Hobbes and Homosexuality
There exists an unfortunate popular tendency to reduce the great philosophers of Western thought to nothing more than the sum of their most famous sentence. So Descartes becomes that bloke who thought therefore he was; Rousseau the one who said we were all born free but are now everywhere in chains; Hobbes becomes – notoriously – Mr “Nasty, brutish and short”.
Indeed with Hobbes especially there’s a tendency to extrapolate from this one over-quoted (and frequently misunderstood) sentence in order to draw conclusions about the thinker himself, and the attitudes he must have held. Instead of Hobbes merely telling us that the natural condition of man in the State of Nature (which is a State of Warre) ensures that the life of man is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”, it may come to be popularly inferred that Hobbes himself must have been nasty, brutish, and possibly short. When people are over simplistically (and to some extent, misleadingly) informed that Hobbes was “an apologist for tyranny”, the effect is compounded. This Hobbes bloke, he must have been a Bad Man.
This is a real shame. Anyone who has read and understood Leviathan, for example, will know that there is an awful lot more subtly and depth to Hobbes’ thought than these crude caricatures allow. They will also know that inferences about his character or opinions on matters ethical are far more interesting and complicated than the above would allow.
For example, there’s this intriguing passage from his first philosophical work, The Elements of Law:
“And hence it cometh, that in them who have sovereign authority: not to forbid such copulations as are against the use of nature; not to forbid the promiscuous use of women; not to forbid one woman to have many husbands; not to forbid marriages within certain degrees of kindred and affinity: are against the law of nature. For thought it be not evident, that a private man living under the law of natural reason only, doth break the same, by doing any of these things aforesaid; yet it is manifestly apparent, that being so prejudicial as they are to the improvement of mankind, that not to forbid the same, is against the law of natural reason, in him that hath taken into his hands any portion of mankind to improve.” De Corpore Politico, Chapter XXVIII
The structure of Hobbes’ argument at this point is fascinating. Hobbes is explicitly not arguing that homosexuality (“copulations against the use of nature”), bigamy, incest (marriages within “certain degrees of kindred”) and (I think) prostitution (“promiscuous use of women”) are in themselves wrong. That’s why he says that it is “not evident” that a “private man living under the natural law of reason only” doing these sorts of things offends against the “law of nature”.
Rather, Hobbes’ contention is that a Sovereign – the ruler of society, who by his monopoly of violence and the fear he induces in all subjects, makes society possible and thereby enables life to be more than “nasty, brutish and short” – cannot allow these things to go on. Why? Because allowing these things to take place across society – even though they are not wrong in themselves - will have unacceptably damaging effects; mankind will not be able to “improve”, and this will offend against the “duties” of the Sovereign, whose purpose it is to improve mankind by dispelling the state of nature where life is so short and cruel.
I think I’m safe in believing that this is fairly radical stuff, just as it stands. I am certainly no expert in the history of sexuality and changing social mores about sexual issues, but I believe people were executed in 17th Century England for committing homosexual acts (they certainly were in the American colonies), and that the general social attitude towards non-heterosexuality was of violent repression. Not much kinder attitudes were taken towards bigamy, incest and sexual licentiousness either, from what I can gather (and certainly not by the state, I think). For Hobbes to say that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such activities, but that they must be banned only because of their cumulative instrumental effects upon wider society, seems to have been a fairly bold statement in a time when these things were condemned as intrinsically wrong by the Church, and in some cases punishable by death by the state.
Yet it’s worth noting that Hobbes’ position may have been even bolder than it first appears. For one consequence of Hobbes’ reasoning seems as follows. It is up to the Sovereign to outlaw the above sexual activities or relations, insofar as it is the Sovereign’s duty to promote “the law of nature”. This basically boils-down to ensuring that men live in peace amongst each other, and so can adequately fulfil their “right of nature”, which basically boils-down to getting what it is they need in order to keep on surviving. But if the Sovereign were to come to the conclusion that, say, permitting homosexuality in fact did not prevent the “improvement” of society after all, and that allowing people to be homosexual was compatible with the duty of the Sovereign given by the “laws of nature”, then it would – on Hobbes’ logic – be absolutely fine for the Sovereign to declare that homosexuality (or whatever) was OK.
