For years social contract theorists had monopolized the explanation of modern society. John Locke was among those who advocated this theory of a collectively chosen set of circumstances. Carole Pateman, on the other hand rejects many of the pillars of the social contract and specifically attacks certain aspects of Locke's argument regarding paternalism and patriarchy. Pateman defends her idea that the individual about which Locke writes is masculine, instead of the gender-encompassing form of the word
"man." Pateman also argues that Locke denies the individuality of women. Instead of scrapping his entire work, however, she grants him a couple of concessions, even acknowledging Locke as anti-patriarchal. If John Locke were around to defend his theories, he would probably have an opinion about the treatment of his work.
To accurately discuss Pateman's view of Locke's paternal/patriarchal theory, a working knowledge of the theory itself is necessary. According to Locke "all men by nature are equal"(Second Treatise: 43) with the exception of children who have not reached the full state of equality, but must obey their parents. Domestic and political power is vested in the Father, according to Locke. As he puts it, "the natural fathers of families, by an insensible change, became the politic monarchs of them too."(Second
Treatise: 42) Locke does not reserve domestic power regarding children solely to the
Father, however. Instead he claims that the mother "hath an equal title."(Second
Treatise: 30) He even defends the rights of children. Locke argues that children have the same moral rights as any other person, though the child's inadequate mental faculties make it permissible for his parents to rule over him to a limited degree. "Thus we are born Free, as we are born Rational; not that we have actually the Exercise of either:
Age that brings one, brings with it the other too." (Second Treatise: 30) Locke does specify that children are free because of their "father's title," in addition to being governed by the law of their father. It is less clear in this situation whether Locke is using the term "father" to include both parents as the "term" man can be interpreted to mean both sexes. It is likely, based on the tradition of male heredity prevalent during his time, that Locke liter...
... middle of paper ...
...tical monarchs." Another far-reaching defense Locke could pose for his theories is a simple clarification of terms. Pateman relies heavily on the fact that Locke's definition of "man" is man, not humanity. If the late philosopher were present today he could clarify precisely what he meant by this term, and dispel or support Pateman's accusation.
John Locke's view of the the social contract comes under attack by the criticism of Carole Pateman. She not only refutes his use of terms, but also accuses
Locke of ignoring women. Pateman claims that Locke purposefully left women out of the original contract in the same fashion that he denies their individuality. Like most people, Locke would likely defend himself and his theories to the best of his abilities if he were able. Either way, Pateman's critique provides the opportunity for reexamination of a widely accepted theory and theorist.
Works Cited
Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis: Hackett
Publishing Co, 1980.
Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1988.
Comments: This is an evaluation of modern-feminist philosopher Carole Pateman's description of John Locke's theories.
he sees his father as strict, but not overly demanding. He seems to begin to
Locke clarified the problem by pointing out his notions that mostly derived from the natural state of human beings. Each man was originally born and predestined to have his own body, hands, head and so forth which can help him to create his own labor. When he knew how to use his personal mind and labor to appropriate bountiful subjects around him, taking them "out of the hands of...
1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another. He makes a strong suggestion by saying, “that creatures of the same species and rank, should also be equal one amongst another, without subordination or subjection, unless the lord and master of them all should, by any manifest declaration of his will, set one above another, and confer on him, by an evident and clear appointment, an undoubted right to dominion and sovereignty.” For people to confirm the state of Nature, a law is set that obliges people to follow and consult it. The Law of Nature brings many things that need to be followed by each person. Locke describes the law’s consequences if not obeyed by saying, “the execution of the law of Nature is in that state put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree as may hinder its violation.” Every law is fair and equal to every person. As you have equal rights, you may also be punished equally if you don’t obey it.
John Locke is the most influential character in American history, thought, and practice. Without the influence of his writings, America would not have the same foundation of unalienable Rights, stable governance, and quality of life. However, Locke remains widely unknown and unstudied by the newer generations of Americans. His most influential work, the Second Treatises of Government, laid the ground, both theoretically and institutionally, for the American system of government that has been enjoyed for over two centuries. His influence on the American way of thinking is made evident when examining the text of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution.
