Contracts and You

Firstly, it is necessary to examine the theory itself. Locke proposed, although not in so many words, that government, a basic tenet of society [it is necessary to note that even egalitarian societies have forms of government, even though they are not powerful or centralized], originated as an agreement between the individual members of society. Many philosophers, including David Hume, have criticized this standpoint, and rightly so. Aside from the obvious logistical difficulties related to this view when dealing with a society of any significant size, it takes for granted certain things about the emergence of society. Perhaps the most identifiable of these assumptions; that government emerged as a conscious act of choice, perhaps even a conscious choice between different styles of government, is also among the easiest to argue against.

To begin with, this view presupposes that the people already had knowledge of various styles of government, and were able to pick and choose which style suited them best. This implies that somewhere along the line the people had either made contact with these forms of government, or had tried them for themselves. The latter is paradoxical in the context of Contractarianism, and so cannot be the case, and the former is highly unlikely. If, however, the people had come in contact with various forms of government, it begs the question, how did those other governments form, and which among them was the first? Obviously the first government had neither come in contact with any others, or tried any other style of government, so therefore there was no menu from which to choose, and therefore a case can be made against Contractarianism on that point.

The theory of conscious choice also presupposes that the people were unhappy with their current lifestyle, and does not take into account outside pressures, such as simple economics or religion. The group of people known as the Mayans, for example, were actually much like the early Greeks, not one civilization so much as many in close proximity to one another. The Tikal Mayans, for example, are believed to have formed their civilization and early government around the priesthood, who are believed to have been in relied on for information regarding agriculture, specifically when to plant, and when to harvest. Haviland writes,

The dependence of the population in and around Tikal upon their priesthood to manipulate supernatural beings and forces on their behalf, in order that their crops would not fail, tended to keep them in or near the city, in spite of the fact that a slash-and-burn method of agriculture, which was probably the prevailing method in early Tikal’s history, requires the constant shifting of plots and consequently tended to disperse the population over large areas.
[Haviland, p. 320]

However, the example of the Tikal Mayans also brings up the subject of economic pressures, which helped to fuel their religious fervor. The Tikal Mayans were very worried about food production, and rightly so. They most likely did not feel that they had much in the way of choice when it came to relying on the priesthood for agricultural advice. It is most likely that they felt the only other option was starvation, which is against the instinct for survival, and therefore is not truly an option at all in this particular context. Locke seems to have ignored the possibility that the formation of government was reactionary, in response to the threat of starvation or such.

Another assumption that Locke makes, is that the contract, if there was one, would extend to the offspring of those who made the contract. In other words, the people who formed the government through mutual agreement were also binding their children and grandchildren and all subsequent generations to that contract, which is not strictly speaking, a contract. The subsequent generations are not voluntarily entering into the agreement, and therefore it is not a contract for them, it is instead very nearly enslavement, in the sense that they are bound by terms they did not themselves agree to.

Hume is quick to point out that government, while in some sense may have been voluntary, was not formed by sitting down and discussing the options, but rather came to be a "habitual ... acquiescence of the people." [Narveson, LPP, p.56] This view is not at all compatible with Locke’s proposal, but at the same time is much more logical, given the size of most early civilizations. The logistics of any other method would have been unimaginably complex, and almost certainly beyond the capabilities of most peoples of the time, since many of them had yet to develop even the most crude systems of writing.

If even these somewhat basic arguments can be levied against Contractarianism, is it even possible for the philosophy to survive? The answer is yes, although one must disregard the theory of the original contract. Since contracts are used every day in every single society, in one form or another, then there obviously must be a place for contract theory.

Certain aspects of government can be benfited by incorporating Contractarianism. For example if the government were to ever consider employing it’s citizens, it would obviously have to form contracts with them. Contracts are also a necessary part of dealing with other nations. Contracts can prevent international conflict, lower trade barriers, and increase at least the appearance of human rights, which is actually more important than it may sound, at least from the standpoint of the government.

There is also the point to consider that while the ideal and rational government may be separated from it’s country’s major religion, it must be acknowledged that this is not always the case, and that these systems, however unreasonable we may find them, must be dealt with as they are for now. Governments in this situation may find it necessary to encourage their citizens to form personal contracts with their god or gods, in fact, if the goal of the governing body is to control it’s citizens, the government may even suggest what that contract should be. Again, while this may not be the ideal form of government, it must at least be explored, since such regimes have existed in the past, exist today, and will most likely continue to exist in the future.

While many may dismiss Contractariansim out of course, it is important to realize that while it may not be an adequate philosophy with which to run a complex, efficient, and fully functional government, it may still have it’s benefits if properly explored in a modern context. However, Contractarianism as a theory to explain the rise of government and civilization, it is extremely ineffective, and should be totally discarded. The theory defies the logistical capabilities of even today’s societies with modern technology and techniques for transferring information. It fails to take into account problems which arise so consistently throughout human history that they might very well be referred to as historical mainstays, problems such as economic pressures and the religious beliefs of the populace. And even though aspects of the human psyche may defy reason and logic, it is important that we not forgot to include them as factors, since we may not simply ignore that which does not easily fit into our theories.