Hobbes on the Causes of War: A Disagreement Theory

Abizadeh, Ash

doi:10.1017/s0003055411000098

Cited by 67 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(41 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The conventional view is that Hobbesian theory is about anarchy and state sovereignty (Bull, 1981; Keohane, 2002; Wendt, 1999). However, as shown above, the Hobbesian emphasis on sovereignty is less concerned with material power politics than it is with the maintenance of a unitary normative order firmly rooted in common values and shared norms (Abizadeh, 2011; Bain, 2019; Hindess, 1996; Lloyd, 1992: 117; Williams, 1996). It is in this sense that ‘sovereignty’ can be understood as independence expressed in terms of unitary normativity.…”

Section: Hobbes the Commonwealth And The Gentle Leviathanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is normative power cosmopolitan? Rethinking European unity, norm diffusion, and international political theory

Kobayashi¹

2020

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the apparent consensus that European Union (EU) normative power embodies a Kantian cosmopolitan approach to world politics, such a consensus is typically presupposed by scholars, rather than being critically examined by them. By offering macro-historical reflections, this article argues that EU normative power deviates from the Kantian cosmopolitan ideal and in fact replicates the Hobbesian logic of normative homogenization. Renouncing the medieval Vatican’s ambition to construct a united Europe anchored in uniform normativity, Kantian theory celebrates multiple normalcy as the basis for human freedom, perpetual peace, and mutual transformation. In contrast, Hobbesian theory is driven by the conviction that a peaceful value-based community could be built only through normative homogenization, behavioural conformism, and moral unity. In Hobbesian theory, the Leviathan exercises a transformative power to socialize others, eliminate discords, and build a commonwealth through norm diffusion and public education. In this vein, the EU’s aspiration to build a normatively homogenous Europe seems to reflect Hobbes’s vision of normative unity, rather than Kant’s vision of cosmopolitan diversity. Should the EU aspire to pursue a cosmopolitan foreign policy, it needs to pay more attention to the power-political implications of its drive toward normative homogenization and shift its focus from socialization to mutual transformation.

show abstract

Section: Hobbes the Commonwealth And The Gentle Leviathanmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is normative power cosmopolitan? Rethinking European unity, norm diffusion, and international political theory

Kobayashi¹

2020

Cooperation and Conflict

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature on friendship broadly agrees that in the ancient world, friendship was ‘the major principle in terms of which political theory and practice [were] described, explained and analysed’(Hutter, 1978: 2; see also Gadamer, 1999; Von Heyking and Avramenko, 2008: 1), and finds Thomas Hobbes – the seventeenth-century theorist of discord and disagreement (Abizadeh, 2011) – largely responsible for the modern marginalisation of friendship in political science and political philosophy (Dallmayr, 2000: 105; King, 2000: 13; Pangle, 2003: 3; Schwarzenbach, 2009: 4; Yack, 1993: 110). Lorraine Pangle captures the dominant view when she writes that: the devaluation of friendship is the result of a decisive new turn in philosophy […] Ever since Hobbes, modern moral philosophy, even when it has not followed his teaching about the state of nature, has conceived of men’s most important claims upon one another to lie outside the realm of friendship (Pangle, 2003: 3).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

As Thick as Thieves: Exploring Thomas Hobbes’ Critique of Ancient Friendship and its Contemporary Relevance

Slomp

2018

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent decades have witnessed a revival of interest in ancient friendship both as a normative and as an explanatory concept. The literature concurs in holding Hobbes responsible for the marginalisation of friendship in political science and suggests that Hobbes devalued friendship because of his understanding of man. This paper argues that although Hobbes's appraisal of friendship hinges on his assumption that man is self-interested, his critique of normative friendship does not rest on that notion. Hobbes's challenge to us is this: without foundation in the 'truth' (i.e. the 'Good Life') that underpinned ancient friendship, modern friendship, whether self-interested or selfless, cannot be assumed to be a civic virtue, nor an index of the health of a political association, nor a facilitator of domestic or global peace. Hobbes's critique is especially relevant for writers who maintain that a resurgence of friendship can nurture concord and foster reconciliation within contemporary liberal democracies.

show abstract

“…For other challenges to the realist interpretation of Hobbes, though advanced on different grounds, seeMalcolm 2002;Covell 2004;Williams 2005; and Abizadeh 2011. Discussions of pride in Hobbes's thoughtinclude Strauss 1952;Oakeshott 1962;Baier 1987;Baumgold 1988;Hampton 1989;Kateb 1989;Lloyd 1992;Slomp 2000;Cooper 2010;and Abizadeh 2011. Discussions of pride in Hobbes's thoughtinclude Strauss 1952;Oakeshott 1962;Baier 1987;Baumgold 1988;Hampton 1989;Kateb 1989;Lloyd 1992;Slomp 2000;Cooper 2010;and Abizadeh 2011. …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 9 For other challenges to the realist interpretation of Hobbes, though advanced on different grounds, see Malcolm 2002; Covell 2004; Williams 2005; and Abizadeh 2011.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

No peace without injustice: Hobbes and Locke on the ethics of peacemaking

Mayerfeld

2012

Int. Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Is the demand for justice likelier to cause or to prevent war? Hobbes expresses sympathy for the former view and Locke for the latter. However, they both reason their way toward an intermediate position, symbolized by the impartial judge in Locke's theory and the arbitrator in Hobbes's theory. Peace is possible when we create a process that resolves disputes according to widely intuitive principles of equality and reciprocity. This requires, however, that we refrain from imposing our particular interpretations of justice, and that we tolerate the possibility of unjust outcomes. Hobbes and Locke's reasoning shows us why international institutions are needed to serve as an impartial judge for the resolution of civil and international conflicts. They rebut persistent skepticism about the fitness of international institutions to promote peace and justice. Recent scholarship on ethno-political conflict confirms the wisdom of their analysis.

show abstract

Hobbes on the Causes of War: A Disagreement Theory

Cited by 67 publications

References 30 publications

Is normative power cosmopolitan? Rethinking European unity, norm diffusion, and international political theory

Is normative power cosmopolitan? Rethinking European unity, norm diffusion, and international political theory

As Thick as Thieves: Exploring Thomas Hobbes’ Critique of Ancient Friendship and its Contemporary Relevance

No peace without injustice: Hobbes and Locke on the ethics of peacemaking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About