Joshua Spiezle
ENGL 298
Paige Morgan
1 December 2011
Threshold Concepts
The reasoning for appointment of governing power in Hobbes’ “Leviathan” and Locke’s “Second Treatise of the Government” provide backing to their respective legitimacy. However, through the bias in American culture, the understanding of the legitimacy in Hobbes’ sovereign appears to be unreasonable. In the recognition of the argument’s credibility, a new criticism for Locke’s argument and the American government is formed. As a result, the legitimacy in the investment of power to a sovereign is a threshold concept; the acceptance of a lone individual’s rule is a transformation from what we naturally accept. Thereafter it is troublesome knowledge, or counter-intuitive, to accept these ideas which directly contradict the governmental structure we accept and support.
Originally, we are biased because exposure to American media can create jaded views of foreign governments. Our news programs constantly show governments, oppressing citizenry at the hands of a ruler holding an extreme amount of power. Through the undesirable living situation in this government, we associate the absolute power of the ruler and his misuse as one issue. Thus, when the citizenry lacks power to control its own government and faces a separation from power, we view the government as a tyrannical government – as an illegitimate government. Through man’s continual inability to accept the decision of one man we instead come to rationalize that a group of men are less capable of undesirable action.
Because Hobbes’ sovereign’s power and rule separate the populace from power, is the structure then too classified as a tyrannical dictatorship? Through our preconceived notions, yes, we reject Hobbes’ government through an inability to accept our separation from power; Hobbes’ Leviathan structure epitomizes the American conception of a government destined for corruption through its disproportionate allotment of hierarchal power. However, Hobbes’ concept is that power is simply not gifted to the sovereign; each citizen is the author of his own actions by virtue of personally authoring the sovereign’s rule through consent. It is through this authorship to the sovereign’s rule that he/she is trusted to protect the commonwealth provided the structure is kept and followed. Thus, to realize that the Leviathan structure is more than a ruler, that it is a ruler selected to make decisions in the interest of the commonwealth, it is realized that the enormous amount of power invested in the sovereign creates an unparalleled ability for the sovereign to impose his will, which is consequently the will of the commonwealth.
It is therefore a threshold concept to understand the legitimacy of the Leviathan structure through the authorship of him – the Leviathan is thereafter understood as a powerful, cohesive government, able to work effectively without the need for dissenting opinions and therefore internal conflict. Upon understanding this threshold concept it can be understood that power is not arbitrarily given to Hobbes’ leviathan. Rather the power is entrusted in him and, as a result, the rule of the sovereign carries weight, and thus legitimacy. Furthermore, it becomes clear that making the sovereign the sole trustee of power has purpose. In creating one absolute ruler, there is no longer a discrepancy in rule or personal vendetta clouding the enforcement of justice. Rather ability exists to allow discussion, but not arbitrary and counter-productive argumentation.
Conflicting to Hobbes’ argument, Locke’s government is further legitimized by the similarity to the American government’s legislative body. The understanding of the American government’s structure and accordingly the positive results it brings, (i.e. public schooling, public transportation, roads, jobs, protection, etc.) the reasoning behind Locke’s governmental structure is of no particular difficulty to endorse – it would not be considered a threshold concept through its tacit acceptance. Thus, Locke’s government is viewed as “American”, or correct. However, through the recognition of Hobbes’s sovereign’s validation and thus its singularity, consistency, and effectiveness in rule, large discrepancy in the allotment of power and the debating of the correct decision can be inherently questioned. The debate of politics is completely subjective; therefore in the formation of factions representatives are always paradoxically both correct and incorrect to the public eye. Thus conflict naturally arises without a lone, powerful, accepted ruler as is present in Hobbes’ government. Thus the legislative representative mindset is questioned – along with it the American government and Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government”.
The debate of politics is made to seem unnecessary and counter-productive by Hobbes. Rather the singular approach to politics is accepted; through the fear of conflict it is now acceptable to separate oneself from power and allow an entrusted figure to make the most important decisions. The American structure is clouded with a myriad of interests and, in contrast, is overly complicated. Instead, the presentation of Hobbes’ sole sovereign is rather appealing. One appointee, working in the best interest of the government, is able to act freely to determine what he views as best. His discretion is trusted and consented to, he aims to protect the commonwealth, he creates equality for all, his rule is unquestioned, and stability and consistency of government is not threatened by personal interest or vendetta. Conflictingly the American government is thought to be rather corrupt; lobbyists run rampant, groups work to elect officials for personal interest, rightists and leftists debate and fight over every small issue – the problems are most definitely apparent. The alleviation of these symptoms through Hobbes’ government brings light to these long-standing issues and is a preferable alternative.
This threshold concept is alien knowledge because of the subtle distinctions between the tyrannical dictatorships and Hobbes’ sovereign are originally too minute to accept one while denying the other. It is hard to believe that while a ruler holds so much power he is forever incorruptible because of our inherent association of power with corruption and the reinforcement of this ideal by our media. Furthermore, the conflict of Hobbes’ perspective from our own is what denies our recognition of this model – it is this denial of the concept of separation of power and legitimacy that causes this notion to be troublesome, and alien. However, Hobbes’ government is more efficient in its ability to rule the commonwealth through its lack of taxing argumentation and conflict. As a result, the understanding of Hobbes government creates a critical interpretation of our current living condition and thus our accepting of it. In the broader sense, the concept of the Leviathan structure increases acceptance towards hierarchal structure enforced by legitimacy. In conclusion, the Leviathan structure reinforces trust in power and brings doubt to debate. It places trust in those around you and their ability to make decisions for others.
Pingback: Liv
Pingback: Alexander Ong
Pingback: eegger