The basis upon which all societies is founded can be seen as having evolved, first, from the nature of the relationship which develops exists between a man and a woman – representative of the most primal aspect of social organisation. And so, founded on familial relationships, society in the larger and general sense of being a collective or association of some sort, becomes representative of the combined and inalienable rights of private persons. It is from this most fundamental of origin that such things as civil rights evolve.
Private persons, groups or associations come together for some perceived common good – a compact, a Common Law. When this becomes social norms or conventions and is embodied in some form of constitution, common law will, invariably, evolve into civil, constitutional, legal or legitimate rights to which all members of the enlarged Civil Society or State are entitled – the Public Sphere of civil society. Common and civil law are akin to rules, regulations and guiding principles of civil or social conduct and behaviour. On the other hand, the Private Sphere – where the constitutional state or civil authority is not entitled and is restricted or prohibited from exercising control or influence over (basis for illegality) is free of such laws or restrictions, on a voluntary basis.
When codified the legitimacy of sovereign authority, requiring voluntary consent of the shareholders, the people, the private persons, the associations and constituted representatives of the physical State (the core reason why men come together in the first place – preservation of their individual Selves) wields the power or authority of the citizens as public authority – the Law. And so, what is sheltered, regulated or protected by constitutional laws, in civil, democratic societies is common laws or the private affairs of the citizens.
The nature of all social relationships can be best seen when viewed from the perspective of what is brought to the table (public sphere) and offered up as negotiable versus what is not (private). This then, in essence, defines the limit or extent of what is conventionally considered as being non-negotiable or non-transferable. In sense, it is what distinguishes the individual (private) and the public (society). It sets a fine line that then separates the State (Public) from the citizens (Private) in a democratic, constituted and liberal association (Society) whose purpose and function is to ensure and protect all individual rights, for the Common good of the State – the physical public aspect.
In short, that which is given expression – an audience (method of expression irrelevant but not inconsequential) and directly or indirectly affects the well-being or good functioning of the State becomes of import to the state in a social, political and public sense – if it affects or infringes on any other citizen. The reason being that, because of the consequential nature of social relationships, changes or shifts in the structure or functioning of the State will, ultimately, affect the unfettered enjoyment of individual life, liberty and continued pursuit of happiness; and so, legitimately, public sphere fall within the purview of the state as well.
Power, status or authority is, in effect, a subjective value or attribute and is available or accessible to one and all; as is life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – which is somewhat objective when viewed within the public sphere. The question that then resonates within socially conscious men is: how is anything to be legally acquired while enclosed by innumerable constraints, subject to restraints deemed necessary to the continued and progressive transformation of civil society? The notion of freedom seems counter intuitive to civil society.
It is only when men come together, gather or form mutual associations for a common purpose that society or civility arises. The state emerges from within such groups or associations – representing and acknowledging prior or existing sets of relationships. Relationships that serve to define the contextual arena in which individual men are allowed to exercise what they perceive as being a god-given or divine and natural right. The assumption being – all which is social or political exists only in a public sense (civil society); and the form of government in any given society is based on the nature of existing individual relationships. So, those things that fall outside of the public (in every sense of the word) sphere – such as between a man and his god – remain private. And as such, they thought of as being free from undue pressure, restriction or influence in their pursuit, enjoyment or experiencing – individual and private freedom.
However, when explicit permission is required or limit is attached to such freedoms making them, for example, either acceptable or permissible – infers the involvement of at least one other person – which then makes it so much less private and places the activity in the public or social sphere.
It is this relationship, this perception or notion that each man comes into the world with a god-given set of natural rights and privileges that is the key to dissecting and comprehending the political aspect of human relationships. For, what binds men into social groups evolve, invariably, from unmistakable and discernible common interests that only come about or occur as a result of them coming together and forming associations. The most primary of all such human association or relationship appears to be that which exists between a man and a woman. Shades of the biblical conception – without Adam and Eve there is no Eden. The absence or negation of any such relationship or aspect results in the development or possibility of social formations such as absolutism, tyranny, dictatorships – anarchy, in general.