We therefore reach an interesting question: did Hobbes think it possible for a Sovereign to consistently come to such a conclusion about, say, homosexuality, and in turn freely license it? Or did he really believe what he wrote; that homosexuality (and the rest) could not be allowed because – although not necessarily intrinsically bad in itself – such behaviour would have cumulative repercussions detrimental to the stability of society beyond the point which a proper and dutiful Sovereign could tolerate?
It’s hard to say for sure, one way or the other. For a start, one must be very careful not to import one’s modern preconceptions and reasoning into Hobbes’ work: from the perspective of a 21st Century social liberal, it just seems obvious that homosexuality (for example) does not undermine the fabric of social stability, and hence cannot be outlawed or persecuted on those grounds. It is not clear, however, that Hobbes thought as we do: he may genuinely have believed that although it was “not evident” that being homosexual (say) was intrinsically bad, it nonetheless did have pernicious social consequences when tolerated in society more widely. Lacking further context, it’s hard to say which way Hobbes would have leant, pace our own post-sexual liberalisation experience that tolerating (say) homosexuality does not result in the fundamental destabilising of society.
Having said that, however, it is worth recalling that many (though not all) scholars of Hobbes would agree that there is precedent for Hobbes saying one thing, but actually meaning something rather different. The scholarly debate is long and distinguished, but many now believe that Hobbes was, if not a full-blown atheist, then at least a very unorthodox Christian. Consequently, many of his references to Christianity and the “laws of God” are read by scholars as being (to borrow a phrase from Quentin Skinner) “oblique rhetorical strategies”: Hobbes says one thing, but he really means another. Indeed, in the case of his Christian beliefs, this thesis seems greatly strengthened (if not wholly confirmed) by the fact that Hobbes himself expressed concern that the bishops would come and “burn the Old Gentleman as a Heretique”.
If it is accepted that Hobbes often says one thing, but in fact means something rather different (and I think it should be so accepted) then we have an interesting precedent, which appears to contribute to the possibility that Hobbes’ position is potentially – though not definitely – remarkably radical on the question of homosexuality as a case in point (though similar thoughts apply to the other areas identified above). Hobbes might be read as claiming not only that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality in itself, but that furthermore, there may be no reason to outlaw it whatsoever: a Sovereign who perceives that homosexuality is in fact not destructive to society could justifiably permit it. On such a reading, Hobbes’ claim that homosexuality (and the rest) damage society and thus cannot be tolerated is an “oblique rhetorical strategy” designed to keep him just about within the bounds of respectability; not condoning homosexuality – but not fully closing the door to those (Sovereigns) who might in fact choose to do so, either. Why might Hobbes have chosen to employ an “oblique rhetorical strategy”? Pushing the bounds of respectability because of a personal belief that the practices he identifies are not in themselves reprehensible, whilst simultaneously avoiding the scaffold, would appear plausible prima facie explanation.
Which brings me to my conclusions. The above should have begun to demonstrate how much depth there is in the ethical and political thought of Hobbes, and what a tragedy it is to reduce such a thinker to one short catch-phrase. In particular, there appears the beginning of a strong case for arguing that Hobbes was especially radical in his views on homosexuality, and other social sexual mores too. In brief, I believe there is evidence for the beginning of a strong thesis that Hobbes would have advocated the toleration of homosexuality by the state, but was unable to voice this belief in full, due to the risk of mortal violence he would have encountered had he done so. However, as the above indicates, establishing the extent of Hobbes’ radicalism on this issue takes us very quickly into some very big – and complex – debates in and between interpretations of Hobbes, which I cannot hope to settle (or even really get into) here, and which require us to delve deeply into the context of Hobbes’ thoughts and social attitudes in order to even begin to settle such questions.
