Anderson's Presupposition of Conflict Solely Arising from Scarcity - Umer
Elizabeth Anderson makes a very compelling argument for an alternate reading of Locke through the lens of the Puritan work ethic in "The Great Reversal." However, one of her key assumptions in section 2.3 (The Work Ethic, State Power, and Positive Rights) is that scarcity drives people to conflict, and scarcity alone. In Anderson's words: "But what leads people to conflict in the first place? Locke's answer is: scarcity. Until the commons is entirely appropriated, people have no reason to quarrel over property." (Anderson 35) She re-emphasises this point later in section 2.6 (Locke's Work Ethic (2): Distinguishing Industrious Workers from the Idle Poor), where she says "Recall that scarcity - the lack of enough and as good land for everyone to directly produce their own subsistence - is the basic cause of the domestic conflicts that drive people into political society." (Anderson 54)
This assumption, that scarcity alone is the only motivating factor for people to exit the state of nature and form states, underpins much of Anderson's argument throughout the text. However, I find this to be a strange assertion, as one of the first concessions Locke makes in the Second Treatise of Government is:
I doubt not but it will be objected, that it is unreasonable for men to be judges in their own cases, that self-love will make men partial to themselves and their friends: and on the other side, that ill-nature, passion and revenge will carry them too far in punishing others; and hence nothing but confusion and disorder will follow; and that therefore God hath certainly appointed government to restrain the partiality and violence of men. I easily grant, that civil government is the proper remedy for the inconveniences of the state of nature, which must certainly be great, where men may be judges in their own case, since it is easy to be imagined, that he who was so unjust as to do his brother an injury, will scarce be so just as to condemn himself for it; but I shall desire those who make this objection, to remember, that absolute monarchs are but men; and if government is to be the remedy of those evils, which necessarily follow from men’s being judges in their own cases, and the state of nature is therefore not to be endured, I desire to know what kind of government that is, and how much better it is than the state of nature, where one man, commanding a multitude, has the liberty to be judge in his own case, and may do to all his subjects whatever he pleases, without the least liberty to any one to question or control those who execute his pleasure? and in whatsoever he doth, whether led by reason, mistake or passion, must be submitted to? much better it is in the state of nature, wherein men are not bound to submit to the unjust will of another: and if he that judges, judges amiss in his own, or any other case, he is answerable for it to the rest of mankind.
Here (Locke 12), Locke clearly outlines that the fundamental issue with the state of nature that needs to be addressed in any civil government is the unaccountability of those who wield the power to dispense "justice." He even goes as far as to say that if this is not remedied in the formation of a society, then people are better off remaining in the state of nature!
Now, I do not necessarily think that this contradicts any arguments that Anderson makes. However, I would contest that the creation of a justice system with sufficient transparency and accountability would be of greater concern to Locke than the economic argument Anderson makes. This issue of "self-love" undermining the maintenance of justice in the state of nature could conceivably arise well before the issue of scarcity; in fact, I would argue that it would arise long before scarcity came into the picture. Therefore, addressing this issue would take precedence, at least in the way I have read Locke.
Hi Umer!
ReplyDeleteThis is a great blog post! I really appreciated how you drew out one of the main assumptions that Anderson uses in her piece and displayed the way this led her to different conclusions about why humans exit the state of nature.
I wanted to comment on your claim that instead of "scarcity" leading humans to exit the state of nature, like Anderson argues, it is as you say, "the unaccountability of those who wield the power to dispense 'justice'". I agree with Anderson that scarcity is what leads to conflict and not lack of fair authority to hold people accountable that is the problem with the state of nature. Scarcity, as Locke explains, is the impetus for conflict. People only fight once there is not enough property for all and disputes over whose is whose arise. This leads people to a seek civil government where there is an impartial judge who can make a fair ruling. The problem of "self-love" that you bring up only becomes a problem for Locke once there is a dispute that needs to be resolved. People act in their own self interest when punishing others or taking revenge when they are in the state of nature. I think that conflict comes first and motivates people into civil government where a more fair and transparent justice system can exist. I think you are right in regards of the importance of the maintenance of justice but just have the order of events slightly off.
Hey Dara, thanks for the comment. That's an interesting way to think about it, I don't think I considered it in that order. I think the way I was approaching it was more that I could definitely see scenarios in which "self-love" could make people go too far in punishing each other for crimes committed before the commons is entirely appropriated (or enough that scarcity becomes an issue). I see your point though, and I can see both of us being right in different instances.
DeleteI think at scale, or perhaps in more modern scenarios, your point is definitely more applicable. The way I read it (which might be the more cynical reading) is that humans are naturally inclined to "self-love" which makes us unfair adjudicators in any disputes involving ourselves. Since Locke himself doesn't mention scarcity here, I assumed that people need executive power in the state of nature in the interest of self-preservation because our inherent "ill-nature" will cause one person to upset the natural harmony, thus triggering a domino effect where "nothing but confusion and disorder will follow."
I don't doubt that scarcity is a major issue, particularly through the lens of the puritan work ethic that Anderson uses to frame her interpretation of Locke's theories. My own reading (the more cynical/pessimistic one) leads me to believe that the foremost priority is to establish a system of government that is impartial in settling disputes of property. However, you raise a good point, and you've given me a lot to think about with respect to the intricacies of different scenarios that might cause one flaw (either scarcity or self-love) to precede the other.