A man or individual is only free in so far as there is a counter existence, experience or condition within which a sense of freedom exists or is lacking; and, in this manner, values or attributes are ascribed as means by which claims of fairness, rightness, justice, freedom, liberty, and so forth can be made.
All value or attribute outside the context of a social sphere or relationship becomes meaningless. Or, as Hobbes observed, “In a state of nature … 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.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract observes as well that, “… since no man has any natural authority over his fellows, and since force alone bestows no right, all legitimate claim of authority among men must be based on covenants. In this, he counters Hobbe’s rather dim view of human nature since it appears that Rousseau perceives human nature in a light different from Hobbes; and one which, however, binds him to Hobbes’ position when he states …
“… Where are there laws, and where are they respected? Everywhere you have seen only individual interest and men’s passions reigning under this name. But the eternal laws of nature and order do exist. For the wise man, they take the place of positive law. They are written in the depth of his heart by conscience and reason. It is to these that he ought to enslave himself in order to be free.
Rousseau’s acknowledgement that “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” necessitates an explanation or reason as to why – if this is so, that is, true, – is it necessarily so?
If man is not destined to live a life that will be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short as Hobbes observes then, with the application of his reason, it follows that if men are or were to break free of those chains freedom and enlightenment should or would follow.
And so, men needing to use their reason to form associations which, in general, are designed or implemented to address their Common, not private, Interests under Common Laws, Rules and Regulations – all intended to serve and protect the individual and, therefore, Private Interests of the member groups or associations, composed of or representative of a primary group or association derived from or originating in the private relationship which exists between a man and a woman, a man and his wife, this unit and its elemental dependencies, children, property, possession, wealth, status, and so forth.
This relationship of social dynamics, man the social animal and man the private person in constant flux, poses a paradox for Rousseau. It does not negate the notion that some sort of social contract or agreement is more than a mere fiction and is necessary to the proper functioning of society in general or particular cases, regardless of the embodiment of the State’s sovereignty. Even in slavery there too exists a relationship between the master and slave that is social in nature and political in application. A problem posed by a social contract is that it leaves open the possibility of benevolent tyrants usurping sovereign power or authority, as an example, and justifies civil or territorial wars at the behest of the State.
In fact, I would argue that Rousseau’s thinking and perception of society and human nature was more in line with that of the Greeks, Plato and Aristotle (Hobbes, on the other hand, was somewhat reflective of Aristocratic beliefs and values – weighted in favour of the Sovereign Monarch and attendant nobility that enshrined the State’s Authority (its legality, obligatory bindings or aspects of constitutionality being highly questionable).
Rousseau, by asserting that it’s the very private relationship – consensual agreement and acceptance to participate in a social relationship – is the basis of any and all social contracts (for the representative common interest or good) articulates what formally binds men together in recognisable, definitive and discernible ways. It is through the exercise, use or imposition of reason on social or political associations that men are free retain and exercise their natural or god-given rights and privileges. The sovereignty of the individual can only be subsumed by participation and interaction in public relationships, the limits of which are set out and constituted within the Social Contract, Law.
Thus, for men to be ‘free’ in the absolute sense, free of the constraints imposed by the political and social spheres of their lives (the political) they must retain all claims to individual sovereignty. This, however, is disposed of or suspended when they become a part of civil organisation that requires, expects or demands that individual rights be subjugated to the representative rights of the publicly constituted group or association.
This, then, is the form the social contract takes and which binds the individual to the Family, Tribe, Clan, Community, State, Nation, and so forth. The social contract is representative of the constitutional and legitimate source of power and authority of the State, which, at times is embodied in titled men or, at other times, in constitutional documents – Laws and Regulations which define the powers of the political instrument and the extent to which it can be used or enacted against the individual interests of state associations, groups or members.
What Rousseau is asserting is that, since civil societies do in fact exist, there must then be an underlying cause or purpose upon which they are founded. Without this or in the absence of some civil bond society will likely cease to be or revert back to a Hobbesian type of society – lawless, unbridled pursuit of individual self-interests with little more than natural restraints or limits, brutal men living short and uncultured lives. In short, a State of Nature.
