Pluralism and the Personality of the State (Ideas in Context)
Pluralism and the character of the nation tells the heritage of English political idea from 1900 to 1933, targeting the paintings of the political pluralists and their assault at the proposal of kingdom sovereignty. It explores the historical past to their paintings within the principles of the English thinker Thomas Hobbes and the German jurist Otto von Gierke. It additionally seems at what wider relevance their rules may need this present day, relatively with reference to the query of the relation among the country and voluntary institutions.
Current political controversies turned social philosophy into political philosophy: thinking always of the State, philosophers sought not the principle of social obligation, but the principle of political obligation.'34 The political, therefore, relates to the state, which means government, which means a partial body of men. As a result, and despite Cole's suggestions to the contrary, the business of co 32 See Cole, 'Conflicting social obligations', 144–5. 33 Ibid., 148. 34 Ibid.
Advocates of the sovereign state against whom the conception of a pluralistic society is directed. What is more, he identifies Hegel's conception of the state with that of a theorist for whom freedom was the antithesis of responsibility; that is, he 21 See Laski, The foundations of sovereignty, p. 157. 22 Ibid., p. 152. Page 188 23 identifies Hegel with Hobbes.
But if the person is to be a man, then the Leviathan, assuming it is neither a child, a madman or a fool, must be a person — which means that Leviathan must be capable of performing its own actions, and its parts must be coordinated in the performance of each action. To look to the sovereign to act on its behalf is entirely questionbegging at this juncture, since the image of the Leviathan is being asked to provide the state with an identity apart from the identity of its representative. The.
Allow for some significant variations, for while the relation between actor and author will frequently be founded on a covenant between them, it may also be founded on a covenant between the author and a third party binding both to treat of the actor's words and actions as though they were the author's own. This distinction is significant, not only in the development of Hobbes's own argument, but also for the diverse conceptions of authority which may follow from it, since there is a great.
More than recast what was a very humble idea. For Maitland it is the latter. He did not believe that the corporation sole had exercised an enduring influence on English political thought for the simple reason that he did not believe that Hobbes had exercised such an influence either. Rather, Hobbes stood at the end of that period, stretching back to Henry VIII, when, as Maitland put it elsewhere, the days had been uncharacteristically 'evil'.39 When that period ended in 1688, Englishmen were.