replace utopian socialism by scientific socialism for the analysis of social problems and
finding their solution. The solution came in the form of an elaborate philosophy which
is now recognized as Marxism. Marx and Engels’ Communist Manifesto (1848) came
out with an interpretation of the role of the working classes in the past, present and
future of mankind. It also gave a clarion call to workers of all countries to unite for the
purpose of securing their own emancipation and, through that emancipation, the freedom
of all mankind. Other leading works on this theme include Marx’s A Contribution to
the Critique ofPolitical Economy (1859), Capital, Vol. 1(1861-79), Vol. II (1885) and
Vol. Ill (1894) (Vol. II and III edited by Engels), and Engels’ Anti-Duhrmg (1877-78).
Scientific Socialism
. Short, Marxism may bo MM

funded by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles in order to lay scien ^
ocialism. It seeks to understand the problems of uman s istic forces and
C[aa ysis and treats history as a process of conflict e uction jn whjch one
< *■> ”d“ “iai °""ship

258
and control, enforcing universal labour and ensuring full development of the forces of
production.
•1
II
Obroad streams on marxism!^
The original tenets of Marxism — as a scientific system of thought — are identified as
Classical Marxism. Its chiefexponents include, apart from Marx and Engles themselves,
V.I. Lenin (1870-1924), Russian revolutionary and thinker, Rosa Luxemburg (1871*
1919), Polish activist, and Mao Zedong (1893-1976), Chinese revolutionary and thinker,
The wider implications of Marxism, including humanist thought of the Young Marx, are
broadly identified as Neo-Marxism. In a nutshell, Classical Marxism holds that private
property divides society into dominant and dependent classes with irreconcilable class
interests. It is held together only by the ideological power of the dominant class. Human
history moves towards its goal of human freedom through the revolutionary destruction
of inherent contradictions in society culminating in the emergence of a classless society.
Neo-Marxism, on the other hand, seeks to analyse the subtle aspects of the phenomenon
of dominance and dependence, distortions in the contemporary civilization and the
possible ways to human emancipation.
Young Marx
Karl Marx (1818-83) as the author of his earliest work is known as Young Marx.
This work remained unpublished during his lifetime. It was discovered from the
archives of German Social Democrats as late as 1927, and later published as
Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. It is distinguished from Marx's
later work which is characterized by scientific rigour: Marx's early work contains
his humanist thought on communism, and focuses on the concepts of alienation
and freedom. It exposes the dehumanizing effect of capitalism.
Classical Marxism is identified by four basic principles: (a) Dialectical materialism

represents itsphilosophical basis; (b) Historical materialism represents its scientific or
empirical basis-, (c) Class Conflict represents its sociological basis; and (d) Surplus
value represents its economic basis.
ofH“Cal m?terialism implies that social progress is the outcome of several rounds
material worid" “d antithesis and the consequent emergence of synthesis in »
ofsodetl0ilmTteria!,iSm [mpHeS that in any 8iven epoch the economic relations
nod^lSSlThh h TSC* Pr0d"“> rise lo feudal socW*

259
the organized working class; the means of social production are placed under social
ownership; labour is made compulsory for every able-bodied person; and efforts are
made to ensure full development of technology, we have socialist society which will
eventually blossom into communist society (classless and stateless society ruled by the
principle : ‘from each according to his ability, to according to his need’).
Class conflict refers to the constant conflict between the two social classes which
came into existence due to the division of society into haves and have-nots (owners of
the means of social production and those who are constrained to earn their living by
selling their labour power). Finally, surplus value refers to the value of extra amount
of labour that a worker is required to do under capitalist system for which no payment
is made to him. This is symptomatic of the element of exploitation perpetrated by the
capitalist mode of production.
As the state arose out of the need to hold class antagonisms in check,... it is, as a
rule, the state of the most powerful, economically dominant class, which by virtue
thereof becomes also the dominant class politically, and thus acquires new means
of holding down and exploiting the oppressed class. *
Friedrich Engels (The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State; 1884)
Neo-Marxism may be identified by its two sub-streams: Humanist stream (which

largely deals with the problem of alienation and freedom); and Scientific stream (which
is. primarily concerned with a review of the relation between base and superstructure in
the light of the contemporary reality).
Broad Streams of Marxism

Marxism
1
Neo-Marxism
Classical Marxism
I i
1 i
T J Economic Humanist Scientific
Philosophical Scientific Sociological
Stream Stream
Basis Basis Basis
Basis
I I 1 I
Dialectical Class Surplus
Historical
Vâterialism Conflict Value
Materialism
Ill
1
CONTEMPORARY DEBATE ON THE NATUR^^mHESTA^
an important issue of the
Contemporary debate on the nature of the state is regarde
Marxist theory. This debate centres around the distinction between the i
theory and the structuralist theory. nstrumema\a
The instrumentalist theory takes its cue from Marx and Engels’s famous
in the Communist Manifesto (1848): “Modem state is but a committee for m ^ ■
the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” According to this view, the ruliiT3^
uses its position and power to serve its own interests. Thus the modem state thaf ’?
capitalist state, is controlled by the capitalist class, and it functions as anlnstnj '
of serving the interests of the capitalist class. Some case studies supporting this ?
tend to show that a ruling class exists in a society; that it has a direct access to the
apparatus which is always applied to -serve its own interests. Thus C Wright iwai *
2ss’Ce If PxTer' S°me WriterS hoId that the <poWer eIite’ cannot be identified as
, has
Marxists do not accent this nnsitinn ’ a U ar y m the United States. However, the
used to oppress the majority in the interested^ ^ ^ ^ P°Wer iS ‘
writers, Ralph Miliband (The S ™ 8 °f the contemPorary
the instrumentalist theory of the state 1969) IS the chief exPonentof
and asserts that the state is onlv 1 M™d Proceeds to attack the pluralist theory
positions who use their economic n ^ power °f the people in important
their economic interests. In othe/uTT °^0rce t}le Political power-holders to advance
themselves, yet they will nrevail °f * 6 caP’tabsts need not hold political power
The structuralist the ^ t0 6111011015 according t0 their wishes'
be understood as a manifestation^ l5and’ b°lds that capitalist state cannot
its functioning is determined by the dewraniPUlati°nS °f the raling bourgeoisie;
Pou’antzas (‘The Problem oftheran;rr! c°Pnient of caPitalism itself. Thus Nicos
the functioning of the state is not necesdrilvdT’ ^ *eWew; 1969) argUed K
e members of the ruling class Tin. •. ?■ determmed by the direct participation of
the capitalist class when its memhe™ ,apita ist state continues to serve the interests of
apparatus. memb® do not actually participate in operating the state
SSlsliSSsSS
inskfn ln the substructure lead to corr^ C0U*?Q s°cial development, consecutive
hidd°n anderstanding the internal stri^h ^ changes *n the superstructure. He
was hldden behind its visible si°f Society W* substructure) which
(the superstmcture). In fact, the functioning
261
of the visible superstructure depended on the functioning of the hidden substructure
which must be discovered and analysed m order to understand the mechanism of social
change. Then, Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Italian Marxist, wrote during 1930s that
the ‘structures of domination’ in the capitalist society could be analysed at two levels
of the superstructure: (a) Civil society which was nearer the substructure and included
family, school, church, etc. provided for the ‘structures of legitimation’; and (ib) State
which provided for the structures of coercion . Gramsci held that the capitalist society,
particularly relied on the institutions of civil society for its stability and efficiency; the
state resorted to repression and coercion only when civil society had failed to prevent
the forces of dissent and discontentment.

The terms 'Base’ and 'Superstructure' are used in Marxist theory to describe the
In this building-like metaphor, mode of production (i.e. the economic structure
of society) constitutes the base (or the substructure), while legal and political
structure, religion, morals, and other forms of social consciousness constitute the
superstructure. It is believed that any change in the base results in corresponding
changes in the superstructure.
Gramsci... redefines the state as force plus consent, or hegemony armoured by

coercion, ... in which political society organizes force, and civil society provides
consent.
A.S. Sassoon (Dictionary of Marxist Thought,
edited by Tom Bottomore; 1983) J
Althusser (1918-90) and Nicos Poulantzas (1936-79), French phibsophere, focus on&e
on the
has tried to develop a class analysis of the world economy.

Althusser, closely following in Marx’s footsteps, an(j jte allies to
s well as an ideological apparatus, which enab es therefore , aim at
dominate over and exploit the working class. The pro ® . (th bourgeoisie, in order to
end m8 Stat® P°Wer and state aPParatus in th“r StrUgfbefore him, Althusser identified two
their repression and exploitation. Like Gramsc ^ consists of bureaucracy,
PotaemS °f the St3te aPParatus: (o) the rep?ixHhe êdogical1element which is based
----
262
elements together to serve its interests. In a mature capitalist society, the ruling class
accords prominent position to educational institutions as the most potent componentof
the ideological element of the state apparatus. Educational system even plays the role
formerly assigned to church, and reinforces the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy
with its universal suffrage and the so-called ‘free’ competition for power.
Bourgeoisie and Proletariat

Bourgeoisie and Proletariat refer to the two contending classes is modern capitalist
society. Engels' note to the English edition of the Communist Manifesto (1888)
reads: "By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern Capitalists, owners of the
means of social production and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class
of modern wage-labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are
reduced to selling their labour power in order to live."
Poulantzas sought to further elaborate the structuralist model of the state and
class. In his Political Power and the Social Classes (1973), Poulantzas argued that the
capitalist state maintains cohesion and equilibrium in society in order to safeguard the
political interests of the dominant class. It projects an individualist image of freedom
and equality as manifested in a ‘free’ competition between capitalists and workers, thus
obscuring their division into classes and possibility of class struggle in society. Then,
freedom to all sections of society to form their own political parties drives them to form
their organizations on the basis of their secondary interests rather than on the basis of
their primary interests tied with their class positions. Under the circumstances, the state
which comes into existence is not necessarily based in a particular class. The structure
of the state permits the working class to place their demands on the state which stands
above the special interests of individual capitalists. State power does not necessarily
coincide with class power; state structure does not necessarily coincide with class
structure. Relative autonomy ofthe state is the prominentfeature of Poulantzas’modi
Coming to the economic stream of the structuralist theory, Paul Sweezy (The Theorj
of Capitalist Development; 1942) sought to repudiate the ‘class mediation’ theory of
the state as upheld by the liberal thinkers before him. The ‘class mediation’ theory
recognized the existence of a class structure in society, but claimed that the state acts
as a mediator of conflicting interests of various classes. In contrast, Sweezy advanced
s theory of‘class domination’in keeping with the Marxist tradition. He argued tto
seeks t0 maintain a set of property relations in consonance with*
mnppcc1 ôur8eo,lsle> Vet tries to mitigate class antagonisms by extending certa
the conflict'? ° j 6 WOr n? class' Bowever, the operation of democratic proeess
.. cl“es to ,ieW w“ ““,s'
ass.
critiqueof cSfahsmT^^'^^"'(M™^(Capitalism; V.166);argued that
consisting of small fi ^ aSe<^ °n an ana^s*s a competitive economy, gen ^
Lenin’s theory of imperialism (Imperialist*
of
capitalism, composed ofL^^ WaS based on an analysis of monopoly stag
and absorption of ‘surpWundeênterp™es- SweezyandBaranfocused011 f%P
surplus under monopoly capitalism. They defined ‘surplus ^
Basic Tenets of Marxism 263
difference between the amount of production and the cost of production at a given stage
0f social development. The actual mode of absorption of the surplus was determined by
the contradiction between the structural needs of the state and the particular interests
which were sought to be served by it. Other contradictions, such as those arising from
ideology or class conflict, were relegated to a minor role.
Monopoly Capitalism
Monopoly capitalism refers to a stage in the development of capitalism in which
the few big capitalists manage to drive out their smaller competitors from the
market, and establish their monopoly in their respective fields of operation. Here
monopoly implies the exclusive control over manufacture and supply of particular
goods or services.
Ideology
According to Marxism, ideology refers to the set of ideas, beliefs and arguments
which are used to lend legitimacy to the rule of the dominant class. It projects
and promotes a value system under which even the exploitation of the dependent
class seems justified. Marxism regards ideology as the manifestation of a se
consciousness'. Under its influence, people fail to realize that their matena eeds
are no longer satisfied by the prevailing system of production which “ntm^sJ,0
serve the interests of the dominant class although it claims to serve everybody
interests. _____ _
Wallerstein (‘Class-Formation in the Capitalist World-Economy', Po/itoW

Society; 1975) argued that the modem capitalist ^ econom^^^ ^ ^ ^
elements: (a) a single market; (b) a series of other t,Prv and Derinhery) arranged
workmg of that market; and (c) three.levels;(core
m an exploitative process. While the first two e struggle the world over,
third element is responsible for various manifestations of class stmgg
Those at the core level seek to maintain this L middle level
Privileged position, but those at the periphery wish This jg the crux
(that is the semiphery) in order to shorten their distance trom m ^ ^ ^ ^ {op
of continual fight between the core and the periphery, ch ing forms 0f class
and those at the bottom of the economy resP®Îve7j , rocus on the class structure
struggle are but manifestations of this fight. a ers , as an escape from the analysis
of the capitalist world economy is sometimes cri tel Marxist writers,
of class structure within a nation which has been the focus
The light of the broad streams

Q- 1* Define Marxism. Bring out its bas
of Marxism. structuralist theories
instrumentalist and
2. Distinguish between the state within the Marxist theory.
concerning the nature of the
Marx and Engels
•>Tr-.......
r: I
^GENERAL INTRODUCTION*
Karl Marx (1818-83) and Friedrich Engels (1820-95) were German scholars and writers
who are regarded to be the chief exponents of an influential school of thought, identified
as Marxism. Marx was an outstanding social scientist, historian and revolutionary who
undertook a critical analysis of capitalist society, propounded materialist interpretation
of history, and showed the way for transition to communism. He was born into a
professional middle-class family. His father was an enlightened lawyer with a rational
outlook. He studied philosophy and history at several German universities including
e University of Berlin where he took keen interest in G.W.F. Hegel’s (1770-1831)
2 au e o hi ex rp l *??? P°Htical Phi'osophy from a materialist viewpoint

from the countrv Thr1^ radlcal/lew^ he not only lost his job but was also expelled
became an ardeni com™ Tlt0 FranCe ~the home of socialist thought. Here he
published (as late as 1932)”!'Marx'sfff^ h‘S °n communism which
In this writing Marx soulht m . Ec°nomC and Ph^sophic Manuscripts ofW-
society with the free develonmp °t the a!ienation of labour prevailing in capitaj1
in his projected communisUsociety Uimn beingS engaged in cooperative product
with Marx on most of the"^^11 ^ a™' ®nge*s was a brilliant intellectual who agree(j
E"6"S “ ■ St«
[264]
Marx and Engels
265
attack the mill-owners of his home community who claimed to be good Christians, but
lived on the profits squeezed from workers. In his early writing, he vividly described
the plight of workers as evident in their squalid housing, poor health and degrading
poverty.
From 1849 Marx lived in England for the rest of his life where he produced most
of his prominent works. Marx s most important works, apart from his Economic and
Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, include: Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
(1843); Theses on Feuerbach (1845); The Poverty of Philosophy (1847); The Class
Struggle in France (1850); A Contribution to the Critique ofPolitical Economy (1859);
and The Civil War in France (1871). Marx and Engels’ joint works include : The Holy
Family (1845); The German Ideology (1845-46); and Manifesto ofthe Communist Party
(1848), popularly known as The Communist Manifesto. English edition of the Communist
Manifesto (1888) was elaborately annotated by Engels. Then Marx’s monumental
work Capital was published in three volumes. Its first volume was published by Marx
in 1879; its second and third volumes were edited and published by Engels after the
death of Marx in 1885 and 1894 respectively. Most important of Engels’ independent
works include: On Authority (1873); Anti-Diihring (1877-78); Socialism: Utopian and
Scientific (1880); and The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884).
Engels’ contribution to the Marxist theory is so significant that many of its prominent
issues cannot be fully understood without reference to Engels’ contribution thereto.
Marx and Engels made immense contribution to sociolog}, economics and
philosophy, etc. Their major contribution to political philosophy may e stu le un
the following heads:
(a) Dialectical Materialism; (b) Historical Materialism,
(d) Doctrine of Class Conflict; (e) Concept of Surplus Value; (f) Concept of Freedo ,
and (g) Role of Private Property.
- ii
* DIALECTICAL MATERIALISM
Dialectical materialism represents the Phll°S°P^ff^[[OSOphei, believed that

galled that G.W.F. Hegel (1770-1831), faÛS ° ™"e £*as the force beKind all
,. or ‘consciousness’ was the essence of .t“-H5L-5=êd that ‘matter’was the
tstorical development. Marx rejected this view P man;festations of social
e«ence of the universe, which embodied the force*J Presented the corresponding
Q ange. For Marx, each stage of social deve opm Thus Marx advanced the
age of development of the material conditions
of ‘idealism’.
rJ^yof ‘materialism’ against Hegel’s theory
Idealism
ards 'Idea' or 'consciousness'
S,LPu^ve°Se “the
of the Prevailing idea.

266
Materialism
Materialism refers to a philosophical doctrine which regards 'matter' as the essence
of the universe and treats 'consciousness' as the mere reflection of the prevailing
material conditions.
Hegel had tried to explain the mechanism of social change through dialectical
method. Marx sought to combine Hegel’s dialectical method with hisown philosophy
of materialism. The term dialectical originally, referred to the process whereby ideas
are formed and clarified in the coursevof intellectual debate. A proposition, or thesis, is
first advanced, and'then challenged by a counter-proposition, or antithesis. Since both
are apt to be partly true, the normal outcome of their encounter is a revised proposition,
or synthesis, that combines the valid elements of the two.
Hegel believed that social institutions only reflect the ideas behind them, and that
it is the movement of ideas, through the dialectical process, which is responsible for the
development of social institutions. Hegel saw nation-state as the highest stage of social
evolution, as the embodiment of truth, ‘the march of God on earth’ — the perfect form
of social institutions. While Marx adopted Hegel’s mechanism of social change—the
framework of ‘thesis’, ‘antithesis’ and ‘synthesis’—he refused to recognize the ‘idea’
or consciousness as the real force behind social evolution. Instead, Marx believed,
the social institutions are shaped by the material conditions of human life, which are
determined by the mode of economic production in society. Thus Marx sought lo
replace Hegel’s ‘dialectical idealism’ by his own ‘dialectical materialism’. GeorgeH.
Sabine (A History ofPolitical Theory; 1973 edition) has noted that Marx’s philosophy
is marked by continuity with Hegel’s philosophy in important respects:
In the first place, he (Marx) continued to believe that the dialectic was a powerful
logical method uniquely capable of demonstrating a law of social development,
and in consequence his philosophy, like Hegel’s was a philosophy of history—
Though Marx construed his philosophy as a form of materialism, he still used the
dialectic to support a theory of social progress in which higher moral values are
necessarily realized. In the second place, for Marx as for Hegel the driving force of
social change is struggle, and the determining factor in the last resort is power. The
struggle is between social classes rather than nations, and the power is economic
rather than political, political power being in Marx’s theory a consequence ot
economic position.
Comparative Study of Hegel and Marx

The Issue
______ Hegel's View Marx's View
Philosophical Basis Idealism Materialism
Path of Development Dialectical Dialectical
Medium of Progress
War among Nations Class Conflict
Final Stage of
Supremacy of the Classless and
Development Nation-State Stateless Society
Marx and Engels
267
Engels (Anti-Duhring; 1878) sought to define dialectics as ‘the science of the
general laws of motion and development of nature, human society and thought’ He
identified three laws of dialectics which can be illustrated with suitable examples from
the material world; hence they exemplify the laws ofdialectical materialism:
(1) The transformation of quantity into quality and vice versa: At certain
temperature (quantity), water is converted into ice or steam (change in
quality); water, ice and steam could be identified as changes in the quality
of the same thing with changes in temperature (quantity);
(2) The interpenetration of opposites: Hard and soft are opposite of each other,
but in the material world they interpenetrate into each other; iron is hard,
but it can be moulded into different shapes which shows that it is also soft; a
flower is soft but it can stay in its shape which shows that it is also hard; and
(3) The negation of negation: This is the basic principle of progress. Every
stage ofsocial development contains the seeds ofits own decay; its decay is
followed by a higher stage of development until a perfect society is evolved.
1 In the material world, when we sow a seed, it sprouts. In this process, the
seed is destroyed. The seed-bud which appears is the negation of the seed.
Then it grows into plant. In this process, the seed-bud is destroyed. The
plant is the negation of the seed-bud. Thereafter ear of corn grows on it and
the plant dries and decays. The ear of corn is the negation of the plant. It
reproduces seed in larger quantity and better quality. This is the symptom
of progress.
Application of the laws of dialectics in social life is demonstrated through the
principle of historical materialism.
III
iHISTORICAL MATERIALISM*
Wule dialectical materials represents the philosophical
Materialism represents its scientific or empirical basisn o materialism is a
materialism is fhe subject of philosophical speculate, but h.stoncal materialism
subject of social and historical investigation, like an empirica_________ -
Empirical Science
of knowledge based on observation
Empirical science refers to an organized system l taste and touch), and
°f facts through sense-experience (sight, soun > * ,
investigation of logical relationship between the observed facts.
At the outset, historical materialism implies1 for their sustenance,

D a‘10ns °f society — the means whereby men an woi for the satisfaction
of *uUCe> exchange, and distribute the things they r g< progress of society and
f‘heir needs -Uert a preponderant influence m S „ other words, aU
ln Elding social,political, intellectual, and ethical relaUonsh.ps.
268
types of social relations prevailing at any stage of historical development are determined
by the economic conditions.
Marx’s argument in this behalf begins with the simple truth that the survival
of man depends upon his efficiency in the production of material things. Production
is, therefore, the most important of all human activity. Society comes into existence
primarily for the purpose of economic production because men in association produce
more than men in isolation. A perfect society will secure all the necessities of life to the
satisfaction of all its members. But according to the dialectic concept, perfection comes
through a very long process of conflict between antagonistic elements. Society, since
its inception, has always been subject to internal stresses and strains. Unsatisfied needs
are, therefore, the result of the defective modes of production. But as man’s knowledge
of truth is also imperfect, he has always imagined another world where all his needs
would be met. Thus religion comes into existence as ‘the sob of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world, the spirit of conditions utterly unspiritual’. But, in reality,
religion is no more than the shadow cast by a defective economic system which will
disappear with the removal of those defects. Marx dubbed religion ‘the opium of the
people\ because when no one’s needs are fully met in society, religion is the resort of
all.
As the process of material production holds the key to man’s social life, changes
in this process are responsible for all historical development. Marx’s description of
historical development is based on the concept of historical materialism. As Marx
himself observed: “In the social production of their life men enter into definite relations
that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which
correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The
sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure, the real
basis on which rises a legal and political superstructure” (A Contribution to the Critique
ofPolitical Economy; 1859). According to this interpretation, the mode of production in
a given society constitutes its ‘base’ (or ‘substructure’); legal and political institutions,
re igion and morals, etc. constitute its ‘superstructure’ which are shaped according to
the changing character of the base. What is the reason behind changes in the mode of
production? &
Marx s answer is: “At a certain stage of their development, the material productive
whiph °f so.cletyucorae ln conflict with the existing relations of production...withm
Jorct TZ r, 3t W°rk hith6rt0; from forms of development of the productive
(ibid) ?ounSTh a™ mt°th6ir fetterS- Then be8ins a" epoch of social revolution
“ 'S necessafyt0 distinguish, at the outset, between
rdftl0ns 0f Producti°n’. Together they constitute the ‘mod
(tools machines fa °- Pr° uctlon comprise two elements: (a) means of products
those test mth labour power only constitute the dependent class.
Marx and Engels
269
imProved by the scientific discoveries and invention ofnew techniques and implements
whil© labour power is developed by the acquisition of new knowledge, education
and training. The development of the forces of production leads to the contradiction
between the forces of production and the relations of production. The intensification
of this contradiction ushers in a stage when the existing relations of production are no
longer compatible with the level of development of forces of production. It results in
the breakdown of the existing mode of production along with its superstructure. Thus,
for example, with the rise of industrialization in the sphere of forces of production, the
existing feudal system in the sphere of relations of production (that is the division
of society into lords and serfs) is bound to collapse which is now replaced by a new
capitalist mode of production.
(As per) 'historical materialism'... at a certain state of their evolution the forces of
production develop as far as they can under the existing economic and political
organization of society, which then becomes a barrier to their further development,
ushering in a period of social revolution.
David McLellan ('Marxism' in The Blackwell Encyclopedia
of Political Thought, edited by David Miller; 1987) jj
This process of historical development can also be explainedl by ‘^^lectical

me thod. According to the dialectic concept ^ J mode of production. In
inevitably produces its own antithesis m _the f° the productive forces come
other words, as a result of some new ‘^^^“"rticularly with the prevailing
into conflict with the existing relations of prod. *»P becomes the fetters upon
property system, which instead of furthering their ev P new productive
it As a result of the clash between the existing social relationsan ^ Qrder ^ a
forces, a new revolutionary class emerges whic over __ slave society is replaced
violent revolution. The old order gives way to t 6 -?Lt society capitalist society is
by feudal society; feudal society is replaced by capi ^ every stage of social
replaced by socialist society. According to the i ^ ^ êcayt Marx
development which falls short ofperfection contotftf e because it was marked
saw his contemporary capitalist society as an impe _^ âves and have-nots, the
by the division of society into antagonisticglasses; seg ___ and the consequent
bourgeoisie and proletariat, the dominant and depen ^ t0 an interplay of its
exploitation of the dependent class. It was, therefore,
inherent contradictions.
Lord And Serf

f dal society. Lord meant
,ts belongings, but he could not leave is the feudal society.______

Exploitation of serfs was the distinctive ea __—
Bourgeoisie and Proletariat

These are the two contending classes in modern capitalist society. Engels' note to
the English edition of the Communist Manifesto (1888) reads: "By bourgeoisie is
meant the class of modern Capitalists; owners of the means of social production
and employers of wage labour. By proletariat, the class of modern wage-labourers
who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their
labour power in order to live."
Marx and Engels identified four main stages of past historical development: (a)
the primitive communism in which forms of production are slight and communally
owned; (b) ancient slave-owning society in which the means of production are owned
by masters and labour for production is done by the slaves; (c) medieval feudal society
in which the means of production are owned by feudal lords and labour for production
is done by the serfs; and (d) modern capitalist society in which the means of production
are owned by capitalists and labour for production is done by the proletariat — the
propertyless workers. At each stage, society is divided into antagonistic classes; the
class which owns the means of social production and controls the forces of production,
dominates the rest, thus perpetuating tension and conflict. At each stage of historical
development, the forms or conditions of production determine the structure of society.
Thus ‘the hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord, the steam-mill society
with the industrial capitalist’. The structure of society will in its turn breed attitudes,
actions, and civilizations. Therefore ‘all the social, political and intellectual relations,
all religious and legal systems, all the theoretical outlooks which emerge in the course
of history, are derived from the material conditions of life’.
yhe f°rces °f capitalism had heralded a new era of progress by destroying the
teudai system. But Marx saw capitalism itself as a transitory phase. As George H.
Sabme (A History ofPolitical Theory; 1973 edition) has elaborated:
The abohton of feudalism meant for Marx the rise to power of the middle class
and the creation of a political system which made its power effective. In its
dernnt-6^6 °P6 ur™’ 3S êt on^ PartiaUy reached, this system would be the
oolitic7PiUb,CT [h! French Revoluti°n, therefore, had been essentially*
clersv tn th °U !°n' 1 at^ transferred social dominance from the nobility and the
^£1orlanS A'f a,nd commercial middle class; it had created the state as *
system of natural™ ht ° 3SS rePress*on and exploitation; and its philosophy—• e
ration^lizatiin nfi'h8 '1 If *8 and economics - was the ideal justification and
rationalization of the middle class right to exploit the worker.
Marx and Engels 271
An Outline of Historical Materialism

