Considered one of the absolutist power theorists in force in the Modern Age, Thomas Hobbes lived between 1588 and 1679. For Hobbes, the State should be the fundamental institution to regulate human relations, given the character of the natural condition of men who it drives the search for the fulfillment of their desires in any way, at any cost, in a violent, selfish way, that is, moved by passions.
He asserted that men take no pleasure in each other's company when there is no power capable of maintaining to all in respect, because each one wants his partner to attribute to him the same value that he attributes to himself own. Thus, such a situation would be conducive to a fight of everyone against everyone for the desire of the recognition, for the search for the preservation of life and the realization of what man (judge of their actions) want. From this point of view would emerge Hobbes' famous expression: "Man is man's wolf."
Hence, in Hobbes' words, "if two men desire the same thing... they become enemies." Everyone would be free and equal to pursue profit, security and reputation. In the words of Francisco Welfort, in his work entitled
The Classics of Politics (2006), equality between men, in Hobbes's view, generates ambition, discontent and war. Equality would be the factor that contributes to the war of everyone against everyone, leading them to fight for the individual interest at the expense of the common interest. Obviously, this would be the result of man's rationality, since, being endowed with reason, he has a critical sense of living in group, being able to criticize the given organization and thus, in Hobbes' words, judge themselves wiser and better able to exercise power public.Thus, the issue of equality and freedom in Hobbes is seen differently from that more conventional reading of these terms, with “positive” meanings, as seen in the revolutions against the absolutist power of kings, especially in the case of the Revolution French. Therefore, freedom according to Hobbes would be harmful to the relationship between individuals, because in the absence of “brakes”, everyone can do anything, against everyone.
Peace would only be possible when everyone renounced the freedom they have over themselves. Hobbes discusses the possible forms of contracts and pacts in his work Leviathan, pointing out that the State is the result of the "pact" made between men so that, simultaneously, all abdicate their “total freedom”, of the state of nature, allowing the concentration of this power in the hands of a sovereign ruler. It would be necessary to artificially create a political society, administered by the State, establishing a moral order for primitive social brutality. Quoting Hobbes, Francisco Welfort shows that the Hobbesian state would be marked by fear, with Leviathan himself being a monster whose armor is made of scales that are her subjects, brandishing a menacing sword, ruling sovereignly through this fear that inflicts upon the subjects. In short, this Leviathan (that is, the sovereign State itself) will concentrate a series of rights (which cannot be divided) to to be able to hold control of society, in the name of peace, security and social order, as well as to defend everyone from enemies external. More specifically, in Hobbes' words:
"This is more than consent or agreement, as it boils down to a true unity of all of them, in a single and the same person, fulfilled by a pact of each man with all men [...] This is the generation of that huge Leviathan, or rather – with all reverence – from that mortal god, to whom we owe, under the Immortal God, our peace and defense” [...] It is in him that consists the essence of the State, which can be defined as follows: ‘A great multitude institutes a person, through reciprocal pacts with one another, to name of each one as author, to be able to use the strength and resources of all, in the way he sees fit, to ensure peace and defense ordinary'. The sovereign is the one who represents that person”. (HOBBES, 2003, p.130-131).
Thus, these would be some of the principles that would justify the discourses of absolutist power throughout the Modern Age. It is evident that in this state model that disregarded individual freedoms, there would be no room for democracy and its institutions. On the contrary, the uses of force, austerity and repression generate societies where inequality, instability, fear and the emptying of political discussion prevail. Therefore, the end of the Modern Age was marked by the French Revolution, headed by a bourgeoisie discontented with the excesses of a king and desirous of political participation. Thus, when looking at History, it is possible to see that the characteristics of this Sovereign State were not limited to monarchies in Europe, but were also present – even that indirectly and in a different guise – in various dictatorial regimes such as in Brazil and in so many other countries in the second half of the 20th century, keeping due proportions. Likewise, it is against totalitarian states with such characteristics that many peoples of North Africa and the Middle East are fighting today.
Paulo Silvino Ribeiro
Brazil School Collaborator
Bachelor in Social Sciences from UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Master in Sociology from UNESP - São Paulo State University "Júlio de Mesquita Filho"
Doctoral Student in Sociology at UNICAMP - State University of Campinas
Sociology - Brazil School
Source: Brazil School - https://brasilescola.uol.com.br/sociologia/o-papel-estado-segundo-thomas-hobbes.htm
