STATE OF NATURE IN THE MODERN SOCIETY
-
Upload
independent -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of STATE OF NATURE IN THE MODERN SOCIETY
EUROPEAN REGIONAL MASTER'S DEGREE IN DEMOCRACY ANDHUMAN RIGHTS IN SOUTH EAST EUROPE
STATE OF NATURE IN THE MODERN SOCIETY
Cluster 1: PHILOSOPHY OF HUMAN RIGHTSCluster Leader: Prof. Asim Mujkic
BY
BISERA MITIK
SARAJEVO, BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
DECEMBER 2009
29 PAGES
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................3
1. WHAT IS STATE OF NATURE?..............................................................................................5
1.1. State of nature according to Thomas Hobbes.......................................................................7
1.2. State of nature according to John Locke...............................................................................9
1.3. State of nature according to Jean Jacques Rousseau...........................................................11
1.4. Analysis...............................................................................................................................14
2. IS THERE A STATE OF NATURE IN THE 21st CENTURY?...............................................15
2.1. Indigenous peoples..............................................................................................................16
2.1.1. Definitions on Indigenous............................................................................................16
2.1.2 Examples of Indigenous peoples: Australian Aborigines and the Bushmen of South
Africa......................................................................................................................................18
2.2. Do indigenous people today enjoy the same rights as other citizens, and do we really need
government to protect those rights?...........................................................................................21
CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................24
BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................26
2
INTRODUCTION
According to John Stuart Mill “The state of nature that precedes civilization is where
originality resides”1 and “the society leaves its individuals to their own devices as long as they
do not harm others.”2 But what really is the state of nature? Moreover, why this idea as it was
presented by the theorists never played its real role in practice? Was the state of nature that
chaotic that people choose to have a superior, rather than being free from any obstacles? Were
people afraid of their fellow human beings as Hobbes insinuates?
I am working on the topic of the state of nature in the modern society, because I want to
find out if there is still a state of nature in the 21st century, for example in the indigenous
societies, or that is some kind of social contract or anarchy. I am doing this in order to
understand how people today live and if the basic human rights, as the right of life, the right to
liberty and security, the right of freedom etc., are respected in those societies.
In this paper, I will try to analyze why despite the overall technical and technological
progress, the cultural development, the democratic values that we stand for and the globalization
of the countries in the world, yet in some parts of Planet Earth we can meet the remnants of what
Rousseau, Hobbes and Locke call ‘the state of nature’. These societies living in the state of
nature are trying to tell us that not always rule of law is needed; not always people need
government to live proper and in peace. The world never was, and never will be without number
of people living in that state, the state of nature. If we only look at the examples of many
indigenous people round the Globe, we can see that people can live without legally established
government, without constitution and without laws, and still respect each other and live in peace.
1 Mill, John Stuart. Nature. In “From the state of nature to evolution in John Steward Mill” by Gal Gerson. Australian Journal of politics and history: Volume 48, Number 3, 2002, 305-3212 Ibid
3
This is contrary to Hobbes’s claims that people in the state of nature cannot live just because
homo homini lupus est.3 So the need for social contract is not really a need. On the other hand,
we can observe that sometimes the human nature is egoistic, wolfish and greedy: what is mine is
mine, and what is yours I want to be mine. That is a result of population growth, the limitation of
the resources, the enrichment of certain class of people and the innovations and development of
the world. Contrary to this, that is not the situation in many undeveloped African tribes, as I will
show later in the paper.
In the first chapter of this paper, I will expose the main ideas of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke
and Jean Jacques Rousseau and their picture of the state of nature. Following, in the second and
last chapter, I will try to find out if there is a state of nature in the 21 st century. As an example, I
will be taking the indigenous peoples, their structure of society and their development.
Furthermore, I will discuss the significance of the human rights that these people have and the
way they manage to exercise them in the world they live in.
There is a lot to say on this topic and there are a lot more examples on this subject, but due to
limited time and resources, I will keep my research and my analysis short and within these
frames. My research is contained mostly from research of the main theories or Hobbes, Locke
and Rousseau, relevant articles concerning the state of nature, articles concerning the life and the
society of the indigenous peoples (primary and secondary sources).
3 “Homo homini lupus est.” means that every man is wolf to every other man. Hobbes uses this metaphor to tell us that behind every man’s canvas there is an evil inside always ready to protect him/her from all others; get and protect what he thinks it is his/hers.
4
1. WHAT IS STATE OF NATURE?
There are many definitions on what the ‘state of nature’ is. According to Hobbes, “The
state of nature is a state of incessant mutual exploitation.”4 Many encyclopedias consider the
state of nature as “uncivilized and uncultured condition,”5 a “wild primitive state untouched by
civilization.”6 State of nature is described also as a condition before the introduction of the rule
of law, and as a state where there are no rights but only freedoms. In such a world where there
are no laws, government, power, the people are in a natural condition of humankind.
