Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:44:48.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘God Hath Ordained to Man a Helper’: Hobbes, Patriarchy and Conjugal Right

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Carole Pateman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There are two conflicting and equally misleading interpretations of Hobbes: either he is a patri-archalist like Filmer – but the premise of Hobbes's theory is that political right originates in maternal not paternal lordship; or he is an anti-patriarchalist – but he endorses the subjection of wives to husbands in civil society. To appreciate how Hobbes turns mother right into a specifically modern, non-paternal form of patriarchy, an understanding is required of his peculiar view of the family as a protective association of master and servants that originates in conquest (contract). Secondly, a conjectural history of the defeat of women by men in the natural condition and their incorporation into ‘families’ has to be provided. The overthrow of mother right enables men to enter the original contract, to create Leviathan in their own image, and to secure the fruits of their conquest by establishing patriarchal political right, exercised in large part as conjugal right.

Type
Research Article
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 19 , Issue 4 , October 1989 , pp. 445 - 463
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The arguments are those, respectively, of Chapman, Richard A., ‘Leviathan Writ Small: Thomas Hobbes on the Family’, American Political Science Review, 69 (1975), 76–90, at p. 77CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Zvesper, John, ‘Hobbes' Individualistic Analysis of the Family’, Politics (UK), 5 (1985), 28–33 at p. 33CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For references to other discussions of Hobbes and patriarchy see Chapman, , ‘Leviathan Writ Small’, p. 76, fns 2–14.Google Scholar

2 Hampton, Jean, Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

3 Contemporary feminist arguments about patriarchy are discussed in Pateman, Carole, The Sexual Contract (Cambridge: Polity Press; Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), chap. 2.Google Scholar

4 Hobbes, Thomas, Philosophical Rudiments Concerning Government and Society [the English version of De Cive], in The English Works of Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury [hereafter EW] (London: John Bohn, 1841), vol. II, chap. VIII, p. 109.Google Scholar

5 di Stephane, Christine, ‘Masculinity as Ideology in Political Theory: Hobbesian Man Considered’, Women's Studies International Forum, 6 (1983), 633–44, at p. 638.Google Scholar

6 Leslie Stephen in 1904; cited by Schochet, Gordon, Patriarchalism in Political Thought (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1975), p. 234.Google Scholar

7 Hinton, R. W. K., ‘Husbands, Fathers and Conquerors’, Political Studies, 16 (1968), 55–67, at p. 57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 This section draws on Pateman, , The Sexual Contract, chap. 4.Google Scholar

9 Schochet, , Patriarchalism in Political Thought, p. 193.Google Scholar

10 Schochet, , Patriarchalism in Political Thouyht, p. 16.Google Scholar

11 SirFilmer, Robert, Patriarcha, or the Natural Powers of the Kings of England Asserted and Other Political Works, ed. Laslett, Peter (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1949), p. 241; p. 283Google Scholar. Genesis, too, can be interpreted in more than one way, and equality of men and women in the sight of God is not incompatible with male supremacy in human affairs; e.g. Calvin argued from both the perspective of cognitio dei (the eternal, Divine perspective in which all things are equal) and the perspective of cognitio hominis (the worldly perspective in which humans are hierarchically ordered). See Potter, Mary, ‘Gender Equality and Gender Hierarchy in Calvin's Theology’, Signs, 11 (1986), 725–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

12 Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government, 2nd edn, Laslett, Peter, ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967), Bk II, 2.Google Scholar

13 Filmer, , Patriarcha, p. 245.Google Scholar

14 Hobbes, , Leviathan, in EW, vol. III, chap. XX, p. 187.Google Scholar

15 Hobbes, , Leviathan, pp. 186–7.Google Scholar

16 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XIV, pp. 124–5.Google Scholar

17 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XX, p. 186.Google Scholar

