A Philosophical Discussion by A.M. Kent

Introduction

Absolutism is a term used to describe the total sovereignty of a singular entity, be it a monarch or government over the collective people (Fichter, 1939). The discussion and critical analysis of this essay will first look at the history of enlightenment thinkers, most notably Thomas Hobbes, and the dismantling of ‘divine rights’ in favour of the more grounded humanistic rights (Hobbes, 2017). After a brief history of enlightenment thinkers and their surrounding theories on absolutism vs individualism, a look at the modern modem will be performed in the form of a critical discussion surrounding neo-absolutism (a modern take that finds itself more malleable) (Beloff, 2013; Choi, 2021; Deutschmann, 2001). Finally, a conclusion will be made based on the literature that had surrounded both sides of the proverbial coin regarding the topic of absolutist regimes within society. With a question being raised, is absolutism a move away from pluralistic chaotic confoundment? Or is it a slippery slope to conquest and tyranny? North Korea and China are two modern-day examples of what appears to be absolutism, with China sustaining its version steadily, but is absolutism a reality? Or does it reside within a mirage-like paradigm, as social classes, and capital look to tread the tightrope of myth and reality (Henshall, 2014).

Thomas Hobbes in his poignant both philosophical and politically structural book ‘Leviathan’ (Hobbes, 2017) posited a once again novel idea based on a time when monarchies were being dismantled by the divine rights of the individual. Hobbes claimed that there are no such ‘divine rights’, and the only way for the right of humankind in a structured society to function parsimoniously is to relinquish power to the absolute. Hobbes argued against the divinity of power, claiming that it was not given to the head of the monarchy by a deity, but by the collective (Hobbes, 2017). This coined the belief of ‘Absolutism’ (Fichter, 1939), Hobbes believed that early renditions of mankind lived in a brutalist, anarchistic state of existence with their only equals being each other. Due, to this, a constant warfare of diffidence was waged, and thus the natural state of sapiens was that of ‘uncivilized’ and ‘violent’ disposition (Fichter, 1939). Hobbes brought forth the notion that the only way to quell the uncivilised brute that was the human spirit was through despotism (the belief that the might of the absolute is always right) (Malcolm, 2016). This violent nature inherent within the human essence means that no true security can be garnered unless we come together in a hive-like collective and elect an absolute power, a monism of human origin with total power (Sommerville, 1992). Hobbes is at times referenced as the founder of modern forms of liberalism due to his focus on individualism and natural rights not arising from a deity, despite the belief in a total and singular power dictating the structure of society and the course of the people within it being a juxtaposition (Quentin, 2009).

The idea of absolutism is not without controversy, with some academics within the field of history and political science claiming that absolute power by a singular entity could not even be reliably established within society (Cuttica & Burgess, 2015). Despite this claim, there have been many instances of absolutism in monarchies and ruling bodies over seventeenth-century Europe, including France which saw a revolution due to this. Along with Sweden and King Karl XI in the year 1685, and Britain’s illustrious entanglement with monarchies that exist until today, although said power has been relinquished to democracy in the form of the government and its political constituencies (Miller, 1990). A contradiction to the statement earlier residing in the possibility of absolutism can be seen in modern-day China, which has, despite trials and tribulations, sustained a relative absolute power over its citizens (Huang & Yang, 2022). Some of China’s success in continuing the equilibrium of power to a singularity lies within Confucianism, an ideology that has helped China cement an ideology deep within its foundations (Huang & Yang, 2022). Confucianism sees the human spirit and its relative dignity as subjects to the absolute, as such, neo-Confucianism, its modern reintroduction, has heavily influenced China and its baseline (Yao & Hsin-chung, 2000). As described by a defector of North Korea, named Hwang Chang-yop, absolutism, (in the context of North Korea) when performed to the letter, truly leaves no concept of either the individual identity or their corresponding human rights (Choi, 2021). In the case of North Korea, this is seen as a dictatorship, and there is an underground market of foreign and illegal cultural relics that circulate internally, as they are procured externally. This is the closest that individuals within the state are said to form individuality as either an identity or a concept, albeit an abstract one within North Korea (Choi, 2021). Absolute as a concept within societies of any kind can yield a cross-pollination of extremes, this is notably seen in the debates surrounding the absolute right to free speech, and what accountabilities this can bring to the right to freedom of expression (Mohammed, 2021).