(Process of Historical Development)
Society
i
I
Base Superstructure
1 (Legal and Political Structure,
Religion, Morals, Social
Mode of Production Practices, Literature,
1 Art, Culture, etc.)
1
Forces of Production Relations of Production
I I
1
Means of Labour Power Social Formations Contending Classes
Production
(Tools and
(Human Knowledge
and Skills) 1 I
Slave-Owing —Master and
Equipment) Slave
Society
1 1
—>- Lord and Serf
Feudal-Society
1 1
Capitalist Society __> Capitalist and
Worker
Social Formation
of society
>n Marxist thought, social formation refers to a DroduCtion. Changes in mode
which comes into existence around a specific mo are associated with
°f production give rise to different soda orma .. je production gives rise
different historical epochs. Thus househo - as^ oroduction gives rise to feuda
to slave-owning society; large-scale agriculture rise to capitalist society.
society; and large-scale machine-based pro u(j---------- ~
=== the way for the termination
Marx believed that the socialist revolution w0^fate(j;
0 the era of exploitation. As Sabine has furt ere philosophy of the middle
The rising class, too, must have its philosophy, an ^ ^ pr0perty, so a proletarian
dass was in substance a claim to the natura an rights of men without proper .
Philosophy must be a socialist claim to t e 0f the social structure,m
But just because the proletariat lay at the hot would not merely transform
class below it to be exploited, a proletarian re ^ be the first step to so
Power to exploit but would abolish exp oi a pinning of history as a re
^hhout distinctions of social class an a r
uh human self-realization (ibid).
IV
♦THEORYQFREVOLlJTION^
Marx and Engels argued that... the revolution of the working class was necessa
extend the benefits of modern industrial technology to all. This socialist revoltt0
Jack A. Goldstone ('Revolution' in The Blackwell Encyclopedia of

Political Thought, edited by David Miller; 1987)
Accopjfng'to ”'T' f" “«*•

l.ta place. y d“el°P”™ of M, and whim
appears in a sudden stroke No stage ofhkm ’ °i ^ Cl,3Sh between the lwo>synlhe.sk
become fetters on the forces o^productioi The^ Until i( haS
rSKss^rt5®
the epoch-making change__;c oJ , ded' ^bus any significant social change-
indispensable midwife of social change ^ Pr°duCt of a revoIution. Revolution is the
to sustain the§existing patternofT"' ?'0,,VeS 3 Set of ideas’ attitudes and moral values
the system and constitute the Z SThese ideas lend legitimacy to
has the vested interest in the existii 1 e° °^’ ôreover> the dominant class always
the existing system is no longer canaM fy?em bowsoever outmoded it may be. When
forces, it would still resist anv atm W °* meet,n8the demands of the new productive
the dominant class are not adver^K^ !* ° cbanSe tt, so that the vested interests of
overcome all resistance and have thei & 6Ct^‘ Ût tbe new productive forces must
substructure along with the entire êy must smash the existing economic
social-economic, legal-political order ^ orderto laY foundations of a new
part with its power until forced bv tha ’ ^ dom|nant class will not be prepared to
therefore, an essential concomitant nflT fvolutionary class to do so. Revolutionis,
an effective transfer of power and thi ’a C °SS conflict II is an essent ial condition of
revolution is the necessary lever of social cha ^ & neW epoch' ln otiler words’ SOC'a
Ideology
in Marxist th
promnrd t0 ,Gnd ,egltlfuacy to the be,‘efs and arguments which
IT, 3 V3,Ue system under which domina"t class. It projects and
C,aSS seems justified. Wh,ch even the exploitation of the dependent
Marx and Engels
273
Each new epoch of social history is, therefore, a product of revolution. The capitalist
on the new forces of production, this must be overthrown by the new revolutionary
class - the proletariat - in a revolution. This would pave the way for transition from
capitalism to socialism. Marx and Engels made it clear in the concluding part of the
Communist Manifesto (1848): “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all
existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a communistic revolution.”
Marx and Engels also called for the development of a revolutionary class consciousness
and a strong organization of the proletariat to fulfil their historic mission. Although
revolution was inevitable, yet a conscious effort on the part of the proletariat would
accelerate the process leading to revolution.
Marxian Socialism
In Marxist terminology, socialism refers to the social system established after
the overthrow of capitalism. At this stage, means of social production are placed
under social ownership, labour is made compulsory for all able-bodied persons,
attention is paid to development of science and technology with a view to creating
conditions for the fulfilment of all social needs. At this stage, rights are determined
according to the rule "from each according to his ability, to each according to his
work".
The proletarian revolution would be distinct from all previous revolutions of

human history. A revolution in the past was accomplished by a small class, in its own
interest, to establish its own supremacy and dominance, for the exploitation of another
vulnerable class which came into existence with the introduction of the new mode of
production. Thus the bourgeois revolution was made by a tiny bourgeois class which
sought to establish the capitalist system for the exploitation of the proletariat. But
the proletarian revolution would be different because it would be a revolution of the
Majority against the minority, of the masses against the class of exploiters. It is not
Signed to win power for a particular class for exploitation of any other class, but to
put an end to the system of exploitation itself. This would be the final revolution in
history, to establish socialism in place of capitalism. This would abolish the institution
of'private property’ by socialization of the means of production. This would establish
a teniPorary ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ in order to suppress a ]possible counter-
revolution and to liquidate the remnants of capitalism. This would be= aprelude to he
emergence of communism. It was hoped that under the loving care of the dictato p
°J ‘he proletariat, socialism would blossom into communism. _____________
the dictatorship of the
Development towards communism proceeds through .. . -t
Proletariat, and cannot do otherwise, for the resistance of the capitalist explo.ters
Cannot be broken by anyone else or in any other way.
V. I. Lenin (The State and Revolution; 1917)
Dictatorship of the Proletariat

According to Marxism, 'dictatorship of the proletariat' refers to a form of
organization of the State that comes into existence when organized working class
overthrows capitalism and assumes full control of political power. Under this
system,
all means of social production are placed .under State ownership and control, work
is made compulsory for all able-bodied persons, and all counter-revolutionary
forces are sought to be suppressed. The State undertakes de novo planning of
material production so as to serve social needs, provide an effective right to
work, education, health and housing for the masses, and further development of
science and technology so as to multiply material production in order to achieve
greater social satisfaction.
Under the dictatorship of the proletariat, classes still exist, with the oppressive
mechanism of the state. But this state is different from all previous states. It is not a state
of property-holders for the oppression of the propertyless. On the contrary, it is a state
o the propertyless for the liquidation of private property along with its. ideology and
culture. This state would undertake fullest development of the new productive forces
maximum technological development and gearing the productive process to meeting
social needs instead of raising private profit — and pave the way for the evolution of
fhLtfn SA/°CietyVand ^ the <withering away’ of state itself. Communism will,
he efore, blossomfrom the soil ofsocialism; no new revolution will be needed to bring
irr* ASfLenin’in his S,ate andEvolution (1917), observed, socialist
according tn hklvrl f^ S0°lety; tllerefore retains the bourgeois right of ‘from each
pe fee sfs^ of T h ardi"810 his work’ But communism symbolized the
ft f ierefore J T T ^ higheSt devel°P™nt of the forces of production.
-s£52 issr**principie: ,from “ch i, s"

Communism
which would^me°geVVrommthniSm t0 the ^ Stage °f SOcial deveioPment
stage, means ololfal araLl!*0*'?8 °f SOcialism for 3 '°"S time. At thiS
universal — now on volunta u êma,n under social ownership, labour remains
into 'haves' and 'have-note*'H' ^ ^ St3te ,withers away'; division of society
stateless society which would hl^h?therefore exemplifies a classless and
are determined^l^thl ru t ? ^ "".f00131 needs- At this stage'
according to his need". fr°m each accord<"g to his ability, to each
the class 8^6^00^ withS'"‘fKZed°ng t1893'1976)’ arguef J

takes new forms. Contradictions u,h' i establlsllment of a communist state, but o
~ contradictions between pronress '°n COntlnue t0 Persist even in a communist s»
backward, between the positive ly ?d conservaBsm, between the advanced and t
and the conditions of production__ 16 n®gat*ve’ even between the productive f°rC
goal of communism. Revolution is thief,!’6 f°U8ht perPetuallyin order t0
iew is usually described as the dnm • & PerPe*ualand continuing process.
rine ojpermanent revolution.
Marx and Engels
275
Distinction Between Socialism and Communism
The Issue Socialism Communism
Status of the Major Under Social Ownership Under Common Ownership
Means of Production
Status of labour Compulsory for all All able-bodied persons
able-bodied persons voluntarily do labour
Status of the Polity Dictatorship of the Proletariat Classless, Stateless Society
Status of the Forces Heading toward Full Fully Developed
of Production Development
Status of the Rights From each according From each according to his
to his ability, to each ability, to each according to his
according to his work need
(N.B. In common parlance, 'socialist system' and 'communist system' are used as
coterminous.)
•T _____ _______________________________________
The scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually
called socialism was termed by Marx the 'first', or lower, phase of communist
society. Insofar as the means of production become common property, the word
'communism' is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not
complete communism.
V. I. Lenin [The State and Revolution; 1917)
V
0OCTRINE QF GLASS CONFLICT*
Class conflict or class struggle - which represents the sociological basis ofMarxism
is an integral part of historical materialism. The opening sentence o t e ommumst
Manifesto (1848) reads:
The history of all hitherto society is the history of class struggles.
. Here, history means all written history. When the .^^“fnTnities was
originally written, the pre-history giving account of primi ive n me
with common ownership of the means of production, was not now •
known, it was described as ‘primitive communism’. Co.mun.tMuôdtdwnh
the Period beginning with the division of society into antagomsnc classes
Mergence of private property. So the Communist Manifesto proceeds.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebetan, '“r^dj^ân/opposition to
Journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppress . ’ now open fight, a fight that
0ne another, carried on an uninterrupted, no ’ - socjety at large, or in
each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of soc y
the common ruin of the contending classes.
Primitive Communism
Primitive communism refers to a form of communism (a classless society with
common ownership of means of production) found in primitive societies At this
stage, the instruments of labour were of most primitive kind — the club, the ston
axe, the flint knife, the stone-tipped spear, followed later by the bow and 6
arrow:'
Man's muscular strength was the only motive force employed to
operate these
elementary tools. These tools were held in common ownership by the members of th
primitive community which engaged itself in common labour, e.g., common hunting6
common fishing, and the fruits of this common labour were also shared in common*
There was no concept of private property, hence no exploitation of man by man'.
Genesis of Class Conflict

Division of Society
f
Haves
(Owners of Major Have-nots
Means of Production) (Dependent on their
Labour Power to
earn their living
Y
Dominant Class I
Dependent Class
Tendency of Class Urge to

Seppression ‘ Conflict/^
Overthrow
Manifesto as under: m°dern capitalist society is described in the Communist

Tlic (J
has not done away with class sProutec* ^rom the ruins of feudal society
conditions of oppression new fom?01 p*18' ^ ^ ût established new classes, new
Class conflict in mode în Place of old ones.
So the C appeared in more crystallized for®*
Our epoch, the epoch of the h
feature: it has simplified the class possesses> however, this distinctive
more splitting up into two real hostile a8°niSmS' Society as a whole is more and
3C ot*ler: Bourgeoisie and proletariat3'11*58’ *nt° *W° ®reat c*asses directly facing
Marx and Engels 111
Marx and Engels hoped that this conflict had entered a decisive phase. They had
f 11 faith in the revolutionary potential of the proletariat, i.e. their ability to overthrow
Vitalism and establish a socialist society with social ownership of means of social
production. So they observed:
Of all the classes that stand face to face with bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone
is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the
face of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product (ibid).
The proletarian revolution would be different from all previous revolutions of
history:
All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the
interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent
movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (ibid.).
According to Marx and Engels, this revolution would bring about the final
emancipation of mankind because there is no class below the proletariat which could be
subjected to exploitation when the proletariat comes to power. It would place all means
of social production under social ownership, make work compulsory for everyone, and
develop the forces of production to their full potential. This will pave the way for the
emergence of classless society which will mark the end of class conflict.
______________________________________ ___________ >
Marxian Account of the History of Class Conflict—_---------
Social Contending
Historical Prevailing Mode Cause of Class
Formation Classes
■ Epoch of Production Division
Slave-Owning Master and
Ancient Household-based Emergence of
Society Slave
times small-scale private property
production
Feudal Lord and
Medieval Large-scale Rise of Serf
Feudalism Society
times agriculture-based
production
Capitalist Capitalist '
Modern Large-scale - Rise of and Worker
Capitalism Society
times machine-based
- production Socialist . WorkersinPower
Futurerl -do- Socialist Society ■ . and the Former
. Revolution Capitalists
Communist No Contending
Future-11 -do- No Class ■ Classes
Society
. Division
gggjgjgEEESEMi E
r, ■ hnds of Marxism. According to

e Idea of surplus value represents the ecowoj . ■ Qfthe working class.
Mar*ist theory, capitalist mode of production involves explo.
278
Marx’s theory of surplus value illustrates how this exploitation takes place. Accords
to Marx, labour is the sole creator ofvalue. Of the four elements of production—laJ
labour, capital and organization — three elements, viz. land, capital and organization
are sterile because they are capable of reproducing only what is put in them. They
are, therefore, no source of value. Labour is the only variable element which produces
value in society. In his A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859)s
Marx observed:
The common social substance of the commodities is labour... A commodity hasa
value because it is crystallization of social labour. The greatness of its value or its
relative value depends upon the greater or lesser amount of that social substance
contained in it, that is to say, on the relative mass of labour necessary for its
production. The relative values of commodities are, therefore, determined by the
respective quantities or amounts of labour worked up, realized, fixed in them.
The amount of labour embodied in a commodity should be calculated right from
the beginning — the labour employed in producing the raw material, in processing
the raw material, in mobilizing the sources of energy used (e.g. coal and oil) and in
constructing the machinery and building, etc. In saying that the value of a commodity is
determined by the quantity of labour employed, we must take into account the quantity'
of labour required for its production in a given state of society under certain average
conditions of social production, and average skill of the labour employed.
Here it is essential to distinguish between value and price of a commodity. Price
is only a monetary expression of value. If the price of a commodity corresponds to its
value in monetary terms, it may be described as a naturalprice. But, besides the natural
price of a commodity, there is the market price which fluctuates heavily depending
upon the conditions of demand and supply. The market price is, therefore, sometimes
much higher than the natural price of a commodity; sometimes much lower. Under
the conditions of a free market economy fostered by the capitalist system, the worker
is forced to sell his labour in the open market at the market price. Now, the market
price of labour is not determined by its potential value which would be added to the
value of the commodity produced by it, but by the value of necessities required for the
worker sown maintenance and for the maintenance of his family so that he could bring
up his children to replace him on the labour market in the future, in order to sustain
the capitalist system itself.
wordftT 'S the onlyfement °fProduction which produces surplus value. In odj
develon IT" “ “pable of Produc>ng much more than what is required to maintain,
thhtXnrs rP?.ate ,l- SupP°se a w°rker is required to work at an average |
and his family 7fh t0 ?’atcl1.tbe value of tbe necessities required to maintain
under the caSt fi f ° ^ t0 this 6Xtent- he does not Produce surplus value- Bj
capitalist where its marW ’ 3 wa8e-Iabourer is forced to sell his labour power to *
the increased availahTt ° eIS êterminecl by the law of demand and supply*
capit^ ê market price of labour dedi^J
‘subsistence wages’ at the m.v, 1 ?’S max,mum capacity while he pays h m ,
of fc ..loo ,h.. ho produces, tofcstapc^
Marx and Engels 279
Subsistence Wages
Subsistence wages refer to the wages paid to the worker to meet the requirements
of mere survival of himself and his family.
The value produced by the labour may be divided into two parts: one part comprises
that value which is paid to the worker as wages; the other part comprises the value
of surplus labour done by him which is not paid to the worker but which swells the
pockets of the capitalist and constitutes his profit. Rent and interest are paid out of this
surplus value. If the capitalist employs his own capital, land and building, etc. the entire
surplus value would go into his pocket; otherwise he will only get the industrial or
commercial profit, and some part of the surplus value will be passed on to third parties.
In any case, land, capital or organization does not produce any value; the value of these
elements is derived from the surplus value produced by the labour. With the overthrow
of capitalism and socialization of the means of social production under the socialist
system, exploitation of the surplus value will be eliminated; full value of labour would
be paid to the worker or some part of it would be diverted to the provision of common
. services which will again benefit the worker. Only the worker who produces value will
be entitled to maintenance; social parasites would no more be tolerated: He who does
not work, neither shall eat.’
VII
^bNCEPfrOF FREEDOM*
NATURE OF FREEDOM
Marxist concept of freedom is different from its liberal-individualist concept. It analyses
freedom against the background of the existing social-economic con 11 ... Qr
to the Marxist view, freedom is not something that an indivi ua enJ uenatedand
by ‘being left alone’. Marxism does not accept the theory °fa”a omi ' , in their
Possessive individual being capable of enjoying freedom. Marx and Engels,
joint work Holy Family (1845), thus observed:
The members of civil society are not atoms. The ^^^gûtsideitbyany
that it has no properties and is therefore not needs, it is self-
relations determined by its own natural necessi y. contentless, meaningless,
sufficient; the world outside it is absolute vacuum, i._ egoistic individual in civil
just because the atom has all its fullness in itse * . bstractjon inflate himself
society may in his non-sensuous imagination an wantless, absolutely full,
Jo the size of an atom, i.e. to an unrelated, self-sufficient, w
Rejecting the atomistic view of the individual. Mar ^ h|m jnt0 a natural
atural needs of man, the very conditions of is existence, which holds the
Nation with other individuals and civil society com
m ividuals together.
Marxism does not accept the Utilitarian view that the common good can be derived
from a mechanical aggregation of the self-interests of different individuals. On the
contrary, Marxism holds that the common good can be secured only by creating certain
social-economic conditions that are conducive to the enjoyment of freedom within
society. These conditions involve access to the material means of satisfaction of wants
and the opportunity for self-development. The key to freedom lies in establishing a
rational system ofproduction which would be based on the highest development of the
forces of production, and provide the means for satisfaction of everybody’s needs. As
John Lewis, in his Marxism and the Open Mind (1976), has elucidated:
For Marx, freedom means the ability to achieve the totality of human goods,
satisfaction of aspirations, material and spiritual — fundamental to which is the
mastery and rational control of the process of production of the material conditions
of human life.
Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism refers to a school of thought founded by Jeremy Bentham (1748-
1832), which treats pleasure and pain as the chief motive force behind all human
actions. The balance of pleasure over pain derived from a thing or a course of
action is termed as 'utility7 which is the source of 'happiness7. According to his
view, the guiding principle of public policy should be 'the greatest happiness of
the greatest number7 which represents the aggregate happiness of individual
members of the community.
LEAP FROM NECESSITY TO FREEDOM

According to the Marxist view, capitalist system of production is not at all conducive
to the conditions of human freedom. It is characterized by constraint or necessity.
Necessity refers to the condition under which the life of man is governed by the laws
of nature, such as the law of gravitational force, which exist independently of man’s
will.
, M m Can Ûlre,1CI‘entlfic knowled8e of these laws for his own benefit, but cannot
of oufownâtoe ^ ^ 3PPlieS b°th *°the l3WS of external nature and t0 the laWS
it, we can proceed to the next stage of human development smoothly.
Mode of Production
Marx and Engels
281
The capitalist system has been facing continual crises because:
society is suffocated beneath the weight of its own productive forces and products
which it cannot use, and stands helpless, face to face with the absurd contradiction,
that the producers have nothing to consume, because consumers are wanting. The
expansive force of the means of production bursts the bonds that the capitalist
mode of production had imposed upon them. Their deliverance from these bonds
is the one pre-condition for an unbroken, constantly-accelerated development of the
productive forces, and therewith for a practically unlimited increase of production
itself (Engels, Anti-Diiring; 1878).
A scientific analysis of the forces of production reveals that only socialization of
the means of production can help society to tide over this crisis which would usher in
a new era of freedom. As Engles has elaborated:
Man’s own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by
nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous
objective forces that have hitherto governed history pass under the control of man
himself. Only from that time will man himself, with full consciousness, make his
own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him
have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him.
It is humanity’s leapfrom the kingdom ofnecessity to the kingdom offreedom (ibid).
A similar focus on freedom is to be found in the picture of future communist society
as depicted by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto (1848):
When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and
all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the
whole nation, the public power will lose its political character... In place of the
old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an
association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free
development of all.
humanist basis of freedom
Marx, in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844)-- which were discovered
■
and published as late as 1932 - laid down the ethical basis of humanist
foundations of freedom. He severely criticized the capitalist system on activity
effect. Marx demonstrated that the capitalist system deformed the* ^
of man and caused his alienation in several ,-ays. Accordingly, the “J "
ln contemporary society was an outcome of the system of “ôf exchange and
division of labour, privaL ownership, market economy, moneTT£2: (a)
similar features of the capitalist system. Marx identifie ou process,
" ta, place, mail is ;iienattd from Ms ^
fA\CoUSe tlle worker plays no Part in decidlllg wâ JL does not give him a sense
O Secondly, man is alienated from nature —hisi w _ ^ ^ tend§ tQ become
if“S" " frjs&r*f” which forces

oncilable class
interests; and (d) Finally, man is alienated from himself because the realm ofnecessity
dominates his life and reduces him to the level of animal existence, leaving no room
for the taste of literature, art and cultural heritage. Thus, capitalism subordinates all
human faculties and qualities to the conditions created by the private ownership of
capital and property. The capitalist himself, no less than the worker becomes a slave
to the tyrannical rule of money.
Alienation
Alienation refers to a state of mind in which individual is isolated from the
significant aspects of his social existence or from the creative aspects of his own
personality.
Deliverance from this bondage is only to be found in the realization that society is
a creation by which man attains a fuller measure of freedom. Indeed, man’s freedom
is obstructed by the peculiar conditions created by the private property, and these
conditions exist in their worst form under the capitalist system. Its remedy may be
found in a socialist revolution which will enable society to restore human values and
inaugurate a new era of freedom. As Engels, in his Anti-Duhring (1878), has elucidated;
By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of
capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete
freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan
becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence
of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy
in social production vanishes, the political authority of the state dies out. Man, at
ast the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time
the lord over nature, his own master — free.
Socialism
industrial ornHWH* an ec<^°il71^ svstem of the modern age, largely based on
mines forests ma h" m W ^ ^ means social production (land, buildings,
s«ci. o.neST ,*”'r> "n; “I** distribution and exchange are placed under
sszzxzr* ■nd "on™ic is »*

Proletariat
~£^;^riat"ferS t0 the dass °f wage-labourers who do
the market in order to earn their r • ^ f°rCed t0 Sel1 their labour powef j
”ple t,j,h j„ ge t.„|u,i,„ary Jgjjgg1 Engels |1820-9S|“^
-£££££ "“ory of «fr“d0,«

Marx and Engels
283
VIII
IROLE>OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
WHAT IS PRIVATE PROPERTY?

Marxist theory views ‘private property’ not as a right of the individual, but as a
condition which determines the relations of production according to the prevailing
stage of historical development. Private property, like the state, has not existed from
eternity, not to speak of property as a natural right. The origin of private property was
attended by the beginning of exploitation in society. The state was created by the class of
property-owners for the protection of its private property. It is, therefore, an instrument
of exploitation of the dependent class which does not own property.
Private property did not exist under early social stage—the stage of ‘primitive
communism’. The means of production at that stage were very rudimentary and held
in common ownership. All production was meant for the common consumption,
although it was just sufficient for the survival of the community. It was only with the
development of the forces of production that surplus production became possible, and
with that came the institution of private property, with the consequent division of society
into antagonistic classes—masters and slaves. As Friedrich Engels, in his The Origin
ofthe Family, Private Property and the State (1884), has recorded.
The increase of production in all branches cattle breeding, agriculture, domestic
handicrafts — enabled human labour power to produce more than what was
necessary for its maintenance. At the same time... the addition of more labour
power became desirable. This was furnished by war, captives were made slav
Under the given general historical conditions, the first great socridmionof
labour, by increasing the productivity of labour, that ts wealth and enlarging the
field of production, necessarily carried slavery in its wa e. classes-
social division of libour arose the first great division of society into two classes.
masters and slaves, exploiters and exploited.
PROPERTY AS THE BASIS OF CLASS DIVISION
The origin of private property is, thereforeâssociated wi* ttie di constjtute
antagonistic classes. Private property may be owned byundmnu ^^ ^
“ specific interest, hence a class. Their mteres‘S îththe development of forces
PropertyiesS class. The form of private property chang. ^ M longas private
of Production and consequent changes in the mode or P perty divides
Property exists, its exploitative character does JLnns 0f dominant and dependent
sodety into haves and have-nots, who assume t e p ^ of masters and slaves;
classes respectively. In ancient society, this division takes < society>
^ medieval society, it takes the form of lords an ser , sharpest under the
akes the form of bourgeoisie and proletary. nropertyless and dependent
apualist system. The proletariat, by its very defim , P P (1848), observed:
°n Wage-lab0ur. As Marx and Engels, in their Communist Ma
284 Western Political Thought.
Does wage labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capita]
i.e. that kind of property which exploits wage labour and which cannot increase
except upon condition of begetting new supply of wage labour for fresh exploitation
Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour
Private property, according to Marxism, is therefore a divisive factor—a sourceof
conflict, not of harmony; a mode of exploitation, not of cooperation. Private property, in
this sense, denotes the means of social production, because it is the mode of ownership
of the means of social production which determines how the ‘have-nots’ will earn their
livelihood, and thereby keeps them in permanent subjugation. Marxism, therefore,
advocates the abolition of private property in this sense, not personal property:
The fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the ground-work
of all personal freedom, activity and independence... Hard-won, self-acquired, self-
earned property!...When, therefore, capital is converted into common property, into
the property of all members ofsociety, personal property is not thereby transformed
into social property. It is only the social character of the property that is changed.
It loses its class character (ibid.).
PROPERTY AS THE CAUSE OF ALIENATION