So, if ‘men are born free’, it must be acknowledged as well that such free men are, in fact, born into a civil society, a state. One that is by it very nature, public rather than private and pre-exists (or must be pre-supposed to exist) due to histories, traditions and hierarchies throughout society. And as such, all ‘free men’ as a civic duty or obligation, rather than as an imposition of the public will upon the individual and private sphere of society are expected, bound and obligated to work for the continued good of society, the State. There is nothing, other than unrestrained or willful and complete disregard for existing and legitimate civil authority or instruments of the State, which holds out as promise or guarantee that men living in a civil society are absolutely free of control from the power or authority of the State. In this respect the State, embodiment of the Public Will is sovereign.
A legitimate state, law or constitution supercede all, with exception, perhaps, of those necessary to the individual free pursuit of life, liberty, property, and happiness – absent of doing willful harm to another in their exercise of similar rights and privileges. In a sense, it can be claimed that the State, ultimately, through covenants made either individually or collectively with individual subjects or representatives, holds the only tool capable of dissolving or abrogating the inalienable rights of the individual. In those things that encompasses the private sphere – it being a consensual relationship – the instrument that bridges and binds diverse spheres of civil society into a coherent whole, into the State, the Sovereign power. Its executive rights and authority frees the State from any constraints within the Social Contract to enforce the perceived will of the people for the good of the State (citizens).
As such, we see then that civil or political power is not a natural right – in as much as it is but one of many rights bestowed upon men upon birth by virtue of the fact that they are ‘introduced’, at that time, into civil society. The limit or extent of such rights cast at such, and only at such time.
Contrary to a common assumption – that men are born with those rights and freedoms – it is necessary to understand that rights, natural or civil are assigned or bestowed only in the context of society and its underlying relations in a general rather than in any particular sense. So, any diminution of those rights, individual – both private and public – can only be, legitimately, of a voluntary nature – such as, social contracts.
In essence, the social contract implies and affirms that, at its most elemental, before men, the individual (private) can ever (arguably, again) become Absolutely and Fully Free, Equal in all things and in all ways – within the context of the social and public sphere (political) – civilisation will first need to be completely and utterly destroyed and eradicated from human history and memory. Clearly, an impossibility and academically mote point.
And so, for as long as the social (public and political) sphere exists so too will such things as conventions – the inevitable results of men living or working in a concerted or co-operative manner, pursuing commonly-held ‘self interests’, motives and objectives which inform and drive the natural impulse of preservation of Self. All things considered, this in turn then becomes the basis for all social interaction and relationships. Other means or methods are merely informed consequential or tangential outcomes – propelled by the primary driving force which links all social activity – of the individual, first and foremost, Survival of Self, the Private Individual within the sphere of the Social or Public. Society, however constituted.
Thus, by entering into social contracts – for the protection and enforcement of civil rights, legally and constitutionally, free of undue restraints or influences – admits that reason informs us that the governed agrees to regulations or guiding principles of ‘civil behaviour or conduct’ which are upheld by force of obligation, duty or responsibility – civic duty to obey and observe the spirit, if not the letters of such covenants – whose civic observance, apparently, outweigh any benefit which can be derived from another form of society – regardless of offer or promise.
The difference then, between the ruler and the ruled, the master or the slave, the free or the subjected amounts to the same sort of difference that exists between being asked to select between life and certain death, to submit and surrender or be killed – at moment of defeat. Under such conditions, the defeated is free to choose the terms under which he is willing to subject his ‘natural or personal rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness – self preservation then embodied as being a slave and a freeman (death in this instance). Submission to any terms or conditions which modify and transfer such private rights then fall under the scope or control of a social contract or a civil, sovereign authority.