Continuing the vein of thought regarding freedom of expression and absolutism, one may argue that giving the absolute right to expression instigates a tolerance for racism, misogyny, and hate speech (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). The argument against this absolutism of freedom of speech revolves around notions that Jeremy Bentham called ‘The Greatest good for the greatest number’ (Bentham, et al., 1863). An antithesis to absolutism, the individual is revitalised in importance, and the number of individuals outweighs the singularity. Bentham essentially posits that rights are meaningless without protection, and said protection relies on the plurality of benefits (Cohen-Almagor, 2019; Shermer, 2018; Bentham, et al., 1863). Academic Cohen-Almagor states that the absolute right begets the ability to propagate hate speech, with may lead to physical violence or psychological harm, residing in the importance of harm and zemiology on an individual level (Cohen-Almagor, 2019). John Locke, a key enlightenment theorist, laid the foundations for this individualistic mantra based on social dynamics. Locke regarded the right of mankind as natural also, but Locke also considered denying certain rights for the sake of the social cohesion and structure of the masses (Ward, 2010). As a closer to a true modern iteration of liberality, John Locke focused on the individual and their corresponding rights against the idea of a beacon of absolute power, thus, devaluing the individual. Locke posited that society in turn will protect the rights of the individual, and the greatest thing for the health of said society was to acknowledge the individual and grant them their human rights individually (Grant, 2010). Locke’s theory of the individual and their rights is most notable when it comes to property rights, relying on the duty of those within society to care for the economic capital, and as such, calling into question the charity of a human as an obligation, in a way, as an absolute necessity (Forde, 2009). Ironically, Locke’s focus on the obligations of humans to be charitable to one another to stoke the fire of individual responsibility requires absolutism of its own kind (Uzgalis, 2001).

Thomas Paine authored in his work ‘The Rights of Man’ (Paine, 2011), that there is no higher title than human status for a human, and as such, no absolute power or divinity can be bestowed upon a singular over the collective. Paine discusses how out of France came a national assembly of representatives to reform the human rights of man, as the original had such little regard for the individual. As seen, the French revolution served as a catalyst for Paine’s work (Paine, 2011). Paine merited the idea that human or natural rights to the human are not inherent debts owed, instead they were to be seen as a privilege (Paine, 2000). The only natural right, in Paine’s opinion, was that man was inherently entitled to own that of intellectual property, the right to think (Paine, 2000; Paine, 2011). Paine called into question the very fundamental rights and their natural status on page 15 of ‘Political Writings’ (Paine, 2000) by asking ‘How could logic legitimate the privilege, wealth, and political power accorded to an aristocracy of birth?’ (Paine, 2000). The inalienable rights of man such as the one stated before were to be protected by the government, and when they failed to do so, a revolution was permitted, harkening back to the French revolution and its destruction of despotism (Paine, 2013). This presents an interesting dilemma for absolutism and enlightenment thinkers who believe rights are natural or given by divinity. This being that of change, within social norms and the malleable and at times fickle nature of what constitutes as the right way to conduct the ontology of a human (Risse, et al., 1999). Additionally, when a monarchy of a power is absolute, then it calls into question the mental health of the absolute power. If a singular person or leader is to garner total power, then all will be subject to the external ramifications of said leader’s internal state. This can be seen in Joe Biden, who’s mental state is consistently called into question despite him being the elected supremacy of a democratic party and vote as opposed to bloodline or aristocracy (Stein, et al., 2021).