Marxist theory holds the system of private property responsible for the erosion of
human values. Marx, in his earlier work Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of
1844, presented a searching analysis of the capitalist system of private property from
the humanist angle. This work, usually associated with the thought of Young Marx,
comprises an important ingredient of Marxist theory. It is a valuable contribution to the
Marxist theory of alienation which represents the humanist aspect of Marxism. Marx
has argued that under the capitalist system, human labour is reduced to a commodity.
The more wealth the worker produces, the poorer he becomes. As Marx observed:
The worker becomes an ever cheaper commodity the more commodities he creates.
it t e increasing value of the world of things proceeds in direct proportion the
devaluation of the world of men. Labour produces not only commodities, it produces
sell and the worker as a commodity — and does so in the proportion in which U
produces commodities generally (JEconomic and Philosophic Manuscripts cflM
Drodncttf ™ s>'stem’ the worker has no say in the policy or process of
aClf dlV1Si0n 0f lab0Ur dePrives the w°rker of the creative joy derived
couTd derive th Pr°dlf10n'If a worker produced a shirt under the feudal system, *
a collar or onf lsfif10n of 1creat,ng some useful thing; but now he produces on
disc m hi rol l3 rk6t’ °r S°me °ther Sma11 P°rtion of the shirt, he is unable
of purpose‘.TheVol Pr°CeSS' The whole Process is characterized by a 1°
estranged from its rrr f $ aWI| P[oduct confronts him as something alien, an o J
for all manifestations nflM bedrock of capitalism, private property is tesP°"S‘ ,
his work process- (b) °fallenat.10n: ® man « alienated from his own product and fro
o?lhe^^
nee, h,s human facult.es, including the taste for literature, art, nius>c,etc
Marx and Engels
285
evaporate in the process.
In his other works, particularly Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843)
and On the Jewish Question (1844), Marx argues that the constitution of modern
representative states is, in reality, the constitution of private property’. Modern society
is characterized by the real domination of private property. As Lucio Colletti, in his
‘Introduction’ to Karl Marx: Early Writings (1975), has summed up:
Property ought to be a manifestation, an attribute, of man, but becomes the subject;
man ought to be the real subject, but becomes the property of private property...
The social side of human beings appears as a characteristic or property of things;
on the other hand, things appear to be endowed with social or human attributes.
This is in embryo the argument which Marx will develop later in Capital as ‘the
fetishism of commodities’.
Fetishism of commodities implies a feature of capitalist society where social
relation between different producers is reduced to relation between the products of
their labour. It brings different types, skills and quantities of labour into equivalence
-- ““ »f “ SSSiS'—ss
tailor and carpenter appears as a
of the labour and skills embodied
exchange value in the market rather than in terms , vaiue
in these products. In other words, the commodity becomes an embodiment of vûe
under the capitalist system of private property, while the human bemg asworkeiând
real producer of value, is reduced to a commodity governed bytheârkf
demand, supply and competition. The result is an overall dehumanization man,
self-estrangement and alienation.
ABOLITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY
Under the capitalist system, private property take*,*ytodlaws of market forces. It
which creates its domination over society throug ^humanizing force: no useful
is devoid of any human sense or human appea . is theory, therefore, does not
purpose will be served by trying to humanize l ■ themselves are slaves of
seek to appeal to the good sense of the property-o yalues are to be restored,
their private property no less than the workers, o Dro(juction and distribution is
human freedom is to be secured, and a rationa sys Q^vjous course is the abolition
to be evolved to ensure satisfaction of social nee s,
°f private property itself. . , of oppression, exploitation
It is the mass of workers who are the worst victim^^ the abolition of
‘l'td injustice under the capitalist system. T eir e . property, though equa y
e system of private property itself. The 0M'”<T se they are placed in a omraa
enslaved by the system, do not feel the pinch, be ^ property unles
Position. They would never be prepared to part h ^ ^ revolutionary ze
overthrown in a violent revolution. Marx, *er property and to socialize a
working class, to abolish the system of pnv*^* h’man values. As Marx, m
eans of production. This will restore human deciares:
ls Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts oj • [nation of
complete emancip
The transcendence of private propertyis;*her®^neipation precisely because t ese
al> human senses and attributes; but it is this ema
286
senses and attributes have become, subjectively and objectively, human. The eye
has become a human eye, just as its object has become a social, human object—an t’
tl
object emanating from man for man.
With the abolition of private property comes the end of exploitation also. The
abolition ofprivate property does not imply abolition ofproperty as such. It involves
changing the pattern of ownership of property\ from bourgeois ownership to social F
ownership, from class ownership to common ownership, although in the transitional
phase of the ‘dictatorship ofthe proletariat’ it may temporarily be held in class ownership
of the proletariat, till the classless society comes into existence! Thus, Marx and Engels,
in their Communist Manifesto (1848), observed:
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally,
but the abolition of bourgeois property. But the modem bourgeois private property is
the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating
products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by
the few... In this sense, theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single
sentence: Abolition of private property.
The capitalist system of private property is based on the distortion of property
itself; it denotes a condition under which the product of collective effort is appropriated
by a few persons, and used as an instrument of domination over society. As Marx and
Engels have elucidated:
To be a capitalist is to have not only a purely personal, but a social status in
production. Capital is a collective product, and only by the united action of many
members, nay, in the last resort, only by the united action of all members of society,
can it be set in motion. Capital is, therefore, not a personal, it is a social power...
Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society:
all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by
means of such appropriation (ibid.).
In short, Marxist theory views the system of private property as the foundation
of capitalism which is characterized by the exploitation of man by man. It, therefore,
advocates the abolition ofprivate property in the major means of production so as to
pave the way for a humanistic reorganization of production and distribution, while
persona property a genuine fruit of an individual’s labour and the instrument of his
’'emain ^ The inStitution °f socialist property will transform the
com moHhS6 fli^ “f f’because il wil1 undertake production and distribution of
of The community “ n6edS ^ benefit’n0t f°r private profit 3t the “P6"56
CONCLUSION
af8nificant distinction between personal property'
sourceTsecuXofoh T? T' pr°teCtion of ‘personal property’ which is the
instrument of cSro n Jrf "3 ’/0d ab°liti0n °f ‘Private property’ which is a
some difficulties in actufl practice*°f°therS‘ “ 'S 3 laUdable 'dea- However’ U ^
Marxist theory of property is fit for application to a society which is divided into
Marx and Engels
287
tw0 clearcut classes — haves and have-nots. But in the present-day society, the size of
the middle class has considerably expanded and is constantly expanding. Its problems
cannot be analysed in the light of the Marxist theory. And when a very large number
of shareholders have invested their hard-earned money and savings in big business
and industries, then the situation turns out to be more complex. When a middle class
person raises his personal property by dint of his talent and effort, and invests his
savings in the shares of selected companies for the security of his future, then the
dividing line between personal property and ‘private property’ in the Marxian sense
starts blurring. In such a situation, recourse to a violent revolution for the abolition of
‘private property’ would lose its rationale. However, we must appreciate an important
suggestion of Marxist theory, that any form of property should not be allowed to become
an instrument of exploitation and control over lives of others.
As long as the right to property provides freedom and a sense of security to the
individual and facilitates the best use of his talent and effort, it must be admired. But
when this right gives rise to glaring economic disparities in society and forces the bulk
of workers to lead a sub-human life, it must be strictly regulated.
Aristotle, ancient Greek philosopher, taught that a certain amount ofprivate property
was necessary for good life and for exercising virtue, but when acquired beyond this
limit it becomes a source of vice. Here, Aristotle was dealing with the impact of property
on personal morality, not with its impact on social organization.
Early socialists, who were deeply concerned with the institution of property as a
source of vast social-economic disparities and social injustice, sought to transform it
thoroughly. P. J. Proudhon (1809-65), French philosopher, went to the extent of saying:
‘Property is theft’.
Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian social philosopher, sought to assess the
role of property in the sphere of social as well as personal morality, is PnnclP ®
non-possession (renunciation or aparigraha) and non-stealing (aênUonfromthett or
®steyd) deal with personal morality. A person should not acquire any m ,
eyond his immediate requirement, because amassing of wea is 0f their due
0es not have enough to satisfy anybody s greed.

, Then Gandhian principle of ‘bread labour’ requires that ductjon 0f
m1ytS,caJ labour, apart from his usual duties, and con " “ This means that the
sea fla Lh'igs in order to compensate for his consu p ■ g(j due to their
Co fClty °f material things in society will not be ur e instrument of
,nftlnu°us consumption. Gandhi also commended bread about a an
^'Purification. This principle deals with personal as well as social mo y ^
requ-mally> Gandhian doctrine of trusteeship larSely ^^ssionsas the trust of
—of
a ar*d moral life of society.

288
Wl
Marxism arose at a critical juncture when liberal theory of ‘free market society’ had
entered a decadent phase, when masses were being exploited by a tiny capitalist class,
The great ideals of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity5 enunciated by the makers of the French
Revolution (1789) were reduced to negative rights of man, that is the ‘right to be left
alone’ in a competitive setting. This situation had led to the deplorable condition ofthe
working class. Some humanitarian thinkers and reformers were, of course, preaching
the gospel of socialism to improve the lot of the working classes, but they had not
yet found any scientific way to realize their dreams or to achieve their humanistic
goals. At this stage, Marx and Engels discovered the scientific basis of their theory of
transition to socialism, and exhorted the working class to understand and assume their
historical role in the process. It was Marxism which appeared as a liberatingforcejor
the oppressedpeople ofthe world. It inspired the great Bolshevik Revolution (1917) in
Russia and Communist Revolution (1949) in China. Eventually some other countries
of Europe, Asia, Africa and Latin America adopted socialist systems inspired by the
Marxist philosophy.
The advent of socialist system in many backward countries initially played an
important role in reconstruction of economy and fulfilment of material needs of people.
However, they failed to achieve further progress as their leadership was not prepared
to part with its power and privileges in the interests of the people. In the name of the
‘dictatorship of the proletariat’, the system was reduced to mere dictatorship; people
were denied democratic rights and civil liberties. Full employment was granted, but ful
material production to fulfil people’s needs could not be secured. Government monopoly
over mass media led to suppression of truth, and people lost faith in their sources o
information. Scarcity of essential goods and services led to bureaucratic bungingan
corruption. Widespread protests and resistance led to the collapse of socialism in Eastern
Europe by the end of 1980s, and its collapse in the former Soviet Union by 1991*
The collapse of socialism in its citadel was followed by the introduction ofu13^
economies and multiparty political systems, which necessitated new thinking 00
adequacy of classical Marxism on which these regimes were based. Moreover
the People s Republic of China and other countries which still claim to retain
communist systems, necessary changes are being made toward liberalization in keep*
wit t eir national needs and aspirations. China has particularly switched over t°
is called ‘market socialism’. Now there is no scope of observing rigidity in maintj»®
communist systems as it was done during the regimes of Stalin (1879-1953) in *
and Mao Zedong (1893-1976) in China. Experience has shown that instead of j
away of the state’ in socialist countries, there has been a collapse of socialist state
ent*retUrn towarc* liberalism. Champions of classical Marxism try to e
away this situation by alleging that these countries were not really socialist at aU-
(Liberalization = the policy of removal or relaxation of government cont lot
restriction on the economic activities of people.)
Marx and Engels 289
Market Socialism
ket socialism refers to an economic system where means of social production
^ held in public ownership, but allocation of resources is made according to
are kpt principles. Thus product market, labour market and capital market come
maf existence along with the socialist system.
into
This is however, an oversimplification of the issue. It is now becoming increasingly

that the problem of fighting out the forces of domination and exploitation is no
- ,nnfined to the struggle of the working class against the capitalist class, as
have
neo
Dependency Theory
Dependency »,«, ^» «- «»■ £££%£%£ *■
underdeueloped count,i.P i *•«“<"In tact,
lack of drive, entrepreneurial spirit, ere;an W . and their nnkage
it is the consequence of their colonial exp> 01 ^ thgm frQm independent
with the global capitalism in the presen , a(J t Western technology but
development. To overcome this problem they ^ , l tions and international trade,
exert their independence in the held of interna ^ hjstorjan, and
Andre Gunder Frank (1929-2005), German of dependency theory.
Samir Amin (1931- ), African writer, are the g^^===========
colonialism
-state, after consolidating
Colonialism refers to the practice under which < |tories of
_ other countries for
its national power, extends its domination co,onial power establishes \
exploiting their natural and human resoura\ , kes an resources thereof unde
own administration in the subject country ________
its own control.
Neo-Colonialism
advanced nation does not
Neo-Colonialism refers to the practice under but taking advantageîts
maintain its political domination in a foreig d industry, uses the r
■*- —»*■ -
a developing nation as a source
b'g market of its own products. It is a
developing nations by the developednation^.
basically great humanists
d Engels were
^ should be remembered that Marx an
who believed in the process ofa constant debate tofind the truth. Unfortunately
of their followers have reduced Marxism to a rigid ideology which claims that
‘found the truth’. It is a dangerous claim. Search for truth is a constant pr0Ce
must go on till humanity survives. If somebody claims that he has found the tmh 11
next step would be to apply it ruthlessly by suppressing everybody’s freedom m
and Engels projected an image of the future when class distinctions will be t hi*
eliminated; when people will voluntarily give their best to society; when evervh >
material needs would be fulfilled; when administration would be carried on with^
the oppressive machinery of the state. The Communist Manifesto projects the futu ^
follows: “In place ofthe old bourgeoisie society, with its classes and class antagonist
we shall have an-association, in which the free development of each is the conditio
for the free development of all.” How can we reconcile this ideal with a regime that
believes in the suppression of freedom of people?
The situation becomes more dangerous when some militant organizations claiming
to be the followers of Marxism resort to indiscriminate killings and other terrorist
activities in the name of‘class struggle’! Marx and Engels had only envisaged mass
uprising against a handful of exploiters, and not the method ofjeopardizing the safetyof
he innocent people. While the real message of Marxism still continues to be relevant,
its distortion is very injurious to humanity which must be curbed resolutely.
Q. 1. "While dialectical materialism

represents philosophical basis of Marxism,
historical materialism
represents its empirical basis." Elaborate and
comment.
eLmSIeZltment10 ^ °f dass StrUgg,eS'" Crito"y
3. "While historical materialism
represents sociological basis of Marxism,
theory of surplus value
represents its economic basis." Do you agree?
Discuss fully.
on theôle^fD^va^P ^ Marxist view of freedom; (b) Marxist perspective
-----------«eof Private property; (c) Marxism as a theory of revolufion.
K.
Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg,

Mao Zedong and Gramsci
V.I. Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg and Mao Zedong are regarded as important figures in the
tradition of the Marxist theory because of their contribution to the Classical Marxism.
Antonio Gramsci may be regarded as an important link between the Classical Marxism
and Neo-Marxism.
W I
Vladimir Uich Lenin (pse»don,m of V.I. Ul,..n..) (07O-TOft

Marxist, was a revolutionary who led the Bolshevik Party m ^ Socialist
(1917) that established the world’s first socialist state, a 1 interpretation
Soviet Republics (USSR). Lenin’s name is adopted as
of Marxism which was described as Marxlsm‘L . of inspiration for many
the official ideology of the USSR. It also served as the sou P
communist parties all over the world.
against Imperialism.
rOLE OF THE PARTY tion between the role of
Lenin (What is to be Done?; 1902) drew a clear^jJ'hS'Sw'capitalist societies
Political parties in capitalist and socialist coun rl® ■ , wor)cers); hence they give
are °^ss-divided societies (i.e. divided into capi a
[291]
rise to competitive political parties. Each party represents the interests of the cl
(or a particular segment of that class) in which it is based. However, after the soci T
revolution, class divisions are sought to be abolished; hence there is no need of comnet^
parties. Consequently, in a socialist country only one party is left in the field wwl
represents the victorious proletariat, and which is committed to protect the interest f
the working class. This party establishes the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Its function
include realization of the goals of socialism and suppression of counter-revolutio S
nary
forces, with the ultimate aim of establishing a classless and stateless society
Dictatorship of the Proletariat

According to Marxism, 'dictatorship of the proletariat' refers to a form of
organization of the State that comes into existence when organized working class
overthrows capitalism and assumes full control of political power. Under this system
ail means of social production are placed under State ownership and control, work
is made compulsory for all able-bodied persons, and all counter-revolutionary
forces are sought to be suppressed. The State undertakes de novo planning of
material production so as to serve social needs, provide an effective right to
work, education health and housing for the masses, and further development of
Ir'Zll t.ech™l0By 50 as t0 multiP'y material production in order to achieve
greater social satisfaction.
and Engels 0” *C r°le °f the Coi"ist Party. Marx (1818-83)
would also run government dn ■ ^ efôrt for tlle consolidation of socialism, ft

socialist phase of development.
Class Consciousness
Class
about their status as arTexoLtlw !fte °l awareness among the working class
victims of exploitation by the ranconsciousness of its identity as the
strength for overthrowing the capitalist ^ ^ the'f potential t0 orSan,’ze their
trade ^feel complacentwi^2^y r6Cruiting *em within its fold. Wh

SmaU ^cessions from the capitalist class, t»e
Lenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Mao Zedong and Gramsci
293
Communist Party looks down upon such concessions and carries on its revolutionary
struggle unabated. After the revolution, when Communist Party itself comes to power,
it functions as a monolith with no room for factionalism or groupism. It is organized
on the principle of ‘Democratic Centralism’, which implies that higher bodies of state
power are elected by the lower bodies, and the latter are placed under the direction of
the former. This enables the members to have full discussion of policies, but once the
decisions are taken, they are to be observed faithfully with no room for any deviation.
Democratic Centralism
Democratic centralism refers to the principle of organization of the socialist state
as well as the communist party, as enunciated by V. I. Lenin (1870-1924). It implies
(a) that the membership of each body in the political hierarchy (whether party
or state) shall be decided by the vote of the lower body; and (b) that although
free discussion on policy matters shall be allowed at the initial stage, any decision
reached by the highest body shall be imposed rigidly at all lower levels in the
hierarchy.
ROLE OF IDEOLOGY
Marx and Engels had defined ideology as the set of ideas, beliefs and arguments which
are used to lend legitimacy to the rule of the dominant class. It projects and promotes a
value system under which even the exploitation of the dependent class seems justified.
Marx (A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy; 1859) argued that in
the process of social development, material needs of people advance but their social
consciousness lags behind. This distorted consciousness or false consciousness is
reflected in their ideology. Dominant class at any stage of social development makes
use of ideology to maintain its authority. For example, makers oft e renc evo u ion
(1789) invoked the lofty ideals of ‘liberty, equality, fraternity as 1 ei^ §oa ^ ®
enlist support of the masses. But they settled for liberty whic serve , ’
Le; the interest of the new entrepreneural class of those days, eyr j stopped
win freedom for the common man, which implied equality an r ; rty
after winning freedom for the new dominant class to ensure the inviolability ofprope y.
Marx and Engels had argued that the capitalist class (the
^ maintain itself in power. On the contrary when itself
°f ideology even during the socialist phase ofdeve °P ecessariiy the distortion of
“ to be D°ne> (1902), Lenin argued that ideology « ^ ideology as a neutral
Uth t0 conceal the prevailing contradictions in soc f different classes, including the
bo
Urgcois ideology.
SSSS“"p“"ed * *
Scientific Socialism
Scientific socialism refers to the theory of socialism based on the scientific laws
derived from the historical analysis. Marx (1818-83) and Engels (1820-95) are the
chief exponents of this theory. They held that various stages of historical develo
pment
are the manifestations of the contradictions in material conditions which necessarily
lead human society to the goal of socialism. Whereas utopin socialism regards
socialism as a moral choice; scientific socialism considers it a historical necessity
Socialism means the abolition of classes...But classes cannot be abolished at I

one stroke...The class struggle does not disappear under the dictatorship of the
proletariat; it merely assumes different forms.
V. I. Lenin
STRUGGLE AGAINST IMPERIALISM

Imperialism refers to the policy, practice or process through which an advanced nation
uses its military, political or economic power to expand its rule and extend its control
over backward, distant political communities for the purpose of gaining 1economic
advantage, military security and international prestige as well as establishing its cultural
domination over other nations. J.A. Hobson (Imperialism; 1902) defined imperialism
as a search for captive market5. He attacked it as a method of exploitation. Lenin
CImperialism — the Highest State ofCapitalism; 1916) argued that imperialism was an
economic necessity of the capitalist economy. In his view, when capital accumulation
m a capitalist country rises to such an extent that it cannot at all find its profitable use
within its own territory, then it is forced to look abroad for profitable outlets. Lenin
l entified three driving forces behind the imperialist expansion: search for new spheres
of investment, new markets, and new sources of raw materials. Foreign trade allows
^Pia! t0 S6CUre 3 hlgher rate 0f return than that available at home. Overseas
of l,taur and markeK-and a,i°w! a"“s ” ”*
backward *3<^Seen ™Per>al>sr>i as a trend that paved the way in industrially
represented a higher f T'™, fr0m feuda,ism *> capitalism. Since capitalism
to thisTrend R ?/ 86 ,S°C,al develoPment than feudalism, they were not averse
thepSSJLbSrrTn® rTerpm imPerMism as a trend of exploitation of
of nations into onnrecJ H hence he condemned it. He identified the ‘division
was akin to division of 0ppressed’ as the essence of imperialism. In his view,1
of class conflict. He exhorted'aTo ^ eXpj°iting and exPloited classes in a situatw
oppressor nations and nlm, tu PPressed nations of the world to unite agains
capitalist nations ? V e role ofrevohtionory proletariat against the oppress''’ •
As, result_ it WJ! *

JLenin, Rosa Luxemburg, Mao Zedong and Gramsci
<w
295
victims of imperialism began winning their independence one by one. In any case
Lenin’s attitude toward imperialism became a source of inspiration for all progressive
thinkers and activists the world over who sought to identify and eliminate all apparent
as Well as subtle forms of imperialism.
II
ROSA LUXEMBURG
Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919) was a brilliant Polish Marxist of early twentieth century.
She is regarded as the exponent of Revolutionary Marxism. In her times, Polish
nationalism was a favourite subject of Marxists in Poland. But Rosa had a firm faith in
the basic tenets of Marxism which was opposed to nationalism. So she opposed Lenin’s
principle of national self-determination.
ROLE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY

In pursuance of her faith in theoretical Marxism, Rosa held ‘will of the people’ in
high esteem. She firmly believed in the principles of democracy and liberty. When
Lenin led Marxist-inspired revolution in Russia, Rosa severely criticized its dictatorial
and tyrannical tendencies. Lenin wanted a small group ofprofessional revolutionists
to direct the revolution, but Rosa argued that such a group woul ten to ecome
bureaucratic.
Lenin himself had confessed that in the Soviet sociahst democracy there was no
»g»ed Ha, in .he .taence of suchparloerah.p. ,houEh, .nd experi.nee
ne who thinks differently.

Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the o Rosa Luxemburg
d in society, the party would no

Rosa warned that if democracy was suPP)ênroietariat’ would result in social
longer have democracy, and the ‘dictatorship o assjpned the leadership of the
°Ppression. But Lenin ignored these war*ings; r and responsibility of the revolution
Proletariat to the Communist Party; hence all po J treated as the end; he
Was concentrated in the few hands. The wor er reiation between the communist
*as reduced to a means of the revolution When m and the emPloyee>
eader and the worker became similar to that e , _s essence of Marxist thoug •
f kerned to be devoid ofthe human element which j with s0 many levels of
n Russian government, bureaucracy became joseph Stalin (1879-1953) who ca me
authority that it was reduced to a pyramid ofP°we y P There was some relaxation in
10 Power after Lenin, jealously maintained this y
this attitude after the regime of Stalin, but the tradition of suppression of the diss
continued unabated where a special role was played by the secret police. Under th
circumstances, individual freedom was terribly suppressed which belied the dream f
a classless society.
REFORM AND REVOLUTION
In her early work Social Reform or Revolution? (1899), Rosa Luxemburg repudiated
the view that socialism can be established within a capitalist system gradually through
a series of social reforms. She argued that the workers’ movement must struggle for
reform through trade union and parliamentary activity, but this will not be sufficient
to transform the capitalist productive relations. Revolution is the ultimate goal ofthe
proletariatfor which victory over political power would be indispensable. The crises
and contradictions oi the capitalist system cannot be resolved through the reforms
In her most important theoretical work The Accumulation ofCapital (1913) Rosa
anticipated the breakdown of capitalism. She argued that pure capitalism cannot’fulfill
nrni? **,ts develoPraent- Capitalism cannot absorb the entire surplus value
rate than t£ H Capital ac“lation grows at a faster
to estabHsh IkT !” r l° abs°rb this surPlus accumulation, capitalism seeks
which ushers in ih™™ T over underdeveloped areas and non-capitalist production
rf ’ilnt andSf ofcaP,ta!lst lmperialism. Imperialism resorts to increasing use
solution to the nrnhl > ^ ?t0 strengt*len 'ts power. But this is not an enduring
find a wav to nmceedf °Pcapi.talls™- When capitalism reaches its climax and fails to
nna a way to proceed further, it is bound to break down.
alternativesêither face'th °f capitalism is inevitable, the proletariat is left with two
socialism" otr T’ ^ ^ ^ °r ^
spontaneity of the ^ , 1S Sltuatl0n- Rosa had a profound faith in the
insisted rcombting w£ ZV * ^ ^ t0 socialism- she als°
Marxist ideology. pr°per organizat>°n, competent leadership and faith in
Legal reform and revolution are

can be picked out at DleasurA f "0t different methods of historical progress that
hot or cold sausages Thev re Hiff °f historV, just as one chooses
society which condition and rnmni moments ‘n the development of class
each other reciprocal as 7 ^ °ther' and at the time exclude
the proletariat. ' '9' " north and south poles, the bourgeoisie and
—^Luxemburg (Social Reform or Revolution?;1899)
HI
iMAO ZEDONGIMA^tqb
E-TUNG)*
^SSSSSSSSs
297
proletariat would stimulate revolution, but in China, peasantry was the chief vehicle
of discontent. Mao wanted this peasantry to play a leading role in the revolution. He
was a popular leader who sought to enlist everybody’s support to the revolution. It
is important to note that Mao himself led the communist movement in China which
culminated in the establishment of a socialist state in China — the People’s Republic
of China in 1949. He led the nation till his death in 1976.
doctrine OF PERMANENT REVOLUTION
Mao elaborately dwelled on the nature of revolution and advanced Marxist thought in
this direction. He accorded priority to practice over theory. He regards practice as the
highest criterion of truth. All theory should therefore be tested through its application,
and where it does prove to be valid, it should be rejected. Error is inevitable at the level
of practice. Mao repudiated the dogmatic stand of Russian Bolsheviks that errors can
be avoided. Mao argued that it is an anti-Marxist view because the ‘unity of opposites’
is against the rule.
Mao sought to reinterpret the dialectic as the ‘law of contradiction’. According
to this law, correct line is derived through its clash with the incorrect line. Hence,
opposition and conflict are indispensable for all historical change. This law applies to all
social formations, classes and individuals, so much so that it applies to the Communist
Party itself. In his seminal work On Contradiction (1937), Mao has shown that this
law does not cease to operate even after the establishment of socialism or communism
Revolution is nofinal solution; it is only a step in the right direction. Contradiction wi
persist throughout. One contradiction gives rise to another. en ° 1con ra 1
are resolved, new ones appear. It would be a folly to look or t e en o c0^r
by imposing a solution from above. Still the State shoul assume maximu
deal with the contradictions. Hence the ‘vanguard ofthe proletariat in theform ofthe
Communist Party must remain in existence indefinite y. __ —
development of a thing is not external but internal;
The fundamental cause of the
it lies in the contradictoriness within the thing.
Mao Zedong (On Contradiction; 1937)
Marx and Engels believed that ^^'^^^jê^bythe'withering away of the
„ld „ be
According to Mao, the socialist revolu SYStem. It would be necessary
automatically followed by the strengthening , md ideological fronts which
to promote socialism on political, cultural, suffice for this, but it might take
WlU be a prolonged process. A few decades wi ^ ^ point; he held that the
centuries together. Mao differed from Lenin wijj contjnUe within the socialist
stru8gle between the proletariat and the bourg mp|ex struggle. At times it becomes
system. It is a long-drawn, recurring, horri e an out jt does not terminate. Hence
violent like the sea-waves; at times it seems o s
the process of socialist reconstruction is a process of \continuous' or permanent
revolution* which cannot be relaxed anywhere at any time.
NATURE OF THE REVOLUTION

In Mao’s view, revolution does not imply the mere transformation of the
economic
system. Socialism requires us to transform ourselves apart from the material conditions
It must be remembered that transformation of consciousness postulates material
transformation. On the other hand, no revolution can be accomplished simply through
raising the amount of material production. Where there is a clash between economy
and politics, priority should be accorded to the politics. Similarly, cultural revolution
is as important as the industrial revolution because it tends to create a new system of
knowledge and makes people realize the value of industrialization. However, in actual
practice, Mao used ‘cultural revolution’ as a device to eliminate his political rivals.
Cultural Revolution
Cultural revolution refers to the powerful campaign launched in the people's Republic
of China during 1966 to 1969, under the leadership of Mao Zedong (1893-1976)
ostensibly to step up cultural transformation of the society. It was alleged that in
thepost-revolutionary society of China, a new elite had emerged which sought to
is nguish itself from the masses and to maintain its special privileges. This trend
, CUltUral V3lUeS 3ssociated the philosophy of socialism which
were inst ^ °f a" CitizenS' Under the circumstances, the Red Guards
zz sttassssr* *—« B“",sh

stateInofficials
practice, ^tura* rev°lution sought to eliminate those party cadres,
to their power n & ^lu3 S whom Mao and the other radicals found threatening
vstpm rl f 8 the revo,ution' the state was paralysed, educational
system came to a standstill, and production
revolution brought unimaginable dama was seriously disrupted. The cultural
Mao reforms. ge to China, but it paved the way for post-
J on cooperationÎt^hfr1 °f reô!utlon is t0 realize the community sentiment

based
CONCLUSION
Communist Party should alwaysl^0™^1116 masses- He constantly insisted that the

Criticism and self-criticism arefoe ! f?dy t0 learn from the lower strata of society
among people. Mao taught that *7correct methods of resolving contradictions
accompanied by the due regard for the people ^ COmmunist revolution should be
opposition’ in principle,'buUnp^/600^11*26^ PeoPle’s right to ‘criticism’ ^

Pract.ce nobody was allowed to criticize or oPP°se
Lenin- Rosa Luxemburg, Mao Zedong and Gramsci
299
the Communist Party under his leadership. His policy of ‘mass line’ was not designed
to assign leadership of the revolution or administration of the country to the neonle
although he initiated the process of people’s participation in administration which was
totally absent from Leninist Soviet tradition. Besides, Mao did not allow the bureaucracy
in China to become as powerful as its counterpart in Soviet Russia. Mao sought to
modify Marxist-Lenmist theory m the sense that he did not concede supremacy of
the working class over the peasantry. He recognized the working class only as ‘elder
brother’ of the peasantry. He thought that the rural sector had to play a prominent role
in the socialist reconstruction in China. This view underlines the importance of the
peasantry. In short, Mao sought to reinterpret Marxism-Leninism so as to make it
perfectly suitable for adoption under the prevailing condition in China.
Mass Line
Mass line refers to the policy and style of leadership recommended for socialist
countries, which was particularly advanced by Mao Zedong (1893-1976), China's
prominent leader. This policy seeks to ensure that leaders and party workers
come closer to the masses, explore their sentiments, and mould their leadership
patterns on those lines.
Mao organized mass campaigns throughout China in order to bridge the gap
between the thinking of leaders and followers, encourage participation of the
masses in the socialist programme, and make leaders responsive to the sentiments
of ordinary people. The policy of mass line represents a departure from the
conventional socialist thinking which conceded the superior position of leaders
vis-a-vis ordinary workers. It seeks to restore the importance of ordinary workers
(and peasants) in regard to their role in socialist reconstruction.
IV 1
ÂNTONIO GRAMSCI*
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) was a talented Italian Marxist who sought to reinterpret
Marxism so as to pave the way for revision of the strategy of socialist revolution and
s
so‘iety. Gramsci welcomed the Russian Revolution (1917) as a triumphi of vv> 1-power
0Ver economic circumstances. However, he was not happy wi
communist movement in Italy. In 1921, he helped to foundUtahan Commumst Party
,,n kecame its general secretary in 1924. Italy s fascist 1C a imprisoned in
saw Gramsci as , ,„L»-“''Lj”.d™ g£
5 and he remained a prisoner until his death in ■ nnlitics philosophy,
soo°te JTliscellaneous notes and essays which embody view um0Usly as Prison
linguistics and literary criticism. These were pub is P ^ political
tught^ °929"35)- ThiS ^°rk iS treated aS the main of GramSC1S p0lltl
Gramsci believed that the revolutionary movement should start with the everyday
life of the working masses... Always a consistent revolutionary, he re-emphasized
the political dimension of Marxism and the importance of ideological struggle in
the process of socialist transformation.
David McLellan {Marxism After Marx: An Introduction; 1979)
Gramsci’s analysis of the capitalist society comprises his major contribution to

political theory. Conventional Marxist theory held that economic mode of production
of any society constituted its base while its legal and political structure and various
expressions of its social consciousness including religion, morals, social custom
and practices constituted its superstructure. It believed that the character of the
superstructure was determined by the prevailing character of its base. During the
course of social development, the changes in the base led to corresponding changes
in the superstructure. So it focused on changes in the base; the superstructure was not
regarded to deserve an independent analysis. Gramsci did not accept this position. He
suggested that the superstructure of contemporary Western society had attained some
degree of autonomy, hence its analysis was also necessary.