So, willing consent or transference (by authorised or representative proxy or in person) becomes the linchpin that binds a liberal and democratic society together. The State, in essence, becomes or remains a mere representation of the Public Will – comprised of private person or associations acting in concert or association towards a common goal – constitutional freedom of the subjects or citizens, as assured by Law.
Aristotle addressed these issues and concerns prior to men such as Hobbes, Locke or Rousseau. Aristotle himself states in the Politics that all associations have ends: the political association has the highest. But the principle of association expresses itself in different forms, and through different modes of government.
“Every polis or state is a species of association and, … all associations are constituted for the purpose of attaining some good. … we may, therefore, hold … that all associations aim at some good and that … the particular association which is most sovereign of all and includes all the rest will pursue this aim most …. This most sovereign and inclusive association is the polis .. or the political association.” (5) (Politics BkI, chpI, 1252a pg 1)
It is a mistake, he continues, to assert or hold or believe that the statesman (politician) who handles the affairs of the political associations is the same as a monarch or the manager of a household or master of slaves.
” …. each of these persons differ from the others not with a difference in kind but merely with a difference of degree and according to the number or the paucity of the persons with whom he deals. … a man who is concerned with few persons is a master; one who is concerned with more …. the manager of a household; one with still more … is a statesman or a monarch.
This view abolishes any real difference between a large household and a polis; …. it reduces the difference between the statesman and the monarch to the fact that the latter has uncontrolled and sole authority while the former exercises his authority in conformity with rules imposed by statesmanship .. as one who rules and is ruled in turn … the essential difference between these persons and the associations with which they are concerned.” (6) (Politics BkI, chpI, 1252a pg 1)
In the Ethics he points out that even something as common as friendship can be perceived or construed as being a form of association.
“Every form of friendship involves association. Kinship and comradeship may be distinguished as peculiar forms … they depend on natural feelings and innate sympathy. The form of friendship that unites fellow citizens or tribesmen or fellow voyagers in more in the nature of pure association …. it seems to rest on some sort of compact.
All associations are in the nature of parts of the political association … men journey together with a view to some particular advantage and … providing some thing needed for the purposes of life; similarly, political associations seem to come together and continue in existence for the sake of the general advantage which it brings. (Politics BkI, chpI, 1252a pg 2)
Consequently, in examining the nature of civil or political society it is incumbent on us to first have an understanding of the fundamental nature or make up of society in general. By distinguishing between and understanding the differences from which social or civil associations are derived and the reasons why they exist – tracing backwards through all previous associations it becomes clear that whether associated as a man and woman, husband and wife, parent and child …. of the household, the village or that of the State … the political association, regardless of its form or structure is ultimately derived from some private or individual claim of ownership to inalienable rights to which neither crown nor state can lay claim to without consent.
Every person is, in essence, lord or master over his or her domain. Governed and guided by a common law based on an inalienable (private) right which is constituted and entrenched into Law as civil or common laws and rights. These are in turn, regulated by public and civil rights or liberties, such as the right to own and dispose of personal and/or private property – the basis of wealth.
Social status is but a consequential addition or attribute to wealth accumulation. However, its impact on the rest of civil society, the political association or the individual citizens directly or indirectly falls under the purview of The State since public property (wealth included) distribution is a role assigned to the executive arm of the State.
Wealth accumulation (property), on the other hand rests in the hands of private citizens – they having either joined the state directly or through some form of association (a social contract) and implies that membership included some sort of exchange or trade that made it necessary or possible to have wealth exchange hands in a civil manner and without direct state intervention into the private lives of the citizens.
Understanding the role or nature of the press (mass media in modern day society) – in the context of what are the socio-political consequences of allowing a forum or having an instrument whereby the general citizenship is – presumably, sufficiently informed or engaged in rational and reasoned discourses, both in theory and reality – allowed to impact on or influence the form or manner in which the general or public will (encompassed and enshrined in the notion of the State) is expressed or exercised in a society founded on democratic, liberal and capitalistic ideals. That is, what is the basis for asserting the State, a symbolic social authority can be exercised against the natural self-interests of free men, without undue coercion?
31/01/2022 17:06:19 -0500