One argument in favour of absolutism is that it is ‘freed from pluralistic chaos’ (Szabo, 2008), as such, it is not shackled to the holistic agreement from a cluster of individuals but a singular right of command, thus, in theory, this should render absolutism more parsimonious (Szabo, 2008).In the case of Thailand, absolutism saw a rise to prominence with King Chulalongkorn, who sought to broaden the horizon of power over the entire nation stemming from the point of the monarchy. However, in 1932, after a failed attempt from ‘The Wild Tiger Corps’, the elite officers of Thailand decided that absolutism was no longer beneficial, and thus power was distributed back to the individuals (Mead, 2006). To juxtaposition, this mantra that absolutism does not work is modern-day China, which was mentioned previously in this discussion. In the case of China, from 221 BCE to 1911, only thirty percent of that period was power in the hands of more than one singular entity. China’s economy is worth bringing into the discussion here and critically assessing. Since China is ruled by a singular power, there are fewer obstacles in the way of commitments to both internal and external institutions, as such, higher wages can be paid out and tax is lower. Moreover, it is worth noting that China is notorious for not paying out higher wages, despite its ability to distribute capital at a higher rate (Ma & Rubin, 2019; Huang & Clair, 2018).

A key issue with absolutism is how easily it can turn into tyranny and dictatorship, in the case of Jacobian absolutism (King George being a key example). This spread out from internal indoctrination and punishment for treason into enemies across external nations. New ideas were seen as not just a different society, but an enemy worth stamping out, and thus tyranny within begat conquest of land (Beloff, 2013). True absolutism requires a centralised power emphasis, and if capital is distributed this is at risk of becoming a paradox. Bourgeoise classes exist within absolutist societies, and they reside in power over social classes of lesser capitalist standings. A question arises if power is singular when a monetary value system dictates the market of materialistic and consumerist goods, and privilege is yielded into existence. Henshall argues that absolutism cannot exist because of this, and as such, the entire concept of absolutism is a myth (Henshall, 2014; Beloff, 2013). The idea behind complete sovereignty is theoretically strong, as it leads to a homogeneity of the collective and an undivided unit is stronger than that one divided (Hoekstra, 2013). Thomas Reid famously said that ‘A chain is only as strong as its weakest link’ (Reid, 2012), this falls into a similar mantra that is integral to the strength of an absolute monarchy ‘Poor peasant, poor king’ (Henshall, 2014). Yet wealth is never absolute, and due to this, there will always be different social classes, even if the majority is poor with only a select residing in high capital like dictatorships (North Korea). Monetary value is incapable of being absolute due to its inability to be observable and as the world becomes increasingly reliant on globalisation, capitalism has flourished despite quasi-communist states such as China ad hominem (Deutschmann, 2001).

Conclusion

This discussion has centred around absolutism, the single power of an entity, be it a monarchy or an individual, and if such a thing is either viable or worthwhile as the antithesis to individualism. Throughout the discussion both historical and modern-day instances of absolute power have been discussed and critically evaluated, highlighting both the strengths and weaknesses of such a theory in practice. Thailand, England, France and its revolution, Sweden, North Korea, and China have all had or continue to have their feet dipped into the proverbial pool of absolutism. The age of enlightenment garnered some interesting ideas based on human rights and how they are to be distributed, and if a human is truly equal to all its counterparts, or if some are greater than others. As usual with paradigms, a best of both worlds is usually the most parsimonious and merited approach, and with absolutism as the opposite, it does not fare well against modern interpretations. Although China has secured itself in a sustainable state of absolute power, this power, as discussed towards the end of the essay, is not truly absolute. Social capital allows one individual or group to own privileges that the others do not, and if currency is the key to globalised markets, there can be no single absolute power, but a cluster of absolutes. Absolutism treads across a tightrope of tyranny, and due to its malleable nature, can easily become dictatorship, tyranny, and conquest against all those who oppose it. Such things were discussed regarding Jacobian absolutism, the bourgeoise lifestyle of wealth that entirely contradicts the statement of ‘poor peasant, poor king’. Thus, true absolutism can be argued to be either a paradox within itself or a myth entirely, and as such, has no real place as a paradigm, and resides more as the mirage of one. It has become clear that absolutism can become reformed into tyranny and the conquest of other lands that disagree with the ideology of the society encompassed within it. As such, this discussion concludes by saying that although absolutism treads the ground of myth, the closer to being achieved it is, the closer to absolute tyranny a society gets.