Nevertheless, the state of nature in its true form7 never existed in human society. Perhaps
as a state of nature we can take the examples of the emergence of human society when man was
savage and lived in hordes. The human at that point of development was not aware of anything,
except livelihood and survival. People acted free from all restrictions and pressures. They
showed their true existence and the desire to own fulfillment. As creatures of that kind, all people
were and are equal by their nature. At that stage, “all people without restriction tend to insure
and optimize their own fulfillment, then this unlimited competition lead to a state of complete
uncertainty and danger.”8 Moreover, “they consider themselves indispensable for the elimination
of this tendency to establish a state of security and peace by entering in a civil society.” 9 Many
of the Enlightenment theorists claim that the state of nature existed in the human society, but
4 Ziniewiciz, Gordon L. Hobbes: the state of nature and the “nature of the state. http://www.americanphilosophy.com/hobbes.html (accessed 06.12.2009)5 Dictionary. com: The state of nature http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in+a+state+of+nature (accessed 05.12.2009)6 Audio English: State of nature http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/state_of_nature.htm (accessed 05.12.2009)7 As described in the teachings of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau.8 Braun, Eberhard, Felix Heine, Uwe Opolka. Excerpt from: Politische Philosophie. Ein Lesebuch. Texte, Analysen, Kommentare, Reinbek (Political philosophy, reader, texts, analysis, comments).1984 http://www.dadalos.org/mzd/Demokratie/demokratie/grundkurs2/Neuzeit/grundlagen.htm#Naturzustand (accessed on19.11.2009). My translation9 Ibid
5
man came out of that state because he was afraid of the other humans,10 considering that in the
state of nature dominates social chaos and in order to protect himself the human was obliged to
conclude the ‘social contract’.
With this contract, individual’s freedom of self-fulfillment was restricted, so that
individual freedom of all can exist together. “Everyone gives up their unlimited right, accepts
limitations and with that accept the security and the peace in coexistence.”11 Everyone has the
natural right of personal fulfillment. This right of personal fulfillment “cannot be abolished
because it would mean the destruction of livelihood.”12 However, it may be restricted and in that
way can exist in parallel with the other inalienable rights of all people. The restrictions are
codified in legislations. Following, these restrictions were the basis of the doctrines of the
Enlightenment thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau.13 They created “‘the laicism’ of
governing and new political legitimacy of any fair ruling - to be extracted from the social
relations and based on respect of human’s rights.”14
1.1. State of nature according to Thomas Hobbes
Hobbes believed that human beings in the state of nature would behave ‘badly’ towards
one another.15 He believed that such a condition would lead to a “war of every man against
10 Ciampietri, Claudia Blog. The state of nature: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. http://cgiampietri.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/the-state-of-nature-hobbes-locke-and-rousseau/#comments (accessed on 01.12.2009)11Braun. Excerpt from: Politische Philosophie. Ein Lesebuch. Texte, Analysen, Kommentare, Reinbek (Political philosophy, reader, texts, analysis, comments)12 Ibid13 Frckoski, Ljubomir. Megjunarodno pravo za pravo na covekot (International law for human right). Magor Doo Skopje, 2005. 11-20. My translation14 Ibid15 Hobbes argued that people had every right to defend themselves by whatever means, in the absence of order.
6
every man”16 and make life “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.”17 He was strictly against
the state of nature because as he said, “there can be nothing worse than a life without the
protection of the State”,18 especially since in this state there is no justice because there is no law.
Hobbes argued that there are no human rights in the state of nature.19 People have natural
right to do anything to preserve their own liberty or safety, and by this implies they act savagely
to each other by trying to preserve their own life. This is very arguable nowadays. Every human
simply by just being human is entitled with rights when born, despite on what level of
development he is in, or if he is aware of the existence of human rights. For Hobbes, natural right
is the human freedom to manage himself in relation to issues of his own self - preservation. The
man, in this capacity has an inalienable dignity, because “he is a goal for himself and a kind of
‘absolute value’ (man as imago dei)”.20 This term has its roots in Genesis 1:27, wherein “God
created man in his own image. . .”,21 which does not mean that God is in human form, but rather,
that humans are images of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature.22 “The moral
implications of the doctrine of imago dei are apparent in the fact that if humans are to love God,
then humans must love other humans, as each is an expression of God”.23 This means that people
are obligated to respect one another, but according to Hobbes at the end the ‘wolfish nature’ of
humans24 dominates.
16 Hobbes. Leviathan. Chapter XIII: Of The Natural Condition Of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity And Misery. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html (accessed 01.12.2009)17 Ibid18 Ibid19 Hobbes’s moral and political philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ (accessed 23.11.2009)20 Frckoski. Megjunarodno pravo za pravo na covekot. 11- 2021 passage from the Holly Bible22 Glossary Definition of Imago Dei. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/imago-body.html (accessed 10.12.2009)23 Ibid24 Hobbes. Leviathan. Chapter XIII: Of The Natural Condition Of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity And Misery.
