Thomas Hobbes’ analysis of human nature and citizenship
in Leviathan begins with a lengthy discussion on language. The relevance of language to international
theory might not be evident at first glance. As you move through the text, however,
a strong case is made by Hobbes regarding the correlation between language and
international outcomes. The first of Leviathan’s four parts is devoted to understanding
the senses of the human being. Hobbes believed that in order to understand the
state, we first needed to understand mankind. Furthermore, Hobbes argues that speech
is the outward expression of a man’s inner thoughts. He identifies four main
uses of speech:
1.
To remember cause and effect relationships.
2.
To display our level of knowledge.
3.
For pure pleasure.
4.
To express our intentions and desires to others.
According to Hobbes, language is not only an extension of a
man’s cognition, but rather, the capacity of the human mind depends heavily on use
of language. It is not farfetched then to assume that sovereign states act like
persons. One cannot simply deliberate on the topic of world politics without
addressing the role of communication (or the lack thereof). Just as a person’s
social position is determined by the quality of their relationships, global
interaction is shaped by how states communicate with, and speak to one another.
War, in every case, can be traced to a premature linguistic cogitation.
Likewise, every truce ascribes to a written or verbal linguistic agreement. Hobbes argues that “truth” is a social
construct founded upon language. Understanding the sensitive nature of this relationship between language and perception allows us to predict and sometimes prevent conflict.
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, New York, NY: W.W. Norton& Company, 1996.
How do you relate the occurrence of war to "premature linguistic cogitation"?
ReplyDeleteBen, thanks for your question. Every violent conflict, no matter how random it may appear, stems from a series of previously expressed thoughts. States at war are first and foremost in linguistic disagreement. That's what is meant here.
ReplyDeleteVery interesting post Fatima. Hobbes effectively takes on the assumption that humans are intellectually superior to animals in large part due to our ability to communicate, with greater nuance and effectiveness, by using language. I would agree that many conflicts do spring from "a series of previously expressed thoughts," as you said. Is Hobbes framing humans' linguistic ability as a detriment, rather than an asset, to accord?
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post Fatima? I think that most of us were pulled in by the discussion of language, which is very logical. I think that there is another nuance to the implications of language in the international arena: it can be misused. Hobbes warns against this in many ways. So this begs another question to add to your: how often is language manipulated for the purpose of leading to coercion or rational behavior?
ReplyDeleteHi Hannah, the comment left by IR_World sort of alludes to my response to the question that you pose. I would agree that Hobbes warns his readers about the power of language for good, but also for evil. Hobbes argues that the lack of a sovereign power to enforce security, man's tongue will continue to lead us to anarchy. Thank you both for continuing this discussion!
ReplyDelete