One of Locke’s broadest conclusions is his definition of the role of the state. He defines the states only real role is to ensure justice is done based on what he states are unalienable rights granted to all: life, liberty and the pursuit of estate. Because society has given birth to the state to defend these rights that define justice, society also grants legitimacy to the state. We see echoes of Locke’s theories manifested in societal archetypes like democracy and perhaps even certain anarchist theories.
Furthermore, Locke's passion for morality is also seen in his interpretation of the social contract. We see that Locke's ideas in freedom of life, liberty, and property have formed the basic morals of past and current governments. One of Edwards's morals that have been seen throughout American history is the infinite sovereignty of G...
Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and civil society, the concepts with which each theorist associates liberty, and the means of ensuring and safeguarding liberty that each theorist devises.
Tong, R. & Williams, N. (2009) Feminist Ethics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Metaphysics Research Lab, CSLI, Stanford University. Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-ethics/.
If scholarship is done right, it is that which is done impartially. The topic of this paper, the perfect woman, written by a man, may give those with prejudgments a ready answer to it; without the due analysis required by it. Reading both authors now, it is easy to bash Rousseau with sexism and stamp Wollstonecraft with feminism. But such was not my task, rather I examined both with an unprejudiced eye to the best of my ability. Thus, I hope the same is reciprocated by my reader, and take my interpretations and criticisms with the same impartial mind. To begin, then, my argument, I assert that although Rousseau and Wollstonecraft effect disparate views on the best education for women, the supposed disagreement of their model of the perfect woman is specious; their concept of the human species and its purpose is truly in contention.
Locke believes that everyone is born as a blank slate. According to Locke there is no innate human nature but human nature is something we create. And because we are born as an equal blank slate all men have the opportunity to create human nature therefore Locke believed all men are created equal. Unlike Bentham Locke believed that government needed to take a step back and allow for each individual to have the right to three things: life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Governments role should not be in dictating people what to do but to allow individuals to their three
In the analysis of the issue in question, I have considered Mary Wollstonecraft’s Text, Vindication of the Rights of Woman. As an equivocal for liberties for humanity, Wollstonecraft was a feminist who championed for women rights of her time. Having witnessed devastating results or men’s improvidence, Wollstonecraft embraced an independent life, educated herself, and ultimately earned a living as a writer, teacher, and governess. In her book, “A Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” she created a scandal perhaps to her unconventional lifestyle. The book is a manifesto of women rights arguing passionately for educating women. Sensualist and tyrants appear right in their endeavor to hold women in darkness to serve as slaves and their plaything. Anyone with a keen interest in women rights movement will surely welcome her inexpensive edition, a landmark documen...
Abrams 1604 - 1606. Peterson, Linda H. "What Is Feminist Criticism?" Wuthering Heights. Ed. Linda H. Peterson, Ph.D. Boston: Bedford Books, 1992.
...tainly possessed these qualities of life even with all is idiosyncrasies Locke believed we were all created equal that this was “self-evident”. Locke’s’ reason was to abide by the laws of God as well as the government. He thought that we should be mindful of how we treat ourselves and others at all times for as long as we live. . As a result of Locke’s views, he established “New liberties that would be enshrined in civil, social, and political rights”. (Biblical Politics pg. 95) “Although Locke’s new political order left individuals free from subjection to authority and helped overcome gender and similar barriers to personal and social advancement, this order also became problematic: a new-found emphasis on reason ultimately led to a disruption in the human spirit and to new forms of social isolation”.( Biblical Politics pg. 95-96)
“No body doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entring into any Society, makes him a perfect member of that Society, a Subject of that Government” (Laslett 1988, p.119). Thus, in a Lockean view, the very presence of one on the ‘soil’ shows that s/he has given, more specifically, tacit consent. Yet, Locke fails to give any examples that could illustrate this notion and support it any further. As a result, it is inevitable that many questions arise. For instance, one could not know w...
” (Hernandez 2013b, 16) In Locke’s words, he says that all men are created equal by God and have natural rights to life, liberty and property, including their body nature and for its purpose of self-preservation. Once the societies are formed, men will no longer able to take control in their hands because the purpose of the government is to protect each individual’s natural right and also to provide for the common good. Liberty means as an individual we have the freedom that we can take our responsibility in matters in our hands. It is relevant to us as a human being to have rights of our own than to have the government making decision for us. The challenge of balancing the government needs for individual freedom and legitimacy is the people feel that they have the rights to speak and take priority into their