7
Hobbes develops the way out of the state of nature into civil government by mutual social
contracts. Only by concluding the social contract man can save himself and become just (in this
State there is no room for the unjust). He says that “only the fear of death can lead to the creation
of a State”.25 This saying in the modern world was a reason for many wars. Many rulers,
dictators, tyrants, for example as Hitler did with Germany in the Second World War, were
guided by Hobbes’s ideas that the man is obedient of the State and should delegate his rights to
the Sovereign because the Sovereign is sinless and just, thus has “the unlimited powers of rule
and punishment.”26 The ruler’s will define good and evil for his subjects. The ruler can do no
wrong, because “lawful and unlawful, good and evil, are expression of the will of the ruler”.27
Hobbes gives authorization to the ruler to kill everyone who disobeys this will. In other words,
the ruler is always right, because he has god given rights and is messenger of God, so if someone
does any wrong (which will mean opposite to the ruler’s wishes) he will lose his life. This
contradicts with one of the basic human rights28 - the right to life. It is not that there should be no
State rules and regulations and that people should live in total anarchy, but rules that are in line
with people’s rights, wishes and desires, for example regulations brought due referendum, which
is a true expression of people’s will and democracy. Therefore, Hobbes, despite the ‘pretty’
picture he has in mind of people being safe by concluding the social contract, is neglecting the
basic human rights.29 Moreover, Hobbes’s social contract was in favor of the ruler, not the
people.
25 Ciampietri, Claudia Blog. The state of nature: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.26 Wolff, Jonathan. Trust and the state of nature. Political thought. 199927 Locke versus Hobbes. James’s Liberty file collection http://jim.com/hobbes.htm (accessed 23.11.2009)28 By basic human rights, I mean the rights such as the right of life, the right to liberty and security, the right of freedom etc.29 Ibid
8
1.2. State of nature according to John Locke
Locke holds different position compared to Hobbes. He believes that people could live in
a state of nature, and life would be possible even without the legally established government.
The state of nature for him is “pre - political, but not pre - moral”.30 Furthermore, this state of
nature for him is a state of complete freedom where all people are equal and only “bond by the
law of nature”.31 He worries that an absolute sovereign, with absolute power, would be even
more of a danger to us than life in the state of nature. This is positive in Locke’s thought because
is better to live in a state of nature where you live in complete freedom without limitations of the
personal rights and liberties. On the other hand, giving the absolute power to a sovereign means
that people have to obey the wishes and the demands of the ruler, rather than following their own
needs and desires, and disobeying those demands leads to penalization. Why would someone
want to have limited human rights? Why would someone want someone else to pressure him in
doing something that is against his opinion and his beliefs? It is not the case of not having rules
at all but rather that the rules should be made from the people and for the people. The people
should not feel oppressed if they do something that is against one’s will and feel scared of
punishment if they do not meet those requirements. This is against the commonly accepted
notion of democracy in which the individual is free in expressing his own will and making
statements.
Locke argued that although “we do need a sovereign to settle disputes and administer
justice, we must also set constitutional limits to the sovereign’s rule”.32 “We have a right to rebel
30 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Social contract theory http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH2b (accessed on 01.12.2009)31 Lock, John. Two treaties of a government. In Wolff, Jonathan. An introduction to political philosophy. Political thought, 2006, 24-8032 Wolff, Jonathan. Trust and the state of nature.
9
if the sovereign abuses our trust”.33 Assuming that we were all honorable in all our dealings with
each other, then the need for sovereign would not existed and we could have remain forever in
the state of nature.34 Is this asking for too much? On one hand it might be, because with no rules
at all, people might have tendency to become more violent and even greedier towards others who
have more than them (wealthier people). On the other hand, it might not be too much asking for.
People behave decent when there is not big gap in equality and people do cooperate with each
other in order to survive. Later in this paper, I will show examples of people living in a ‘state of
nature’ with no government, no legislative, and still managing to live in peace with each other
and with the rest of the world.
Another thing with which Locke differs from Hobbes is his view of the human rights. For
Locke, human rights are rights that every human holds and they belong to all humans, and are
inalienable, that is they are not transferable to anyone else.35 If someone tries to restrict one
man’s rights for Locke that is equal to slavery.36 He set forth the view that “the State exists to
preserve the rights of its citizens”.37 Moreover, if the State (government) fails to retain the rights
of its citizens, than they are allowed to stand up to it and protest against. The same is today in
most of the democratic countries, where people if not satisfied with the measures and regulations
that the government lays down raise their voice and oppose them. Following this further, Locke
does not see the state of nature as something bad as Hobbes does, and therefore, he claims that is
better for the people to reject the particular government and to return to the state of nature, 38 than
to live in oppressed regimes.