The terms Base' and 'Superstructure' are used in Marxist theory to describe the
In this building-like metaphor, mode of production (i.e. the economic structure
of society) constitutes the base, while legal and political structure, religion,
morals, and other forms of social consciousness constitute the superstructure. It
is elieved that any change in the base results in corresponding changes in the
superstructure.
Gramsci particularly focused on the structures of domination in the culture^

superstructure) of the capitalist society. He identified two levels of this superstructure:
(a) Political Society or State which applies coercion to maintain its domination-
e whole organization of government including police, judiciary, prisons,
’ COmeS w,t 111 'ts Purview. The structures associated with this par10
superstructure are called ‘structures of coercion’;.
^ donfirmtinn^ThhiCh ‘° °btain COnsent of‘he citizens t0
S veTa t Par‘ °f the suPerstructure is closer to the base and
‘Sctures nnn0v°US--The StrUCfUres “seated with this part are ca
superstructure^* imatl°n ’ Gramsci pays special attention to this part of
church familiarize die ^ i.n®titutions of civil society — family, sch°°|i
society to function such a manner that the ruling classes **

301
to be ruling with the consent of the people. When power is apparently exercised with
the consent of its subject, it is called ‘hegemony’.
Legitimacy
Legitimacy refers to the quality of an act or arrangement to be regarded as lawful
and right by those affected by it. In other words, they regard it reasonable and
beneficial for themselves as well for the larger society.
Hegemony
According to Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Italian thinker, hegemony refers to
the ability of the ruling classes to create a web of beliefs and institutional as
well as social relations which are projected as acceptable to all parts of society.
Hegemony is an outstanding characteristic of the capitalist society where family,
school, church and other primary groups play a leading role in creating consent;
it keeps the system going. Use of force is resorted to only when the instruments
of consent fail to work.
Gramsci's Analysis of the Capitalist Society

Capitalist Society
I
Base
Superstructure
1 1
Legal and Political Structure, Religion
Capitalist Mode of
Morals, Social Practices, etc.
Production
1
Structures of Domination
I
[ Political Society
Civil Society
1 1
Governmental Organization
Family, School, Church, etc.
1 1
Structures of Coercion J
Structures of Legitimation
Gramsci points out that the‘structures of legitimation depends on
tend to prevent any challenge to its authority, apt when civil society fails to
ne efficiency of these structures for its stabi 1 y. r:ts structures of coercion,
Prevent dissent that political society is required to mak
deluding police, courts and prisons.
This analysis leads us to the conclusion t a ciass ût jt shoidd make a
% ould not be confined to the overthrow of t e c . value system is likely to
etlt in the value system that sustains the capita is
rrojto//i x
302
persist through the institutions of civil society even under socialist mode of prodU(;ti
Fresh efforts will have to be made to transform the culture of that society by inculcatin'
socialist values in the mind of the people. According to Gramsci, it would befutilef
hope that true socialism would automatically growfrom the ashes ofcapitalism °
Gramsci tried to convince the Marxists that they should emerge from the spell
of economics and continue their ideological warfare in the field of culture, art and
literature, and philosophical debates. The revolutionaries must infiltrate the auton omous
institutions of civil society and create a new mass consciousness informed by the
socialist value system.
The proletarian revolution cannot be identified with the development and activity
of revolutionary organizations of a voluntary and contractual nature, such as
political parties and trade unions ... The revolutionary process takes place in the
sphere of production, in the factory, where the relations are those of oppressor
to oppressed, exploiter to exploited, where freedom for the worker does not exist,
and democracy does not exist.
Antonio Gramsci
Gramsci was primarily a humanist. He was opposed to any type of tyranny. He did
not want to use revolution in order to set up a coercive state, but wanted to democratize
all institutions. In fact, he sought to replace the state by a regulated society where all
decisions would be made through consensus, and not by means of coercion.
Q- 1. "Lenin offered a new interpretation of the Marxist theory in order to realize

the idea of a socialist revolution in practice." Elaborate and comment.
Elucidate the differences between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg on the role of
the Communist Party.
3' IXamJne ^f0'S thMry °f Permanent revolution'. How do you
relate it to
the idea of cultural revolution'?
msci s analysis of hegemony in capitalist society implies the need for a
new strategy of revolution." Discuss fully.
Neo-Marxism
I
* WHAT IS NEO-MARXISM?
Broadly speaking, Neo-Marxism refers to some new trends in Marxist theory which seek
to review the conditions prevailing in the contemporary world in the light of relevant
tenets of Marxism. Neo-Marxism may be distinguished from the Classical Marxism
or Orthodox Marxism as it does not subscribe to Economic Determinism, nor confines
its attention to securing economic welfare of people. It undertakes an analysis of the
subtle methods of dominance and dependence at various levels of contemporary society
— such as economic, sociological, political, cultural and psychological levels — and
strives to work out the way to human emancipation.
Economic Determinism
Economic determinism refers to the basic assumption behind the Classical Mamsm
that all aspects of our social life reflect the prevailing econo™ '^ determined1
forms of social and political institutions and behaviour are sh p
activated by the prevailing
substructure' which determines the variousi P re|igionj mora|Sj socia|
specific school of thought.

Neo-Marxism is not a fixed doctrine, nor it refers to
[ 303 ]
304
Its adherents are concerned with a large variety of issues pertaining to multifarious
disciplines, such as humanism, structuralism, existentialism (philosophy), inequalities
status and power (Max Weber’s sociology), psycho-analysis (psychology) and economic
imperialism (economics), etc. At best, it may be regarded as an intellectual orientation
which maintains its faith in some basic tenets of Marxism and tends to highlight their
new aspects. Neo-Marxism does not deny the class character of society, but it does not
believe that class conflict is confined to direct confrontation between capitalist and
worker on economic issues. It tries to inquire into the various methods — apparent or
subtle — whereby the dominant class (i.e. the set of dominant groups, e.g. the high-ups
in business, bureaucracy, politics and military) tends to oppress the dependent class.
Neo-Marxism is opposed to capitalism; it is determined to abolish capitalism.
However, it does not see capitalism merely as an economic system based on the private
ownership of the means of social production, but as an elaborate economic-political-
cultural system which tends to suppress individual freedom. In order to weaken the
domination of capitalist ideology and culture, Neo-Marxism seeks to evolve a human-
friendly counterculture.
Counterculture
Counterculture refers to the set of those ideas, trends and movements which seek
to challenge the very basis of values and sources of authority in modern Western
culture. Actually counterculture does not refute the entire Western culture, but it
tends to challenge the irrational and objectionable parts thereof. Its main target
of attack is the structures of domination in society which have lost their rational
basis. The chief characteristic of counterculture is the critical attitude toward the
prevailing system, though its own beliefs cannot be defined as a single system of
thought. Some prominent features of counterculture are: restoring the importance
° a m^le'dominated society; challenging the dominance of white races
, Îr 1 e es' and drawing the attention of humanity towards artistic and
I 6 C sens| 1 c°l°ured races; and exposing the greedy face behind the
ofeZZonmeL C°nSUmer CUltUre and motl'vating people toward preservation
SaThatTsX d6Cline °f the W6St is not a resurrected culture but the

Ut°P 3 that ls Sllent|y stained in the image of its decline.
Theodor Adorno
or Structuralism as the correct interpretation of Marxism.

Neo-Marxism 305
/
Existentialism
Existentialism refers to a philosophical trend or attitude which accords precedence
to the problems of existence over the problems of knowledge. Jean-Paul Sartre
(1905-80), French philosopher, is regarded the chief exponent of existentialism.
It contradicts rationalism as well as empiricism as the methods of obtaining
true knowledge. It holds that individual can obtain philosophical knowledge by
reflecting on his own unique concrete existence in time and space. No individual
has a predetermined place or function within a rational system. Everyone is free
as well as obliged to make choices.
Structuralism
Structuralism refers to a philosophical doctrine which holds that the nature and
form of any entity or actions of any human being are determined by their underlying
structures. The exponents of structuralism were engaged in exposing the hidden
structures that lie behind surface meanings in language, behaviour, culture and
psychology. They argued that these hidden structures create as well as control
us. For instance, it is not we who speak language; it is language that speaks us.
(1918-90), French philosopher, is regarded the chief
Louis Althusser
representative of structuralism in Neo-Marxist theory.
Neo-Marxism also redefines Marxist view on revolution. The. Classical Marxism

• Tt hnned that
had envisaged a forcible, violent overthrow of capitalists bythe
after the socialist revolution, humaninatoe^ woulda^ra^ institutional aspects of
care of the socialist regime, along with all soci > { they do nQt favour a
life. Neo-Marxists do not accept this pos tionJta th fi ^ revolution
violent revolution for transition to soctal sm. y ^ process of revoiution in
m the economic sphere will not be en0USh-T {he existing syStem can be transformed
the cultural sphere will still be necessary. E
through revolution in intellectual and cultural sp eres.
. ■ . noqi 1Q37) Italian Marxist, had argued that
Earlier, Antonio Gramsci (189 )> ^base’; that the change in the
‘superstructure’ is not necessarily dependen on ^ ^ automatically followed
economic system (from capitalism to socia is ) , rstructure\ So Gramsci had
hy the corresponding changes in all parts o ^ ^ marked a departure from the
postulated the autonomy of the ‘superstructit, e French philosopher, advanced
Classical Marxism. Now Louis Althusser ( 'structure'. It implies that it is not
« theory of 'interdependence of base and sup’ ^ may be started frora any part
necessary to start revolution from the base itse , 0f tbe superstructure as well
of the superstructure and then it will perco ate 0 from literature, folklore, mass
as to the base. For example, we may start re ^ mical stnicture, morals,
media or even religion; then it would perloca e g
social practices, etc. as well as to the economic ^ directions: humanistic and
Broadly speaking, Neo-Marxism develop particularly on the work of the
°*,m •
mainstream ofcritical theory. Its dominant themes include the problems ofalienatio
the ways to human emancipation. On the other hand, Scientific stream of Neo-Ma ^
is primarily concerned with its scientific and explanatory character. It is partic i^
interested in structural transformation of society affecting its organizational cultural
well as ideological aspects. Louis Althusser, chief exponent of Structuralist Ma * ^
arxism,
challenged the humanist theme of Marxist thinking in early 1960s, and
asserted the
importance of analysing the deep structures of human societies — especially their m d
of production. 0 es
Broad Streams of Neo-Marxism

Neo-Marxism
J
Basis of Division
I
Humanist Strain Scientific Strain
Relevant Stream Critical Theory

I
Structuralist Marxism
Major Concern Alienation and

I
Structural Transformation
Human Emancipation of Society
Chief Exponents
1
Frankfurt School Structuralist School
(Adorno, Horkheimer,
(Louis Althusser)
Marcuse, Habermas)
p.,,
1 II '
^CRITICAL-THEORY:#
cSkalTheoîStsorSfloT^ F thel_"epresentative of mainstream Neo-Marxism,

in 1923 as the Institute of s'ocbd R6 Fran^Jrt School. This school was originally set up
In 1933, it was * the Unive™ty of Frankfort in Germany.
It was relocated in the UnTted C C°nS,equent UP°" the rise of Hitler (1889-1945).
was re-established at Frankfort in P thereafter- After the downfall of Hitler, it
capitalism; they were also dSusioneH uu Sph°lars °f this ^tute were hoSti'e ‘°
to evolve an alternativepat^ S°Vlet brand of socialism. They sought
Marxism as understood by them ti dev®loPment in accordance with the essence of
as‘critical theory’, although th^vdonmn? t0 describe the ideas evolved by them
of the exponents of critical theotv ha mt° 3 SmgIe framework. The general outlook
tried to develop a critical perspective °dthned by David Held as follows: “They
a perspective which is preoccuDied hwu 6 dl®cussi°n of all social practices, that is
distorted accounts of reality which Z ^ Cntlque of ideology — of systematically
power relations. They were concerned wTV0 C°nCeal and Iegitimate asymmetrical
8 exammation of these systems they hoped to

Neo-Marxism
307
enhance awareness of the roots of domination, undermine ideologies and help to compel
changes in consciousness and action” (A Dictionary ofMarxist Thought, edited by Tom
Bottomore; 1983).
The exponents of critical theory advanced new interpretations of Marxism in several
directions and various spheres of learning, including those of philosophy, economics,
political science, sociology, anthropology, social psychology, psycho-analysis, music
and fine arts, etc. The leading figures of the Frankfurt School — Theodor Adorno
(1903-69), Max Horkheimer (1895-1973), Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) and Jurgen
Habermas (1929- ), among others, advanced a cultural critique of bourgeois society —
particularly in terms of ‘technological domination’ rather than capitalist domination.
It is important to note that the Classical Marxism regarded technology as a ‘liberating
force’, but Neo-Marxism saw technology as ‘a good servant but a bad master’; beyond
an optimum level, technology itself could become a source of domination.
According to David McLellan {Marxism After Marx: An Introduction; 1979), main
target of the critical theory was positivism. Positivism had proved to be a progressive
force during the rise of capitalism, but in recent times it had become the source of
legitimation of every scientific statement. Marcuse argued that in the contemporary
world, social science was inclined to emulate the methodology of the natural science,
thereby converting itself into an instrument ofcontrol, instead of serving as an instrument
of human emancipation. It discouraged ethical evaluation of a given situation and
emptied our mind of the critical perspective. In short, it had become a device to maintain
status quo and block further progress. As McLellan observed: “This criticism is at
times extended to the work of Marx himself, who was considered to have paid too little
attention to the superstructure dimensions of domination in his social analysis.
Positivism
Positivism refers to the view that relies on scientific methodas the only so
true knowledge, it rejects superstition, religion and
forms of thought. It holds that all reliable knowledge is u taste ancj
experience [i.e. the experience obtained through sig , ^ inquiry in the
touch). Hence empirical method must be adopted for any gen
field of social sciences as well as physical sciences. j
Critical theory maintains that human society has not Analysed by the paradigm
from the perspective of their deviation from the rational o • ^ sole!y based on
theory may be identified as follows: (a) Knowle ge o ^ st£mdards should also
he information obtained through the scientific m > , ou]d be confined to the
e invoked to determine the truth; (b) Use o tec n ^ apoweci to become the
ifilment of essential needs of human beings, it s o . should focus on the
s°urce of technological domination; and (c) Po i ic<j people to win freedom
Editions of alienation in the capitalist society and motivate peop
r°m these oppressive conditions.
308 Western Political Thought.
Alienation
Alienation refers to a state of mind in which individual is isolated from the
significant aspects of his social existence or from the creative aspects of his own
personality. Karl Marx (1818-83) in his earlier work, now published as Economic
and Philosophic Manuscripts of 3844,identified alienation as a characteristic of
the capitalist system, particularly because labour was treated under this
system
as a factor in production rather than an expression of human personality. Marx
identified four levels of alienation: [a) Man is alienated from his own product and
from his work process because as a worker he plays no role in deciding what to
produce and how to produce it; (b) Man is alienated from nature because under
the conditions of mechanization, the work tends to become increasingly routinized
and monotonous; (c) Man is alienated from other men because of the competitive
character of the economic system which forces everyone to live at someone else's
expense; and finally, (d) Man is alienated from himself because the realm of necessity
dominates, his . life and reduces him to the level of an animal existence, leaving
no room for his creative faculties, taste for literature, art and cultural heritage.
A broader view of alienation attributes it to the modern social conditions
responsible for the lack of political integration, a failure of political socialization,
apathy toward political events and a loss of support for the political
MARCUSE’S CONCEPT OF ONE-DIMENSIONAL MAN

"SobTeZf ^98',9,,)' M° °"im'd '» s™ • brilliant -lysis.'
ZiPM,' L™'fm“n°ntemporary Wostemsociety Orthodox Mardstsas write
In contrast Marcu^Tl111818111^ °D & scdentd*c and economic interpretation of Marxism.
SStoSin °ther:Neo-Marxists, underlined the subjective, critical
of Marxism and soughtto reviSTe' onS^ Ma™Sm 38 3 VerSi0"
tool of analysis as well as an i 8 ’ humanist interpretation of Marxism as a
-instrument of social change
He gave a penetrating mtim c m.C ^mnation in contemporary Western society.

According to him canitalk 6 ° Capitadsm as regards its impact on human freedom,
and distribution, it also creates tTeT3868 m°nopolistic control not only on production
manipulation of the “1 demand for commodities through a clever
which develops into a distort !?SUlt i§ the widesp™d craze for consumer goods
oppressed sections insensitive tn *nature of man- Consumer capitalism renders the
material desires which can hp -t Glr on^lna^ discontent, by stimulating their trivia
«™' fc genh„“" ubl“y tbe spell of gra.fflca.i.n of*»
alienated human beings become J ” dom dlsaPPears. Against this background, the
they should first be awakened to r^T3*^ the'r alienation- Under the circumstances,
their urge for freedom. lze taeir condîon of alienation in order to arous
In Eros and Civilization
alienation will be "moved «£,5,,r““taished — a blueprint of society where
om Will be restored. It will be a democrat*
Neo-Marxism
309
evolved a technology which is geared to meet most of the human needs It is sufficient
to enable men to live in freedom and dignity. Once they understand the necessary
conditions of freedom, they can transcend the era of violence and anarchy and build
new society where freedom will reign supreme.
Marcuse’s view concerning the possibility of happiness has been criticized o nmany
grounds. Some critics believe that human needs are endless; gap between aspiration and
achievement will never allow human beings to attain happiness. Then who would bring
about revolution? Marcuse has no faith in the revolutionary potential of the proletariat.
He pins his hopes on the marginal elite of the unbrainwashed students and radically
dispossessed members of the poorest classes. Some critics argue that after denying the
revolutionary potential of the proletariat, Marcuse loses his claim to be called a Marxist!
HABERMAS ON LEGITIMATION CRISIS
Jurgen Habermas (1929- ), brilliant German philosopher who belongs to second
generation of the Frankfurt School, has insisted on reconstruction of the critical theory in
the contemporary thought. In his noted work Legitimation Crisis (1975), Habermas has
focused on legitimation crisis of the contemporary capitalism. It means that the existing
system has become incapable of maintaining its legitimacy. Legitimation crisis impels
us to look for an alternative value system that would restore confidence of people and
direct them toward constructive activity.
Legitimacy
Legitimacy refers to the quality of an act or arrangement to be regarded as lawful
and right by those affected by it. In other words, they regard it reasonable and
beneficial for themselves as well for the larger society. _
Habermas observed that in the traditional society, legitimacy of the

^presenting the mythological, religious or philosophica exp ana ons .
accepted by all Capitalism has undermined the legitimacy
estimating scientific knowledge and automatic machines, n er ’
considerations of mutual benefit and equal exchanges are
egitimate basis of social organization. Consequently, t e re been relegated
hese movements are concerned with human emancipate, and they wo

state system.
Write a short essay on the main trends in Neo-Marxisnrr

J
:G
&
EXIT
• V^?' -
MtMjj
FEMINIST TRADITION
Among the rude people, the women are generally degraded; among civilized
people, they are exalted.
James Mill (1773-1836)

Basic Tenets of Feminism
WHAT IS FEMINISM?
If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?
Mary Astell (1706)
nature and origin of feminism

Feminism refers to a mode of thought that is coneemed with th^condiU ^ restoring
in society, the causes of their suffering and deprivation andthem^ politica8i
their due position, with a fair share in Pr®stlge’with a view to including the
theory instists on redefining the nahire of the p .gw 0f ‘political’. In the
relation between men and women in society wi 1 ^ pubi;c sphere; the
Past, politics was concerned with the exercise o p work-place, school or street
power exercised by men over women in domestic sp » , re peminists argue that
was excluded from its purview as it belonge to pn , . 0f poetical theory
‘his dichotomy between ‘public’ and ‘private’ led to a distorted
which must be rectified now. e still suffering injustice because
Feminism holds that women have suffered an are ^ of that injustice. In short,
°f their sex; hence it seeks effective measures or e accQrde(j t0 women in society,
[313]
314 western ruuuccu i nuugni
Partiarchy
Literally, partiarchy means Yule of the father'. Originally this term was
used to
describe a social system based on the authority of male head of the h
ousehold.
Now it is applied to denote male domination in general, including its
occurrence
in labour market as well as domestic division of labour.
Early feminism emerged in the wake of the Enlightenment, which sought to 1

the scope of ‘rights of man’ so as to include equal rights for women therein In R v
free-thinking women like Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-97) and Harriet Taylor 11807 sm
made a fervant appeal for equal rights of women. Mary Wollstonecrafts’s famous es a
I T °f!le ^ °fW°man (1792) is reSarded ^ a milestone in fe2
• eratur®-ârnet Taylor was the wife of John Stuart Mill (1806-73) and his co-author
m his celebrated work On Liberty (1859). Being impressed of her talents J S Mi
7 ThteJub]ec,ion Women (1869), argued that women were by no mem
competent than men, and hence they deserved equal rights with men.
Enlightenment {The Age of Reason)

Enlightenment refers to an intellectual
movement of eighteenth-century France,
Germany and Great Britain. It
life was set free frnm P®r'°d When people's relig'ous and Political
the conduct of human affairsThis uYYh* bel'6fS and "eW light WaS shed °n
rry
yiowledge obM„ed b, sc«„«sVm,tt„Tw,7d','»e!op'id' “ " 'h'
mothers were treated with a high dLreToY thelfma|e llne' Consecluently> women as
monogamy, in due course when- th consideration and respect. The transition to
the erosion of that respect' In Fnai^ WOman beI°ngs exclusively to one man, implied
the world-historic defeat of the fem ^1 °Wn ^°rC*s:^he overthrow of mother right was
the woman was degraded enthrali J? man seiZQd the reins in the house also,
breeding children... The first effect nf tu^ S ^Ve man’s hist, a mere instrument for
is shown in ... the patriarchal family ” C S° e ru*e °^tbe men that was now established
USed t0 describe a social Lem in 17° mean male domination in general. It is now
comprehends the various ways in wht7 me" dom!nate> oppress and exploit women.»
o social life. Broadly speaking the soTY ?XerC'Se power over women in all spheres
Basic Tenets ofFeminism
Modem theories of patriarchy postulate that there , 315
interests between most men and most women as a result of ™, 3raental division of
relations. Some writers focus on biological differences bet Structurin« of gender
basis of patriarchy. For instance, they point out that men T-3nd WOmen 35 the
stren gth in warfare, and women are constrained bv nan,re ,7 7® 8163(61 Physical
in the reproductive function. Others see sexuality as an in=fr„ an elaborate role
by men. Still others focus on male violence asohe basis of êntofct*tro1 women
feminists have asserted that men benefit from women’s labour both™"*0 ' Agam’ S°me
and as poorly paid work in the labour market. as unpaid housework
The dogma of woman's complete historical subjection to i

men must be rated as one
of the most fantastic myths ever created in the human mind
Mary R. Beard (1946)
Feminist sociologists have broadly given three types of account of patriarchy In the
first place, those influenced by the work of the French psychoanalysts and strucmralists
have argued that a society’s culture is dominated by the symbols of male origin
According to the second account, patriarchy is essentially based on the household in
which men dominate women economically, sexually and culturally. This view treats
marriage contract as a labour contract through which women exchange unpaid domestic
serv ices for their upkeep. Finally, Marxist feminists argue that patriarchy and capitalism
support each other. Within the household, men take the benefit of women’s unpaid
domestic labour', and thus relieve their employer — the capitalist of the liability to
pay for that labour. Outside the home, women are segregated to perform some specific
jobs for which very low wages are paid. In fact, all these accounts focus on different
aspects of women’s exploitation in society and they should be read together to draw a
fall picture of the situation.
If a test of civilization be sought, none can be so sure as the condition of the

half of society over which the other half has powrer — from the exercises of the
hght of the strongest.
Harriet Martineau (1837)
DISTINCTION between sex and gender

the contemporary world, the distinction between sex and gender represents an
Important issue of debate concerning the status of woman in society. In common parlance,
ne terms ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ are sometimes used synonymously. However, technically
JLaking’ êse terms refer to ‘biological’ and ‘sociological’ distinction between man and
such an‘The term ‘sex’ implies certain biological differences between man and woman
dev reProciuctive function and secondary characteristics like bo y air an reas
eXD'°Pment- But the term ‘gender’ refers to cultural ideas thatconstruct ™ages “J
anions of both males and females. Nature has divided human race betw en men
?si01?611’ but their status and role in society are determined by
•Cfif T*°men as ‘fair sex’ or ‘weaker sex’ or when we
enfared uSt ’ 0Ur Mention is not confined to the biological ac ,
ed lhe realm of culture.
Culture
Culture refers to the set of values, beliefs, symbols, modes of thought and behaviour
styles of living, art and craft as well as various skills evolved by the members of
a community in order to streamline its social life. These factors contribute to the
establishment of a distinctive identity of the community in question.
In social sciences and literary criticism, the term ‘gender’ is used to indicate the
differences in social status of man and woman, particularly to refer to the fact that
women are placed in a lower status in relation to their intrinsic worth. Feminist thought
focuses on gender perspective that calls for cultural transformation of society. It implies
the right ordering of status of women in relation to men in social and political life
Culture usually refers to certain distinctive features of different communities
However, some typical attitudes towards gender can be found throughout the civilized
world. These attitudes tend to divide male and female personality traits and behavioural
tendencies into two opposite patterns. These patterns may be described as masculinity
m&femininity respectively. Masculinity, for example, typically includes aggressiveness,
logical outlook, control of emotional expression and attitude of dominance, while
femininity is associated with peacefulness, intuitiveness, emotional expressiveness, and
su missiveness. Some variations in these characteristics are possible in different social
contexts For example, a wife may be relatively submissive to her husband, but as a
mo ers e may not e so towards her children. Moreover, the degrees of submissiveness
ot a woman may vary from one case to another.
Frailty, thy name is woman!
William Shakespeare (Hamlet; 1601)
In any
represent case,1,™,*
almriQt the relative
i « asfertiveness of man and submissiveness of woman
differences Broadlv rS\°U ^ traits which are not directly based on their biological
sssS.isaeatsass
towards men, her behaviour k en ^t0 êhave in an authoritarian manner, particular y
to differential roles of men an/1™6 t0 ^ *ndecent-In short, the expectations attache
society. women serve as the foundation of gender inequality $
Capitalism
and economic activity is arimarik J ^ 3fe emploYed on wages at the market rate,
to work anywhere according to thl- 6êC*t0 private Profit. Here workers are free
ôrd.ngtothar skllls and capacjties a$ wg|| a$ mafket demand.
\ Basic Tenets ofFeminism
317
physical and intellectual faculties of different people, which were created by nature
These inequalities are largely unalterable. On the other hand, conventional inequalities
represent disparities ot wealth, prestige and power among different individuals These
inqualities are the product of our social arrangements. We can undertake a critical
examination of these inequalities from the point of view of justice, and can reduce
them by altering our social arrangements. In other words, conventional inequalities
are alterable. In the present context, the division of society into two sexes — male
and female — represents natural inequality, but gender inequalities are the product of
convention and culture. These inequalities can be questioned and removed wherever
they are found objectionable. So the issues relating to sex and gender may briefly be
shown by the following chart:
Issues Relating to Sex and Gender

