The History of Modern Political Philosophy
I took a class called “The History of Modern Political Philosophy” at UNC Charlotte in fall 2024 with Dr. Amber Knight. The following “review” is not critical but simply my review of what I learned during the class. I will focus on sharing the parts I found most interesting instead of being comprehensive. It is not meant to be academic; so there will be no references and almost everything is from memory.
The Modern era of political philosophy lasted from roughly the 17th to 20th century. The ranks of Philosophers from this time include some as early as Machiavelli (born 1469) and as late as Engels (born 1820). A wide range, for sure.
You see, it is not the colloquial Modern in Modern Political Philosophy—meaning the opposite of ancient. Instead, it is a specific period of time and cultural norms that followed the Renaissance. It’s an era.
Even wider than the range of time is its range of topics. Reading the political philosophers of this age, you’ll encounter ideas ranging from the ideal way for a prince to consolidate power by committing atrocities all the way to arguments for feminism and communism.
I invite you to join me for a brief stroll through some of the era’s biggest topics and most famous thinkers.
State of Nature
Some of the big ideas of political philosophy are rooted in a “State of Nature” hypothesis. Our imperfect state of society naturally leads us to wonder: what came before? Was it better or worse? Importantly, could that pre-society period contain any insights we could learn from or warnings we should heed? Canonical political philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and even Marx used State of Nature hypotheses to explain and justify their ideas.
Hobbes
Hobbes famously speculated life in a State of Nature was, “nasty, brutish, and short.” This view was possibly due to the English civil wars and the execution of King Charles I, where he glimpsed what anarchical society can devolve to. Consequently, he feared our natural state was one of constant war between every man. The State of Nature was a State of War. This thought led him to propose a—surprisingly liberal—system led by a dictator he calls, “the sovereign.”
Anarchy was the worst outcome for Hobbes. So, he decided it would be best to give his sovereign complete control. The people still had to agree to anoint the sovereign with power, but once this was done the sovereign retained it in perpetuity. There can be no disagreeing with his sovereign, no voting them out, and no resisting orders.
There was one and only one exception. Hobbes said you can resist if the sovereign attempts to take your life. Why? Because the sovereign’s job is to protect you. Taking your life means the sovereign is not fulfilling their end of the bargain, so you may resist.
Since Hobbes saw the State of Nature entirely as a State of War, he sought to avoid regressing to it. This led him to the extreme position of granting total power to his sovereign. Let’s continue to a few other modern political philosophers to see how their view of nature influenced their philosophy.
Locke
After a long enough period for society to stabilize, came John Locke. Where Hobbes equated the State of Nature with a State of War, Locke saw two distinct states—perhaps due to the increased stability during Locke’s time.
In Locke’s mind, the ideal period was the State of Nature. There, humans worked well together and with nature. They cooperated and only used resources necessary for survival. They only entered the State of War when they used more than necessary or when they disagreed. Locke claimed the State of War was rare and could swiftly end by the administration of justice. After all, we have the right to defend ourselves in the States of Nature and War.
However, it is exactly the administration of justice that led Locke to believe we need a neutral authority. You see, Locke thought we are pretty terrible judges in our own disputes. While we are capable of ending the State of War, we tend to end it far too decisively. Our punishments are unnecessarily harsh. So, we need an authority over us that can help us decide these cases fairly—keeping us out of the State of War.
Over what exactly do these disputes occur? Private property, according to Locke. He believed the state’s primary mission was to maintain private property and resolve disputes. This covered the most important parts of our lives because he believed private property encompassed much of what we care about. First, our bodies are the main private property we own. However, when we use our body’s labor and mix it with something else, say, nature, then we can create more private property. For example, when we use our labor to pick an apple, we have mixed our body (which is our private property) with the apple, transforming the apple into our property too.
Since private property encompasses both our body and the things we own, Locke believed the government should focus on maintaining our individual private property rights. This government did not enjoy the unlimited power of Hobbes’ sovereign—even though both must be created by the will of the people. Instead, this government enjoys only the right of (and only so long as it continues) protecting private property.
While Hobbes saw the State of Nature as a horrible place, Locke saw it as both good and bad. So, instead of giving up total power to avoid ever reentering a nature-like position, he gives up only what is necessary to avoid the difficult parts of the State of Nature—disputes over private property.
