Shonagh Rae, NY Times

The Cult of Personality and
the Lure of Authoritarianism

"The cult of personality functions the same everywhere; it rests on the inaccurate notion that the face somehow represents the nation. Cults of personality make us feel rather than think. In particular, they make us feel that the first question of politics is “Who are we, and who are they?” rather than “What is the world like, and what can we do about it?” Once we accept that politics is about “us and them,” we feel like we know who “we” are, since we feel that we know who “they” are. In fact, we know nothing, since we have accepted fear and anxiety — animal emotions — as the basis of politics. We have been played.

*

Democracy says that we all make mistakes, but that we get a chance, every so often, to correct ourselves. Democracy is the courageous way to have a country. A cult of personality is a cowardly way of destroying one.

- Timothy Snyder, NY Times, Dec. 3. 2018
​

The Lure of Authoritarianism
​
Thomas Hobbes and Process Philosophy
​

I am afraid of the cult of personality and the lure of authoritarianism. I want to think that politics can be about more than fear and anxiety. And yet I want to understand the lure of authoritarianism at home and abroad. I want to understand why some people are drawn to it, and why it has power. Thomas Hobbes helps me.

*

For people in violent circumstances, peace and security are more important than individual rights. and if a sovereign offers that peace, they welcome it. The sovereign can be a person or a state; what is important is that peace is provided. The alternative is chaos.

*

The future may be open, but the next one hundred years will see more and more instances of authoritarian rule in various parts of the world, some precipitated by populist movements within nations and some by war and the threat of war. ​In the West, a leading advocate of such rule is the seventeenth century thinker Thomas Hobbes. who believed that, without an all-powerful state, humans would exist in a natural state of war. We need powerful rule, he believed, not just when we are in violent circumstances, but in order to avoid such violence.

*
​
Hobbes' bleak vision is unpopular among liberals, but it might help us better understand "the recent disappointments of progressive politics and the failures of liberal democracies."  It can shed light on the lure of authoritarianism. This page is an invitation to think with Hobbes, guided by two podcasts offered by the BBC and a short "process" response.

​- Jay McDaniel

Hobbes and the New Leviathans
​

​"Solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short" is the way Thomas Hobbes described the life of man in a state of nature in his 1651 book The Leviathan. The seventeenth century philosopher reasoned that what men needed was a "common power to keep them in awe". It was a conclusion that has not endeared him to the enlightenment and liberal thinkers of the centuries that followed. The philosopher John Gray thinks that Hobbes' bleak vision of the human condition might help us understand the recent disappointments of progressive politics and the failures of liberal democracies. Anne McElvoy talks to him about this theory and to journalist and author of Politics: A Survivors Guide, Rafael Behr and Teresa Bejan, Professor of Political Theory at the University of Oxford and author of Mere Civility: Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration.

---

Thomas Hobbes
​

Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the great 17th century political philosopher Thomas Hobbes who argued: "During the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man". For Hobbes, the difference between order and disorder was stark. In the state of nature, ungoverned man lived life in "continual fear, and danger of violent death". The only way out of this "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" existence, he said, was to relinquish all your freedom and submit yourself to one all powerful absolute sovereign.

​Hobbes' proposal, contained in his controversial and now classic text, Leviathan, was written just as England was readjusting to life after the Civil War and the rule of Oliver Cromwell. In fact, in his long life Hobbes’ allegiance switched from Charles I to Cromwell and back to Charles II. But how did the son of a poor clergyman end up as the most radical thinker of his day? Why did so many of Hobbes' ideas run counter to the prevailing fondness for constitutionalism with a limited monarchy? And why is he regarded by so many political philosophers as an important theorist when so few find his ideas convincing? With Quentin Skinner, Regius Professor of History at the University of Cambridge; David Wootton, Professor of History at the University of York; Annabel Brett, Senior Lecturer in Political Thought and Intellectual History at Cambridge University.

​Process and Authoritarianism

​Thinking with Hobbes

Imagine a world in which there is no governing authority: no state and no ruler. What might it be like?

Some people might envision it as utopian, believing that humans, liberated from laws, rules, and authorities, would naturally care for one another. They speak as if, without the trappings of authorities, we are angels.

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) offers a different perspective. He argues that people will exist in a constant state of fear: a fear of violence, anarchy, and death. And the fear would be justified. Their lives will be, in Hobbes famous words, "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." The way out of this "state of nature," as he speaks of it, is to submit themselves to one absolute sovereign that has absolute power to keep the peace and which "keeps them in awe." 

Hobbes believes that people are driven by two primary forces: (1) self-interest, fear, and a desire for self-preservation, and (2) a need for self-respect, which emerges as they compare themselves to others. To achieve this, Hobbes contends that individuals will willingly relinquish certain less vital needs, like the need for self-expression or public dissent, in exchange for the security and sense of belonging provided by a strong and absolute government authority. This government or ruler will and should remain unchallenged, and individuals will submit willingly in return for protection, security, and a sense of community. Even their language will be regulated for the greater good. If censorship is deemed necessary to maintain peace, it will be accepted. Education will teach people the proper use of language to ensure peace and nurture the sense of belonging fostered by the government.

The leaders of such a government can be kings or authoritarian rulers, with the authority to create and enforce laws, resolve disputes, and maintain order without opposition. These leaders will not derive their mandate from divine authority or their own decree but rather from a social contract with the people they govern. The implicit agreement from the people's end will be: "If you keep the peace, you stay in power."