Ste For Sure said,
October 5, 2009 at 6:43 pm
very interesting indeed. Did any other thinkers of Hobbes’ era say anything similar about homosexuality; i.e. that it didnt seem intrinsically wrong?
Also, another potential interpretation (bearing in mind my extremely limted knowledge of Hobbes!):
Perhaps, like the vast majority of men in his day, he was repulsed by the idea of homosexuality and thought it socially unacceptable in the extreme. However, being a rigorous thinker, when he thought deeply about sexual mores, he found no intrinsic reason to see it as immoral – so the social stability line is the only one he could think of to justifiably outlaw homosexuality. So this passage could be seen as an attempt to square his (by modern standards) deep-seated social conserativism inherited from the society he grow up and lived in, with a rigorous philosophical mind that couldnt think of a proper ethical argument against homsexuaity in itself?
Paul said,
October 5, 2009 at 6:50 pm
1. re your first paragraph, i’ve frankly no idea. Finding out would be very important if I were to ever decide to flesh the original piece out into a proper article.
2. Possibly. It certainly wouldn’t be consistent for Hobbes – who says there is not “vice nor virtue” in the state of nature, but that morality is only given content within Society under a Sovereign – to declare that being gay was intrinsically bad. So yes, there is nothing that I can see stopping your interpretation, as regards the logic of Hobbes argument. The only thing I can think to offer in reply is that if Hobbes thought that, why mention it at all? Why take the radical – and dangerous – step of publicly affirming that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such a thing, and then potentially leave the door open to Sovereigns allowing it, if he himself thought it was a horrible practice? That to me looks more like the action of a man who himself was not “anti-gay” (to use a crude modern term). But I speculate.
leftoutside said,
February 12, 2010 at 8:47 pm
I think you might be putting too much of a modern twist on “homosexuality”. It was only in the 19th Century that homosexuals or inverts began to have their own identity. So perhaps Hobbes isn’t quite as radical (although still quite radical) as you make out.
Its hard to describe, but before this point someone’s sexuality (in the west at least) was not described by whether or not they liked the “opposite” (what an odd phrase when you look at it, especially when you consider hijra) sex, but on whether they enjoyed “doing” or “being done.”
That you’ve focussed in on homosexuality betrays your modern view, its only the modern church and society that has become quite so specifically obsessed with this particular penchant. If you wanted to investigate hobbes’ thought on sexuality further you’d need to focus more generally on sexuality and public/private life and marriage than on homosexuality. Its certainly interesting and didn’t come up in my Poli1002
Churm Rincewind said,
April 23, 2010 at 3:56 pm
There is a misunderstanding here. In all likelihood, what Hobbes primarily meant by the phrase “copulations as are against the use of nature” was anal intercourse, both homosexual and heterosexual. (Although evidence is hard to come by, there is some suggestion that heterosexual anal intercourse was then commonplace as a method of contraception.) Hobbes may also have had bestiality in mind, which was at that time often bracketed with sodomy under the heading of a crome against nature. Same sex relationships, which may or may have included sexual contact, were not in Hobbes’ century considered criminal, although anal intercourse certainly was. Thus James the First, for example, was notorious for his male lovers while at the same time being deeply disapproving of sodomy, which he listed in his Basilikon Doron as amongst those crimes “ye are bound in conscience never to forgive”.
While it’s true that historically sodomy and same sex male sexual relationships have often been linked, it wasn’t until the nineteenth century that homosexuality was pathologised as a purported syndrome. Foucault is good on all this.
Michael Riordan said,
May 9, 2011 at 1:43 am
Read Leviticus 18 for all such “copulations”. 18.26 concerns anal penetration of another man, but this is part of a much broader narrative mainly cocerning incestuous relationships (18.6-18). These are acts against God, the sovereign of the state of Israel. The quote fits in very well with Hobbes’ political theology set out in Leviathan, book 3. Since Hobbes is concerned to argue that in the state of nature, there is no law, his argument for the inapplicability of laws against nature surely follows from this.