JOHN LOCKE'S
SECOND TREATISE:
READING TIPS, CHRONOLOGY, AND STUDY QUESTIONS FOR CHAPTERS I-V
Locke is a very
logical thinker; but sometimes his splitting a main point into subpoints, or
his charting out all the nuances of a political idea, will make him sound
repetitious. And sometimes the sentences will seem never to end. In the
past, however, I have found that if you patiently read and re-read, even the
most seemingly knotted-up passages make sense, and that much of the prose is
actually a pleasure to read once you get the hang of it.
Background and
Chronology
You first need to
understand that, although, Locke is writing a "universal" argument-treatise
about power and the protection of property and liberty, his ideas emerge from
a very contentious, bloody civil war in the middle of the 17th-century in
England.
Political
theorists of the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries often sought to explain and
justify political systems (in which there are rulers, judges, written laws,
police, and so on) by speculating upon the so-called "state of nature" that
hypothetically came before such systems. "To understand political power
right, and derive it from its original," Locke writes, "we must consider, what
state all men are naturally in" (paragraph #4). Thomas Hobbes, a British
philosopher living roughly a generation before Locke, in his well-known
political treatise, Leviathan (1651), said life in the state of nature
was "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." He theorized that we bond
together via a social compact or contract, and relinquish all power and
freedom into the hands of an absolute monarch, who supposedly will adjudicate
disputes and maintain the general welfare of everyone. Hobbes thought that
this ruler must have unrestricted, absolute power, for only thus could order
be maintained over our otherwise "brutish" inclinations. Once established,
the sovereignty of the monarch could not be contested (the "leviathan" of the
title refers to the power of the monarch). Sir Robert Filmer, the man Locke
is arguing against at the beginning of the Second Treatise, said that
kings are divinely appointed because they are Adam's heirs. Locke and his
aristocratic patron, the Earl of Shaftesbury, felt that the British king
(Charles II) was tyrannical, abusing the citizens of the kingdom and
infringing upon their various rights.
You don't need to
memorize the dates below, but try to get a sense of the time period in which
Locke is writing.
1517 Martin
Luther's 95 Theses. Protestant reformation begins. Increasingly, major
thinkers will challenge authority and received traditions in politics,
religion, and science.
1521 Conquest
of Mexico by Cortez. Part of Locke's book is about property, and it has been
used to support imperialistic ideology.
1603 Queen
Elizabeth dies; James I rules until 1625; Charles I until 1649.
1607 Founding
of Jamestown in Virginia.
1616
Shakespeare dies.
1620 "Pilgrim
Fathers," a sect of British Puritans, land at Plymouth.
1632 Locke born
in Somerset, England.
1637 Descartes'
Meditations published (in which appears the most famous line in
philosophy, "I think, therefore I am").
1642 English
Civil War begins (country divided between pro-Catholic loyalists to Charles I
and Protestant landed nobleman and propertied classes, who feel the king has
disregarded their traditional rights and privileges; more democratical,
radical groups--the Levellers--are also against the king).
1649 Charles I
is beheaded; Cromwell, a radical Puritan, leads the parliamentary Commonwealth
to 1660.
1651 Hobbes'
Leviathan (a famous political treatise defending absolute monarchy)
published.
1652 Locke
begins study of philosophy and medicine at Oxford.
1660
Restoration of monarchy in England; Charles II rules.
1667 Locke
enters the Earl of Shaftesbury's service.
1682 After
conspiring to rebel against Charles II, Shaftesbury must flee to Holland.
1683 Locke also
flees to Holland.
1685 Charles
II, on the throne since 1660, dies; James II (a Catholic) becomes king.
1687 Newton's
Principia Mathematica. The Einstein of his age, Newton's theories of
matter and motion seem to explain the workings of the universe--an optimistic
sense of being able to control nature ensues. God no longer perceived as
routinely intervening in the cosmos; instead, the Deity has created a
perfectly rational, harmonious universe (like a super-complex watch), and he
is best known by understanding his creation, the natural world. The latter
philosophy is called "Deism" and was what many 18th-century intellectuals
(such as B. Franklin) believed.
1688 English
"Glorious Revolution." William III (Protestant) usurps the throne, by
invitation of Parliament (from now on, government in Britain is parliamentary,
with kings & queens increasingly becoming only symbolic figureheads).
1689 Parliament
issues Bill of Rights--no law can be suspended by the King.