Contemporary Parallels

We can easily identify imperfect parallels between this vision and current world affairs. In nations witnessing the rise of authoritarian rule, the attraction often lies in the promise of peace, security, pride, and a sense of belonging—essentially, the promise of law, order, and community. Two examples are Donald Trump and Xi Jinping. In the case of Trump, the parallel is not exact, as many Trump supporters view his rise as divinely mandated, with a muted social contract. They associate Trump with constitutional rule, even though he is somewhat indifferent to (and ignorant of) the constitution. In the case of China, the parallels are also imprecise because, under communism, the official teaching is that human beings can be transformed into cooperative, caring individuals, while Hobbes saw human nature as inherently fearful and power-seeking.

Nonetheless, Hobbes provides a valuable framework for understanding the psychological motivations of authoritarianism, for absolute rule, in one form or another. And his assessment of human nature also has truth in it. Even if humans have their better angels, they also harbor a fear of violence and anarchy, alongside a desire for self-respect in relation to others. They want to belong to a tribe, whether American, Chinese, Russian, or Ukrainian. And they are willing to subordinate what classical liberalism, influenced by John Locke, labels as "individual rights" for the sake of harmony and belonging. The appeal of Trump and Xi Jinping is security and belonging.

How might process philosophy
​assess these matters?

Process philosophy offers a perspective that differs from Hobbes, but that recognizes the partial truth of some of what he says. 

1. Dual Nature of Human Beings: Hobbes was a materialist; he thought people were bodies in motion. By contrast, process philosophy suggests that human beings are not bodies alone but also possess minds or souls capable of reason beyond their bodily appetites. They argue as well that bodily appetites - physical urges inherited from genes and society - can pro-social as well as anti-social. This challenges Hobbes' view of human nature as primarily driven by self-interest and the pursuit of power. From a process perspective, humans can be driven by love and empathy, too. 
.
2. Two Kinds of Power, Persuasion and Coercion: Process philosophy recognizes two types of power at play in human life – the power of persuasion and the power of coercion. Despite Hobbes' focus on the state of war and conflict, process philosophy suggests that humans can engage with one another lovingly and relationally, relying on persuasion rather than coercion.

3. Persons-in-Community: Process philosophy proposes that humans are not isolated individuals inherently fearful of each other. Instead, they - we - are persons-in-community, which means that our interactions can be mutually beneficial and non-violent. This challenges Hobbes' view of humans as primarily driven by fear and self-interest.

4. Influence of Bodily Appetites and Impulses: Process philosophy acknowledges that human beings are indeed influenced by bodily appetites, including instincts related to self-preservation and aggression. These influences can be both genetically and socially inherited and can dominate behavior in certain circumstances. However, process philosophy also recognizes that humans inherit impulses toward cooperation, empathy, and trust, both genetically and socially. These pro-social and anti-social impulses together constitute the complex array of influences shaping human life from moment to moment. 

5. Role of Government in Promoting Peace: Process philosophy agrees with Hobbes on the importance of government, whether in the form of a legislative body or a ruler, in protecting people against violence and promoting peace. In situations where the choice is between peace and violence, and peace can only be achieved through authoritative rule, the preference for such rule aligns with the process philosophy's understanding of the necessity for order and security in human society.

6. Recognition of the Power of Rhetoric: Along with Hobbes, process philosophy recognizes that political rhetoric, like all forms of rhetoric, plays a significant role in human life. It functions not only as a tool for understanding but also, and perhaps more deeply, as a "lure for feeling," as noted by Whitehead. In an age of mass media, rhetoric extends beyond linguistic expression to include visual and sonic elements. Images and sounds, just as much as words, have the power to attract or repel people, influencing their perceptions and decisions.

7. Limits to Individual Liberty: In addition, process philosophy emphasizes that "individual liberty," however understood, is not an absolute. While individual liberty is considered a valuable aspect of human life, it is not an infinite good. Process philosophy recognizes that the common good encompasses more than just the dynamic of self-willed individuals pursuing their own individual interests. It suggests that there are limits to individual liberty, and that the common good extends beyond individual desires. One example of this common good is peace, which is seen as a shared and collective goal that may require certain restrictions on individual liberty to achieve and maintain. This perspective aligns with the notion that the well-being of the community as a whole is a crucial consideration alongside individual freedoms.

In short, process philosophy understands the appeal of authoritarianism in the interests of peace and the common good, while offering a more nuanced and pliable understanding of human nature. There may be circumstances in which authoritarian rule is the better option, given states of war, but in other circumstances, when peace is secure, a respect for individual rights so self-determination, in community with others, is preferable.

Selected Books by Thomas Hobbes
​

1. "Leviathan" (1651): This is perhaps Hobbes's most famous work, in which he explores his political philosophy. In "Leviathan," Hobbes argues for the necessity of a strong central authority to maintain social order and prevent the "state of nature," which he famously described as a condition of "war of all against all."​
   
2. "De Cive" (1642): This work, also known as "On the Citizen," is an earlier exploration of Hobbes's political ideas and serves as a precursor to "Leviathan."
   
3. "De Corpore" (1655): In this work, Hobbes discusses metaphysics and the nature of bodies and matter. It lays the groundwork for his later philosophical ideas.
   
4. "De Homine" (1658): Also known as "On Man," this work delves into Hobbes's views on human nature and the relationship between individual psychology and political authority.
5. "Behemoth, or The Long Parliament" (written in the 1660s, published posthumously in 1681): This book is Hobbes's historical account of the English Civil War and the events leading up to it. It provides valuable insights into his perspective on the political turmoil of his time