Author: Tatyana Skalon
Reflection paper.
There are lots of opinions about everything in this world. They differ from each other because of our education, life-views and concepts, religion, etc. If a writer hears words and sees new plot in surroundings, an artist sees forms and colors. This could be applied to everything, include philosophical theories and political treatises. What I want to say is that our lecturer from University of East London - Barry Collins - also has his own point of view, which is rather interesting and in some kind surprising. l'll go through some points, which I'm interested in and add some from my standpoint.
First of all, Locke built the fundament of all scientific analysis. His objective investigations and treatises became a starting-point for all non-religion, but secular science. How could we treat him if he was and is (with some others) the father of modern knowledge system? I do believe it is a rhetorical question.
Locke observed a lot of things, but all of them were based on concept of well-human-being. The human is pure and direct toward good and fair (we could see many discussions dedicated to a problem of good or bad nature of human). It's kind of optimistic thoughts. But the huge and serious theory grew up from them. The social agreement became more agree-like than it was in Hobbe's notion. A government now owed his people. It was bad, thought Locke, if government had a lot of power or limited our rights, so we should, even must, part it and moreover, it is our duty to rebel if government's wrong. I won't afraid to say it was a new step in political science. The step that brought new ideas into human's minds (not to mention how was used Locke's theory!).
Another main point of Locke's political ideas, as Barry Collins presented, is private property. From the very beginning we have our own body, our first, so to say, property. When we interact with something around us (land for example) we appropriate it and care about it. The main government's function is protection of this property, so people will calm and peaceful. It reminds me of Aristotle's views: he wrote about guarantee of peace in State and it was some kind of non-interference of anyone on someone's territory. Attaching great importance to this element meant changing in all those politic. But it wasn't an end. Locke went further and claimed religion tolerance. 'Cause we couldn't find out if one of religions is veritable one, we mustn't justify them. Hence we should separate State and religion. It may be not a new idea, but all the same brave and unpopular at those times.
As I've already mentioned, the human is born, as Locke said in Barry Collins' interpretation, pure. The natural goodness is one of the human's possessions. Tabula rasa - the clear paper - those how Locke imagined baby soul. We could write everything we want in this sheet and make a new person. Fortunately, new research workers disprove it (if it had been truth we would have definitely came across the new Utopia-like theoretical systems where babies taken away from families to be grown in a "better" way and who knows - those systems might be realized). They demonstrate the influence of gene pool on human being and show that we couldn't rewrite it as we want to. But this only one disapproved theme doesn't deny or confirm the goodness in human being. And from this point Locke went on with his state of nature and equality of all men (men in the literal sense). In this state, he said, human lived in peace, possessing all freedoms and rights. They united with one purpose: securing theirs moral rights more efficiently. So people were willingly gave up some of freedoms to make other become strongly protected. Accordingly government mustn't have a lot of power and could be overthrown. Only people altogether could decide if government was doing badly. It meant government must be answerable. And all kind of State employees became more alike to the english variant of theirs name - "civil servants". Much more responsibility lays on them and they should possess such features as dignity, goodness, honesty and so on. Certainly, it could be only in State described by Locke or in some ideal one.
But social contract, in Locke's concept, means the creation of governmental institute and the newest thinkers go further. Alexander Ausan, for example, the president of National Project Institute believes that there are many kinds of contracts between people and states. Soviet Union, for instance, had it's own one and collapsed because of this contract was exhausted. And what is more there were two social contracts and nowadays we have had new one. But it may not be all people who making this agreements. Because there are too many of us and we simply can't come to a conclusion. So we created some parties and groups of interest to speak for us. And State is stable only if contract, which was made by this groups, are keeping strictly. Ausan singled out the main idea of russian modern social contract and it sounds like "political freedoms in exchange of economy stability". But what will happen when resources come to an end? We must shuffle this treaty not to let this regime collapse, Ausan said. And it is one of the most interesting interpretation and in some kind localization of Locke's theory.
In conclusion I want to repeat that Locke was the cornerstone of many other philosophical and political theories and the way his teaching was applied means the unicity, universality and dimension of his investigations and theoretical constructions.