The Issue Division of Society into Men and Women
Point of Division Sex Gender
Basis of Division Product of Nature Product of Culture
Symptom of Division Natural Inequality Conventional Inequality
Character of Division Unalterable Alterable
In recent times, the discrimination based on gender has been widely questioned.
There is a widespread demand of equal rights for women and men, accompanied by
the commitment to improve the position of women in society. It seeks restoration o
justice for women who remained deprived of equal status and opportunities vw-a-vw
men since earliest times. Their condition in the present-day society is reflected m t e
following report:
Women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two thirds
hours, receive one-tenth of the world’s income, and own less than one-hundredth
of the world’s property (United Nations Report, 1981).
The condition remains more or less unchanged today.
It has now been proved beyond doubt blfact™ have
woman do not justify inferior status of women. On the contrary, ^
contributed to accentuate even the biological differences5 ® ^ -s an indjcatjon that
s chiefly the product of social arrangements. Discrim Qnce said that the white
318
circumstances, women often spend most of their time in domestic work and in rearing
children. Most women do not get an opportunity to develop their own personality. They
are made to believe that the proper sphere of their activity is within their household and
_..u
that they need not take interest in public life. From the beginning girls are taught to paJ
more attention to personal relations, not to personal success. Boys are taught to be firm
assertive and aggressive; girls are taught to be obedient, shy and submissive. Boy are
encouraged to become doctors, engineers and lawyers; girls are encouraged to become
housewives, school teachers, nurses or secretaries. The experience gained by women
in their own professional life, if any, does help them to take up a political career.
Woman is shut up in a kitchen or in a boudoir, and astonishment-is expressed that her

horizon is limited. Her wings are clipped, and it is found deplorable that she cannot fly.
Simone de Beauvoir (1908-80)
(Boudoir = a woman's bedroom or private sitting room)
In the light of the growing social consciousness against various forms of injustice in
society, the position with regard to the status of women needs to be reviewed, challenged
and changed. Indeed feminist theory and movement urge that women’s situation and the
inequalities between men and women should be treated as central political issues. All
streams of feminist thought focus on the causes and remedies of women’s inequality,
subordination or oppression.
If injustice against women has existed since earliest times, why has it come to
the forefront only in recent times? It may be recalled that at the early stages of social
organization, biological differences between men and women necessitated the division
^f labour between them according to the prevailing conditions. Men who were physically
strong and stable chose to go out for hunting and other hazardous tasks. Women who
werec onstrained to undertake child-bearing and child-rearing chose to remain at home
and perform household jobs. The system was based on mutual care and adjustment, and
did not involve any significant level of resentment.
With the development of technology, sweeping changes took place in other parts
o socia organization, but the division of labour between men and women remained
more or, es.s un^hanged- With the evolution of various forms of power, man as head
fami y’ 0f;heuclfn and of tribe acquired more and more power but women
and exemn mU fr° ““ Subordinate Position. Woman was given some concessions
sex Then ^Th T “d haZardous tasks as she was regarded the ‘weaker
waSnot anowed mWaS "T Sexually <and Perhaps emotionally) vulnerable, she
She was encourapedT T strangers- Shyness was eulogized as a woman’s ornamen ■
SPSS'Srlfyd
sex’ endowed with srw' l ■ In Clvillzedh"
a be“>she was«“"d
society io as the
recognized
vindicate her claim to equality In a^W°“ld make her as competent as man, and the
Basic Tenets ofFeminism
these deprivations had no logical connection with her hint ■ , 319
Early voices demanding rights of women particularly focused'ontf^ “• woman'
Women are the victims of discrimination in several snhprpe

speaking, they suffer injustice in the following spheres for which suitah Broadly,
redressal must be taken: (a) Political Sphere; ({ Ecoooanct^SSS
Sphere.
POLITICAL SPHERE
Feminists
, argue
... that. our society„ largely discriminates between men and women in
the matter of allocation of benefits and burdens. Society has failed to appreciate the
fiill range of contributions made by women for its sustenance, not to speak of giving
adequate reward for these contributions. On the other hand, society has also failed to
realize the extraordinary constraints under which women work, not to speak of removing
these constraints.
Coming to the political sphere, it may be noted at the outset that the advanced
nations of Western Europe and North America withheld women’s right to vote for a
very long time. It was introduced in the United States as late as 1920; in France it was
granted in 1947; and in Switzerland it was extended to all territories in 1971. Apart from
their fight for suffrage, women in Western countries had to launch separate struggles for
securing rights connected with citizenship. These included: to pass their citizenship to
their children; to retain their citizenship on marriage on the basis of their own nationality
(instead of their husbands ’ nationality); to contend for political office and to hold it; and
the right to serve on juries. Now they have won their political rights in all the advanced
industrial nations but their actual share in political power is far behind that of men. For
distance, nine decades after the women won the right-to-vote in the United States, their
share in the House of Representatives is less than 20 per cent; in the Senate, it is less
ân 10 per cent; it has remained nil at the positions of President and Vice-President.
the occasion of signing of the Charter of Paris in 1990, marking the end of the era
® old War, women were conspicuous by their absence or near-absence in t e group
°tographs of European heads-of-states or heads-of-govemments.
J leVe>s f educadon> ^ get fewer opportunities to

P°litir ?fmilitary service or high standing in business a so prove victory requires
large & °®ce* Women lag far behind in this area also. Besi es, e ... h ^n(js
fo?"SCale mobilization of funds; party workers are less willing to mob to such funds
0rtlen candidates.
E,«” where „„m« are eleeted, they are excluded tom r,spe.»ble P».™»
320
because of a preconceived notion that they cannot take a tough stand on important issues.
It is also believed that women with small children might be constrained to be absent on
some important occasions. The position can be changed if the responsibility of bringing
up children is equally shared by mother and father, at least in the cases where mother
is equally competent. Moreover, experience has shown that women in high positions
can also take bold decisions and firm stand at the time of crisis. The political tenure of
Indira Gandhi (1917-84), former Prime Minister of India, is the case in point.
Feminists have also identified some typical problems concerning women which
prevent them from taking up political career. It is generally observed that women are
particularly conscious of bodily appearance and self-presentation as if beauty is the
measure of their success in social life. It is believed that a woman’s looks and figure
constitute much of her fortune. Again, women are vulnerable to sexual harassment
and various kinds of violence including domestic violence, apart from molestation on
streets, offices and public places. It is alleged that a woman’s vulnerability is directly
proportional to her beauty and attractive make-up! Preoccupation with personal care and
decoration sometimes prevents a women from thinking of taking up a political career.
Many feminists have tried to demonstrate how women become deprived of power
in the modem state and how male power becomes embedded in different branches of
the state apparatus and in the state policies. Zillah Einstein, in her essay The Radical
Future of Liberal Feminism (1981), argued that the liberal state represents itself as
fully autonomous so that all positions therein are equally open to all players, including
women. Such a state is not bothered to ascertain the actual share of power enjoyed by
women. Socialist feminists have attacked the liberal state on many grounds: welfare
policies of Western capitalist state tend to increase women’s dependence on men within
the capitalist mode of production; the state seeks to free women’s labour for exploitation
in the labour market; and it tends to serve men’s interests by maintaining women s
unpaid labour in the home.
Feminists argue that women constitute a deprived section in all parts of the world.
In post-colonial states (i.e. the newly independent states of the third world), women’s
lives are less often touched by state regulation because of the poor implementation of
the state welfare provisions. Besides, women often become victims of state violence in
is part of the world. Again, in the formerly socialist states of Eastern Europe, the state
was associated with ‘forced emancipation’ which implied the employment of women
stateT^hnnlH1 t\S’ n0ûned t0 their capability and temperament. It is high time that a
benefit men as web as'genUine emanciPation of women wh.ch vfl
rsrs 10»”* ** gr,ssro°s<

V
Bosk Tenets ofFeminiism
321
also been leaders in the struggles for environmental justiS*J d gam’ women have
mountains particularly played active role in ichipko movement’ ti!3’ living on
to stop their felling. They also lodged strong protastsâinTttheH ?hUg8ed the trees
due to construction of dams, particularly against NarTdadam SflCementuof)"ba>s
led struggles against rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence^” T™611 ^ a’S°
In short, women activists have largely fought for welfare nf ’ * 3 °Ver the Wodd'
l«g=. bu, .hey b„e scarcely focusVn £ “* «
There never will be complete equality until

women themselves help us to make
laws and elect law-makers.
Susan B. Anthony (1897)
The widespread exclusion of women from state power has still wider implications.
It has caused environmental degradation as women by nature are nature-friendly vis-
a-vis men. Moreover, men take pride in showing their valour in warfare while women
are peace-loving by nature. With the exclusion of women from power, the state tends to
build its strength on military power. This results in mounting tension among nations and
the lack of active cooperation among them for securing the interests of entire mankind.
ECONOMIC SPHERE
Feminists argue that women’s contribution to economic life has been largely ignored;
hence they have been denied befitting benefits in this sphere. The system of national
income accounting ignores the unpaid work done by women for the benefit of family
and community. Many feminists argue that most women not only do a lot of domestic
work, their services toward child-bearing and child-rearing, etc. constitute ‘real work’;
they not only consume the worker’s time and energy but also involve various skills
including some sophisticated skills like cooking, house-keeping, sewing, weaving,
embroidery, etc. apart from the operation of domestic appliances. Market value of these
services is seldom taken into account. Even working women who make a substantial
contribution to family income have to perform most of these services for which they
seldom get credit, not to speak of any special reward.
Feminists further argue that women’s larger contribution to well-being of men
*nd other members of the family could be justified if it is made voluntarily. But, in
fact> it is necessitated by the social conditions where women’s occupational choices
are constrained by institutional factors, such as employment opportunities and cultural
norms which impose larger burden on women. The services rendered by women provide
time and energy for men who are thus enabled to make a significant contribution
° s°ciety. Thus women’s extra labour benefits not only their men and Djamilles
! ,also benefits the larger society. Unfortunately, the women doing a ^
dh^f'd Work’are stigmatized as ‘dependent’ on men. It is a striking example of unjust
s nbution of benefits and burdens in society.
'■UCrURAL SPHERE
>*" m also victims of discrimination in cultural spl»cj*n>
lces reflect a cultural climate of masculine dominance in
322
experience shame, embarrassment and vulnerability. In professional life, men look for
excuses to touch the bodies of their women colleagues, and to address them in apparently
affectionate but actually mischievous ways. Most of the jokes cracked by men ridicule or
sexu alize women. In Indian languages, most of the abuses involve insult to women—the
mo ther, the sister and the daughter. Women’s attractive looks and voice are widely used
in advertising which tend to prejudice their dignity. Women’s reputation is regarded to
be so delicate that many of the cases of molestation and outraging of modesty of women
go unreported due to fear of shame.
In Indian tradition, some saints have deprecated the company of women as the
door to hell. In Indian mythology, women have been treated as an object of donation.
Many ‘great men’ gifted their wives to strangers to save their own glory. When several
contenders stake their claims for marrying the same girl, decision is taken by an authority
on the basis of some logic based on ‘conventions’; choice of the girl herself is seldom
invoked.
Among Hindus, cremation ceremony of the dead body of a person is to be performed
by his son, which is believed to ensure the dead person’s entry into heaven. It is presumed
that if the dead person had only daughters and no son, he would not be entitled to a
place in heaven. Experience has shown that our beliefs about other-worldly matters are
derived from our understanding of the worldly matters. In modem times, when girls
have proved their talents in all important fields, exaltation of son to the detriment of
daughter will have to be abandoned, like so many other superstitions.
In a nutshell, justice for women must be secured in all spheres—political, economic
as well as cultural. Without securing substantive justice for women, no society can claim
to have established a just social order.
Q. What do you understand by feminism? Discuss the problems of feminism with

special reference to the prevalence of discrimination against women in various
spheres of social life.
\
I .
Broad Streams of Feminist Thought
In the history of political thought, feminist trend originally arose at the end of the
eighteenth century. It gained momentum in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
when it ushered in several waves, and flowed in different directions. The first wave of
feminism which arose in late nineteenth century and lasted upto the early part of the
twentieth century, concentrated upon either achieving political representation or social
emancipation of women. Then the second wave appeared in late twentieth century, set
out a radical agenda and sought emancipation of women in all spheres of life. Broadly
speaking, feminist theory evolved into three schools of thought: (a) Liberal feminism,
(b) Socialist feminism, and (c) Radical feminism.
I > 1
f LIBERAL FEMINISM
1 recognize no rights but human rights—

* kn°w nothing of men's rights and women's rights.
Angelina Grimke (1836)
S.eral fem*ism represents the earliest trend in feminist thought. It seeks

ref 6 Condit*on °f women in pursuance of the policy of libera ,sm . opposes any
fevo'Ction*6 1 ueral institutions feady “jfjS JfXpnb'ished her essay A
10nary change. Mary Wollstonecraft (1759-97), V eighteenth century,
s°UghtT°” °fthe R‘8htS °f W°man (1 ?92) 'n the ên^d women within the existing
fraTt0 establish fundamental equality between men and women ^
rationai°rk of liberal democracy. She argued that hot man opportunity to
PaS*—. women were deprived of"wascatt.ntheLgeofan
etaotiP te ln Public life. Under the circumstances, woman
0rial and playful creature rather than a rational crea ur
[323]
324
When Mary Wollstonecraft wrote her famous essay, woman was not only restrained
from voting, but was deemed unfrt for education, was debarred from many occupations
and had no legal right to own property. She had no real right to divorce even if ^
husband abused her. Wollstonecraft forcefully challenged the prevailing belief in female
inferiority and demanded equal rights for women. She argued that women, like men
are rational individuals and should have equal rights. She established the principles
on which campaigns for women’s right to education, employment, property and vote
were later built up. John Stuart Mill (1806-73), in his noted work The Subjection of
Women (1869), sought to demonstrate that women were in no way inferior to men in
their talents, and pleaded to give them full legal and political rights. Mill argued that
society as a whole was losing out if it did not make good use of the rational qualities
of women as well as men. He maintained that a more equal relationship between man
and woman as marriage partners would ameliorate the qualities of life for both men
and women. He advocated reform of the property laws so that women retained rights
to their property after marriage.
Liberalism
Liberalism refers to a principle of politics which regards individual as a rational
creature and holds his 'liberty' or 'freedom' to be the first and foremost goal of
public policy. Liberty, in this sense, implies 'liberation' from restraints, particularly
from the restraints imposed by an authoritarian state. This principle was evolved in
the West in late seventeenth century in order to liquidate feudal privileges of the
land-owning class and to create favourable conditions for the new entrepreneurial
class to enable them to contribute to social progress.
Liberal Democracy
Liberal democracy refers to the systerfi of governance based on the principles of
liberalism and democracy. Liberalism seeks to evolve such rules and procedures
that would secure liberty of individual while democracy implies the formation of
government with the consent of the ordinary people. Accordingly, liberal democracy
argely identified by the following characteristics: (a) Representative government
nnUtir^H rde witb due recognition of minority rights; (b) More than one
ulersl[)rdmt% lCOm/P^ngf0r P0,it!cal P°wer; to Periodic elections based on
(e) Accountability^Polltical offices no* confined to any privileged class;
SSSitr-r?tothe e,ectorate; </> pr°tec*°" °f dvn nberties

assembly etc including * ought and exPressi°n, movement, association and
Of judiciary from executive and L°gSe ^ g0Vemment); and <9> '"dependence
control.
andTctiSr,?8 °t lib6ral feminism’ Betty Friedan
-■
women. Friedan resemblL M°antlr n Significance of home> family and children f
\
Broad Streams ofFmThough,
VI
and self-determination of the individual should be aDnlied tr, 325
She advocates w.despread access to creche and similar f!l T 38 Wel135 men-
combine effectively professional careers and family resoonsiWiv* cenable Women t0
as an inspirational figure for second-wave liberal feminists b Fnedan 'S re8arded
democratic theory with the theory of the patriarchal basis of J P™b e®s.ln llberal
famous essay The Sexual Contract (1988), she particularly atackeTtt I”*
that the liberal theory of the ‘Social Contract’ had overthrown the concep^f paShal
rule.
Social Contract
Social contract refers to an agreement among men whereby they relinquish the
hypothetical state of nature' and enter into civil society. Thomas Hobbes (1588-
1679), John Locke (1632-1704), English philosophers, and Jean-Jaques Rousseau
(1712-78), French philosopher, are regarded the chief exponents of the theory of
the social contract. They have given different accounts of the state of nature, the
terms of the contract, and the nature of sovereignty which comes into existence
in consequence of the social contract.
Sovereignty
Supreme legal authority which is an essential element of the State. It is by virtue
of this authority that a State can make binding laws, command obedience to
its orders, and punish those who fail to abide by law or obey its orders, Only a
sovereign State can enter into a treaty with other States and conduct war against
enemy States.
Carole Pateman argues that with few exceptions, all exponents of the theory of the
social contract deem women as incapable of moving from natural to civil society except
as subordinates of men. It is not fully true that the triumph of the social contract
implied the defeat of patricarchy. Indeed when sons defeated the father-right of rule,
‘he new ‘free and equal’ individuals literally emerged as a fraternity. The dominion of
fathers over mothers was also broken but re-established as the dominion of all men over
women. In maintaining that the relations between the sexes were private, liberal
sorists sought to remove the subject from political inquiry. Unless we ac ow e ge
hat women in liberal society are ‘individuals’ in the same way as men, the reforms
ed to give ‘freedom of contract’ to women similar to that given to meri wfr1 no
Jdamentally alter the sexual basis of the social contract. Pateman has pleaded for the
^construction of a social contract which would ensure substantive equality between
men and women.
accoS a,nutsheU> liberal feminism accepts the liberal assumptions about die
c°nsidered to be very influential.

326
'r'j is
i' II ev
St
- SOCIALIST FEMINISM * th
Socialist feminism recognizes twofold division of capitalist society into (a) men and
women in which men dominate; and (b) capitalists and workers in which capitalists
dominate. It holds that here capitalists as well as men are the beneficiaries of women’s
subordination. Establishment of socialism is, therefore, the necessary condition of
women’s emancipation.
Socialism
Socialism refers to an economic system of the modern age, largely based on
forests, machinery and capital), distribution and exchange are placed under social fc
ownership and control, and economic activity is primarily devoted to the fulfilment ei
of social needs.
C
Initially Charles Fourier (1772-1837), French social critic and socialist philosopher, S'
argued a case for socialist feminism at the outset of the nineteenth century. He stood b
for a version of socialism that would be based on equality between men and women. ai
He envisaged a form of social organization in which men and women would enter into d
group marriages and live in small communities where all men and women would be IT
treated as equal partners. The children bom out of these marriages would be brought
up together by their common parents without discrimination: boys and girls would get tl
identical treatment.
Later, Friedrich Engels (1820-95), co-founder of Marxism as a close associate of
Karl Marx (1818-83), provided a classic account of the origin of gender inequality. In
his The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (1884), Engels argued
that the origins of sexual inequality may be traced to the establishment of patrilineal
descent, that is the practice of tracing kinship through the line of father to son and then
1
to grandson, etc. It arose with the advent of private property as a mechanism to ensure
that property remains with male descendants only. Engels hoped that the arrival of C
s
socialism would abolish both private property and the domestic servitude of women.
1
We will never solve the feminization of power until we solve the masculinity of wealth.
(
__________________ Gloria Steinem (1984)
She,la Rowbatham (1943- ), the contemporary representative of the socialist school,

hnktnfefthPal!lC1Pf0ry;<leCentralized aPProach to social change that contempt
- Womm S °f a1'oppressed groups. In her best-known historical writing*
t
Broad Streams ofFeminist nought
s essentially bound with the struggle against capitalism , 327
■vidence that class exploitation and women’s oppression T ,15 S,hown &om historical
;he argued that the success in these spheres can be achievla y phenomena-
hese struggles. only ôugh combining
‘T;
111 1
* RADICAL FEMINISM
Woman's degradation is in man's idea of his sexual rights.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1860)
Radical feminism focuses on the all-pervading male domination in society and calls
for overturning of gender oppression. Although it arose in mid-twentieth century its
early hints are found in early twentieth century, particularly in the writings of Virginia
Woolf (1882-1941). English novelist and essayist. In her famous essay A Room ofOne s
Own (1929), Woolf dwelled on how men socially and psychically dominate women.
She argued that women are simultaneously victims of themselves as well as of men
by acting as mirrors to men. Then Simone de Beauvoir (1908-86), French novelist and
author of The Second Sex (1949) sought to challenge Sigmund Freud’s (1856-1939)
dictum ‘Anatomy is destiny’ (of woman) when she asserted: ‘A woman is not bom but
made.’ She argued that the dependent, derivative status of woman as ‘the other of man’
was the product of her upbringing in society. She exhorted women to strive to transform
their status and life-style across all social and cultural reference points.
Society, being codified by man, decrees that woman is inferior: She can do away with
this inferiority only by destroying the male's superiority.
Simone de Beauvoir (1953)
. Another prominent exponent of radical feminism, Shulamith Firestone (1945- ),

® 7 celebrated essay The Dialectic of Sex (1970), argued that women’s subordination
7 d not be understood as a symptom or aspect of some deeper or more comprehensive
Z„S em of domination, such as racism or class-based division of society. Historically
, constituted the first oppressed group; their subordination could not be eliminated
J J'-Psyohological changes such as the elimination of prejudice or even the abolition
In oth!eSt0ne claimed that the basis of women’s subordination was ultimate'^‘°'°^1n

theiear.Words’ h™an reproductive biology was responsible for conside g
sCdTr S6X- Moreover, the survival of women and children requ.md
lCateepe;nd on lactahng women and women, in mm, should depend onjn. Happdy,
child-bearing and child-rearing role to society as a whole, men as well as
women.
Then Kate Millett (1934- ), in her famous essay Sexual Politics (197n
that the relationship between the sexes was based on power and further sustainedargued
b
ideology. It was similar to the relationship between classes and races. Hence itsh^
be treated as a political relationship. Basing her analysis of women’s subordinati ^
Max Weber’s (1864-1920) theory of domination, Millett argued that men have exer ^
domination over women in two forms: through social authority and economicforce T ^
had now come to smash these implements of man’s domination. Shulamith FirestlT
and Kate Millett are regarded to be the two pillars of radical feminism, who exer' ^
enormous influence on developing the Women’s Liberation Movement in 1970s ?
Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition.
Timothy Leary (1920-96)
Evolution of Feminism
First-wave feminism refers to the women's suffrage movements of late-nineteenth
and early-twentieth centuries. Its exponents argued that men and women were
eninln L? u"" l,,J°'lectual and motional capacities and needs; so the rights
interests ^ !' ° j ^ equaliy extended to women. In their view, women's
interests were not reducible to those of their husbands.
^Hûfhâs°*^râ^™^^''t,™^^®Û3^tde^t:eeTh>ry1rejeSctedafeminine
selves as agents, and not as

Focus on violence towards women would
^wo~n.Mdon„;ru: ^
IV
#RECENT?TREND«aiii
professional barriers from women Mf7iargely f°CUSed 0n removinS educational and

was often quite militant which P S| lfe' The reforming spirit behind these campa'S"
women’s suffrage. More recent rlPmm!naled-in early twentieth century struggles®.
on employment rights eaual na °f this movement in the Western world focuS
contem P y 3nd eqUaUty in social benefits, taxation and so on.
In the
porary world, further advancement in technology, diversification 0
Broad Streams ofFeminist Thought 329
business, industry, administration, arts and professions, etc. and the increasing demand of
new skills, talents, and professional competence, have given women the opportunity of
proving their abilities. They have also been encouraged to acquire higher qualifications
and training and to seek respectable careers. It is now realized that women are fit to
perform most of the jobs that men do, and for which they were not considered fit earlier.
Equal rights for women are no longer questioned in the enlightened circles.
Contemporary feminist theory seeks to evolve a new critical perspective on political
theory so as to enlarge and transform its focus of study. Susan M. Okin, in her important
essay Women in Western Political Thought (1979), observed that generally speaking
the great tradition of political philosophy consisted of‘writings by men, for men, and
about men’. As a result, the civic and legal status of women was long considered to
be a subject unworthy of theoretical treatment. Most of historians of political thought
also happened to be male who looked at the status of women with a sort of contempt.
Contemporary feminist writers have pointed out that male heads of households derive
their power to make wars, laws and philosophy from the fact that others work for them
in private In fact, the glory ofmen in the 'public ‘sphere is derivedfrom the exploitation
and repression of women in the ‘private ’sphere. Women were restricted by men from
entering the public sphere so that they could take care of the needs of their menfolk m
the private sphere. With the rise of feminist theory, there has been rethinking not only
on the scope of‘politics’, but the concepts of liberty, authority, power, equality, justice,
citizenship and political obligation, etc. have also been subjected to review and revisio .
In another paper on ‘Gender, the public, the Private’
(1991), edited by David Held, Susan M. Okin argued that po ^ [o (he
d-rt6 sr
many essential problems from the conceptual P or inequalities
problem ofjustice in everyday life, the political dimensionironic since
between men and women. According to Okm, t is o w;th major changes
the revitalization of modem political theory has in fact come chaUenged
in the family as well as social relations of gender which have been y
by feminist theory and practice. ,he trend of separation between
The new feminist movement of the 1970s con es personal is political\ It
‘public’ and ‘private’; it subscribed to the famous s g ible without the prior
implied that the democratization of the Publl^P er her noted essay Engendering
democratization of the private sphere. Anne Phi !P*’ . rivale spheres must be treated
Democracy (1991), forcefully argued that the PubUC ^ personal is political’
as interdependent, although distinct from each ot er. tbe realm of ‘the private
0r ‘the private is political’ was interpreted by her to . litical theory should
should be included in the realm of‘the pohtica . n êa ns analysis rather
PQrticularly strive to integrate the private sp ere
than restricting it to the analysis of the public spher . ^ argued thal l0
Illustrating her point from the functioning <ot die constraints faced by
c°nceptualize democratic participation without conside
women in this sphere would end up in a very narrow view of democracy. She ass
that the inequalities within the family are as relevant to the issues of social justi^
inequalities in the public sphere. In her view, the higher participation of wom^ as■
the public sphere was impossible without prior democratization of the private snh0 ^
In political science, the study of power relations in the public sphere would re ^
incomplete without undertaking the study of power relations in the private sphere (T
the other hand, Carole Pateman, in her noted work The Disorder of Women dQM
argued that identifying the sources of women’s subordination is only the beginni ’
ng of
reconstructing politics and institutions free from sex inequality.
In a nutshell, the feminist theory embodies an important critical perspective on
political theory. It insists on including the analysis of the causes and remedies of
subordination of women in all spheres of political thought and action.
Q. Critically examine the broad streams of feminist thought in contemporary

political theory.
z<?z:z
mrnmm
j
i
¥
¥
....:,1 _____
B< *•
■•.as-
COMMUNITARIAN
TRADITION
Communitarians are first and foremost concerned with community. They insist
that each of us, as an individual, develops an identity, talents and pursuits in life
only in the context of a community. Political life, then, must start with a concern
for the community (not the individual).
Jean Hampton (Political Philosophy — An Introduction; 1998)
i
Basic Tenets of Communitarianism ;
1
:
i
*WHAT4SGOMMUNITARIANISM?
Communitarianism refers to a contemporary school of thought within Western political

theory which seeks to restore the broken bond between individual and society. It makes
the individual realize that he owes his existence and personality to society. It holds
that different individuals are not isolated units, but constitute the threads of the social
fabric. Their individual good is an integral part of the common good: they can secure
their good only by pursuing the common good, and not by seeking their self-interest
individually. While liberalism insists on the rights of individual, communitarianism
focuses on his duties and obligations.
Communitarianism arose from the criticism of liberalism as a means to human
happiness. Liberals believed that individuals can attain happiness y Pur^1* .
self-interest individually, and that the common good is mere y t e .
individual goods. While this view could be vindicated m the ear y p .
f the market society, roughly in late-eighteenth and early-nin^
ehed by the later developments. In late-nineteenth an ear y society and
1 eral view was widely challenged by the socialist view, i ® ^ saw it as an arena
p *ty as an instrument of reconciliation of divergent in er * ^ ‘have-notes’,
clash between conflicting interests, particularly et^ve^ , by establishing the
wever, socialists sought to resolve this conflict by usi g individual freedom,
J?tat0rshiP of the proletariat’), which involved the suPPr® jn late-twentieth
m°ral sense of individuals.
[333]
Common Good
Common good refers to the goal which is regarded by the consciousnes
s of
the community as conducive to the good of the whole community, includin
gall
individuals which constitute it It is believed that the common good takes ca
of the ultimate interest of the community although it may tend to transcend the
immediate interests of different individuals or groups. A policy devoted
to the
common good may tend to disregard the particular interests of a class, party or
’ faction and strive to identify an area where ultimate interests of all members of
the community would coincide. If its realization entails some apparent loss or
benefit to a particular individual or group, that loss or benefit is not treated as
a matter of settling individual claims. For example, taxation system in a welfare
state is designed to serve the cause of the common good where richer sections
may have to pay larger tax for the benefit of the poor, vulnerable and deprived
sections of society. Similarly, the measures concerning defence, maintenance of
law and order, public health, expansion of education and scientific research as
well as environmental protection, etc. in any state are supposed to be geared to
meet the needs of the common good although these may be largely financed by
taxing the high-income groups.
Communitarians argue that the modern man enjoys better conditions of living,
but his economic security has failed to make him happy in the absence of emotional
livpQ 30 10n ^ SeCU^ Pee^s extremely lonely in a huge crowd around him. He
led to n LTF Wlt ,°Ut sense belonging to it. In many cases, prosperity has
of cheatino^H essness> and loss of purpose oflife. It has further led to the case
be nreventpd ^ 1 k atl°n m *0ve’ dru§~abuse, and even suicide. This situation can
lime-honoured .toLTteSi'0’1 “mmilme»l “ «*»' ™l"es »“*
EEZ™”tsr,Pre!en,S"””W“V' endeavour in pursuit of shared purposes.

