Realism | Bull v Hobbes

By John Lee

According to the traditional Realist account, sovereign states, unlike the individuals within them, are not subject to a common government or supranational arbiter. As Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson terms it, they exist in a state of ‘international anarchy’, with the possibility of forming any kind of society out of the question.

Bull invokes the ‘domestic analogy’ to show how traditional realists assert that states, like individuals, are only capable of forming an orderly society if – in Hobbes’ words – they ‘stand in awe of a common power’. Further, according to Hobbesians, a social contract of states that would bring anarchy to an end is neither desirable nor possible. But Bull points out three shortcomings of the argument that states do not form a society because they are in a condition of anarchy.

HOBBES’S STATE OF NATURE

Firstly, says Bull, the modern international system does not entirely resemble a Hobbesian ‘state of nature’ in which ‘Kings and persons of sovereign authority are in continual jealousies and in the posture of gladiators with their weapons pointing and eyes fixed on one another’. Hobbes says there can be no industry, commerce, agriculture, art, culture or other refinements of living because the strength and invention of men are taken up in providing security against one another. Bull contends that the absence of a world government has been no bar to trade, industry, art, culture or other refinements. Not all a state’s energies are taken up in providing security, and in any case, the security the state’s military does provide makes the conditions under which economic and cultural progress can be made possible.

Further, says Bull, Hobbes’s claim that the notions of right and wrong or property do not apply to international relations, is incorrect. Within the system of states that grew up in Europe from Westphalia onwards, and thence spread around the world, notions of right and wrong in international behaviour have always held a central place. Perhaps the only facet of Hobbes’s ‘state of nature’ that does hold true for Bull, is the perpetual disposition of every state to war. Even when at peace, state actors prepare for the possibility of war with ‘organised violence’ one of the options open to them. As Hans Morgenthau said: ‘All history shows that nations active in international politics are continuously preparing for, involved in or recovering from organised violence in the form of war.’

THE FEAR FALLACY

The second weakness of the argument that states do not form a society because they are in a condition of ‘international anarchy’ concerns false premises of order among individuals and groups other than the state. It is not the case, says Bull, that fear of a supreme ruler or government, as Hobbes would have it, is the only source of order within a state: reciprocity and a sense of community, habit and inertia must be given their due weight.  In international relations, says Bull, we must turn, not to Hobbes’s, but to Locke’s pre-contractual ‘state of nature’. Here, with no central authority to interpret and enforce law, each member must be a judge themselves. The resulting justice may be ‘crude and uncertain’, but it is better than no justice at all.

LIMITATIONS OF THE DOMESTIC ANALOGY

States are unlike individuals, says Bull. They are not so absorbed in providing security that they leave no energy to ensure the lives of their subjects are not brutish. Furthermore, states are not vulnerable to attack in the same way individuals are. Spinoza says that a ‘commonwealth’ can guard against subjugation in a way an individual cannot because a single man is ‘overcome by sleep, afflicted by disease and finally prostrated by old age’. In other words, says Bull, groups of individuals organised as states can protect themselves independently of the frailties of any one individual among their number. While one man can be wiped out by a sudden attack, the physical extinction of an entire state is vanishingly rare. Indeed, Clausewitz says war is ‘never absolute in its results’. However, Bull points out that in the age of nuclear weapons, war could be ‘absolute in its results’ with one or both belligerent peoples wiped out by a ‘single, instantaneous blow’.

While states are less vulnerable to attack than individual men, they are not equally so. Bull highlights the persistent distinction between great and small powers with the former far less vulnerable to attack than the latter. It is only with the dawn of nuclear warheads and other WMDs that the condition may now apply where ‘ the weakest have strength enough to kill the strongest’.

CONCLUSION

Bull maintains that the argument which says ‘just because men can’t form a society without government then neither can states’ breaks down for two reasons. Firstly, order can be found among individual units, and secondly, states are unlike individuals – they are capable of forming a society albeit an ‘anarchical’ one. 

IN BRIEF

1 No supreme arbiter: Goldsworthy Lowes Dickinson says ‘international anarchy’.

2 Domestic analogy: States only able to form a society when, like individuals  ‘they stand in awe of a common power.’ Social contract to bring anarchy to an end is neither desirable nor possible (Hobbes).

3 Bull says society does not resemble Hobbes’s ‘state of nature’ where Kings are in continual jealousies and the posture of Gladiators with weapons pointing and eyes on each other’.

4 Industry, trade, culture ARE possible because men’s resources are not entirely taken up with maintaining security against one another. Absence of a world government has been no bar to the refinements of living, says Bull.

5 Hobbes says notions of right and wrong have no place in IR. Not so says Bull. Within system that grew up after Westphalia, right & wrong have held a central place.

6 Hobbes’s ‘state of nature’ is right on one count: Perpetual disposition of every state to war. Even in peace, states are preparing for the possibility of armed conflict.

BULLETS

—Society possible if man or state ‘stand in awe of common power.’

—’State of nature’ – Kings in continual jealousies and the posture of Gladiators

—No refinements without security. Absence of world govt no bar (Bull)

—Notions of right and wrong have no place. Not so since Westphalia (Bull)

—Fear of a supreme ruler not the only source of order – reciprocity, community.

—Locke’s ‘state of nature’ – each member is a judge. Crude and uncertain.

—States not like individuals, not absorbed in security. Spinoza commonwealth of individuals = secure. Man ‘overcome by sleep, afflicted by disease, prostrated by old age’.

—One man can be wiped out by a single blow, but not a state. Clausewitz: ‘War is never absolute in its results.’

—Nuclear age – one or both belligerents wiped out by single, instantaneous blow.

—States not equally invulnerable to attack. Great powers subjugate the small. But now,  nukes mean the weak have ‘strength enough to kill the strongest’.