33 Ibid34 Ibid35 Lock, John. Two treaties of a government. In Wolff. An introduction to political philosophy. 24-8036 Ibid37 Locke versus Hobbes.38 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Social contract theory
10
Nevertheless, despite the ‘free man’ that Locke stands for, he still points out that people
should engage in a social contract. He says that we should partially give up some of our rights,
but not the right of life, liberty and property,39 for impartial justice. Furthermore, the social
contract cannot be concluded without the explicit consent of the people. “Property is the
linchpin of Locke’s argument for the social contract and civil government because it is the
protection of people’s property, including their property in their own bodies, which men seek
when they decide to abandon the State of Nature”.40 Locke’s property is pre- state institute
determined by natural law and the property is a result of individual’s labor.41 For him the right of
property is a right to life, freedom and estate.42 He connects the one person’s rights with having
property; the one who does not own property does not have rights.43
1.3. State of nature according to Jean Jacques Rousseau
What distinguishes Rousseau from the other two theorists is his statement that in the state
of nature man would act like an animal or like a savage,44 “whose actions are primarily
determined by immediate needs: food, sexual satisfaction, sleep, and fears only hunger and
pain”.45 However, the thing that distinguishes the savage from the animal is the “free will and
capacity of self-improvement”.46 For Rousseau is an exaggeration to say that the state of nature
leads to ‘war of all against all’, as Hobbes said. According to him, the state of nature is peaceful
39 Locke versus Hobbes.40 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Social contract theory 41 Lock, John. Two treaties of a government, Second treatise of civil government. Chapter V: Of property. http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm (accessed 23.11.2009)42 Ibid43 Ibid44 Actually, Rousseau refers to the human as a “noble savage”45 Ciampietri, Claudia Blog. The state of nature: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.46 Ibid
11
and free of vice. On the other hand, he agrees with Hobbes and Locke that in the state of nature
“man’s main drive is towards self - preservation”.47
Rousseau gives a general picture how would life be in the state of nature, which
resembles in a good way with the life that some African tribes have today. He says that the
human in the state of nature acts similar to animal satisfying his basic needs. Furthermore,
Rousseau gives a critique of the modern man versus the natural man. He says that the situation of
the natural man is better than the one of the modern man because the natural man is free of social
norms, morals, obligations, and duties.48 “Having no moral relationship or duties to other men
and no subjugated inequality, natural man is better for himself and society”.49 His actions are
"neither good nor evil”50 because he is “not bounded by social rules, which dictate how people
should act and think towards each other and the world as a whole”.51 According to that, man
should not care much about other’s opinion of him or his actions.52
Certainly, according to Rousseau, “people are neither good nor bad.”53 People are
restrained in harming others by the compassion they have for their fellow humans and have
“aversion to pain and suffering.”54 In addition, Rousseau claims that “Men knew neither vice nor
virtue since they had almost no dealings with each other”.55 Moreover, in his view “Their bad
habits are the products of civilization, the conditions of nature - forced people to establish the
47 Ibid48 Rousseau's Critique on Natural Man vs. Modern Man in Book Rags Student Essays. Book Rags, Inc. 2000-200649 Ibid50 Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Discourse on the origin of inequality. Dover thrift editions. Dover publications Inc. 2004, 12851 Rousseau's Critique on Natural Man vs. Modern Man 52 Ibid53 Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social contract or principles of political right. Originally published 1762. Book I, sec.6 http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm (accessed 23.11.2009), 54 Wolff, Jonathan. An introduction to political philosophy. 24-8055 Rousseau. The Social contract or principles of political right. Book I, sec. 6
12
civil society.”56 According to this, if man leaves the state of nature than he becomes corrupted
and unjust. The modern world and the development of it are responsible for people’s depravation
because the wish for self - improvement brought misfortune to people. Then why at all should
human beings leave this state? On this, Rousseau says that despite the corruptive potential, “the
life in the society can bring the possibility of a higher form of human existence”,57 like cultural
or technological development of the human itself and the society he lives in.
When talking about the rights, Rousseau points out that that the people have rights
in the civil state that are sacred. Therefore, people agree to live in a civil society because that
society will protect their rights. But is this a real reflection on what the reality looks like? If
taken for example the dictatorship regimes, let’s say in Sudan, or as it was in Romania when
Ceausescu was on power, the people were in a fictional social contract with the country, but the
state did not meet its main duty: the protection of the individual that is not able to protect
himself. Different from Locke, who stands on the position that the human has rights even
without the existence of the state,58 Rousseau does not says that the human can exist and just be
in that kind of state. For Rousseau, the people only have human rights when engaged in a
contract with the state. Here he contradicts himself. First, he says that the civil society corrupts
the people, and then notes that human rights exist only when people engage in social contract
with the state. Rousseau’s second point about the requirement of the people to conclude the
contract in order to be ‘safe’ and in a possession of human rights is questionable. The second
chapter of my paper will show that people that are not part of a civil society still have human
rights and are free.
56 Ibid 57 Ibid58 As I explained in the sub-chapter 1.2. of this paper concerning John Locke
13
1.4. Analysis
Do we get any general picture of what the state of nature is from the perceptions of these
theorists? Hobbes is the opponent of the state of nature. His opinion is that man could not survive
in the state of nature - therefore there is the need of creating a State by people engaging in social
contract and the necessity of people giving up their rights to the Sovereign. On the other hand,
Locke is more liberal when talking about the state of nature. For him people can indeed, live in
this state in peace with each other. He does not support the State that limits the rights of humans
and the absolute power of the Sovereign (as Hobbes does).
Rousseau is in between with his approach. According to him, the state is the only one that
can protect the human and his rights. Contrary, he says that the civil society corrupts the person;
the development of the society makes man more greedy and unjust. How is this possible? We
should enter the social contract for the main purpose of protecting ourselves from others and be
able to exercise human rights, but not to become corrupted by the same society. This statement is
too contradictory and illogical.
Finally, summing up all the ideas from these theorists, we can define the state of nature as
freedom. A freedom of man to do whatever is his own will, but not endangering and delimiting
other people’s rights and personality; freedom from restraints, restrictions and oppressions. In the
following chapter, we can see that it is possible for people to live in this kind of state and not
being threat to one another.
