I will attempt to examine whether Locke's interpretation of the social contract would truly free the citizens of a contemporary society.In order to do this, I will firstly explain Locke's social contract; it's workings and how it is applied. I will then go on to briefly outline the social contract of Hobbes, and how these two interpretations possibly differ. Then, I will ultimately study whether or not the Lockean interpretation of the social contract actually liberates people, or whether it lessens their freedom. Lastly, I will state my own opinion on this matter.
Firstly, I will outline Locke's social contract. Locke explains in the 5th chapter of Two Treatise of Government that the world and its contents were given to Man by God, and that being so, the Earth belongs to all men in common, citing Psalm CXV, R6: "God has given the earth to the children of men". Therefore, he poses the question: "how can one discover individual property?" he arrives at the conclusion that human labour is the means of appropriating property. For example, he asserts the notion of the property of person: each individual owns their own bodies, along with the labour performed with that body. When a person applies their labour to an object, it becomes that person's property. Say, that a person mows a section of a field, to which no one else has laid claim.
According to Locke's social contract, that field is rightfully their property, since that person has applied their labour to it. Locke then explains that that person can only lay claim to as much of the field they can use individually. It wouldn't be fair or practical for a single person to mow an entire field, when they can comfortably use a 20x20 ft plot. Labour, Locke states, is the defining factor of value.Locke's social contract could liberate people in a civil society by encouraging them to be egalitarian. According to Locke, the fairer the society, the less likely conflicts will start.
When there is conflict, people are persecuted; therefore conflict must me avoided through egalitarianism. However, he notes that if a ruler seeks absolute power, if he acts both as judge and participant in disputes, he puts himself in a state of war with his subjects and they have the right and the duty to kill such rulers and their servants. For this reason, force can be used to further the individual's freedom. To this end, conflict can increase the individual's freedom, since, under Locke's wisdom, a product of that person's own labour, whether it be mowing a lawn, picking an apple, or making war, is the ultimate currency in the state of nature.I will now go on to compare Locke's social contract theory with that of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbe's social contract was markedly more cynical to Locke's.
Hobbes remarks that all common men are apolitical and asocial, unable to grasp any abstract notion of individualism. Unlike Locke, Hobbes claims that the role of the sovereign is justified, due to the unwillingness of the 'nasty, brutish and short' individuals to rule or think for themselves. In Leviathan, he states that society is a 'population beneath a sovereign authority, to whom all individuals in that society cede their natural rights for the sake of protection'.To sum up, I believe that Locke's interpretation of the social contract is correct in principle; however, it could be unworkable in a modern civil society. In our gigantic, centralised and regulated society, all notions of individualism and autonomy simply become irrelevant. It could be workable, for example, in a small, tight-knit society such as Iceland, which has a history of employing what, could be argued as Lockean government, where there was no king or other central executive power, and the values of social individualism was incredibly important to the society, but this model couldn't work in a society such as, say China or mainland Europe, regions very much like that described in Hobbes' Leviathan.
In my experience, I find myself agreeing with Locke's vision of an egalitarian, individualistic utopia, but at the same time, agreeing with Hobbes that mankind is basically nasty, brutish and short. Locke's social contract would liberate the individual in society, the way Locke describes how it could come about is too simplistic. I believe that the only way this society could exist is through an extreme system of conditioning the citizens to think and act in the spirit of egalitarianism, though a strong government, a strong leader, taking centuries. Of course this is in complete opposition to what Locke believed. My conclusion is that even though Locke's theory is the perfect way to live in an ideal society, it is totally unworkable due to the fallacy of human beings.