As you can see, we progressed from negative to neutral views about the State of Nature. Now, what if a philosopher saw it positively?
Rousseau
Hobbes and Locke wanted to improve on the State of Nature by refactoring society based on Nature’s faults. Now, along comes Rousseau who seeks the opposite: to improve the State of Society based on the State of Nature’s virtues. While the other philosophers saw the State of Nature as problematic, Rousseau saw it as ideal.
In Rousseau’s conception of nature, humans have pity for each other. This pity leads them to follow the axiom of nature, which instructs each person to do what is best for themselves while doing as little harm as possible to others. The pity—or compassion—they felt for each other created peace.
Then he takes it further: the humans in Rousseau’s nature are simple. They are not specialized in any particular field and instead know only what (and everything that) is necessary for survival. This means they do not depend on each other. Since his humans only depend on nature and themselves, the only possible inequality is natural—the inequality of nature and chance. It is only when we enter a State of Society that we create a new, social inequality. Social inequality only occurs between humans in society and is made of social status, reputation, and other unnatural notions. This social inequality was far worse to Rousseau.
How can we fix social inequality? By reacquiring our pity. He believed it is not our rationality that saves us (on the contrary, it is what hurts us by stamping out our pity) but our passions—
our compassion. This leads him to propose a society where the people think of the group instead of themselves. Its government is run by the people. Instead of making laws to fix their problems, they search for the general will—that which is good for the group, even if not for the individual. The general will is then translated and enforced by an impartial government that seeks to apply the general will to individual cases.
Hobbes and Locke believed the State of Nature was problematic, so we needed a society that could protect us from its problems. But, as you can see, Rousseau believed the State of Nature was better, so we need to change society to reacquire the parts we lost while leaving nature. He believed we need to reacquire our compassion.
Next, we’ll talk about another Philosopher who thought the State of Nature was better than the State of Society. Except, while Rousseau thought society could never be as good as nature, this philosopher thought society could become a better form of what naturally occurs.
Marx
Karl Marx had mixed feelings about the State of Nature hypothesis. At one time, he poked fun at them, saying they were merely made-up ideas that never happened. Later—perhaps when he felt it better suited his needs—he made the claim that the State of Nature was a period of basic communism.
As surprising as that may sound, it does make sense. But to understand why, we need to understand what communism is. The basic idea of communism is the end of private property. Particularly, it is about the end of the private ownership of the means of production. The means of production are that which produces the things we need to survive: farms, factories, machinery, transportation, and the like. Instead of private ownership, he believed these critical systems should belong equally to everyone. No longer would they be used to enslave us (according to Marx) but to sustain us.
Now, what is the means of production in the State of Nature? If you assume the State of Nature is humans living off nature, then the means of production is merely the human body, perhaps a few basic tools, and nature. Of course, our bodies are privately owned. Perhaps small tools were private or shared with the group. But the big one: nature, was shared equally by everyone. This created a society (or lack thereof) where every human had an equal right to the resources necessary to survive. There was no arbitrary scarcity—although there was of course real scarcity if nature did not provide.
Unlike Rousseau, who saw nature as the ideal, Marx believed this basic communism could improve. Our industry has reduced the likelihood of natural scarcity only to replace it with artificial. He believed that by sharing the means of production (nature and all of the industry we’ve created to harness it) we could nearly eliminate both natural and artificial scarcity.
Purposes
The State of Nature hypothesis serves as a problem statement for each philosopher. What problem is their system solving?
For Hobbes, it’s solving for the anarchy that ensues when a government loses control. For Locke, it's solving for the disputes over ownership that naturally occur between people. Then it swaps for Rousseau, who begins solving not for a problem in the state of nature but in society: the lack of pity and related inequality. Finally, Marx solves problems in both the States of Nature and Society by combining the best of both—eliminating the natural scarcity of nature and the artificial scarcity of society.
Each philosopher solves a problem in either the state of nature or the state of society by looking to the other for inspiration; either for what to strive toward or what to avoid.
Power
When I think about politics, I can’t help but think about power. The same goes for almost every political philosopher of the modern era. They thought about questions like: who deserves to have power and how do they get it? Or, more tactically, what must one do to keep power? That’s exactly what this next thinker focused on.