14
2. IS THERE A STATE OF NATURE IN THE 21st CENTURY?
Looking further than our own surroundings, we will find examples of people that live in a
‘condition’ that is completely different from the democratic, modern and technologically
developed world. Those people live in harmony with nature. Although, the number of those
people is very small due to the colonization period and the constant force of assimilation, the
ones that succeed in keeping their culture and traditional way of life, help us understand that
people can indeed live without rule of law and without engaging into social contract(s). Today,
many of the indigenous people in the world are under the law of the ones that colonized their
land, for example the Aborigines in Australia, when colonized by the British were put under the
British legal system,59 but as Australia gained independence from the Crown, the Aborigines are
under the Australian law.60 Other examples where people still managed to keep their natural
state are some African tribes that are not subject to the law of the State, like the Bushmen in
South Africa. Following in this paper, I will elaborate more on these people and their way of life.
2.1. Indigenous peoples
2.1.1. Definitions on Indigenous
Defining indigenous peoples can be very difficult. Whom do we put under the term
‘Indigenous’? There are many definitions. According to the special reporter on discrimination
against Indigenous population from the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous
Population, Mr. Jose Martinez Cobo
59 Australian Aboriginal Culture. http://www.didjshop.com/shop1/AbCulturecart.html (accessed 10.12.2009)60 Ibid
15
Indigenous populations are composed of the existing descendants of the peoples who inhabited the presentterritory of a country wholly or partially at the time when persons of a different culture or ethnic originarrived there from other parts of the world, overcame them, by conquest, settlement or other means,reduced them to a non-dominant or colonial condition; who today live more in conformity with theirparticular social, economic and cultural customs and traditions than with the institutions of the country ofwhich they now form part, under a state structure which incorporates mainly national, social and culturalcharacteristics of other segments of the population which are predominant.61
This definition was considered to be with flaws. Therefore, the UN Working Group on
Indigenous Population decided to enlarge the definition by adding more criteria in defining the
term ‘Indigenous’. In the first place, they added that as indigenous people would be considered
the ones who “are the descendants of groups, which were in the territory at the time when other
groups of different cultures or ethnic origin arrived there.”62 In addition, indigenous are the ones
who “because of their isolation from other segments of the country's population have almost
preserved intact the customs and traditions of their ancestors which are similar to those
characterized as indigenous.”63 Finally, in this group belong people who are, “even if only
formally, placed under a state structure which incorporates national, social and cultural
characteristics alien to their own.”64 In 1986 one more criteria was added, and that was “any
individual who identified himself or herself as indigenous and was accepted by the group or the
community as one of its members was to be regarded as an indigenous person.”65
Another definition is provided by the International Labor Organization in the 1989
Convention on Indigenous and Tribal peoples, which defines indigenous peoples as those who
are regarded as such “on account of their descent from the populations which inhabited the
61 This working definition was preliminary accepted by the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Population in 1972 http://www.acpp.org/sevents/0809.html (accessed 12.12.2009)62 The enlarged Working definition on Indigenous people from 1983 by the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous Population FICN. 41Sub.211983121 Adds. para.3 79 http://www.acpp.org/sevents/0809.html (accessed12.12.2009)63 Ibid64 Ibid65 Additional criteria to the definition for Indigenous people from 1986 E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4. para.381 http://www.acpp.org/sevents/0809.html (accessed 12.12.2009)
16
country, or a geographical region to which the country belongs, at the time of conquest or
colonization or the establishment of present state boundaries and who, irrespective of their legal
status, retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural and political institutions.”66
We can give lots more definitions on who and what indigenous people are, but in
the end, summarizing all this definitions, we reach a single conclusion that the indigenous people
are people that only differ by their origin and culture. In other words, indigenous people enjoy
human rights as all the other people do. Furthermore, this people, despite the stage of their
development, and by development I mean mostly technical and technological development,
generally stand for the common values of freedom and peace. Moreover, indigenous people,
“although often distinguishable by virtue of their race, language or religion, are a discrete
group”.67 To explain this in more precise way, I will be taking as an example two groups of
Indigenous people, one is the Australian Aborigines and the other one is the Bushmen from
South Africa. Although, both of these groups of people are considered as indigenous, they are
different in a way of their social structure, the way of life, their customs etc. Later, I will point
out that one of these groups is living in a kind of state of nature, with total equality among its
members, while the other one was assimilated by the State that overruled them and is obligated
by the State’s legal system, notwithstanding that “Indigenous peoples are constantly exempt
from laws, which may interfere with their tradition”.68
66 International Labor Organization . Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. (Geneva 27.06.1989) C196, entered into force 05.09.1991, Article 1(b).67 Smith, Rhona K. M. International Human Rights. Textbook 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, 2007, 31868 Ibid, 320
17
2.1.2 Examples of Indigenous peoples: Australian Aborigines and the Bushmen of South
Africa
I decided to take these two groups of indigenous peoples as an example because there is
diversity between them in many ways, but still both belong to what goes under the term
‘indigenous’. Since the European invasion of Australia in 1788, the Aboriginal people have been
oppressed into a world unnatural to their existence for thousands of years.69 The British
Monarchy invaded the Australian Aborigines during the colonization period; hence, they were
put under the British legal system. After Australia’s independence, changes were imposed; the
Aboriginal people started the request for self-determination, because the government at the time
tried to assimilate these people, destroyed their land, and with that their way of life and culture.
