War is Not Individual
Rousseau – Reflective
For this reflective post I would like to discuss Rousseau’s conception of war.
“Men are not naturally enemies, for the simple reason that men living in their original state of independence do not have sufficiently constant relationships among themselves to bring about either a state of peace or a state of war. And since this state of war cannot come into existence from simple personal relations, but only from real [proprietary] relations, a private war between one man and another can exist neither in the state of nature, where there is no constant property, nor in the social state, where everything is under the authority of laws…War is not therefore a relationship between one man and another, but a relationship between one state and another. In war private individuals are enemies only incidentally: not as men or even as citizens, but as soldiers; not as members of the homeland but as its defenders. Finally, each state ca have as enemies only other states and not men, since there can be no real relationship between things of disparate natures (145-146).
This concept of war is significant of the current arena of international relations. Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the Westphalia nation state system, the nation state has been the predominant and primary actor in international relations. In many IR theories the state, as an entity, speaks with one voice.
This concept of war is also significant in how it contrasts with Hobbes’ view of war. Hobbes emphasizes that war can be between individuals. In fact, the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. This shows in Hobbes’ conception that private wills are predominant and there really was no unison in wills among the people.
For this reflective post I would like to discuss Rousseau’s conception of war.
“Men are not naturally enemies, for the simple reason that men living in their original state of independence do not have sufficiently constant relationships among themselves to bring about either a state of peace or a state of war. And since this state of war cannot come into existence from simple personal relations, but only from real [proprietary] relations, a private war between one man and another can exist neither in the state of nature, where there is no constant property, nor in the social state, where everything is under the authority of laws…War is not therefore a relationship between one man and another, but a relationship between one state and another. In war private individuals are enemies only incidentally: not as men or even as citizens, but as soldiers; not as members of the homeland but as its defenders. Finally, each state ca have as enemies only other states and not men, since there can be no real relationship between things of disparate natures (145-146).
This concept of war is significant of the current arena of international relations. Ever since the Treaty of Westphalia, which established the Westphalia nation state system, the nation state has been the predominant and primary actor in international relations. In many IR theories the state, as an entity, speaks with one voice.
This concept of war is also significant in how it contrasts with Hobbes’ view of war. Hobbes emphasizes that war can be between individuals. In fact, the state of nature is a state of war of all against all. This shows in Hobbes’ conception that private wills are predominant and there really was no unison in wills among the people.
posted by Holly at 12:04 AM
<< Home