presupposes mutual b^nlfiT 3 keV Ingredient of community. Cooperation
good the community seeks to , 0nsu™ed; and s^redpurposes define a common

advantage. mg and to sustain, not merely private individual
William Galston {'In Pursuit of Shared Purposes',

The Responsive Community; 1992)
community. Philosophicall^T^ °« Cornmunity is the characteristic of a

sense of community from the nri m*rmmtarianism denotes an attempt to imp°rt
community is composed of community to modem urban society. Ph^1
be natural. On the other hand m !? groups where sense of community is f°un
religious, linguistic, cultural and^ em Urkan s°ciety is composed of diverse raC ’
sense of community. Then primiHvpCCUPatl0nal groups which are not bound by
pursuits of life whereas modem so C^mmunity is organized on the basis of com
modem society ls unified by the interdependence of
Basic Tenets of Communitarianism 335
• In primitive community, common bond is spontaneous; in modem society, it
^Tbe created deliberately and artificially. It is only through this effort that the sense
^community can be inculcated in the modem society, and this is precisely the goal of
communitarianism.
Genesis of Communitarianism
(As an attempt to import the sense of community from the
primitive community to the modern society)
Society
I
I
Primitive Community Modern Society
Types
I I
Diverse Racial, Religious
Composition Kinship Groups
Linguistic, Cultural and
Occupational Groups
I 1
Interdependence of
Basis of Common Pursuits of
Life Diverse Interests
Organization
I I
Deliberate and Artificial
Nature of the Spontaneous
common Bond
I I
Communitarianism
Means of Strengthening Sense of Community
the Common Bond \
V
........
FT II
D
massa tALISM]
MV*
Communitarianism marks a departure from the phi os p y jve lt makes a

Places the relation between individual and society in theory. Liberal theory
departure form the idea of the ‘self’ as envisage in forms, as exemplified
implied an ‘unencumbered self’ detached fromi pre--existiindividualism’ was
the concept of‘possessive individualism . e . . -n fos notable work The
coined by C.B. Macpherson, Canadian politica pi 0 ’ (1962), to describe the
Political Theory ofPossessive Individualism:Hobbf , ^ this view, ‘individual
main assumption underlying modem liberal t eory. , jcjj he owes nothing to
ls the sole proprietor of his own person or caPa^s dividuals traditions, practices
society’. Such a view denies his commitment to other d ’ regards individual
ar,d conceptions of the good. It holds thatse'\^d^positions.
as folly competent to choose h.s ends as well as his roles P
336
In contrast to this ‘atomistic’ view of individual, communitarianism advances th
concept of the ‘situated self’, as constituted by his social roles, practices and situations
In other words, communitarianism holds that an agent’s identity is constituted bv
specific commitments to his social situation. While liberalism insists on ‘liberty’0f
individual, his interests and rights, communitarianism focuses on his social identity and
upholds acceptance of ‘authority’ because it expresses our common will or reflects our
common identity, our shared values and beliefs. It is significant to note that liberalism
had won liberty of the individual, but atomistic view of society held by liberalism led
to the erosion of the sense of responsibility and the moral standards attached thereto
Communitarianism seeks to restore that sense of responsibility and reconstruct moral
standards on that basis.
Broadly speaking, communitarians have attacked the liberal mode of thought on the
ground that it is too focused on the importance of individual liberty, and insufficiently
appreciative of the way in which human beings require a place in a well-functioning
community in order to flourish. The term ‘community’ stands for a form of society
whose members are informed by the ‘community spirit’ or ‘a sense of community’. It
denotes a ‘network of relationships’ which are characterized by intimacy and durability.
It may be distinguished from ‘association’ which is based on impersonal and contractual
relations. Liberal theory equates society with \association whereas communitarian
theory equates society with community' to determine the nature and extent of social
obligation. Communitarians argue that an individual cannot ensure full development
of his personality unless he is committed to the spirit of community toward his fellow-
beings.
Liberals believe that each person should define and seek his own ‘good’ within
a political structure which defines and enforces what is ‘right’. On the other hand,
tha!,a Polit‘ca* structure has an important role to define what
thr ‘rnmm ®°°d and 10 belp tbe nidzens to seek the good. Liberals define
bv the recnJiht “ r T” ‘°‘al the 8°od °fal1 individuals which is exemplified
define the "I °fcoîctin8 Berests. On the contraiy, communitarians
converge ThThH " f ° miform ”here the Sood ofall individuals would
socieiy which w~?IH S" sto"ld stri»e 10 create a well-funclio»»!
ofgovernment ’ as’communMarians also subscribe to democraticfw
sS
of individual Alasdaire
ofindivittal
t k * 5°cus on t le nghts of the community, not on
1981) ridicules the liberala’ce*!;
He argues that individuals flouri5|rn°|al a®ent’’ disconnected from the sociai 5 he(j
cooperative human activity’ The ,fat°n y Wlthln an atmosphere of ‘socially esta' by
encourage the development of hump 6 mustProraote and protect this activity and tbe
believe that if the state treats indiv'H e*cellence- MacIntyre and other commun1 a (fl
realize their rights (as liberals see ' fUa sas disconnected units and lets them 0
and moral disaster. Such Tsaster h the result would be social
msaster has already become visible in modem liberal stat
dent in the prevalence of crime and violence, the breakdown of the family, and
aS eV nt drug abuse.
the r«rM Kvmlicka (Contemporary Political Philosophy— An Introduction; 2002) has
tly drawn the distinction between liberal and communitarian perspectives on politics
as follows: .
T iVipral visions of politics do not include any independent principle of community,
Lh as shared nationality, language, identity, culture, religion, history or way
If life Communitarians believe that the value of community is not sufficiently
recognized in liberal theories ofjustice, or in the public culture of liberal societies.
Distinction Between Liberalism and Communitarianism______

Tenets of Liberalism Tenets of Communitarianism
The Issue.
Freedom and legal Values of Community Life
Chief Concern
. equality of individuals
Individual can discover and pursue

Individual's Individual can discover
his good only in the context of the
Capacity and pursue his good by
cultural traditions and social roles
means of Reason
prevailing in his society because his
independently of the
good is an integral part of the common
cultural traditions and
social roles prevailing in good
his society
Nature of Reason Reason

individual for which he h»HHed in social life of the individual;
not indebted to society embeddedhn so™ ^
._ The State should use democratic
Ro"i s,,“ ;r,r:xo:*,of s-»“r;sr

people the State shoul ° Ja|| citjzens and which must be
Basis of The political society

Legitimacy should establish its
legitimacy in the eyes of
persons
individual persons
similar freedom of others. On the contrary, c practices and situations

finds self-fulfilment by accepting fellow-beings. Thus against the
Within the community, and not in isolation
liberal concept of‘isolated self, communitarianism upholds the concept of ‘ *
self. While liberalism defines the common good as the sum total of indivkl ated-
communitarianism on the other hand, treats the common good as one entitv u°0^’
the source of good for each individual. is
Communitarian view also differs from liberal view on the respective statu
and ‘good’ in determining the principles of justice. Liberal theory ofjustice nan f ^
Rawls’s theory ofjustice, accords priority to ‘right’, over ‘good’. Rawls in his
ofJustice (1971), commended justice as ‘the first virtue of social institutions’
is the primary consideration in accepting any system of thought For comm J-f ^
on the other hand, the ‘right’ implies virtue, and when we accept the ‘good’
has already been taken care of. ® n8ht
Liberals believe that people naturally form and join social relations in ™
come to understand and pursue the good... It is communimrianc which they
think that individuals will drift into anomic and detached isolation °-1 seem to
state actively bringing them together to collectively evaluate without the
and pursue the good.
Will Kymlicka ('Liberal Individualism and
J (Anomic = denoting the state of 'normlessness'.) Liberal Neutrality', Ethics; 1989)
Ill -.1
philosophers like Aristotle ancieni7mpiani'S|m may be traced t0 a host of political

French philosopher, G WF Heoel annJi o osoPher> Jean-Jaques Rousseau(1712-78),
(1836-82), English philosophef cLT°~ 831): Gernlan Philosopher, and T.H. Green
political philosophy. Its contemns umtananism is an out-and-out contemporary
!?P )> British moral philosonfLL6*1!011611*8 lnciucie; Alasdaire MacIntyre
philosopher, Michael Walzer (1935- 7 Gharles Taylor (1931- ), Canadian social
(1953- )> American political philosopher enCan S0C'al critic’ and Michael Sandel
of communitarianism, identiêd the pv7''Sh) m°ral Philosopher and an early exponent

hfe. In his essay After Virtue (1981), heof °fvirtue as a necessary condition of good
For what constitutes the good fb °
and the exercise of the viLes is l"13" 'S 3 comPlete human life lived at its best,
mere preparatory exercise to achief^f1V 3nd central Part of such a life, not a
good for man adequately without Jr Thua hfe’ We thus cannot characterize the
MacIntyre constructs an 'H ^ ^ âving made reference to the virtues.
^sCitrSfTOmthewebofsociaTandle na,Tative Se)f: a notion of personal identity
of an lw°nr!° ‘he framework of 2?1 b°nds- He ar8ues that ‘individuality
of an mdiv, dual’s choice. “ estabIlshed community; it cannot be the product
MacIntyre ridiculed the liberal notion of individuals as ‘autonomous moral agents’
operating in an atmosphere where they are disconnected from the social context. In his
view, individuals flourish only within the context of socially established cooperative
human activity, which is designed to encourage the development of human excellence.
He argued that liberals were committed to moral relativism, detaching themselves from
‘any particular standpoint’ in order to practise tolerance. So they could not defend any
particular view of justice, nor develop a unified concept of‘the good’. Thus they have
not been able to develop true communities or define moral obligations of the members
of society to each other.
Moral Relativism
Moral relativism refers to the view that no moral principle or value system can
be treated as universally right and acceptable. It holds that the validity of any
moral can be established only with reference to a particular social and historical
context. Moral relativism is opposed to moral absolutism.
Moral Absolutism
Moral absolutism refers to the view that a particular moral principle or value
system should be accepted as universally valid for all societies. So each individual
and group must conform to its requirements. It does not allow freedom to any
individual or group to propose or follow any alternative moral principle or value
system.
MacIntyre exhorted the people of the West to immerse themselves in the knowledge
and traditions of Western culture to enable themselves to reason truly about the contents
of justice, the good and virtue. In Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988), MacIntyre
came to realize the pitfalls of moral absolutism, and conceded that liberal tolerance was
itself a virtuous practice.
Michael Sandel, American political philosopher and a brilliant exponent of
communitarianism, in his Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (1982), particularly
attacked the form of liberalism exemplified by Rawls’s A Theory ofJustice (1971). He
argued that Rawls’s ‘rational negotiators’ who have gathered to determine the principles
°fjustice, represent the disconnected and disembodied people deliberating behind t e
‘veil of ignorance’. Like many other liberals in the past few hundred years, Rawls tries to
understand human beings independent of all activities, desires, ideas, roles, and pursuits
that characterize human lives in actual society. Sandel argues. Is anyt ling e 01 e
Person when we subtract all this from his personality?” He laments that the Rawlsian
view of the person is woefully impoverished.
Sandel asserts that liberal theories have failed to recognize our embeddedness in a
Particular time, place and culture. He urges that political theory should help in;generat g
such laws, institutions and practices that are genuinely good for us an ins
creating a fully just society. Justice cannot be secured by isolated individuals seeking
Personal profits (as in markets and political arena), but by those w o c areues
eonimonality’ through ‘shared self-understanding’ and mutual affechou. Sandel ^gues
‘hat liberal political philosophy sought to justify a form of individualism which was
founded on concrete social institutions. It was wrong in giving priority to the pUrsu-t
abstract equal justice over a communal, moral good. Liberal perspective implies
‘the self is prior to its ends.’ On the contrary, Sandel asserted that the self is not •
to its ends; it is rather constituted by its ends, which are not chosen but discovered^
the self by virtue of its being embedded in some shared social context. Sandel a ^
that Rawls’s view of‘unencumbered self’ does not correspond with our ‘deepest if
understanding’. In Democracy's Discontent (1996), Sandel reiterated his argume
even claimed that the decline of democratic politics in the United States in late-twe f h
century was due to the wrong ordering of priorities between the self and its ends ^
While other exponents of communitarianism have largely produced a communitari
critique of liberal theory of justice, Michael Walzer, American political philosopher"
in his celebrated work Spheres ofJustice (1983) enunciated a communitarian theory of
justice, although in some respects it comes closer to liberal-pluralist position Walzer
argued that the quest for a universal theory of justice was misguided, because it was
ftihle to look for any principle of justice outside the community—particularly its history
and culture. The requirements of justice could only be identified in the context of a
particular community, its practices and institutions.
A given society is just if its substantive life is lived in a certain way-that is in a

way faithful to the shared understandings of its members. (When people disagree
ou e meaning of social goods, when understandings are controversial, then
th,Vhl^y be faithful t° the disagreements, providing
distributions)hanne S ^ th6'r eXpressions' adjudicative mechanisms,
and alternative
— ______ ' Michael Walzer (Spheres of Justice; 1983)
the princiDlenofV^Zier’ ^ sIlarec* understandings in our society require us to apply

disSXof LTf ^ 7ahty’ (aS distin^'shed from ‘simple equality’) in the
goods ZulZtv !mp S a SyStem °f <distribution that does not tiy to equalize all
permeate other spheres (eTSth •“ °De <Sphere’ (ft* wealth),d° “.f
modem societv include S ^ Care and P°htical power). Walzer argued that the
are allocated each bv its spheres of distribution in which different goods
rewards in the modem sori ph” ependent criterion. In other words, the distribution of
are so many sought-after thi ^1S u0t con^nedt0 that of income and wealth, but there
the boundaries between different ^ mUSt be Justly distributed. Walzer asserts that if
say, the sphere of money may be nff-Jtu ^ r®spected’ one person’s pre-eminence in,
success in holding a political nffin r another’s higher social prestige and a third
of equality in which no one dpr‘ • e'iIn tblS way> social pluralism may lead to a kin
economic status of an individiîT ,7 outranks anyone else. Thus, Walzer denies that
The problem with Walzer V; ** * S°dal PreStige and e
the value of non-economic f^f886,81,1011 ls that there is no reliable method to cofflpat
health, etc. with the value of inrnm 1 j reputati°n> political power, education
difficult to attack the disparities creation W6alth'In the absence of such criten,j L a
Basic Tenets of Communitarianism
341
(economic) return of his talents and effort is compensated by the high esteem in which
he is held in the society!
In fact, Walzer gives precedence to ethical considerations over economic
considerations. Walzer argues that a society of equals lies within our reach. It is implicit
in our shared understandings of social goods. These understandings do not produce a
vision of‘simple equality’ which will lead to immense inequalities through the operation
of free market. If the state tries to reinforce simple equality, it will end up as a tyrannical
state. In our shared understandings we strive for ‘complex equality’. According to
Walzer:
Complex equality means that no citizen s standing in one sphere or with regard to
one social good can be undercut by his standing in some other sphere with regard
to some other good... No social good x should be distributed to men and women
who possess some other social goody merely because they possessy and without
regard to the meaning ofx.
Walzer comes to the conclusion that distribution of social goods should be
determined according to the right reason as applicable in each sphere. Thus, the spheres
of politics, or health or education should not be corrupted by the domination of money,
for money properly rules in the sphere of commodities; the sphere of office should not
(beyond a certain limited point) be contaminated by nepotism, which belongs in the
sphere of kinship and love; the sphere of kinship and love should not be dominated by
the consideration of profit and loss which are relevant only in the market-place; family
organization should not be patterned after male domination which properly belongs to
the sphere of military organization.
If Walzer’s suggestions are adopted in actual practice, we will certainly have a just
society which he intends to create. But he has not indicated the way how to convince the
dominant people in different spheres of social life to adopt these rules. Walzer’s scheme
ofthings embodies a strong moral philosophy, but it does notprovidefor equally strong
political philosophy.
Charles Taylor, Canadian social philosopher and exponent of communitarianism,
in his Philosophical Papers (1985), questioned the premise of atomistic individualism
which is the hallmark of liberal political theory. He attacked the liberal concept of human
beings as autonomous choosers. This concept treats human beings only as a manifestation
of will, and ignores the complexities of human personality which would develop only
when it is situated in a society. Taylor argued that atomistic type of individualism
Promised freedom for human actors, but ultimately failed to realize that human bemgs
instantly reflect on their life in order to find its meaning. He maintained that human
agency, rights and freedom exist only in their social context whereas:n»tern (
,lberal) political theory failed to account for the reciprocal relations among individuals
and between individuals and society.
In Sources of the Se!f( 1989), Taylor further argued thatXs’eSed
nderstood only ffom the premise that persons exist as emi oic ^^ ess of
0 b in self-interpretation and in constant interaction wi • interpretation and
0ral reflection, they criticize and transform themselves Ton% their actjonSj they
interpretation of their rights and obligations. To impart mean g
are constantly guided by moral sources — secular, religious, literary and philosophical
As regards the question of priority between ‘right’ and ‘good’, Taylor like
communitarians, accords primacy to ‘good’. As he argues: “Where ‘good’m all
the primary goal of a consequentionlist theory, where right is decided simply h ^
instrumentalist significance for this end, then we ought indeed to insist that the right 'S
be primary to the good. But where... good... means whatever is marked out as higher
qualitative distinction, then we could say that the reverse is the case, that in a sense th
good is always primary to the right... the good is what, in its articulation, gives the n<y t
of the rules which define the right” (Sources ofthe Self 1989). According to this v\e
when ‘good’ refers to something ‘marked out as higher by a qualitative distinction’^
it
represents an intrinsic value whereas ‘right’ simply represents an instrumental value
Intrinsic and Instrumental Values

When something is desired, aimed at or valued purely for its own sake rather
than as a means to something else, i.e. as an end-in-ltself, it is understood to have
intrinsic value. On the other hand, when something has a value which serves as
a means to another end, it is understood to have instrumental value.
betT1pn1taHriai!tC0IJCePt comrnon 800c* insists on cooperation, and not competition
Shddnakt l ‘ 'e?by pr0motes social solidarity. It inspires the isolated
to obtain emr,? /S C°r 12 reâti°ns between each other, and shows them the way
mechanism fn enT However> in spite of its strong ethical base, it has no
In a nutshell Ure & itS PnnclPles will be adopted as the general rules of behaviour.
moral philosophy, bo, » » -
Q- "Communitarianism embodies a
on e
1
.'j
mm m ... — —-
ENVIRONMENTALIST
TRADITION
w. do no, «*« o,„h „ur idcosons »e b„,ri„ it „
om our children.
Native American Proverb
Basic Tenets of Environmentalism
WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTALISM?
Environmentalism refers to a social movement which aims at the preservation of the

natural environment, preventing atmospheric pollution, and replenishment of the
depleting natural resources to save the future generations from the impending crisis.
The philosophy behind this movement is also called environmentalism.
The goals of environmentalism largely coincide with those of Ecologism. Technically
speaking, concern for environmentalism is promoted by social activists while ecologism
is the product of awareness generated by the scientific community. Ecologism refers to
the view that ecology, that is the pattern and balance of relationships between plants,
animals, people and their environment, is a self-sustaining system; that no damage
should be done to this system for the satisfaction of human need or greed, as it would
he injurious to everyone’s life. Ecologism calls for a review of the damage done to the
nature in the course of unbridled industrialization, urbanization and multiplication of
human wants. It insists that in order to ensure healtly survival of mankind, the relation
between man and nature should no longer be conceived as that of ‘master and servant’,
hut as one of partnership.
We cannot command Nature except by obeying her.

Francis Bacon (1620)
Environmentalism owes its origin to recent times, particularly to late-twentieth

century. It arose in response to the conditions created by the unprecedented growth of
technology. As E.F. Schumacher {Small is Beautiful; 1973) has significantly observed:
The system of nature, of which man is a part, tends to be self-balancing, self-adjusting,
[345]
self-cleansing. Not so with technology.” It is due to technological progre
contemporary scenario, different parts of the world including different el ^ ^ ^
environment have been so closely linked that we practically live in a JnZ**
Almost all human beings are affected by this state of affairs People e ^ S°Cie-
this planet find themselves in close vicinity of each other through the airXfywilere o
the climate that regulates their life pattern, the food they eat and the wat abreath*
This unprecedented interdependence of people of all countries of the worM ^ drinl
with unprecedented growth of population, puts an extraordinary strain on ’ C°mbinei
resources. This leads to mindless industrialization and craze for lavish life DatUra
he prosperous sections ofpopulation. Advocates of environmentalism^? arnon*
tendency continues unabated, we would be heading for global disaster Th US thatlfthis
with global justice must come to grips with this imminent catastrophe C°nCemed
amount of production was sufficient to fulfil their needs 55,^ ™lted-A smali
oxygen, nitrogen, carbon, etc.) they extracted from Z* WhateVer eIements (like
“*°* of s." ”
consumption rose up^fd superior fecS P°PUiati°n muItiPlied; people’s level of
demands. This led to a large-scale Wf envoIed t0 Mm their increasing
their stock seemed to be depleting AwlT® of natural resources so much so that
day life increased which took them awaC frn ^ °f artlficial g°ods in people’s day-to-
consumption began to cause containing ”lnature* The changing patterns of their
manifested itself in the form of elohal u °n* nafure- deterioration of environment
ecline in the quality of air soil and arm^ng5 acidification of soil and water, drastic
0 soii through mining activities <\r* Z ,ecêss exploitation of natural resources
over-exploitation of natural resources I h *C C anSes in land use and land cover through
depletion of biodiversity, U the Zlt desertifi cation of landscapes and rapid
w icbi helps to maintain the eco-svsfpfr°5 d*verse tyPes of living beings on earth
needed to restore equilibrium between hZ the circum stances, new efforts were
0 is situation came in the form of enviro^61^- ^ natllre‘ ^ P°htics, the response
S » is beautiful
Z f°Und “ RR Schumacher’s famous work
the v^G k modern rndustrial system w th C,^tique of modem industrial society. He
non ^ °n Which has been erect w » c ltS “^llectual sophistication, consumes
h===---- ------ K y hs own capital. It is digging its own grave-

We can no longer throw
our waste away because there is
no "away'".
William T. Cahill (1971)
Basic Tenets ofEnviromentalism
347
: Each American uses
s~ss^r?i£S! St;™ r -—
===r,Srj-=L*~-™--
impoverishment of others. ’ not to speak of its role in the
Man is complex - he makes deserts bloom and lakes die.
Laurence J. Peter (1983)
and nuclear energy. Environmentalists encourage plantation of trees all over the world
m ac , environmentalist movement has motivated many Americans to running cycling
taking natural food and living in rural areas. Similar trend is visible in other countries’
ot the world also. Environmentalists wish that human beings should maintain friendly
relations with nature, and should not damage it. Since they insist on maintaining greenery
ot nature, their activity is also described as ‘Green movement’ or ‘ Green politics’.
In nature there are neither rewards nor punishments; there are consequences.
Robert Green Ingersoll (1988)
Pollution doesn’t respect state boundaries, and it is difficult if not impossible to

solve these problems on a state-by-state basis.
S. William Becker (1989)
According to environmentalists, the blind race for increasing exploitation of natural

resources in the name of development has alienated human beings from nature physically
well as spiritually. In order to restore a harmonious relationship between the two,
Uman beings will have to leam a degree of‘humility’with regard to their environment
and to the various types of species on earth. We must realize that the relentless extraction
0 natural minerals and other resources to feed an increasingly greedy manufacturing
system gives rise to environmental degradation and causes immense harm to humanity.
Pours various pollutants into the atmosphere which damage the health of all living
2jngs including plants and animals. This process is also responsible for greenhouse
êct, global warming and ozone depletion which pose a danger to the very existence
of mankind.
348
Greenhouse Effect
Greenhouse effect refers to the process involving increase in earth's temperature
due to accumulation of carbon dioxide and water vapour in warm air trapped by
a mass of cold air. As a result, the heat generated by infra-red rays from the sun
is absorbed in the earth's atmosphere and surface temperatures start rising. This
would further result in the melting of polar ice.________________________
Global Warming
Global warming refers to* the process involving extraordinary rise in earth's
temperature due. to increasing atmospheric pollution. This pollution results from
the increasing consumption of petrol and diesel, and soil erosiorrdue to cutting
of forests and mountains, it is feared that it will give rise to climate change, the
melting of polar ice and consequent rise in sea-level.
Ozone Depletion
Ozone is a concentrated form of oxygen Jts-molecule consists of three oxygen atoms
whereas a molecule of ordinary oxygen consist of two atoms.-The 'ozone layer'
exists between 10 and 50 kilometres above the earth's surface. There it absorbs
nearly all of the high-energy ultra-violent radiation from the sun, protecting plants
and animals from its damaging effects. It is feared that increasing atmospheric
pollution has caused depletion of ozone resulting in a hole in the ozone layer over
Antarctica.
In order to save mankind from imminent catastrophe, environmentalists wish to

dismantle the prevailing large-scale industrial system and to replace it by smaller-scale
manufacturing system which would be sustained by a number of self-governing, loca^
communities. In other words, they recommend that the existing system of production
at the monstrous scale should be reduced to one at a human scale. Small communities
with a moderate level of consumption, and organized at a smaller scale represent the
model world of environmentalists. That is precisely the idea behind Schumacher’s
famous dictum: ‘Small is beautiful’.
In order to curb the overall level of consumption, environmentalists also demand
reduction m population of the world. It is true that the teeming millions in the third
world (that is the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America) comprise
the major source of its social and economic problems. But it should not be forgotten
hat their levels of consumption are very low, and proper planning can help in utilizing
their immense potential of physical labour. On the other hand people in the West who
are used to comfortable living and extremely high level of consumption also need
reasonable population control, apart from the control on their consumption.
,'„.rr"yTn:r0;TintallStS fiSt °n moral "generation of mankind to ensure*
just and equitable distribution of resources. If individuals of all countries realize the
responsibility to maintain a clean and congenial atmosphere on the globe, they
certainly make it worth living for the present as well as future generations. This idea
Basic Tenets ofEnviromentalism 349
aptly expressed in a U.N. slogan: “We have not inherited this earth from our forefathers;
we have borrowed it from our children.”
The real owners of the land are not yet born.
Indian (Kannada) saying
Again, the sense of individual responsibility is expressed in another environmentalist

slogan: “Think globally, act locally.” When makind is organized into small communities,
people are required to act locally. When they are conscious ofthe effect of their activities
on the global environment, they tend to think globally. A still another slogan of British
and German environmentalists exhorts people to forget their ideological differences
and act together for a better future of mankind. It reads: “Neither left nor right, but
forwards.”
II
<g6nCEPT OF^SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
We never know the worth of water till the well is dry. Thomas Fuller (1732)
Development is primarily a positive phenomenon. It

human life in all spheres. But when "“““j*° “““2 higher production which
effects are also revealed. Economic developing S P hines
involves exploitation of natural — for consumption,
operated by huge energy resources to meet & fast. CatLthis process
the process of exploitation of natural resourc ofmUj[al resources? Doesn’t their
“>.rx .f«™ —“ rxfr,:.

