By Eleni Papageorgiou,
We have to compromise with an unspoken and uncomfortable truth: authority and control are essential evils in every society.
Today, people live in big groups consisting of millions of other human beings with the same needs and goals. We are all fed by agricultural products, we enjoy equal treatment, we have enacted laws and we are governed, or empowered, by the nation. But the system has not always been like this. Our distant ancestors were living as nomads, organized as hunters or collectors. Everyone in the tribe, including the chief, was equal. The leader, who embodied a coordinating role, had to stop conflicts peacefully and make decisions on behalf of the villagers but he was also a hard-working person. Τhe transition to modern societies took place in the Neolithic period. It started about 10.000 years ago because of agriculture’s invention in Middle East, Asia, India, Central America and the Andes almost simultaneously. After 5.000 years, these scattered nomads joined together and created bigger groups of hundreds or even thousands of members. Due to the greater amounts of food production and the livestock farming, they were able to support their needs with new specialties. In this way, the leader and other members did not have to hunt or plow, and the first metallurgists, builders, craftsmen and soldiers were developed. But this is where the problem begins.
People until then used to live in groups of dozens and, most importantly, they had family bonds. After merging with other groups they were forced to live together with unknown people, where everyone pursued their own interest. As Thomas Hobbes said -and I am paraphrasing-, “when we have two live beings claiming the same part of resources, they will inevitably conflict one another.” In every urban society, these conflicts can lead to consecutive incidents of violence or else called vendetta. For example, if in Neolithic societies someone stole an important resource e.g. an animal, a hunting weapon or crops, the affected one should retaliate in order not to be seen as a victim by other potential thieves. This action was mandatory to happen even if one had forgiven the thief; and here is how a vicious circle of violence starts. What we must also not ignore is the fact that based on psychology we know that people tend to justify and act in favor of themselves. Because of this, the victim feels underprivileged and becomes once again a perpetrator and vice versa.
In this example, we are facing a non-stop growing amount of acts of rage. During the Paleolithic ages the problem was solved with the help of the chief but in a Neolithic society the need of a third “wheel” arose. This was called by Hobbes “The Leviathan”, and it refers to a neutral person or organization to which the rest of society grants the authority to exercise violence legally. In the example of the two thieves, if a third person with greater power had to interfere, he should be fair towards both. Hobbes thought that Leviathan could be a very helpful solution if based on an agreement between people and the government. But this seems to be the best case scenario and not the reality.
Τhe incarnation of Leviathan through the years led to tyranny. People were forced to provide all their privileges to their master so he would keep them safe from other conquerors. A situation like this is called Pax Romana, when a powerful nation, group or person does not attack a weaker one just because of the fear of someone stronger. Best known examples are Pax Islamica, Pax Mongolica, Pax Ottomana, Pax Hispanica and Pax Brittanica. Generally, it seems that the existence of the state’s enforcement of law reduces the rates of violence by 65-80%. But the monopoly on violence tends to make the stronger ones establish rules and laws more favorable to themselves. As we know from historical facts, centrally-led societies used to kill women in battle, take slaves and commit atrocities. They also tended to criminalize almost every action that they did not like.
To conclude, Leviathan seems like solving a problem but at the same time it creates a new and bigger one. Citizens are less likely to die in battle but must live under the pressure of a powerful tyrant. This is the great bet of modern humanity: how to bring peace without at the same time giving complete control to an oppressive governor.
References
- Britannica, State monopoly on violence, Available here
- History, Neolithic Revolution, Available here