References

Beloff, M., 2013. The Age of Absolutism (Routledge Revivals): 1660-1815. 1 ed. London: Routledge .

Bentham, J., Mills, J. S. & Ryan, A., 1863. Utilitarianism and Other Essays. 1 ed. London: Penguin Classics.

Choi, J., 2021. NORTH KOREANS’HUMAN RIGHTS AND THE SITUATION OF FOREIGN POPULAR CULTURE. Advancing the Global Agenda for Human Rights, Vulnerable Populations, and Environmental Sustainability, p. 117.

Cohen-Almagor, R., 2019. Tolerating Racism and Hate Speech: A Critique of C.E. Baker’s “Almost” Absolutism. 1 ed. s.l.:The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration.

Cuttica, C. & Burgess, G., 2015. Monarchism and Absolutism in Early Modern Europe. 1 ed. London: Routledge.

Deutschmann, C., 2001. The Promise of Absolute Wealth: Capitalism as a Religion?. Thesis Eleven , 66(1), pp. 32-56.

Fichter, J. H., 1939. Thomas Hobbes on Absolutism. The Modern Schoolman, 16(3), pp. 64-67.

Forde, S., 2009. The Charitable John Locke. The Review of Politics, 71(3), pp. 428-458.

Grant, R. W., 2010. John Locke’s liberalism. 1 ed. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

Henshall, N., 2014. The Myth of Absolutism: Change & Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy. 1 ed. London: Routledge .

Hobbes, T., 2017. Leviathan. 1 ed. London: Penguin Classic .

Hoekstra, K., 2013. Early Modern Absolutism and Constitutionalism. 34 Cardozo L. Rev, Volume 1, p. 1079.

Huang, Y. & Clair, Y., 2018. The Organizationally-Enabled Longevity of Chinese Absolutism. Academy of Management Proceedings , Volume 1, p. 18197.

Huang, Y. & Yang, C., 2022. A Longevity Mechanism of Chinese Absolutism. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), pp. 625-1261.

Ma, D. & Rubin, J., 2019. The Paradox of Power: Principal-agent problems and administrative capacity in Imperial China (and other absolutist regimes). Journal of Comparative Economics, 47(2), pp. 277-294.

Malcolm, N., 2016. Thomas Hobbes: liberal illiberal. Journal of the British Academy , Issue 4.

Mead, K. K., 2006. The Rise and Decline of Thai Absolutism. Vol 22 ed. Sussex : Psychology Press .

Miller, J., 1990. Absolutism in Seventeenth-Century Europe. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

Mohammed, A. Y. A. T., 2021. Freedom of opinion and expression in international human rights law: between absolutism and restriction.. Arribat-International Journal of Human Rights Published by CNDH Morocco, 1(1), pp. 11-25.

Paine, T., 2000. Paine: Political Writings. 1 ed. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Paine, T., 2011. Rights of Man. 1 ed. Peterborough: Broadview Press.

Paine, T., 2013. The Thomas Paine Reader. 1 ed. New York : Simon and Schuster.

Quentin, T., 2009. Leviathan Bound; or the Re-education of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes Studies, 22(2), pp. 123-143.

Reid, T., 2012. Essays on the Intellectual Powers of Man. 2 ed. London: General Books LLC.

Risse, T. R.-K. ,., Ropp, S. C. & Sikkink, K., 1999. The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change. 66 ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Shermer, M., 2018. Does the Philosophy of “the Greatest Good for the Greatest Number” Have Any Merit?. Scientific American , 1st May.

Sommerville, J. P., 1992. Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context. 1 ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.

Stein, A. M., Mahomed, F., Patel, V. & Sunkel, C., 2021. Mental Health, Legal Capacity, and Human Rights. 1 ed. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Szabo, F. A. J., 2008. Kaunitz and Enlightened Absolutism 1753-1780. 1 ed. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.

Uzgalis, W., 2001. John Locke. s.l.:Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Ward, L., 2010. John Locke and Modern Life. 1 ed. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press..

Yao, X. & Hsin-chung, Y., 2000. An Introduction to Confucianism. 1 ed. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.