Industrialism is the systematic exploitation of Drosperity as we have known
an .c«„r.«» iin the « of *« “"““i* ^
upto the
capital. Aldous Huxley (1950)
antlv defined by the now famous

The concept of sustainable development was fP >, 1987. Recognizing that
Bnindtland Report, entitled Our Common Future, p ^ development process
the natural resources are not inexhausti e, 1 in ^ without compromising
should be aimed at to meet the needs of the present> g ^^ idea was floated
the abil‘ty offun,re generations to meet te"°™ ; 1972. nis summit expressed a
earlier during the Earth Summit held at Stockholm in
J
350
serious concern at the rapid depletion of the exhaustible natural resources. Brundtland
Report endorsed these observations and sought to give a new direction to the process
of development.
The prominence given to ‘needs’ of the present as well as the future in the Brundtland
Report reflects a concern about eradicating poverty and meeting basic needs of the
vast humanity. The concept of sustainable development focused attention on finding
strategies to promote economic and social development without causing environmental
degradation, over-exploitation or pollution. The emphasis on development was
particularly welcomed by the developing countries and the groups who were primarily
concerned about poverty and social deprivation. The debate on sustainable development
has remained a favourite subject of the champions of environmentalism.
The landscape has been so transformed by ignorance, arrogance and greed that
those who must prove their case are not those who call for forest protection, but
those who call for business as usual.
Richard Brown (1990)
It is now argued that global warming coupled with environmental degradation is the
biggest threat to humanity, bigger than terrorism. In order to check it, world community
is contemplating to impose restrictions on the pace of industrialization all over the
world. They want all nations to accept certain norms of emission of carbon dioxide
(C02) to save the planet from further degradation. However, uniform restrictions on
all nations in this respect would not be fair. The developed countries who have already
reaped the economic benefits of industrialization and polluted the world cannot be
treated on a par with developing countries (like India, China, Brazil, etc.) who lagged
behind in the process of industrialization and whose development is largely dependent
on industrialization. Cause of global justice would hardly be served if rich countries
manage to safeguard their interests at the expense of the poor nations. It is therefore
imperative that each nation of the world should be able to secure a fair share in the
resources of earth and atmosphere, and also in the total resources of human civilization
like energy and technology.
r III
BROAD STREAMS OF ENVIRONMENTALISM
Philosophy of environmentalism flourished in several spheres which refer to different

modes of thought concerning its central problems. These modes of thought may be
described as broad streams of environmentalism. Of these, four streams are particularly
important: (a) Eco-centrism; (b) Anthropo-centrism; (c) Eco-feminism; and (d) Ec0'
socialism.
ECO-CENTRISM
Eco-centrism, biocentrism or biocentric environmentalism treats the preservation of the
biosphere in all its complexity as its final goal. Its slogan is ‘Earth First!’ Biosphere
means the part of the world where organisms can live. So eco-centrism pays equal
to all living beings — plants and animals as well as human beings. It does
imPortance
0t concede primacy of human beings. It does not care to see how far the preservation
of the biosphere will be beneficial to human life! The most notorious example of this
line of thinking came in the form of a statement that AIDS vims was a good thing
because it would reduce human populations, and therefore help towards the recovery
of the biosphere!
If all mankind were to disappear, the world would regenerate back to the rich state
of equilibrium that existed ten thousand years ago. If insects were to vanish, the
environment would collapse into chaos.
Edward 0. Wilson
Critics of eco-centrism have particularly attacked its anti-humanist attitude. Of

all living beings, man alone is capable of repairing as well as damaging the nature
according to his wisdom or greed. Even the champions of ‘sustainable development
seek to maintain the stock of natural resources for the benefit of humanity — its present
as well as future generations. What is the use of the so-called philosophy where the
worth of human beings is .reduced to, say, that of bacteria!
American theorist Murray Bookchin, in his Remaking Society (1989), to> argued
that the exploitation of the environment by human beings stems om P ..
‘corporate interests’) are more destructive than others.
ANTHROPO-CENTRISM
Anthropo-centrism refers to the belief that human bel°®îkTsophical importance,
hence human needs and interests deserve highest moral bM shPQuld be treated as
According to this view, the physical world an na ra environmentaiism, anthropo-
subservient to human needs and interests. In the co ~nthroDO-centrism, ecological
centrism represents the opposite of eco-centrism. social practices which
humanism or humanistic environmentalism sets ou ^ctices would eventually
ave an adverse effect on the environment ^cal*se anthropo-centrism insists
Stve rise to adverse effect on human interests, no ® buman benefit.
°u the proper maintenance of environment for e
a tolerable planet to P ut it on?
What is the use of a house if you haven't got David Thoreau (1817-62)
Henry
th century Europe
tablishment
352
of links between society and the natural world which was the source of moral and
aesthetic value. They were inspired by Rousseau s call for Return to Nature’ and
insisted on restoring unity between humanity and nature which had been broken down
by industrialization. These poets (like Shelley, Keats and Wordsworth) may be regarded
as forerunners of modem ecological humanism.
In the contemporary world, ecological humanism is founded on the general premises
of humanism. It postulates that the world has been made for human being and that human
being is not only the source but the measure of all value. Degradation of environment
should be stopped because it involves a huge loss to humanity. For example, opponents
of deforestation argue that valuable genetic material for new medicines is being lost;
that trees which absorb carbon dioxide and help reduce global warming are being cut;
that indigenous tribes are being wiped out; that soil erosion silts up rivers and causes
floods; and that the refreshing and delightful beauty of nature is being destroyed. These
arguments against deforestation are obviously informed by the concern for human
interest. Eco-centrism advocates the preservation of forests as an end-in-itself, i.e. for
its instrinsic value. On the other hand, ecological humanism defends the preservation of
forests (and other parts of nature) for their instrumental value, i.e. for their usefulness
to human beings.
Intrinsic and Instrumental Values

When something is desired, aimed at or valued purely for its own sake, rather
than as a means to something else, i.e. as an end-in-itself, it is understood to have
intrinsic value. On the other hand, when something has a value which serves as
a means to another end, it is understood to have instrumental value.
Norwegian philosopher Ame Naess (‘The Shallow and the Deep, Long Range
Ecological Movement’, Inquiry; 1973) introduced the terms ‘deep ecology’ and ‘shallow
ecology to distinguish between the approaches broadly associated with eco-centrism
and anthropo-centrism (ecological humanism) respectively. Naess identified ‘shallow
ecology with mere environmentalism which focused on preserving the environment
for humanity s purposes, while genuine or ‘deep ecology’ was concerned with the
preservation of the whole biosphere, including humanity. Ultimately, Naess thought,
shallow ecology is concerned with the well-being of people in rich Western countries.
He pleaded for moving away from anthropo-centric values towards ‘biocentric’values
which focused upon all life and the total environment.
!n essence, Naess’s defence of‘deep ecology’ is not anti-humanist; it stands forth®
shift from parochial humanism (confined to the benefit of rich countries) to univo*
humamsm (concerned with the benefit of all humanity as well as nature). Some other
env onmontahsts have also shown concern with social justice in the realm of checW
cojssr:
2 atmoyher.e in the bargain, to now expect the developing and Po°
orego industrialization to keep carbon emissions in check.
Social Justice
Social justice refers to a policy which seeks to prevent concentration of valuable
resources of the community or mankind (wealth, prestige and power) in the hands
of the chosen few, and to create a social order which will enable the deprived
and underprivileged sections to gain a respectable share thereof by virtue of their
ability, effort and need. __________ _________ _
In short, ecological humanism can serve as an ideal if two conditions are fulfilled:
In the first place, its scope should be expanded in terms of space and time. In other
words we should feel concerned not only with our local problems (like pollution of
a near’bv river causing decline of property value), but think of global impact of any
symptom of environmental degradation; and we should feel concerned not only with
the plight of the present generation but think of the predicament of future generations
that will result from the present-day environmental degradation. Secondly we shou
develop a genuine partnership with nature, and not treat it merely as an instrument of
human satfsfaction. This requires not only an effective control on1 P°P"latl°" gr0
(because earth has only a limited ‘carrying capacity ), but also calls for curbing our
levels of consumption As Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), Indian social philosopher,
has significantly observed:
to satisfy everybody’s need but not their greed.
Earth has enough resources
ECO-FEMINISM
Feminism is primarily concernedwith;puttmg an“^nature and
b”“.«——piay.»
active role in the environmental movement.

Eco-feminists argue that women are closer
biological roles and historically subordinatei post ^ go lhe concept of
over women but also over nature m order ty nded t0 include the concept
patriarchy (male domination over society) culture, nature is frequently
of male domination over nature. In contempo ry liberation of nature in the
represented as female. Women should mclu e e^ ^ participate in the grassroot
agenda of their own liberation. They will However some feminists criticize
and direct wing of the environmentalist movemen . tw argue that woman
on the liberation of the ‘mother earth .
ECO-SOCIAL1SM beliefs with an ecological
/
t
354
movement, eco-socialism offers a programme of abolishing inequality and ending
human exploitation of nature. Many eco-socialists have raised the awareness of the
environmentalists about specific features of the contemporary society, such as the
operations of the labour process in advanced capitalism. They have pleaded for reducing
the workload of workers in a post-industrial world to enable them to pursue their self-
expression through their love of nature.
Many socialists criticize eco-socialists for their departure from the mainstream
ideology of socialism. Many environmentalists also criticize them for giving priority
to liberation of man over liberation of nature. However, it is not fair to criticize those
who try to combine one salutary goal with another equally salutary goal.
Q. 1. "Concept of sustainable development is the central issue of

environmentalism." Elaborate and comment.
2. Critically examine the debate between eco-centrism and anthropo-centrism.
What is your conclusion of this debate?
0® Sffl1'
CONTEMPORARY
POLITICAL
PHILOSOPHERS
No cause is left but the most ancient of all... that from the beginning of our history
has determined the very existence of politics, the cause of freedom versus tyranny.
______________ Hannah Arendt
Under conditions of tyranny it is far easier to act than to think.
Hannah Arendt
There are no dangerous thoughts; thinking itself is dangerous.
Hannah Arendt
uoon a r/1/ \ iS n0t mere government and (aw, nor is it founded

solely in rnTi f°r ^ f°.rm °f the consent 6f the people, but resides
of concrete -P - the satisfactlon which the state affords to the needs
persons.
Michael Oakeshott
1
I"
!.
&'
Several talented thinkers of the present age have reflected on the

i
perennial problems of political philosophy, such as the nature of
politics, concepts of power, freedom, equality, justice, democracy,
etc. in the light of the contemporary experience. They have
produced illuminating thought on these issues which inspires us to
think for ourselves.
Of these, Hannah Arendt (1906-75), American Jewess
philosopher, and Michael Oakeshott (1901-90), British political
philosopher, may be chosen fora detailed discussion, particularly for
their versatile genius. Although they have dwelled on multifarious
issues of political philosophy, and argued them in their typical styles
of thinking, the issues of freedom and action my be identified as
their common concern.
Both the philosophers believe in the immense potential of
human action under the conditions of freedom. In their view, it
is not the function of political philosophy to draw a blueprint of
the future society or to show the way to its realization. Under the
conditions of freedom, human beings themselves will be able to
grasp the vision of a good society and strive for its realization.
[357]
Hannah Arendt
m i
GENERAL INTRODUCTIONS
Hannah Arendt (1906-75) was one of the brilliant American political philosophers. She
rlwilT m Ge™any'Her Parents were secular Jews who were grown up in Russian
where sh “m2™ d«i" “T? °f "“f"*
„ ■ ... , orate in Hut she was prevented from teaching in
Hamahbecame' vT She W3S 3 JeW' With the rise °f Nazism in Germany,
secret state nnTwt f3CtIV1St “ 1931 Later she was areested by Gestapo (the
she escaped to Paris n?0” uctln8 research in anti-Semitic propaganda. On her release
migrated to the UnLKtf ^ She met,several brilliant scholars. In 1941 she
due course she henam a CS êre sê attained American citizenship in 1951. In
positions in American muL'idies^31 “d Succeeded t0 obtain Professorial
Anti-Semiticism
Anti-Semiticism refers to the
attitude embodying hostility toward Jews.
Hannah Arendt's most
(1951); The Human ^ °f in
of „„„ *«*,»
SO original that it cannot be chfbbed vf *" the contemPorary society. Her thinking
with any one of the prevalent ideologies.
[358]
\
Hannah Arendt 359
II
^CONCEPT OF FREEDOM
Hannah Arendt's concept of freedom comprises an important part of her philosophical

thought. It is based on her idea of freedom of thought and action.
Arendt contrasts the modem society with ancient Greek society and observes that
political activity was an essential feature of Greek city-state; it is no longer the case in
the modem state. In Greek city-state, men of equal status* inspired by their common
ideals, actively participated in the service of the community, and tried to excel in
this sphere. The secret of their unique success lay in their structure of authority and
participatory democratic institutions. They tended to segregate their private domain
concerning domestic and economic affairs from the ‘public realm . On the contrary, in
the modem age, ‘public realm’ has merged with private domain, and political action
has been converted into economic governance. Consequently, the subjects of reflection
and action are now confined to the problems of production and consumption. This has
led to the emergence of mass society. Arendt notes that this condition is responsible for
the destruction of freedom of thought. _____ __
Mass Society
Mass society refers to the model of society where people from different regions and
diverse cultural backgrounds live together in "thVough
public education and mass media, and tend to evolve equal respect for ^
leadership. The large majority of them tends to develop similar tastes, habits,
opinions and attitudes, and similar patterns of behaviour. ---------
Our tradition
and Aristotle. 1 believe it came to a Hannah Arendt
In her noted work The Human Condition (1958)> f/the'lowest level of

levels of human activity: Labour, Work and Ac ion- needs and provision of
interaction between equal citizens. It belongs to the> sphere oj • v,e/Here

equal citizens display them talents and express thg sphere where different
each citizen is free to do or say anything. It 1 P individual perceptions,
individuals feel free to interpret human life according to g recognized as the
It is the sphere of freedom of thought and acti°n- provides individuals
‘public realm’. Arendt accepts special significance »f F°l«‘ Pple can experience
an opportunity to disclose their uniqueness, on y P
freedom and bestow meaning upon human life.
Hannah Arendt's Analysis of Human Activity

Type of Activity Goal Status of the Activity
Labour Sustaining Life Means to an End : Lowest Level
Work Creating a Collective Means to an End : Higher Level
Human World
Action Attaining Freedom End-in-itself : Highest Level
Arendt maintains that in the modem world, people have created so strong and
nation-wide organizations to look after their private interests that no scope is practically i
left to attend to the public issues. Economic and scientific progress has caused immense
damage to introspective philosophy. People are so preoccupied with the problems of
sheer survival that they have lost sight ofthe goal ofcreating a stable human world. In
other words, people are now living at the levels of ‘labour’ and ‘work’; they have lost
the capacity of thought and ‘action’.
These conditions have led to the emergence of a consumer society where culture
is continuously pressed into the service of entertainment industry, and freedom
of thought has been relegated to the background. In order to revive the freedom of
thought, it is necessary to segregate the ‘public realm’ from the private domain so
that the importance of public issues is no longer eclipsed by the dominance of private
interests.
Consumer Society
Consumer society refers to the model of society in which consumption of goods
"TT ls re8arded as the highest value of life, a source of happiness and a
o o socia prestige. Under its influence, sublime values of life like self-control,
public-spiritedness and artistic tastes are relegated to the back seat.
r ill
; I
•CONCEPT OF POWER t
the outset she distineuish^V0^0^ *S closely related to her concept of freedom. At
political institutions as “manifest *• COmrnand'°hedience relationship’. Hannah vie

when people act according to the* ^ T** materializations of power’. In other wor>
of political institutions principles of power, their achievements take the o
very complex concepTofôwe/lh6 <'1969)’ Hannah Arendt g>ves some hints of her
of an
e suggests that power is ‘not the properly
Hannah Arendt 361
individual’. It ‘corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.’
She believes that power relations are essentially cooperative. Power in this sense
belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group holds together.
Power is the quality of individuals acting and speaking together. While the outcome of
their power may be retained in the shape of various political institutions, power itself
cannot be stored or held in possession.
These characteristics of power give us a clue to the further distinction between
violence and power. Arendt holds that power keeps the public realm together; violence
threatens its existence. Here we must distinguish between the ‘public realm’ and the
‘state’. When people voluntarily behave in such a way that they create congenial
conditions for each other, they create the public realm. When they are forced to behave
in a particular way by an external agency, they are under the state. According to Arendt,
power is the quality ofthe people constituting the public realm; violence is the property
of the state which is used against the people. Violence relies on the instruments of its
application; hence it can be held in possession. Arendt warns: “Where genuine power
is absent, violence may emerge to fill the gap.”
Power and violence are opposites; where one rules absolutely, the other is absent.
Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in
power's disappearance.
Hannah Arendt
In Arendt’s terminology, ‘authority’ and ‘power’ also belong to different spheres

of action. Authority is linked with command-obedience relationship; it gives nse to a
hierarchical order. It is based on violence; hence it corresponds to the sphere a) the
state. On the other hand, power belongs to the people; it creates an egalitarian order
It is based on consensus and persuation; hence it corresponds to the public realm, in
Arendt’s view, only power but never violence can create legitimate authority. Again
she warns: “Violence can destroy power; it is utterly incapable of creating it.
Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.

Albert Einstein
The public character of power and its significai 1 Illustrating her position
Hannah Arendt in her essay ‘On Public Happiness ( ^ m ^ fundamental
from the American experiment in democracy, s , unt was “that no one
assumption underlying popular political participation «n tJn0 one couid be
could be called happy without his share in public haPP“ ’ could be caned
called free without his experience in public freedom, an ^ _ power” (The
either happy or free without participating, and aving
Frontiers ofPolitical Theory, ed. by Henry Kanel, 1) !»)■ force Qf violence
In a nutshell, Arendt's concept of power con einn sustain a social
by the state and exhorts the people to cooperate in order to create
and freedom.
order that would be conducive to their common happiness
ir
Hannah Arendt's Analysis of Power

Human Society
i
*
The People Ruling Class
I
Concerted Action Coercive Action
I
Power
I
Violence
I
Political Institutions Authority
1
Egalitarian Order Hierarchical Order
I I
Public Realm State
Action, as distinguished from fabrication, is never possible in isolation; to be

isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act.
••• •••
What really distinguishes this generation in all.countries from earlier generations...
is its determination to act, its joy in action, the
assurance of being able to change
things by one's own efforts.
••• ••• •••
whôowpr kV*5 °0t °lake revolut’ons- The revolutionaries are those who know
when power is lying ,n the street and then they can pick it up.
••• IM
The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the
revolution.
Ml »t« •••
The aim of totalitarian education

has never been to instill convictions but to
destroy the capacity to form
Hannah Arendt
Ara*
V,
Hannah Arendt 363
volutions. In the first place, she disputed the liberal claim that the modem revolutions
rC h as the French and American revolutions were mostly concerned with establishing
Ûnited government that provided for individual liberty. Then she also contradicted
ahe Marxist claim that these revolutions represented an attempt by the suffering
asses to overcome exclusion by the privileged few. She argued that these revolutions
were exercises of individuals acting together for a common purpose. The pioneers of
these revolutions had sought to win public spaces of civic freedom and participation.
However, they largely failed to achieve their objective. The French Revolution (1789)
ended by reducing political institutions to administrative organs for the distribution of
goods and resources. On the other hand, the makers of American Revolution (1776)
were able to establish a system of constitutional checks and balances so as to serve as
the instruments for protecting the average citizen from arbitrary exercise of authority,
but they failed to secure his participation in ‘judgement and authority’. Incidentally
Arendt observes that while the American Revolution succeeded in establishing a free
constitution, the French Revolution degenerated into violence and tyranny.
Arendt’s view on totalitarianism was expressed in her first major work The Origins
of Totalitarianism (1951). Arendt saw totalitarianism as a system of government
which appears in a world where men no longer find reality itself bearable owing o
the destruction of the public world that formerly gave meaning and significance
their life. Totalitarianism provided them an escape from their loneliness mto a world
of certainty and intelligibility, but it also induced them to sacrifice reality in favour
fiction.
attracted by the momentum of totalitarianism
Only the mob and the elite can be
itself. The masses have to be won by propaganda.
Hannah Arendt
Arendt sought to trace the roots of Stalinist Commumstn and German Nazism
to the devastation of the ordered and stable world in w ic P w i (1914-
devastation was caused by the massive disruptions me udrng, Wodd (
18), the Great Depression (1929-33), the spread confused and
overthrow of traditional political systems.Arendt arj=U® j le dear and unambiguous
desperate circumstances, people were prone to ac P ic’ular ^.oup or institution.
uncertainty and danger. . were distinct

Arendt observed that Stalinist Communism an^ government* based on
from older forms of tyranny; they represented a no & means 0f acquiring
terror and ideological fiction. Older tyrannies ha use ^ j terror as an end-it-
and maintaining their authority, but the modem tyr such as the inevitable
itself; they justified terror with an ideology or a 0 ' imminent triumph
supremacy of a ’chosen race’ (as in the case of German Nazism or ^ in its
;—
fhe Communist concentration camps.

J
Ideology
Ideology refers to a set of ideas and arguments used to defend an existing or a
proposed system of distribution of power in society. These ideas are accepted to
be true by their upholders without inquiring into the grounds of their validity. The
ruling class may propagate its ideology to strengthen its own position while its
opponents may use their ideology as a plea for the overthrow of existing order
and transition to a new order that claims to achieve some great objective.
In,short, totalitarianism represents the worst form of violence as understood by

Hannah Arendt. In her view, totalitarianism in a country aims at total domination over
its people and territory, and conquest over other countries of the world. She identified
three elements in recent European experience which had paved the way for the rise
of totalitarianism: (a) the specific social and political position of the Jews, which had
given anti-Semiticism a new force; (b) imperialism, which generated racist movements
and world-wide expansion of power; and (c) the dissolution of European society
into uprooted masses, so lonely and disoriented that they could be mobilized behind
ideologies.
CONCLUSION
Hannah Arendt sought to identify several problems of the contemporary world, to
analyse their causes, and to describe the deficiencies of the prevailing political systems.
It may not be possible to revert to the past to overcome the present-day problems. In
any case, she thought that the future was open, as human beings had immense capacity
to initiate new things. Human freedom is essential to facilitate the realization of this
capacity. At the same time it is not possible to predict the future course of human action
or to control its direction. Given freedom, human beings will choose their own course
of action according to their judgement. It is not thefunction ofpolitical philosophy to
draw up a blueprint ofthefuture society or to show the way to its realization.
v
•/ ' ■ • v-o -
ON THE NArURiQiMficsi
Hannah Arendt has produced original thought on the nature of politics. However all
her writings on
whereby theSf^T8 °f politics- '^rest articulation refers to the SS15«S

\
Hannah Arendt
365
political decision or action is sought by them. It involves an attempt at influencing
the decision-making organs of government for taking a favourable decision for the
group m question. Through this process, people seek to serve their narrow interests
disregarding the larger public interest although they may pretend to serve the public
interest. When this method is combined with the struggle for power, it may involve
reliance on lies, propaganda and manipulation. This view of politics implies a
condemned activity. Arendt has described it as ‘the lowest level of human affairs’. In
fact Arendt has dwelled on this meaning of politics in many of her earlier works. But
the second meaning of politics is particularly elaborated in her The Promise ofPolitics
(2005) for the first time. This leads us to the second situation where the term ‘politics’
is applied to refer to its ideal form.
Accordingly, in the second situation, politics turns out to be the major achievement
of human civilization. It is made possible only when people actualize their human
potential of acting in concert. In this sense, politics refers to ‘the highest level of human
affairs’. Arendt argues that the first view of politics does not tell the whole story. If
we confine ourselves to the usual meaning of politics, we shall remain unaware of the
richer content of political life — the joy and the gratification that arise out of being in
company with our peers, out of acting together and appearing in public, thus acquiring
and sustaining our personal identity. It is precisely the situation where Arendt’s ideal
of genuine politics may be realized.
In The Promise of Politics (2005), Arendt again refers to the two different levels
of politics which correspond to the aforesaid distinction between the two meanings of
politics. At the first level, politics could be defined in its usual sense, as ‘a relationship
between the rulers and the ruled’. This again refers to the condemned meaning of
politics which gives rise to our prejudices against politics. This image of politics
implies a situation where domestic policy of the rulers appears to be a fabric of lies
and deception woven by shady interests and even shadier ideologies, while foreign
policy vacillates between dull propaganda and the exercise of raw power. This image
of politics fails to attract those who wish to lead a noble or decent life toward taking
interest in public affairs.
On the other hand, Arendt proceeds to discover another level of politics where it
coincides with the urge for freedom. In this sense, to be political means to the free. It
is the ideal meaning of politics where freedom is treated as the essence as well as the
reason of existence’ of politics in the human world. In this sense, politics refers to that
sphere of life where human beings live together, act together, or even fight together
with a view to gaining the joyous experience of being free. Freedom is the essence of
Political life because without freedom, action would deteriorate into behaviour, an
speech would degenerate into rhetoric. In other words, where people are not en ivcne
W the spirit of freedom, each individual would be pursuing self-interest through his
speech and action, rather than the public interest. In Arendt’s view, genuine P° Jtica
ife consists in the interaction and communication of free and equal persons. en
People are engaged in genuine politics, they act and speak to each other in a spirit ot
freedom; they tend to create a public space that cannot be generated m any other way.
Acting freely in a public space ushers into the political action that is con ucive o
forking miracles.
366
amazing and mysterious talent for working
Man himself evidently has a most in motion processes that in their
miracles.... Action is unique in that it sets
, and action also marks the start
... The miracle of freedom
that every human being.... is himse^nnah Are®dt (The.Promise 0f Politics; 2005)
sKSSSSSSSpSi
politics is seen as a process that binds people into community life; it inspires them to
respect each other, and promotes a sense of cooperation among them for pursuing the
public interest. It motivates them to determine their common goals and to strive for
their fulfilment through a genuine, cooperative effort.
Wherever the relevance of speech is at stake, matters become political by definition,
for speech is what makes man a political being.
Hannah Arendt
(The Human Condition; 1958)
Hannah Arendt's Analysis of the Nature of Politics

Politics
1
f I
Act of Interest-Articulation Actualization of Human Potential of
and Struggle for Power People through Acting in Concert
I 1
Lowest Level of Human Affairs Highest Level of Human Affairs
Q. 1. Elaborate Hannah Arendt's analysis of the origins of totalitarianism.

2. Examine Hannah Arendt's view on the role of power in society. Explain her
strategy to defend human freedom against the use of 'violence'.
3. "Hannah Arendt reviewed the prevailing notion of politics and sought t
introduce the notion of a new, sublime form of politics." Elucidate an
comment.
Michael Oakeshott
I •1
Michael (Joseph) Oakeshott (1901-90) was an illustrious English political philosopher.

