Hobbes and Bourgeois Society

Hobbes’s preoccupation with the necessity of a scientific and empirical approach in political philosophy led him to claim that his social system based upon human nature is universal and verifiable by everyone. Even though Hobbes was concerned about a universal and timeless model of society, there is some evidence that he gave a seemingly scientific form to the interests of the new emerging upper class. Following Hannah Arendt’s critique of Hobbes’ doctrine, this paper argues that some elements in Leviathan, including Hobbes’ description of human impulse, human felicity, and liberty, indicate that Hobbes “gives an almost complete picture, not of man, but of the bourgeois man. In fact, Hobbes offers a complete model which serves bourgeois ends.


Galileo’s scientific achievements motivated Hobbes to explain human nature and society base upon motion. Therefore, human impulse, which keeps human beings in constant movement, plays a key role in Hobbes’ philosophy. He describes human’s inclination as “perpetual and restless desire of power after power that ceases only in death.”(Hobbes, 161) This description of human’s inclination supports the dominance of capitalism in two ways. First, this perpetual desire for power leads to consumerism, which is a prominent feature of a capitalist society. This idea supports also the development of a social order is based upon fostering a desire to obtain more and more. Since consumerism requires constant production of desirable objects, it guarantees the survival of markets. On the other hand, society should produce perpetually values associated with these new desirable objects, since it is the effect of these desirable objects on one’s status in society that provides individual motivation. Thus, this system of value production contributes to the reinforcement of social stratification. Society produces desirable objects and associated values, and people who already have more access to the sources of power, will more likely obtain more and elevate their position in the hierarchical society. Consequently, this social system increases the gap between different groups and makes competition almost impossible for people from lower class, which results in the dominance of privileged gropes.

Moreover, Hobbes’ definition of felicity as “continual progress of the desire, from one object to another” results in a very individualistic notion of human happiness. One who pursues happiness can fulfill his purpose independently. To do so, he should satisfy one of his individual desires completely and, then, follow another. In other words, one’s happiness does not depend on the prosperity of the society but on his personal achievements. This independent notion of happiness enables the dominant groups to enjoy their privileges isolated from the harsh realities that confront lower classes.

Hobbes also suggests a model that keeps human beings in movement and prevents from social stagnation because of constant change in individual purpose. In his model, society functions properly because each individual has enough personal motivation to compete with the other for the sources of power. However, there is an alternative to Hobbes’ model that can help society functions as a whole and maintain the social current. We can maintain a person’s motivations not by changing the desirable objects but by keeping purposes in perspective, by defining communicative purposes beyond rigid ideology. For instance, the public acknowledgment that a just society does not have an ultimate definition but one should always be in the process to approach a just society can provide a motivation for constant movement of the entire society. Although, obtaining a just society may be impossible, people should strive to reach such an idea.

Liberty is a central concept to Hobbes’ social system. His belief that all humans are born equal challenged the convention of birth-given rights and proved to be a significant step toward theorizing human liberation. However, while Hobbes makes a foundation for equal opportunity, he fails to consider equal conditions as a complementary component. For instance, Hobbes concludes that “from this equality of ability, arises equality of hope in the attaining of our ends.”(Hobbes, 184) In other words, the notion of men’s equality at birth makes a foundation for the pretense of fair competition in society. Thus, Hobbes defines liberty as “the absence of external impediments” to doing whatever one wants to do. It means that free from external obstacles individuals are in the equal position to compete over the sources of value and power.

Hobbes’ notion of liberty provides a justification for a bourgeois society. The notion of equal opportunity without access to equal conditions and means of fulfillment creates the illusion of fair competition, which guarantees the dominance of privileged groups. Negative liberty, the absence of external obstacles, requires the support of positive liberty which provides equal means to pursue a better life. Hobbes’ very individualistic perspective and his minimal notion of liberty prevented him from considering different conditions in which different social groups are born. Consequently, he failed to see that privileged groups always start with advantages that marginalized groups do not have. In fact, we cannot speak of equal opportunity without taking equal conditions into account. For instance, women, who have been oppressed throughout history, are born with equal faculties of mind and body to men but are socialized through different social channels that tend to keep them down. From a micro perspective, the social norms handed down from one generation to another create different social expectations for men and women and, ultimately, guide their lives. Women are born into unequal social conditions that hinder their progress. Or one who is born into a poor family may have restricted access to education and better jobs, although he may be as smart as a person from a wealthy background.

Moreover, human’s position in a perpetual competition serves bourgeois ends in two ways. First, the illusion of fair competition causes individuals to see their successes and failures as the result of their own endeavors and, thus, to associate their deprivation to their own personal failures. In fact, this presumption prevents people from seeing inequality in a broader perspective than individual competition. Bourgeois interests tend to ignore the role of social structures and institutionalized discriminations play in determining social inequality. Second, the sense of rivalry between individuals weakens the potentials for cooperation, loosens connections within social groups, and also prevents marginalized and deprived people from gathering together as a class or an oppressed group.

Although Hobbes may fail to create a political model that reflects the interests of all social groups, his contribution to classical liberalism and his challenge to the church interpretation of social order and political systems are noteworthy. In addition, his concerns about a political system that can guarantee peace and centralized power are still relevant. In fact, Hobbes created a valuable foundation for liberal political philosophy. But one who wants to adapt Hobbes’ political philosophy to contemporary society should recognize the limitations of his model and how it reflects the interests of the bourgeois society.