Prior to the arrival of the colonists and the destruction of the homeland of the natives, the
Aborigines lived in a ‘state of nature’. The Aboriginal lifestyle was based on “total kinship with
the natural environment, everything they needed for normal and healthy life was already
provided”.70 They lived in tribes or clans and were “obligated by their own customs and inter
clan ‘contract’.”71 “No one had authority over anyone else in the sense of ruling them, but this is
not to say that there were not leaders”.72 The leaders were people who had personal qualities that
others admire, and were considered smart men, but “there were no elected leaders in the
Aboriginal society”.73
69 A brief Aboriginal history. In Aboriginal heritage http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/culture/history.php (accessedon 12.12.2009)70 Ibid71 Australian Aborigines - Indigenous Australians. http://www.crystalinks.com/aboriginals.html (accessed on 12.12.2009)72 Ibid73 Ibid
18
Today, the Aboriginal still live under their customs, but are also obligated to respect the
State’s legal system, which limits some of their human rights, for example the right to education
and using of their mother tongue.74 Therefore, the colonization brought disturbance of the peace
of this people. Armed conflicts and lack of understanding from the ‘modern men’ resulted in
killing of dozens of Aboriginal people and forcing them on different way of life.75 The
Aboriginal people lost most of their tradition and culture, and today most of them are living in
the developed and modern world. Only few of the Aboriginal tribes can be found living in a state
similar to the state of nature, though obliged by rule of law by the State in one way or another.
On the other hand, we have the Bushmen of South Africa that still live in conditions
similar to those before the ‘white men’ invade their land. Along with the arrival of the European
settlers great disadvantages started.76 In this period the number of Bushmen was reduced,
because they fought to death trying to survive due to limited resources (limited and abused by the
settlers), or were captured and forced to slavery and eventually die of extortion.77 Today, as it
was in the past, the Bushmen population lives into groups called bands.78 No leader or superior
exists as a figure in the Bushmen band. That makes all of the members of the band equal, both
male and female.79 Thus, they are all equal in making decisions,80 and “govern themselves by
group consensus”.81 If a dispute arises and there is some kind of misunderstanding between the
band members, they are resolved through discussions where all involved take part with
74 Schech. Culture and Development: A critical Introduction. 182-18375 A brief Aboriginal history.76 Siyabona Africa: Bushmen - San http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_bushmen.html (accessed 12.12.2009)77 Ibid78 Watson, Galadriel Findlay. Indigenous peoples: Bushmen in Southern Africa. Weigl Publishers, Inc., New York City, New York, USA, 2005, 10-12 79 Ibid80 Ibid81 The Art of Africa: The Bushmen people - Sun and how they live. http://www.theartofafrica.co.za (accessed 12.12.2009)
19
argumentations until some agreement is reached.82 However, the governments of many African
states are trying to exile the Bushmen from their homelands and to assimilate them. For example,
“In Botswana the government has intensified its campaign to drive the Gana and Gwi Bushmen
off their ancestral homeland in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve by cutting off all water
supplies”.83
Clearly, we can see that the modern nations and the modern men forced these indigenous
people in leaving the state of nature they used to live in. The colonialism destroyed these
people’s way of life. It was not that people abandoned the state of nature because they started to
feel intimidated by the others. On the contrary, these indigenous peoples lived together in peace
and in equality, with little resources available that were enough for them to survive. Today, the
indigenous people living in a state of nature are a slowly dying race84 because of all of this;
nevertheless, “the fact that they are still trying to maintain their existence is a proof of how
perfectly their way of life is adopted to their natural surroundings”.85
2.2. Do indigenous people today enjoy the same rights as other citizens, and do we really
need government to protect those rights?
According to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous peoples in
Article 1, “Indigenous peoples have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as
82 Ibid83 Ibid84 For example, the number of Aboriginal people in Australia today is 2.2% of the whole population. Before the colonization period, their number was much higher (1 million people in 1778 decreased to 70,000 in the 1930s). Report from UNHCR, Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Australia : Aborigines, June 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49749d5f37.html (accessed 12.12 2009)85 Life magazine. “The Bushmen: an ancient race struggling to survive in the South African desert.” 03.02.1947, 91
20
individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms as recognized in the Charter of the
United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights
law.”86 Besides the legal guarantee of the human rights of indigenous people, they were and still
are not respected in practice. Many of the indigenous groups were denied their civil rights,87 for
example limiting their right of free movement or abusing the right to pay work, giving this
people wages that were below the minimum for twice the hard work, and the mostly abused
right(s) of all, the land right(s).88 Moreover, women right to vote in Australia excluded the
Aboriginal women.89 Their cultural rights, like the usage of their native language in public or in
schools,90 were also obstructed from freely exercising them.91
Nevertheless, although not in a great deal, the local governments are trying to incorporate
the indigenous population in the modern society. Some efforts have been made for the
indigenous people to be able to use their own languages, to get back their lands by guarantying
their land rights,92 and most important of all to be free living their lives as they are willing to.