Machiavelli
You may have heard the term “Machiavellian” used to describe someone who is conniving, brutal, or sly. This term describes the rulers admired by Machiavelli in his book, “The Prince.” Some debate whether Machiavelli was a philosopher or historian because his books, like The Prince, contain advice given through historical examples. Those given in The Prince are designed to keep a Prince in power during a period of struggle in Italy. When alliances were forming and breaking, kings were hiring mercenaries to fight their enemies, and a Prince could be deposed by those around him — Machiavelli provided the examples he believed would lead to success.
The problem is: his examples are what most contemporary people would describe as inhumane, brutal, and even war crimes. But that’s the difference between Machiavelli and other thinkers. While others were thinking about what is right, he was thinking about what is necessary to survive.
A prince who is to survive must understand how to act like both the lion and the fox, according to Machiavelli. The lion is strong and others have a healthy fear of it. Meanwhile, the fox is cunning and sly, so no one even suspects they should fear it. The prince must switch between these modes based on the need.
To be a lion, one must be ready for war at all times. They must not use mercenaries or another’s troops, but keep theirs ready and trained at all times. The prince himself must think of hardly anything but war strategy so he will be ready for any and every attack.
The fox must be ready to use any trick, betrayal, or heinous act necessary to survive. However, the fox must also be careful to ensure he never becomes associated with these acts. The fox does detestable things while maintaining a facade of virtue.
One of Machiavellian’s examples demonstrates how to act like a fox to enforce peace in the land. The prince hires a brutal enforcer who terrorizes the people but also successfully reigns in crime. The land is safe but people hate the king's enforcer. So, what does he do? The king publicly kills the enforcer, winning both the confused awe and appreciation of the people, while still benefiting from the peace his enforcer created.
But there is a side to Machiavelli that many do not know. You see, he wrote another book called, “The Discourses” where he describes how to form and maintain a successful republic (instead of a principality).
The two books could not be more opposed. Where the prince advocates for anything that is necessary to maintain power, the republic seeks to build a society where all ranks can live in peace together. In this society, public debate and even protest are encouraged. The power is balanced between the people and the ruling class and the focus is on creating good laws and good societies.
How could one person hold such opposing ideas at the same time? Truthfully, no one may ever know. But it could be that he simply changed his mind, or wanted to explore both ideas; some even wonder if The Prince contains ideas that seem good but are actually a trap, that would backfire on the one who tried to follow them.
We may never know which Machiavelli truly believed in but we can still think for ourselves: who deserves power and how far should one go to hold on to it?
Hobbes
Earlier, I said Hobbes proposed a “surprisingly liberal” system. What did I mean by that? Well, before Hobbes, thinkers seemed to assume (like Machiavelli) that power belonged to whoever could get it. Alternatively, they may have believed that some ruled by divine right. But when Hobbes designed his system, he explicitly stated that the sovereign would rule by contract. This was a big change.
The idea of the contract is that the people would appoint the sovereign and the sovereign would represent what is best for the people. Before the idea of the contract, it was reversed. The people did what their ruler ordained because the ruler willed it. There was no concept of the consent of the governed.
However, Hobbes’ idea of a contract was extremely limited. The people cannot exit the contract. Only the sovereign can exit the contract by breaking it. Since the contract is power in exchange for protection, it is only when the sovereign directly threatens the life of his people that the contract is broken. The people cannot exit the contract merely because they disagree with the sovereign’s decisions.
Hobbes’ contract could be entered even when the sovereign coerced the people into it and it could never be exited, except when one's life is threatened directly. The next thinkers take this idea of a contract or covenant and begin to place limitations on it.
Locke
Locke believed the people needed to question power more than Hobbes’ contract allowed for. Going so far as to even outline the circumstances when the people were validated if they chose to overthrow their government.
He outlined three scenarios in which the people can overthrow their government and place power in the hands of someone they prefer. First, when the government ceases to administer justice. Second, when the state fails to protect private property. Third, if the government delivers the people into the hands of a foreign power.
While Hobbes left one small proviso for when one can resist the sovereign, Locke provided these three pillars which would allow the people to knock their government down and establish one anew. Hobbes said one can resist the sovereign. Locke said the people can actually overthrow their sovereign.