18 Hobbes, , Philosophical Rudiments, chap. IX, p. 116.Google Scholar

19 Hobbes, , Leviathan, p. 188.Google Scholar

20 For an account of the controversy, see Coward, Rosalind, Patriarchal Precedents (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983), chap. 2Google Scholar. See also Pateman, , The Sexual Contract, chap. 2.Google Scholar

21 King, Preston, The Ideology of Order (London: Allen & Unwin, 1974), p. 203.Google Scholar

22 King, , The Ideology of Order, p. 206; p. 205Google Scholar. Hobbes's most recent biographer suggests that his argument about mother-right derives from his own experience as a child. Hobbes's views perhaps ‘owed much to that occasion during those years when the curate [Hobbes's father], possibly long before his disappearance, was forced by his character and circumstances to yield the government to Hobbes’ mother' (Rogow, Arnold A., Thomas Hobbes: Radical in the Service of Reaction (New York and London: W.W. Norton and Co., 1986), p. 132Google Scholar). Hobbes's father, rather fond of drink and neglectful of his parish, fled after being accused of assaulting a rector of a neighbouring parish. Ironically Rogow was unable to find any new information about Hobbes's mother. Even her maiden name remains uncertain.

23 The other classic contract theorists are discussed in Pateman, , The Sexual Contract, chaps 3 and 4.Google Scholar

24 Hobbes, , Philosophical Rudiments, chap. IX, p. 116.Google Scholar

25 Hobbes, Thomas, A Dialogue between a Philosopher and a Student of the Common Laws of England, EW, vol. VI, p. 147.Google Scholar

26 Hobbes, Thomas, De Corpore Politico, or The Elements of Law, EW, vol. IV, chap. IV, pp. 158–9.Google Scholar

27 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XVII, p. 154.Google Scholar

28 Hobbes, , Philosophical Rudiments, chap. VIII, p. 108.Google Scholar

29 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. X, p. 82.Google Scholar

30 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XX, p. 191.Google Scholar

31 Hobbes, , Philosophical Rudiments, chap. IX, p. 121.Google Scholar

32 Hobbes, , De Corpore Politico, chap. IV, p. 158.Google Scholar

33 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XV, p. 133.Google Scholar

34 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XX, p. 189.Google Scholar

35 Hobbes, , De Corpore Politico, chap. III, pp. 149–50.Google Scholar

36 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XX, p. 190.Google Scholar

37 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XVII, p. 159.Google Scholar

38 I am grateful to Peter Morriss for raising the question of generations and for other helpful criticisms.

39 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XV, p. 187.Google Scholar

40 Hobbes, , Philosophical Rudiments, chap. IX, p. 118.Google Scholar

41 On the implications of coverture, see Pateman, , The Sexual Contract, chaps 5 and 6.Google Scholar

42 Chapman, , ‘Leviathan Writ Small’, p. 84, fn. 90.Google Scholar

43 Hampton, , Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition, pp. 197–207Google Scholar, argues that his deduction of absolute sovereignty fails precisely because Hobbes makes self-protection an absolute right. But because she takes no account of Hobbes's patriarchalism, she fails to mention that, if the argument about sovereignty in the state is correct, then conjugal sovereignty fails too.

44 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XVII, p. 158.Google Scholar

45 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XVI, p. 151.Google Scholar

46 Hobbes, , Leviathan, chap. XXII, pp. 221–2.Google Scholar

47 Hinton, R. W. K., ‘Husbands, Fathers and Conquerors’, Political Studies, 15 (1967), 291–300 at pp. 294, 299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 For an argument that absolutist conclusions are ultimately unavoidable, see Pateman, Carole, The Problem of Political Obligation, 2nd edn (Cambridge: Polity Press; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1985), chap. 3Google Scholar. Hampton, , Hobbes and the Social Contract TraditionGoogle Scholar, interprets Hobbes's commonwealth as a union of slaves within the will of a master.

49 Hobbes, , Leviathan, Part IV, p. 706.Google Scholar

50 Astell, Mary, Some Reflections Upon Marriage, 4th edn (New York: Source Book Press, 1970; originally published 1730), p. 107.Google Scholar