Moreover, indigenous people started integrating in the public93 and political sphere94 of decision -
making processes. Slowly, but surely these peoples human rights are taking a swing.
86 United Nations. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (New York City 13.09.2007) A/RES/61/295, Article 187 Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Australia : Aborigines.88 Ibid89 Government policy in relation to Aboriginal People. City of Sydney news http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Barani/themes/theme3.htm (accessed 11.12.2009)90 Schech. Culture and Development: A critical Introduction. 182-18391 Minority Rights Group International, State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2009 - Botswana, 16 July 2009, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a66d9bfc.html (accessed 12.12. 2009) 92 Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Australia : Aborigines.93 Minority Rights Group International, State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2009 - Botswana.94 Minority Rights Group International, State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2009 - Australia, 16July 2009, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a66d9c1c.html (accessed 12.12.2009)
21
On the other hand, besides all the guarantees we can get from one State’s government, do
we really need government for our rights to be protected and secure? What does that tell us? If
people were able to live in the state of nature, do we really need governing? We saw that the
people lived in peace with each other in the state of nature and in freedom from any imposed
authority. Even than these peoples had human rights, right to expression of a thought, right to use
their own language, most importantly rights to life, security, freedom from slavery and torture.
We also saw that these rights were ‘taken away’ from these people and were denied from using
them freely.
Therefore, the existence of the government is not a necessity because people can protect
and secure their basic human rights simply by respecting the rights of the others. However, the
trend these days in re - guaranteeing human rights to indigenous people is on the rise.
Governments are trying to make some changes in their legislative in order for this people to be
recognized as part of their society and enjoy the same rights the rest of the citizen have. The
biggest effort is in granting them back their right to cultural identification and the right of self -
determination,95 so that finally these people can feel free from the obstructions that the
colonialism brought and the rules they imposed, which followed them for many years.
95 Ibid 93, 92
22
CONCLUSION
State of nature is not something we should be afraid of, or something that we should
avoid by any means. It is a challenge. The people living in the state of nature are clearly telling
us that not always rule of law is needed. Not always people need government to live proper and
in peace. Moreover, the world was never lacking of people living in the state of nature, and23
probably never will be. We saw the examples of indigenous people, who can live without legally
established government, without constitution and without laws, and still respect each other and
live in peace.
Contrary to this, the theorists claimed that this ‘state’ is not so good after all for people to
live in. For Hobbes it is unimaginable for people to be without law and ruler over them. He
despises the state of nature mostly because of man’s wicked human nature. Locke is little bit
mild on this subject. He gives green light to the state of nature only if people are feeling
threatened by the absolute power the sovereign has. Furthermore, we have Rousseau, who seems
like a supporter of the state of nature, but still is more affectionate towards the State and the
social contract. Nevertheless, these theorists have developed their ideas in a time characteristic
for this kind of reasoning; time where the sovereign was above all and the people were only
‘servants’ to it.
In conclusion, today, we cannot say that people are in worse position than they used to
be. We can only say that certain groups of people (indigenous) are underestimated and
subordinated (in a way) by the governments in the enjoyment of the inviolable rights, more today
than in the period prior to the interference of government (state of nature). However, the
International community is striving to improve the situation of these groups, mostly of the
indigenous people round the world. The start was made with some very important documents
like the Indigenous and Tribal Convention from 1989, followed by the Declaration of the Rights
of Indigenous peoples from 2007. Many other resolutions and legal documents were also made
in favor of these people and their human rights. The position of these people is continuously
improving. Finally, we can only hope that the history will not repeat once more and that these
people will not be forced to suffer again.
24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary sources:
- Anglim, John. On Locke’s state of nature. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed 01.12.2009)
- Collins, J. The Allegiance of Thomas Hobbes, Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2005 http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed 01.12.2009)
25
- Document of the Secretariat of the permanent forum on Indigenous issues. The concept of indigenous peoples. United Nations Department of Economic and Social affairs, Division for social policy and development secretariat of the permanent forum on indigenous issues. Workshop on data collection and disaggregation for indigenous peoples, New York, 19-21.01.2004, PFII/2004/WS.1/3
- Frckoski, Ljubomir. Megjunarodno pravo za pravo na covekot (International law for human right). Magor Doo Skopje, 2005, 11-20. My translation
- Gal Gerson. From the state of nature to evolution in John Steward Mill. Australian Journal of politics and history: Volume 48, number 3, 2002, 305-321
- Hampton, J. Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition. Essay. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, 1986
- Hobbes. Leviathan. Chapter XIII : Of The Natural Condition Of Mankind As Concerning Their Felicity And Misery. http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-contents.html (accessed 01.12.2009)
- International Labor Organization. Convention on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. (Geneva27.06.1989) C196, entered into force 05.09.1991, Article 1(b)
- Lake, David A. Escape from the state of nature - Authority and hierarchy in world politics. International Security, Volume 32, No. 1. The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 2007, 47–79.