1690 Locke's
Essay Concerning Human Understanding published. Main theory is that our
minds are "blank slates" when we are born. There are no inborn ideas
(traditional Christian notion of innate depravity, the inheritance of Adam and
Eve's sin, loses validity for intellectuals of the period); we gain knowledge
only through experience and our environment. Consequently, education becomes
very important--perhaps humankind can be perfected in the progress of time.
Combined with optimism from Newton's scientific ideas, the "Age of
Enlightenment" emerges in full swing. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson,
and company all read and took Locke to heart. They are all considered
"Enlightenment" thinkers.
1690 Two
Treatises on Civil Government published, to legitimate the overthrow of
James II.
1702 William
III dies. Queen Anne reigns to 1714.
1704 Locke
dies.
Study/Review
Questions for the Chapters One-Five
CHAPTER ONE
1-3 In the
First Treatise (referred to as the "foregoing discourse" in Chapter 1 of the
Second Treatise), Locke argued against the notion of the divine right of
kings. Locke sums up his argument in Chapter I: what does he say about the
relationship of present rulers' authority to Adam's rule?
CHAPTER TWO
4-6 Imagine
you are the director of a movie-documentary of Locke's treatise: what opening
scenes would you shoot to illustrate the "state of nature," as Locke describes
it here? How does he describe the way individuals interact, before
governments exist? Is the "state of nature" lawless? If it is not lawless,
how are its laws known? Do we have any obligations in the "state of nature"?
7 How do
you relate Locke's earlier idea about the state of nature being "a state of
perfect freedom" (paragraph #4) to the idea here about the need for "all men
to be restrained from invading others' rights"? What does he mean when he
writes "the execution of the law of nature is ... put into every man's hands"?
11 Why do
you think Locke compares murderers and other breakers of the law to animals?
12
According to Locke, in the state of nature, how much can you punish a
transgressor of the law? Imagine you live in the state of nature, without
government: you discover your neighbor has stolen your favorite pig. What do
you do? What would an appropriate punishment be?
13 Does
Locke seem to think that everyone having "executive" power in the state of
nature would lead to a Mad Max sort of world? What does Locke refer to when
he speaks of the "inconveniences of the state of nature"? Does Locke seem to
envision the state of nature in this section in the same way that he did
earlier in Chapter I?
CHAPTER THREE
19 Locke
says that the state of nature and the state of war are distinct? On what
basis does he make this distinction? What does he mean in this section when
he uses the phrases "common superior" or "common judge"?
20 Locke gives a "great reason for men's putting themselves into
society and quitting the state of nature: that is, for creating a community
with an explicit government. What is the reason?
CHAPTER FOUR
23 When,
according to Locke, is slavery justified?
CHAPTER FIVE
25
Initially, in the state of nature, who owns property? Restate for yourself
what Locke proposes to "shew" at the end of this paragraph.
26-30 According
to Locke, what gives an individual a right to property? Is this right to
property conferred by society-at-large, by government, and if by neither, by
what?
31 In the
state of nature, how much property can you accumulate? Should you be able to
kill, say, three deer if you and your kin could only eat one deer for dinner?
32 How
does land become private property?
33 & 36
Why, initially, would there be little competition for land?
37 Try to
envision how a society without money would function. Why, before the
invention of money, was it more or less "impossible for any man" to acquire so
much property as to harm his neighbor?
37 & 40-44
Write (for yourself) a brief paragraph explaining why mankind as a whole
benefits from the labor of each. This is the key argument for Locke's thesis
that the right to keep the fruits of one's labor (property) is for the common
benefit, and is not merely one person getting wealthy at the expense of
others. Pay attention to Locke's references to Indians (the inhabitants of
the "Americas") in #37 and #41: what point is he making? What sort of
countries do you think would find Locke's ideas in these sections the most
useful?
46-50 Write
(again, for yourself) a brief paragraph describing the effect of money on
economic life. How have we "agreed to a disproportionate and unequal
possession of the earth" (#50)? A final question to ponder: go back to #37
and answer this question: according to Locke, does the invention of money
allow us to satisfy an innate acquisitive urge, or does it create greed in the
first place? What do you think Locke would say about the Donald Trumps of the
world?
Summary of
Locke's Argument about Property
--you own your
body/own labor of your body
--mixing your labor
with nature’s stuff removes it from common ownership (granted by the Bible,
Locke says, in the lines about Adam getting dominion of the earth and its
creatures) and makes it yours
--this makes sense
because it is labor activity that makes natural resources of true value (e.g.,
the coconut has no use until you pick it up or climb a palm tree to get it)
--Locke does not have
a strong concept of ecological stewardship or communal labor, because he is so
preoccupied with individualistic labor and individualistic acquisition
--he does say, though,
that you only get to convert to private property what can be used without
spoiling (actually, the no-spoiling rule could maybe be used against Locke and
modern conspicuous consumption: i.e. if Donald Trump’s many mansions lay
vacant…???)