He graduated from Cambridge University in 1923. In 1951 he was appointed to the
University Chair of Political Science at the London School of Economics. He retired
from this position in 1968. Oakeshott is particularly known for his new interpretation
and defence of conservatism in the light of contemporary world experience. However,
his brilliant style ofanalysis marks a departurefrom the conventional style, and bears
a mark ofhis unique, original thinking.
Conservatism
Conservatism refers to a political outlook that promotes respect for the long-standing
social and political order. It discourages the adoption of new and untried ideas and
institutions, and insists on maintaining those institutions which have stood the test
of time. Modern exponents of conservatism include David Hurne ( ^ /iani
philosopher, and Edmund Burke (1729-97), Irish statesman. Michael Oakeshott (1901-
__ 90), English philosopher, is regarded a contemporary exponent of conservatism.
Oakeshott’s first major philosophical work, Experience and its Modes (1 ^33), says
little about the nature of politics and political philosophy. It ana Yses . ,«
human experience. Oakeshott observes that the mind may perceive modes
either subjectively or objectively. Oakeshott proceeds to distmguish toe ^
of experience, termed as (a) Practice; (6) Science; and (c)
views experience under the aspect of will. It sees separate, self-contained md,v,duals
wanting to satisfy their diverse desires. History, on the other hand P f
under the aspect of the past. Finally, science views experience under aspec
[367]
A
368
quantity. In Oakeshott's view, philosophy transcends all these modes of experience;
it is unique among all intellectual inquiries because it is radical, self-conscious and
rigorously self-critical.
Oakeshott's other major works, which contain his political thought, include
his ‘Introduction’ to Hobbes's Leviathan (1946), Rationalism in Politics and Other
Essays (1962); On Human Conduct (1975); and On History and Other Essays (1983).
Oakeshott's political thought is particularly concerned with the nature of politics and
the scope of freedom with occasional arguments in defence of conservatism.
To be conservative... is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried

to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the
unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the
convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.
Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in
Politics and Other Essays (1962)
"NATURE OF POLITICS*
* • '•__________________________________ : ■*
Michael Oakeshott develops his complex view on the nature of politics in Rationalism
in Politics and Other Essays (1962). On the nature of political activity, he observes:
In political activity... men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither
harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting-place nor appointed
destination.
Then he attempts to elaborate the objective of political activity:
The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy?
and the seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of
behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion.
^ Oakeshott holds that the pattern of arrangements obtaining in every community
^°^ce^ c°herent and incoherent’; men are required to attend to the periodically
ighlighted incoherences in these arrangements. Political activity refers to their effort
o overcome this problem. Empiricists think that in this process men should decide
each day what to do and how; rationalists maintain that this situation can be handled
Z riZment1^ S^me abstract PrinciPles> >deas or doctrines (such as application o
Droblem TPP’ °akeshott believ^ that these approaches will hardly solve their
existing tradif 6 SU®g®sts a conservatist solution: pursuing the intimations o
S5K2S- of be aviour. He argues that ‘time’ and‘knowledge’ are the W
rationalists Fm ^ ° P° 'tlCal life’ which are misunderstood by empiricists as we
‘knowtdEe’Ea^rhC1 H,C°nf'Ve ‘time’as ‘a series of disjointedmornents’; they regard
and ‘knowledge’ '"formation’. Then rationalists consider ‘time’ as unrcj,
vital importance of trad^ °f tlnleless 8eneral lruths’- Neither of these appreciate *1
1 Ion ln ordering a community's perception of time or his
Michael Oakeshott
369
In Oakeshott's view, political activity is neither an outcome of a contract, nor it is

a manifestation of mutuality of puipose. It often takes the course of a \conversation'
which evolves from within. In a conversation we do not come together to talk about a
specific issue; we may start from anywhere and proceed in any direction depending
upon the pomts raised by the participants of the conversation. Similarly nobody can
predict which way the society will go as a result of its political activity. Oakeshott
maintains that political obligation, like friendship, is also a diffused obligation. It is
notfixed like a contractual obligation. We do not enter into friendship on prescribed
terms and conditions, nor its continuance is dependent upon fulfilment of any specific
conditions. Similarly our obligation toward the state cannot be treated as predetermined.
Like culture, it evolvesfrom the conditions in which individuals happen to live together.
As civilized human beings, we are the inheritors, neither of an inquiry about

ourselves and the world, nor of an accumulating body of information, but of a
conversation, begun in the primeval forests and extended and made more articulate
in the course of centuries. It is a conversation which goes on both in public and
within each of ourselves.
Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in
Politics and Other Essays (1962)
Oakeshott is primarily concerned with the problem of practical politics for which
theoretical knowledge would be of little use. In his opinion, rationalism involves the
claim that the only adequate type of knowledge is that which can be reduced to a
series of rules, principles or methods. It involves denigration of practical knowledge
as it claims that rational action can only take place after the creation of a theoretical
model. Since political philosophy implies a theoretical framework for dealing with
the problems of politics, Oakeshott finds it of little relevance for practical politics.
He asserts that reputable political behaviour is not dependent upon sound or even
coherent philosophy. Such a behaviour is related to the concrete practical knowledge
°f an actual political tradition and what such a tradition intimates.
For Oakeshott, opposite ofrationalism is not irrationalism, but authentic practical
reQsonableness. His critique of rationalism is not a critique of reason but its defence
against a false modem conception thereof. Oakeshott's notion of ideology is also
dose to the current notion of rationalism. It refers to the attempted application of the
rationalistic style to political activity. The rationalist or the ideologist claims to solve
permanently the problems of political life and leave everything else to administration.
Ill
SCOPE OF FREEDOM
After rejecting the importance of political philosophy in the conventional sense of the
370
It is here that he co Conduct (1975) read with his latest work On Histo,y
his important essay^ OûntanCon^ ^ ^ philosophy is conce^
to analyse thfideal character and postulates of human conduct in general and civil
ssoc to in particular. He holds that every human association is stractared m terms
of practices. Oakeshott recognizes two types of practices: (a) Prudential practices are
desired to serve a common substantive purpose of its members; they give nse of
■ enterprise associations; and (ft) Moral practices are designed to serve a purpose which
is an end-in-itself- they give rise to moral associations. Moral associations are based
on acknowledgement of the authority of common practices.
In Oakeshott’s view, civil association falls in the category of moral association.
Oakeshott identifies two types of civil associations: (a) Those devoted to conservative
values develop reverence for traditions; and (b) Those devoted to liberal values stand
for defence of liberty. Oakeshott observes that any society would develop m response to
its inner urge, and not toward a predetermined goal. A society may be characterized by
the primacy of enterprise associations or moral associations; hence different societies
tend to develop in different directions.
Oakeshott on the Composition of Civil Association

Human Association
I
5
Enterprise Moral
Association Association
(An Association based (Its purpose is
on prudence, and formed an end-in-itself)
to serve a substantive
purpose of its members)
T
Civil
Association
f
Devoted to
Devoted to
Liberal Values
Conservative Values
i
Defence of
Reverence for
Liberty
Traditions
Direction of Evolution
■ >» «■ - “•,ow,,d ’
Michael Oakeshott 371
In this context, Oakeshott returns to considering the nature of politics, now as a
critical activity. He observes that the rules of civil association are obligatory because
of their authoritative nature, but these may be examined in terms of their desirability.
i This examination is also a part of political activity. Politics in this sense implies the
acceptance of the authority of the civil association but its specific rules could be
criticized. Political deliberation is guided by considerations of‘civil good’, that is what
is civilly just or desirable among the rules which all citizens are required to obey under
the threat of civil penalty. It is not guided by such objectives as the pursuit of a perfect
society or improving the lot of mankind—the objectives cherished by the champions
of rationalism.
Oakeshott believes in immense potential of human action under conditions of
i freedom. Freedom is not compatible with the pursuit of any predetermined goal; it
is derived from pursuing the intimations of the existing traditions of behaviour.
Oakeshott's political thought is throughout charged with conservative overtones.
Critics point out that Oakeshott's contribution to political philosophy may best be
understood as that of a brilliant literary essayist rather than that of a rigorous political
thinker.
1
i
t Elaborate Oakeshott's view on the nature of politics. What is the scope of

Q. 1.
freedom in his conservative mode of thought?_________________
|
Further Reading
S. Avineri: The Social and Political Thought of Karl Marx (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1968)
Terence Ball: Reappraising Political Theory—Revisionist Studies in History of
Political Thought (USA, Oxford University Press, 1995)
Leon P. Baradat: Political ideologies—Their Origins and Impact (Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall, 1979)
Ernest Barker: Political Thought in England: 1848 to 1914 (London, Oxford University
Press, 1959)
i
R.N. Berki: The History of Political Thought: A Short Introduction (London: Dent,
1977)
William T. Bluhm: Theories of Political System: Classics of Political Thought and
I Modem Political Analysis (New Jersery: Prentice-Hall, 1978)
\ David Boucher, Paul Kelly (eds.): Political Thinkers from Socrates to the Present
!
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)
)
John Bowie: Western Political Thought: An Historical Introduction from the Origins
to Roussseau (London: Methuen—University Paperbacks, 1961)
Stephen Eric Bronner (ed.): Twentieth Century Political Theory-A Reader (New York
and London, Routledge, 1997)
Ivor Brown: English Political Theory (London, Methuen, 1929)
i Robert Brown (ed.): Classical Political Theories from Plato to Marx (New York:
i
MacMillan, 1990).
Emile Bums: An Introduction to Marxism (New York: International Publishers, 1977)
Francis W. Coker: Recent Political Thought (Calcutta: The World Press, 1966)
Lucio Colletti: From Rousseau to Lenin: Studies in Ideology and Society (N
Monthly Review Press, 1972)
1373]
Further Reading
374
Anthony de Crespigny and Kenneth Minogue (eds.): Contemporary Political
. Philosophers (London: Methuen & Co. 1976)
William L. Davidson: Political Thought in England: Bentham to J.S. Mill (London:
Oxford University Press, 1955)
James V. Downton Jr. and David K. Hart (eds.).
(0 Perspectives on Political Philosophy: Thucydides Through Machiavelli: Vol. I
(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971)
((,-) perspectives on Political Philosophy: Machiavelli Through Marx: Vol II
(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winstone, 1971)
(ii{) Perspectives on Political Philosophy: Marx Through Marcuse: Vol.III
(Illinois: Dryden Press, 1973)
W.A. Dunning:
(0 A History of Political Theories: Ancient and Medieval (Allahabad: Central
Book Depot, 1970)
(z7) A History of Political Theories: From Luther to Montesquieu (Allahabad:
Central Book Depot, 1970)
(iii) A History of Political Theories: From Rousseau to Spencer (Allahabad:
Central Book Depot, 1970)
(iv) A History ofPolitical Theories: Recent Times, edited by Charles E. Merriam
and Harry Elmer Barnes (Allahabad: Central Book Depot, 1973)
Will Durant: The Story of Philosophy from Plato to John Dewey (New York: The
Pocket Library, 1957)
William Ebenstein: Great Political Thinkers: Plato to the Present (Illinois: Dryden
Press, 1969)
______ •' Today’s Isms (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1980)
Robert Eccleshall, Vincent Geoghegan, et al.: Political Ideologies—An Introduction
(London, Routledge, 1994)
Jon Elster: An Introduction to Karl Marx (Cambridge- Cambridge University
Press, 1986)
Michael B. Foster: Masters of Political Thought: Vol. One: Plato to Machiavelli
(London: George Harrap & Co., 1971)
W.T. Jones: Masters of Political Thought: Vol. Two: Machiavelli to Bentham
Lane W. Lancaster: Masters of Political Thought: Vol. Three: Hegel to DeW
Gerald F. Gaus, Chandran Kukathas (eds.): Handbook of Political Theory (London,
Sage Publications, 2004)
Dan& Row""^^0”^ Ide°logy: The Revival ofPolitical Theory (New York: Harper
Further Reading 375
: ‘The Contemporary Relevance of the Classics of Political Philosophy’ from
Handbook of Political Science, edited by Fred I. Greenstein, Nelson W. Polsby,
^/./(Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley, 1975)
G.P. Gooch: Political Thought in England from Bacon to Halifax (London, Thomton-
Butterworth, 1915)
James A Gould, Vincent V. Thursby (eds.): Contemporary Political Thought: Issues in
Scope, Value and Direction (New York: Holt, Rhinehart & Winston, 1969)
Andrew Hacker: Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science (Toronto, MacMillan,
1969)
Elizabeth M. James: Political Theory—An Introduction to Interpretation (Chicago:
Rand Mcnally, 1976)
C.E.M. Joad: An Introduction to Modern Political Theory (Delhi, Oxford University
Press, 1974)
Isaac Kramnick and Frederick M. Watkins: The Age of Ideology-Political Thought
1750 to the Present (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1979)
Will Kymlicka: Contemporary Political Philosophy—An Introduction (New Delhi,
Oxford University Press, 2005)
Harold J. Laski: Political nought in England—Locke to Bentham (London: Oxford
University Press, 1955)
Jack Lively and Andrew Reeve (eds.): Modern Political Theory from Hobbes to Marx:
Key Debates (London & New York: Routledge, 1989)
C.B. Macpherson: The Political Theory ofPossessive Individualism—Hobbes to Locke
(London: Oxford University Press, 1962)
Maxey: Political Philosophies (New York: MacMillan, 1961)
Chester C.
Lee Cameron McDonald: Western Political Theory:
Part 1. Ancient and Medieval
Part 2. From Machiavelli to Burke
Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanov.ch,
Part 3:
1968)
W.M. McGovern: From Luther to Hitler (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1941)
Charies H. Mcllwain: The Growth of Political 1ôu^ Fr°m ‘ 6
to the End of The Middle Ages (New York: MacM.llan, 1932)
David McLellan: Marxim After Marx: An Introduction (London^ ac 1 an,
David Miller (ed.): The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political T oug t , Basil
- “'ZtleS Political Theory: An Production Jfor Students of Political

R.G.
Theory (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977)
B. Parekh: Contemporary Political Thinkers (Oxford: Mart.n Robertson, 1982)
376 Further Reading
John Plamenatz (New edition revised by M.E. Plamenatz, Robert Wokler): Man and
Society: Political and Social Theoriesfrom Machiavelli to Marx, Vol. I andII; Vol.
HI: Hegel, Marx and Engles and the Idea ofProgress (London: Longman, 1992)
Anthony Quinton (ed.): Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967)
M. J. Rendell: An Introduction to Political Thought (London: Sidgwick & Jackson,
1978)
George H. Sabine and Thomas L. Thorson: A History of Political Theory (Illinois:
Dryden Press, 1973)
Roger Scruton: A Dictionary of Political Thought (London, Pan Books, 1982)
Mulford Q. Sibley: Political Ideas and Ideologies: A History of Political Thought
(New York: Harper & Row, 1970)
Quentin Skinner:
(0 Visions ofPolitics, Vol I Regarding Method
(ii) Visions ofPolitics, Vol. II Renaissance Virtues
(Hi) Visions ofPolitics, Vol. Ill Hobbes and Civil Science
(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2002)
Thomas A. Spragens, Jr: Understanding Political Theory (New York:- St. Martin’s
Press, 1976)
Ronald Turner (ed.): Thinkers ofthe Twentieth Century (Chicago & London: St. James
Press, 1987)
^History of Political Thought: The Middle Ages (Middlesex: Penguin
Andrew Vincent: Modern Political Ideologies (Oxford, Blackwell, 1992)

LawrenM CjoWanless (ed.); Gettell’s History of Political Thought (Delhi: Surjeet
C.L. Wayper: Political Thought (London: St. Paul’s House, 1973)

Sheldon
t„ S.. Wolin:
_ PolitJcs and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political
Thought (Boston: Little Brown, 1960)
Index
Absolute Sovereignty 131 256,316
Absolutism 102, 125, 140 Censorship 54
Act-Utilitarianism 192 Citizenship 64
Affirmative Action 181 Civil Association 370
Age of Reason => Enlightenment Civil Society 130,148,237,239
Alienation 158, 282,308 Class Conflict 275,276,277
Althusser, Louis 261, 305 Class Consciousness 292
Analogies 44 Classical Liberalism 109
Analysis of Power 360 Classical Tradition 27
Anthropo-centrism 351 Classics 8,27
Anti-Semiticism 358 Class Struggle => Class Conflict
Approach 8 Colonialism 289
Architectonic Theory of Justice 49 Common Good 334
Arendt, Hannah 358, 360, 362, 366 Common Law 12, 184, 194
Aristocracy 19,87 Communism 50, 53,274,275
Aristotle 58 Communitarianism 166, 333,335, 337
Aristotle's Classification of Constitutions 70 Community 336
Aristotle's Theory of Justice 68, 69 Complex Equality 340
Condorcet, Marquis de 221
Authoritarianism 102
Consequentialism 192
Authority 67
Conservatism 68,175,183, 367
Contemporary Liberalism 113
Bacon, Francis 105 Contextual Approach 13
Balance of Power 177 Constitutional Government 140
Ball, Terence 21, 22 Constitutionalism 32,117
Baran, Paul 261 Constitutional Law 132
Base and Superstructure 31, 261, 300
Consumer Society 360
| Behaviouralism 89 Conventional Inequality 30,146, 151
Bentham, Jeremy 195, 197 Counterculture 304
Bodin, Jean 131 Critical Theory 157, 306
I Bookchin, Murray 351 Cultural Revolution 298
Bourgeoisie 20,262,270 Culture 316
Burke, Edmund 182 Cycle of Change of Governments 71
Capitalism 51, 74, 110, 143,157, 250,
[377]
Index
378
General Will 119, 151, 152, 153,225
Dahl, Robert 260 Globalization 115
de Beauvoir, Simone 327 Global Warming 348
Deductive Logic 59 Glorious Revolution 64,141,179
Demagogue 48 Golden Mean 12, 37, 72
Democratic Centralism 293 Gramsci, Antonio 261, 299, 301
Dependency Theory 289 Greek Political Thought 35
Dependent Class 74 Green, T.H. 246
Dialectical Materialism 265
Green Politics 347
Dialectical Method 43 Greenhouse Effect 348
Dialectical Process 232, 236
Dictatorship of the Proletariat 274, 292 Gresham's Law 10
Difference Principle, 164
Habermas, Jurgen 309
Dirty Hands 92
Discrimination Against Women 319 Hare, R.M. 193
Divine Right of Kings 125,137 Hedonism 197,198
Hedonistic Calculus 199
Dogmatism 12
Hegel, G.W.F. 234
Eco-centrism 350 Hegel and Marx 266
Eco-Feminism 353 Hegel's Philosophy of History 235
Ecological Humanism 351 Hegemony 301
Ecologism 345 Hermeneutics 7
Economic Determinism 303 Historical Materialism 267, 271
Eco-Socialism 353 Hobbes, Thomas 124
Egalitarianism 33, 166 Hobbes's Method 126
Empirical Method 70, 89 Human Dignity 226
Empirical Observation 105 Humanism 103
Empirical Science 267 Humanities 83
Encyclopedists 220 Hume, David 176, 178
Engels, Friedrich 264
English Civil War 126 Idealism 231,234, 265
Enlightement 107, 149, 219,223, 314 Idealist Theory 155
Environmentalism 345, 350 Ideology 263, 272, 293,364
Epicurus 197 Imperialism 294
Epistemology 226 Individualism 115, 125, 162, 225
Ethics 37,91 Industrial Revolution 106, 196
Existentialism 305 Instrumentalist Theory of the State 20
Exploitation 52 Instrumental Value 342, 352
Intrinsic Value 342, 352
False Consciousness 293
Fascism 245 Kant, Immanuel 223, 224
Felicific Calculus 192,198 Knowledge and Opinion 38
Feminism 67,213,313,328 Knowledge and Virtue 39
Fetishism of Commodities 285
Feudalism 82 Laissez Faire 109,169, 205
Firestone, Shulamith 327 Laissez-Faire Individualism 20
Fourier, Charles 326 Law of Nature □ Natural Law
Frankfurt School 306 Legitimacy 301, 309
French Revolution 179,221 Legitimation Crisis 309
Friedan, Betty 324 Lenin, V.l. 291
Fundamentalism 13 Liberal Democracy 9,77, 324
Index 379
Liberal Feminism 323 Mythology 15
Liberalism 101, 108, 115,125, 176,196, Naess, Arne 352
204, 247, 324, 337 Natural Equality 129
Liberalization 114 Natural Inequality 30,146,151
Libertarianism 33, 113,165, 168 Natural Law 132, 137, 177,194
Locke, John 136 Natural Rights 137,185,192
Lord and Serf 269 Natural Selection 111
Luther, Martin, 104 Necessity and Freedom 280
Luxemburg, Rosa 295 Negative Liberalism 109
Neo-classical Liberalism 113
Machiavelli, Niccolo 85 Neo-colonialism 289
Machiavelli's Classification of Neo-conservatism 180
Governments 87 Neo-liberalism 113
Machiavelli's Method 88 Neo-Marxism 157, 303,306
Machiavelli's Statecraft 94 New Right 180
MacIntyre, Alasdaire 338 Nightwatchman State 169
Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-tung) 296 Nozick, Robert 167
Marcuse, Herbert 308 Nozick’s Theory of Justice 168
Market Socialism 289
Marx, Karl 264 Oakeshott, Michael 178, 179,367,370
Marxian Socialism 273 Obscurantism 13
Marxism 176, 255, 258, 259 Okin, Susan M. 329
Marxist Concept of Freedom 279 One-Dimensional Man 308
Marxist View of Private Property 283 Organic View of the State 61, 155
Mass Line 299 Ozone Depletion 348
Mass Society 359
Materialism 266 Pateman, Carole 325
Mechanistic View of the State 106, 154 Patriarchal Society 63
Mediocracy 212 Patriarchy 314
Permanent Revolution 297
Mercantile Policy 102
Phillips, Anne 329
Metaphysics 89, 226
Philosopher-kings 43,49
Middle Ages 81
i Philosophical Radicalism 193
Miliband, Ralph 260
Mill, John Stuart 203 Plato 35,41
; Plato's Methodology 43
Mill's Defence of Liberty 207 Plato's Theory of Justice 43,49
i Millet, Kate 328
Political 3
Mills, C. Wright 260 Political Argument 28
Mixed Constitution 37, 76 Political Obligation 29, 131,163,245,
Mixed Economy 116
251
Mode of Production 280 Political Philosophy 5
Modem Liberalism 111 Political Thought 4,6
Monarchy 19,87 Politics as Master Science 59
Monopoly 194 Popular Sovereignty 32, 154
Monopoly Capitalism 263 Positive Law 133, 194, 250
Moore, G.E. 193 Positive Liberalism 111
Moral Absolutism 339
Moral Freedom 224, 247 Positivism Individualism 134? 142,335
Possessive
Moral Individualism 166 Post-feminism 328
Moral Relativism 339 Poulantzas, Nicos 260
Motive-Utilitarianism 193
Index
380
Socialist Feminism 326
Power Elites 260 Social Justice 117, 149, 181, 210, 353
Primitive Communism 276
Socrates 38, 41-
Privatization 114
Procedural Democracy 56 Sophists 40
Sovereignty 119, 130, 138, 152,325
Procedural Justice 166
Spencer, Herbert 111
Progress 149, 178, 220,244
Statecraft 95
Progressive 12
Proletariat 74,262,270,282 State of Nature 11, 128, 138, 148, 168
Propaganda 17 Statesmanship 186
Proportional Representation 212 Strategy 21
Protectionism 194 Strategy of Interpretation 19, 22
Strauss, Leo 9
Radical 73 Structuralism 305
Radical Feminism 327 Structuralist Theory of the State 260
Rationalism 185,220 Subjection of Women 213
Rawls, John 160 Subsistence Wages 279
Rawls's Methodology 1£2 Substantive Democracy 56
Rawls's Theory of Justice 161 Substantive Justice 166
Real Will 153, 224 Surplus Value 277
Reductionism 128 Sustainable Development 349
Reform 186,296 Sweezy, Paul 261
Reformation 104
Renaissance 81, 103 Taylor, Charles 341
Republic 19, 87 Teleological Method 44
Republicanism 229 Textual Approach 89
Revolution 71, 73, 175,272, 362 Theology 79
Right to Property 141 Totalitarianism 17, 55, 362
Rousseau, Jean-Jaques 145
Rowbatham, Sheila 326 Untouchability 13
Rule of Law 75,177 Utilitarianism 115, 162, 191, 197, 198,
Rule-Utilitarianism 192 204, 280
Utilitarian Theory of Punishment 200,201
Sabine, George H. 13 Utility 198, 206
Sandel, Michael 339 Utility of Classics 28
Scholasticism 83 Utopia 45
Schumacher, E.F. 346 Utopian 256
Scientific Revolution 104 Utopian Social Engineering 175
Scientific Socialism 257,294 Utopian Socialism 256
Secularism 103
Sex and Gender 315, 317 Vanguard of the Proletariat 292
Sidgwick, Hery 193 / Voltaire 221
Simple Equality 340
Skinner^ Quentin 14 Wallerstein, Immanuel 263
Slavery 62, 243 Walzer, Michael 340
'Small is beautiful' 346, 348 Welfare State 112, 169, 205,247
Smith, Adam 109, 157 Wollstonecraft, Mary 323
Social Contract 118, 120, 130,138, 151, Woolf, Virginia 327
161,167,177,225,240,325 Worldview 20, 255
Social Formation 271
Socialism 257,275, 282, 326 Young Marx 258

WPT Op Gauba

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

WPT Op Gauba

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western

First Edition 2011

1. Genesis of Political Thought 6

1. UNDERSTANDING POLITICAL THOUGHT 3

2. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CLASSICAL TRADITION 27

5. NATURE OF THE RENAISSANCE 81

7. BROAD STREAMS OF LIBERALISM 101

9. JOHN LOCKE 136

14. EDMUND BURKE 182

I. General Introduction 234

27. BASIC TENETS OF FEMINISM

29. BASIC TENETS OF COMMUNITARLANISM

30. BASIC TENETS OF ENVIRONMENTALIST TRADITION

31. HANNAH ARENDT

^NATURE OF POLITICAL THOUGHT

lower is traditionally defined as one’s capacity to attain compliance from others

policies and decisions.

aspect of our social Iifelargfly phi,“ophers regarding the political

Political philosophy can be defined as philosophical reflection on how best to arrange

Among various forms of the study of politics, political philosophy or political

Genesis of Political Thought

Reflection on Human Nature

Interpretation is not an option but a necessity for the meaning-seeking

Terence Ball (2004)

on T"“" *"• » his essn,

Textual approach exemplifies the application of hermeneutics to the interpretation of

Textual approach may be recommended for the interpretation of genuine classics,

The Goiden Mean

Significance of the textual approach may be examined in many spheres of human

common sense, reason and judicial interpret^ oTcustomth'atwas'"regarded to

WHAT IS CONTEXTUAL APPROACH?

VIEWS OF QUENTIN SKINNER

Skinner has particularly recommended contextual approach in order to avoid certain

According to Skinner, these problems can be overcome only by understanding the

government, On, it e,,, „e

Terence Ball (Handbook of Political Theory; 2004)

shape its future. *,p,r,he ™ »<»■ -

Strategy For Interpretation Of Classics

Terence Ball on the Strategy of Interpretation

Chief Exponents Straussian School Quentin Skinner and

anywhere and be addressed via a varied G j?rob em can come from

Terence Ball (Handbook of Political Theory; 2004)

Q. 1. Elucidate the nature and genesis of political thought.

Classical tradition of political thought refers to the series of reflections on the

CLASSICS REPRESENT THE WORKS OF

discloLhmCJS°7 eX3mination of the masterpieces of political literature

ITZ'ZZIr ■■■wtat is response. *

In order to solve our political problems we are ren,,,^ . , .

Natural Inequality and Conventional Inequality

In this context, the argument advanced by Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), German

pte cLTnPOTrZtT"lH*nhd “,bliS'”nE m°d« of production in its

eventually spread to the whole fabric of social relationships. UperStrUCture'11 would

Base and Superstructure

CLASSICS ARE THE SUBJECT OF UNIVERSAL

has 'rwed “ , civil

developed by Marcuse in the contemporary perspective. — has been

libertarianism, sought to revive Herbert Spencer’s (182'o adV°Cate °f

The Golden Mean

The Mixed Constitution

GREEK THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE

applied knowledge embodied an ina.anmeni.l v„ne (, X ."ha, wf”,te»sTo

Relation Between Knowledge and Virtue: The Greek View

* In Greek view, knowledge and science were synonymous.

r;;“les ,he fn"c,”in8 ot Hi«■»»»

so t 8' " chiMre” wi" b' i» rnosi

Sr r?0<1'- Tb,?r ««■&»» -*£35

Aristotle’s v!eiv is"° nt”8' ? «“■ *m, \