Thomas Hobbes proposed a stark bargain at the dawn of the modern state: surrender a measure of individual freedom to an absolute sovereign, the Leviathan, and in return, receive security from a life that was “solitary, poor,nasty, brutish, and short.” For centuries, this social contract, however imperfect, held the state as its central authority. But what happens when the Leviathan is no longer a single entity? What becomes of the contract when sovereignty is fractured, sold, and outsourced to a new breed of titan—the modern corporation—an entity whose primary allegiance is not to the public good, but to its own perpetual growth and profit?
This Substack is reader-supported. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
The Leviathan in Hobbes’ Theory
Thomas Hobbes’s conception of the Leviathan is foundational to his political philosophy, articulated primarily in his seminal work, Leviathan (1651). Central to Hobbes’s argument is the idea that in order to escape the chaos and violence of a state of nature, individuals must collectively surrender certain freedoms to a sovereign authority, which he metaphorically termed the “Leviathan”.
State of Nature and the Social Contract
Hobbes begins by positing a theoretical state of nature, where humans exist without institutions, government, or coercive power. In this state, individuals are driven by their primal instincts, leading to a life that is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. To avoid this chaos, Hobbes argues that individuals enter into a social contract, mutually agreeing to relinquish some of their freedoms in exchange for security and order. This social contract is not merely a historical event but a conceptual framework that underlies the legitimacy of civil authority.
The Sovereign Authority
The sovereign, or Leviathan, emerges as a necessary institution to enforce the social contract. It possesses the absolute power to create and enforce laws, thereby maintaining peace and preventing the return to the state of nature. Hobbes emphasizes that the authority of the Leviathan is derived from the collective will of the people, who consent to be governed in order to achieve a safer and more orderly society. However, this authority must also be carefully balanced to avoid the abuse of power, as excessive control can lead to tyranny and oppression.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.
Lord Acton
The Mythological Framework
The myth of the Leviathan also holds a significant place in political discourse, extending beyond Hobbes’s original context. The imagery of Leviathan, contrasted with Behemoth, has been reinterpreted through various lenses, including Marxist critiques and modern political theories. In contemporary readings, Leviathan represents the fluid dynamism of commercial powers, while Behemoth symbolizes the stability of terrestrial governance. This duality encapsulates the ongoing tension between different forms of authority and their implications for society.
The Trade-Off Between Freedom and Security
Hobbes’s theory illustrates the trade-off that occurs when individuals agree to enter into a social contract. By giving up certain freedoms, individuals gain the benefits of security and societal order. However, this arrangement also raises questions about the implications of a divided sovereign, especially in modern contexts where the Leviathan may manifest in corporate entities as well as governmental structures. The emergence of such corporations can complicate the original social contract, as these entities may seek to exert influence and authority, potentially undermining the collective security that Hobbes envisaged.
The Modern Interpretation of the Leviathan
The concept of the Leviathan, as articulated by Thomas Hobbes in his seminal work, has evolved to encompass various interpretations within contemporary political and economic discourse. Hobbes originally depicted the Leviathan as a metaphor for a powerful sovereign that ensures peace and security by requiring individuals to surrender certain freedoms for collective safety. This idea has been reexamined in light of modern developments, particularly the rise of corporate entities as significant actors within society.
Leviathan and Corporations
In Hobbes’ view, the Leviathan serves as a necessary authority to prevent societal chaos, but the emergence of corporations has led to a reinterpretation of this dynamic. Corporations, often seen as extensions of the Leviathan, possess considerable power to shape societal norms and influence political agendas. Hobbes identified corporations as “vital” components of the Leviathan, suggesting that they fulfill essential roles in the governance and functioning of society. However, this relationship raises questions about the balance of power and the potential for corporations to undermine the original protective intent of the Leviathan.
The Mythological Framework of Leviathan and Behemoth
The modern interpretation of the Leviathan also draws from the mythological framework surrounding Leviathan and Behemoth, particularly in the context of political movements. The beasts symbolize opposing forces: Behemoth represents traditional, land-based powers, while Leviathan embodies fluid, maritime influences associated with commerce and exploration. This dichotomy has been used to analyze the tension between different political forms, such as liberalism and fascism, suggesting that the capitalist state can manifest through either beast depending on historical context. As such, contemporary interpretations often highlight how these mythical elements inform our understanding of the state’s evolution alongside corporate interests.
Corporate Personhood and Rights
The legal concept of corporate personhood has further complicated the interpretation of the Leviathan. As corporations gain rights similar to individuals, they become entitled to protections under constitutional law, including the right to free speech and religious expression. The landmark decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) underscored this expansion of
To hear more, visit www.philosopheasy.com