--labor in the form of
tillage etc = “inclose it from the common”: you can acquire real estate
--ok because lots of
land (all the world in the foggy historical beginning) “was America”
--“God gave the world
...to the use of the industrious and rational” i.e. not Indians
--Locke does not
elaborately explain how a barter economy would work; he only says surplus
goods are exchanged for needed goods, which also avoids the problem of
spoiling
--he jumps to money:
“it is plain, that men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal
possession of the earth, they having, by a tacit and voluntary consent, found
out a way how a man may fairly possess more land than he himself can use the
product of, by receiving in exchange for the overplus gold and silver, which
may be hoarded up without injury to any one; these metals not spoiling or
decaying in the hands of the possessor”
--did desire to hoard
(beyond immediate use) create the need for gold? Locke is ambiguous
--or did the capacity of gold to permit hoarding create the hoarding desire?
Locke is ambiguous (his brief puzzlement is an example of the classic
nature/nurture debate: do we indulge certain behaviors, which
“civilization”/culture then codifies or aids in the satisfaction of; or, are
we only nurtured, via “civilization”/culture, to have certain desires?)
Summary of Locke's
Ideas about Revolution: a Guidebook to When You can Revolt, or Not
1) Has the ruler made
his/her ambition or will more important than preserving the law and the
citizens the law in turn protects (section 199)? If you answer “yes,”
continue.
2) Can you appeal to a
court system that might provide remedy (207)? If “yes” you can’t revolt. If
“no”, continue
3) Are only a few
individuals abused (208)? (Locke gets fuzzy here: would he have a serious
problem with, say, the pre-Civil Rights era?)
4) Can the majority
see a train of abuses leading towards tyranny (209-210)? Hmmm… starting to
get tricky. Abuse might only be in the eye of the beholder!
5) Is the ruling
power/gov't malfunctioning = misuse of power (219). Again: requires
interpretation. If I lived in New Orleans, I might say gov’t malfunctioned,
hugely!
6) Must be able to
escape before you are under the heal of the tyrant, so, rather tricky yet
again, you should revolt against a tyrant before full tyranny has become
manifest (which sort of contradicts # 4 above) (220)
7) Ultimately, whether
you are righteously revolting from a bad ruler, or are recklessly rebelling
and are simply a beastly “discontent” is unclear: only "impartial history" can
determine (230). Example: John Brown, the pre-Civil War radical abolitionist,
was thought to be a madman in his day and was hung for sedition; today, he’s a
hero.
Review of Locke's
Entire Argument
1) In the state of
nature no one is subordinate to another: all have equal rights (life/liberty)
and executive/judge power.
--reason lets us know
this (We “hold these truths to be self evident” Jefferson says in the Dec. of
Ind.)
--divine right of
kings/absolute monarchy, based on genealogical descent from Adam, is bogus
2) But peace is
precarious: much insecurity because we might not use our power rationally.
--might punish too
much
--some (lacking
reason) might attempt to dominate others (Locke does not have a psychological
vocabulary for the irregular use of power: maybe we need Freud to pathologize
power? Or the lust for treasure/money?)
3) Social contract
emerges: we transfer our power to the state /gov't by consent.
--gov’t then assumes
judge/executive power
--takes care of what
he calls “inconveniences” of the state of nature
--Locke’s is an
analytical/theoretical rather than strictly or realistic
anthropological/temporal-historical argument. Antecedent rights are needed to
validate a state that protects them or to condemn a state that doesn’t. Let
me say this more emphatically: it is very difficult to condemn racism or
torture if you don’t believe that fundamental trans-cultural, universal human
rights exist. “Proving” that such rights exist, without a transcendental
deity notion (where Locke begins), is almost impossible.
4) In return, the
individual gains security (life, liberty, property)
5) Do you remember
consenting? thus Chapters VI, VII, VIII in which such elements as children’s
acceptance of the social contract by virtue of inheritance are argued (Locke
could have said inheritance is bad, based on the importance of labor value,
but instead he makes inheritance the glue that binds the social contract thru
time… very convenient for the accumulation of capital over time!!!)
6) Sure, you can
revolt, but the rules are tricky (master rhetorician Thomas Jefferson applied
them, apparently rather compellingly, in the Declaration of Independence)