Some thought Locke was going too far and his ideas would lead to the people overthrowing their government without ample reason. However, Locke felt this was extremely unlikely and that the people would only act after they witnessed “a long train of abuses.” In other words, they would only act when things get really, really bad.
However, there was one way in which Locke remained consistent with Hobbes: consent. Locke took the time to separate tacit and express consent. Express consent would be something akin to a verbal or written agreement, perhaps even a vote. Tacit consent would be the absence of counteraction. For someone to not leave their country or not attempt to overthrow their government, would be to provide tacit consent. Locke felt this was a necessary reality of a long-lived government. Our next thinker had other ideas.
Rousseau
Locke allowed the people to exit the contract with their government. But Rousseau disallowed the contract to begin through coercion. In Locke’s system, the people are only optionally (at best) involved in running the government. However, Rousseau’s conception of government requires each citizen’s active involvement in the pursuit of the general will. So, Locke’s citizens could completely disagree with how their government runs, yet tacitly consent to it by simply ignoring it. In Rousseau’s government, the citizens must come together to search for the general will. This active involvement, in my opinion, brings each citizen out of tacit consent and into express–through their involvement.
And what if someone disagrees with Rousseau’s government?
First, if they disagree with a particular decision regarding the general will, not only are they not simply in disagreement: they are wrong about the general will. They have failed to understand it. They must then adhere to it and be “forced to be free” of their misconception.
Second, if someone disagrees with the very nature of the government, with the civil religion the state is founded on–they are banished.
So, everyone in Rousseau’s government is an active participant and consenter to his government. Well, almost everyone, as our next thinker will show.
Wollstonecraft
For all previous thinkers, power was something that exclusively belonged to men. Power in both the government and power in the home, it all belonged to men (specifically, white men). That’s where Wollstonecraft comes in to question the status quo.
She starts by questioning the very idea of femininity. Why does our society assume women are less virtuous and logical than men? Wollstonecraft points to education. This lesser state is not a natural but contrived one. What’s more, this state is self-fulfilling: a woman is taught to ignore her virtue and logic, then appears to not have the capability, and then is assumed to be incapable of having such a capability in the first place. So, the cycle deepens itself.
How can this end? She presents three avenues. First, a revolution in female manners. Second, a revolution in education. And third, a revolution in female legal status.
The revolution in female manners reframes femininity to become one of virtue and logic, rather than their absence. No longer are women encouraged to focus on vain, vapid pursuits but instead to focus on fully realizing the very same virtues that men are expected to fulfill. After all, as Wollstonecraft argues, it makes no sense for virtue to be relative: relevant for men but not for women. Instead, virtues must be either good or bad, otherwise, they cease to be a virtue. So, women should practice all of them to the same extent as men.
The revolution in education brings both boys and girls to a fully funded public education system. This system provides a holistic form of education that covers all areas of physical, mental, and emotional growth equally for boys and girls. In the first phase, there is a focus on getting a well-rounded education to prepare children generally for life. In the second phase, the focus shifts and the options split. The first higher-education option, which is intended for most students, is training for the workforce. The second option, which is intended for only a few, is the classic higher-education system focused on more abstract concepts.
Finally, bringing their full virtue, logic, and education to bear on society, women should be free from the practice of coverture. Their rights are no longer subsumed by their husbands, but they are fully legal, political humans. Their role, according to Wollstonecraft, may still primarily be raising children in the home, but they are active political participants in their society. They are raising the next generation of outstanding citizens.
Remaining
There is so much more to the History of Modern Political Philosophy. Yet, as I said at the beginning, this was meant to be only a brief overview of two of the topics that stood out to me in this class.
I hope you are able to see the value in studying where our political ideas came from and how they evolved. I imagine you see many glaring omissions of either topic or thinker. Perhaps you strongly disagree with one or many of the ideas presented above. In my view, that is the point of philosophy! One idea sparks another, and so the great wheel of human consciousness grows in power and speed.
Finally, please forgive me for any errors I’ve made in this piece. The intent was to summarize–from memory–what I learned in this class. While I did reference my notes a few times, I tried to pull it out of my head. For that reason, there are no citations and there certainly must be errors. If you find any, please let me know!
Reading List
Just in case you are interested, here is what we read in this class.