Reflection paper: John Locke
Mattia Romano
Locke’s theory is very revolutionary in a period such as the 17th century in which authoritarian regime states were widely spread. He invokes for a real obligation to remove a corrupted governments. His arguments for the social contract and for the right of citizens to revolt against their king, were enormously influential on the democratic revolutions that followed, especially on Thomas Jefferson and the founders of the United States.
In his works, Locke states that the power of the legislator (opposite to Hobbes’ Leviatan) has to be limited to the sum of the power that the citizen have given to the state. He has to be a mere referee, and the aim of the social contract is to guarantee a separation of powers, to safeguard property, freedom and lives.
Reading Locke, I was quite fascinated of the defense of most of the basic rights that an individual and a member of any society has. In reality, the expression “any society” is not the fit one to use in this case, because it has to be a society that stipulated a precise pact, i.e. the social contract.
I think it’s really hard to argue against what Locke maintains about the unacceptable practice of any government to restrict or promote specific religions, practices and to limit human freedom and he’s theories are a strong and modern point of reference for the protectors of the human rights. Nevertheless, they are addressed not to all societies, but to the ones built upon a European model of social contract.
Unfortunately only for a small part of the world population the respect of freedom of the human beings is taken for granted: the majority still lives in non-democratic states and sees its rights constantly violated. Countries whose population, not only live under the rule of a Hobbesian Leviatan, but are deprived of any chances to manifest their dissent.
I wish that one of the cornerstones of Lockes’ theory was always practicable:
If a government subverts the ends for which it was created then it might be deposed; indeed, Locke asserts, revolution in some circumstances is not only a right but an obligation. Thus, Locke came to the conclusion that the "ruling body if it offends against natural law must be deposed.”
I would like to focus the attention on another cornerstone of the Lockean theory, i.e. the justification of Colonialism. This issue is a really sharp one, especially after reading the revolutionary and shareable topics about the defense of the human freedom. Locke justifies the conquer of new lands saying that, in the very moment in which the land (in England) is totally occupied and because property gives the individual freedom, colonizing lands that are not used and owned is a right that stands at the heart of the social contract.
The point is that Locke’s view is contradictory and speculative as long as it’s a justification of his personal interests. Locke owned shares in the Royal Africa Company, a company which was involved in the slave trade, and he was also a Secretary of the Council of Trade and Plantations, which helped formulate colonial policy. He helped draft the Fundamental Constitution of the Carolinas, which created a feudal aristocracy and left slaves under the complete power of their masters. Beyond that, there is a spreadbelief that Locke's statements regarding unenclosed property, helped justify the Native American displacement.
Even if his major writings oppose slavery, aristocracy and forms of repression of human freedom, it’s impossible not to notice the huge gap between the philosophical thought and the reality of his actions and his own interests so that lots of critics accuse him of hypocrisy.
I agree with these critics even though I recognize the revolutionary change that John Locke introduced in the modern philosophy and political taught. Unfortunately his limit is that he recognizes just the rights of individuals belonging to a society according to western political and contractual standards. Locke’s theory is still too far from the concept of equality and freedom of all human beings as long as he justifies one of the biggest violation of human rights that has ever happened in history, such as colonialism.
British imperialism, and broadly, European colonialism not only permitted and widespread practices such as slavery, but also imposed the western superiority to the colonized populations according to the formula of divide et imperathat is at the origin of a big number of modern conflicts.