In the 17th century, English philosopher Thomas Hobbes introduced the world to the idea of the social contract. He argued that we are better off working together, giving over some of our freedoms to the State, in exchange for a standard of living we couldn’t otherwise achieve.
You’ll recognise the very foundations of democracy in this argument as Hobbes’ idea came to be taken up by subsequent philosophers and saw democracy move inexorably from philosophical idea to political reality.
When I first read Hobbes’ work, I was a big fan. It sounded very reasonable and even noble, to create an environment where all could be safe and protected. I never wondered what I might need protection from but it felt important that the protection was there.
In later years, as I stepped away from academia and philosophy and turned my focus toward my inner world, I came to realise the flaw in Hobbes’ work.
The flaw lay in his very reasoning for a social contract.
You see, he argued that we needed a social contract because without it, we would be left in a ‘state of nature’, a state he subsequently became famous for describing as ‘solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short’ (Leviathan, ch. XIII).
If the state of nature were as he described, then a social contract, a democracy or any sort of social structure which could take you out of those circumstances, would indeed seem appealing.
The problem with Hobbes’ approach is that the ‘state of nature’ is a hypothetical condition; a philosopher’s device used to justify his argument. Hobbes himself is open in acknowledging that he isn’t sure if the hypothetical is true, but for the sake of his argument, he will assume it to be such.
And so, we find ourselves in a situation where one of the pillars of democracy is found to be resting on questionable foundations.
Foundations which assume that human beings, in the state of nature, are constantly at war. That our lives, if left without the ‘civilising’ effects of a social contract, would be nasty, brutish and short.
Certainly this is what I learned at school. I learned that cavemen were in a constant state of war against nature. That when they weren’t clubbing huge mammoths for dinner, they were clubbing their women and dragging them off to have their way with them.
These images loomed large in my mind as a young person and gave me a perfectly reasonable explanation for why we needed to be so removed from nature, to have a society built around mechanisation and materialism. When I tried to explore alternatives, someone would inevitably say; ‘yes but look at how far we’ve progressed.’
Sure, if your yardstick for human progress is drawn from Western civilisation’s story about cavemen, contemporary society seems a dream indeed.
And perhaps I would never have come to question this idea. However after becoming acquainted with Hobbes, I also had the opportunity and privilege of spending time with Indigenous people and communities.
The more I dived into their world, the more I realised that Hobbes’ hypothetical was simply wrong. In my explorations of Indigenous cultures I met people who had or were still living in what can only be described as a ‘state of nature’. None of these people were living nasty, brutish or short lives. Indeed the Indigenous people who were living such lives were living this way, not as a result of residing in a ‘state of nature’, but as a direct result of being taken away from their home, their lands and their natural world.
Time after time I heard In
digenous people speak of themselves as caretakers of the environment. This found stark expression in government-convened meetings where the subject of resources was being debated.
In every instance, the Indigenous response to the white man’s fear that they would over-hunt if they weren’t subject to the same restrictions as the rest of the community, was this; ‘We won’t over-hunt because we and the animals are one. To draw more than we need from the earth not only damages the environment, it damages us.’
When I heard this the first time, I understood the idea but I didn’t fully appreciate the world view that was being expressed. What I did know was that we were dealing with radically different perspectives – the white person’s perspective which, like Hobbes, says that nature is something to be feared and responds with domination and control, and the Indigenous world view which says, ‘I am nature’.
In time, I came to better appreciate the view being expressed by Indigenous people when, after years of turning within, of learning about myself more intimately, I experienced the very simple truth that we are not separate from nature; but are in fact one and the same.
Indigenous people around the world tell a remarkably similar story about a state of nature which is free, abundant, open and trusting. Where everything one needs is provided for. Where one only takes what is needed, where time is allowed for replenishment of resources, and where you harness the environment to work with you to provide food and shelter.
When you start to see the world from this perspective, the need to create a social structure to remove you from the state of nature seems rather odd. Why would you possibly want or need this?
The time is here to question our current social, economic and political paradigms. In order to do that, we must question the premises on which these paradigms are based. Premises about humanity and humanity’s relationship with nature.
In our investigations we must move beyond Hobbes’ hypothetical understanding of himself and his fellow human beings. We must dig deeper and come to know the truth about ourselves.
Then, and only then, will we really understand the phrase ‘a state of nature’.
Starting from there will radically shift everything.
To know oneself. The nature of oneself. And to act from there. That is all that’s ever required.
But that is more than we have seen in the West for millennia.
#####
- For those who read this blog weekly, you’ll be aware that we’re in the midst of a 4 part series on personal development. Please be assured that the last installment in that series – Personal Development Resources – will be delivered to your inbox next Friday!
- Thanks to everyone that has participated in the Dakini Grace Survey. It closes tomorrow, so if you’d like to have a say on future products and direction, here’s your chance!
- Photo credit; Maurice, Bryan Wright, Dennis Jarvis
[...] more here: Democracy and abundance: what we can learn from Indigenous … Posted under Desire Comments [...]
Wow, I really love what you wrote here. You commented on my blog awhile back, and I confess I am just now getting around to visiting you back, but I am so glad I did. I have often felt the same way about the usual interpretation of the story of Genesis – i.e. humanity’s ‘fall from grace’ – that I think also has influenced a Western, modern mindset so much. We start from this assumption that we are inherently bad, and that has all sorts of implications.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful, insightful post and site. – Lisa
Oh yes, I never thought of that before, but you’re absolutely right! There is A LOT to the way we’ve interpreted that story which is holding us back……Thank you for the visit and your insight