- Lalovic, Dragutin. A fatal Hobbesian charm?. Politička misao: Croatian Political ScienceReview, Vol. XLIII, (2006), No. 5, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Political Science, 2006, 3–18
- Lock, John. Two treaties of a government. Originally published 1690. Chapter II and V. Reprinted, 6th time, by A. Millar, H. Woodfall, et.al http://www.constitution.org/jl/ (accessed 23.11.2009)
- Nigel, Joseph. Doing things our way: The “state of nature” in Hobbes and Locke, land appropriation, and the inclusive autonomies of Indigenous people. University of WesternOntario. Essay http://www.globalautonomy.ca/global1/summaryPrint.jsp?index=summaries/RS_Joseph_StateofNature.xml (accessed 23.11.2009)
- Rousseau, Jean Jacques. Discourse on the origin of inequality. Dover thrift editions. Dover publications Inc. USA, 2004, 97
- Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social contract or principles of political right. Originally published 1762. Book I sec.6 http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm (accessed 23.11.2009)
- Schech, Susanne and Jane Haggis. Culture and Development: A critical Introduction. Blackwell Publishers Inc., Massachusetts, USA. Firstly published by Blackwell Publishers Ltd., Oxford, UK, 2000, 179 - 190
26
- Smith, Rhona K. M. International Human Rights. Textbook 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, 2007, 5-23, 125-137, 254-266, 317-323
- United Nations. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. (New York City 13.09.2007) A/RES/61/295, Article 1
- Watson, Galadriel Findlay. Indigenous peoples: Bushmen in Southern Africa. Weigl Publishers, Inc., New York City, New York, USA, 2005, 10-12
- Wolff, Jonathan. An introduction to political philosophy. Political thought, 2006, 24-80
- Wolff, Jonathan. Trust and the state of nature. Essay. Political thought, 1999 http://web.ebscohost.com (accessed 01.12.2009)
Secondary sources:
- Australian Aboriginal Culture. http://www.didjshop.com/shop1/AbCulturecart.html (accessed 10.12.2009)
- Locke versus Hobbes. James’s Liberty file collection http://jim.com/hobbes.htm (accessed 23.11.2009)
- Power is defined by united rule book. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/10649803/Hume-Locke-Hobbes-Ex (accessed 23.11.2009)
- Australian Aborigines - Indigenous Australians. http://www.crystalinks.com/aboriginals.html (accessed on 12.12.2009)
- Hobbes’s moral and political philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hobbes-moral/ (accessed 23.11.2009)
- A brief Aboriginal history. In Aboriginal heritage http://www.aboriginalheritage.org/culture/history.php (accessed on 12.12.2009)
- Rousseau's Critique on Natural Man vs. Modern Man in Book Rags Student Essays.Book Rags, Inc. 2000-2006
- Siyabona Africa: Bushmen - San http://www.krugerpark.co.za/africa_bushmen.html (accessed 12.12.2009)
- The Art of Africa: The Bushmen people - Sun and how they live. http://www.theartofafrica.co.za (accessed 12.12.2009)
- Audio English: State of nature http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/state_of_nature.htm (accessed 05.12.2009)
27
- Braun, Eberhard, Felix Heine, Uwe Opolka. Excerpt from: Politische Philosophie. EinLesebuch. Texte, Analysen, Kommentare, Reinbek (Political philosophy, reader, texts,analysis,comments).1984http://www.dadalos.org/mzd/Demokratie/demokratie/grundkurs2/Neuzeit/grundlagen.htm#Naturzustand (accessed on19.11.2009). My translation
- Ciampietri, Claudia Blog. The state of nature: Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. http://cgiampietri.wordpress.com/2008/09/29/the-state-of-nature-hobbes-locke-and-rousseau/ (accessed 01.12.2009)
- Definition on Indigenous People http://www.acpp.org/sevents/0809.html (accessed 12.12.2009)
- Dictionary. com: The state of nature http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/in+a+state+of+nature (accessed 05.12.2009)
- Encyclopedia: State of nature http://www.statemaster.com/encyclopedia/State-of-nature (accessed 23.11.2009)
- Glossary Definition of Imago Dei. http://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/theogloss/imago-body.html (accessed 10.12.2009)
- Government policy in relation to Aboriginal People. City of Sydney news http://www.cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/Barani/themes/theme3.htm (accessed 11.12.2009)
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Social contract theory http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#SH2b (accessed on 01.12.2009)
- Life magazine. “The Bushmen: an ancient race struggling to survive in the South African desert.” 03.02.1947, 91
- Minority Rights Group International, State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2009 - Australia, 16 July 2009, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a66d9c1c.html (accessed 12.12.2009)
- Minority Rights Group International, State of the World's Minorities and Indigenous Peoples 2009 - Botswana, 16 July 2009, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4a66d9bfc.html (accessed 12.12. 2009)
- Minority Rights Group International, World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples - Australia : Aborigines, June 2008, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/49749d5f37.html (accessed 12.12 2009)
- Pritchard, Sarah. Working groups on Indigenous populations: mandate, standard-setting activities and future activities. In S. Pritchard. “Indigenous peoples, the United Nations and Human Rights”. Leichhardt: Zed Books. The federation press. London, 1998. 40 -64
28
- Ziniewicz, Gordon L. Hobbes: the state of nature and the “nature of the state. Philosophical commentary. Copyright © Gordon L. Ziniewicz, 1996 http://www.americanphilosophy.com/hobbes.html (accessed 06.12.2009)
29