From States as absolute to Withering away of states:

Part – 1 Hegel and Locke’s Idea of freedom and state

The times that we are living in today demand a clear understanding of the idea of state. All
around the world we see conflicts between the individual rights and the laws ordained by the
state. In many parts of the world the state is trying to implement a certain ideology through
various laws but it is met with relentless protests from the masses of individuals. In India
itself within last 5 years or so, we have seen a range of protests against many changes in the
laws that the government has attempted to make. E.g. The Shaheen Bagh protest against
CAA-NRC act, or the farmers’ protest against the farm bill. Or in certain other extreme,
undemocratic cases like in Afghanistan where a political organization has captured all the
state apparatus and has captured the moral high-ground that the state once held. Therefore it
is absolutely essential to historically evaluate the concepts like state, freedom and individuals.
Whenever we think of an abstract concept like freedom or equality or even states we must be
aware that it is emerged in a particular time period as a form of truth, may it be scientific,
political or artistic. Concepts of freedom and equality emerged in a particular time in history
as political truths. We must also be aware of the fact that these concepts emerge from
concrete, real situations. That is to say that they are dependent on the material reality as well
as it is dependent upon the concepts or ideas that already exist. These new truths appear as a
continuation and reformation of the same concepts or as a reaction to the existing concepts.
We must also be aware that these concepts that have emerged at a particular point in history
also have concrete consequences upon the future. So we can safely say that there is a before
and an after of the concept.
In a similar fashion the concept of state is closely related to the concept of freedom. Just to
clarify, that even if we see states as a concrete entity today, with all its institutions and its
presence in our day to day to lives, states have emerged as a concept, as an idea that was a
reaction to the ideas present at the time of the birth of this concept. The history of both
concepts, freedom and state is a long history that comprises various definitions of state. There
are alterations and specific changes to the meaning of these words at various junctures in
history. So we have various definitions of the word state under the same name ‘state’. This is
what makes it possible today to rethink the idea of states. But to really examine the idea of
states we must look into its history to really grasp the idea that is states.
The question of human freedom is closely linked to the question of states since the time of
renaissance. Due to the relentless efforts of scientists and philosophers humanity at large was
able to conceive an individual human as a separate and free entity, without the restraints of
God, churches, monarchs or any other external entity. Renaissance not only marks the new
notion of freedom but also provides with it a new notion of states. State takes the place that
churches or the monarchs held in European societies. This period comprising of renaissance
and the German enlightenment is a long period of more than 400 years. Along with the
scientific discoveries that took place in this time period which cannot be ignored at any cost,
there is also an apparition of political and artistic ideas. The concern of political ideas was
primarily ontological. It was around the question of human existence, its relation to nature
and its relation to other human beings. The main concern for the leading thinkers of both
renaissance and the German enlightenment were primarily human freedom. But in its initial
stages the roots of this idea can be found in the idea of ‘will’. The question of free will has
been discussed since the time of the ancient Greeks. Plato in his Republic regards free will as
a mastery over self, over one’s appetite or passions. Thus we already see that within this idea
there lies an inherent notion of choice; whether to choose a rational life, i.e. life guided by the
soul or life guided by passions and appetite. Aristotle poignantly brings in the notion of
choice but is said to have not completely answered the question, whether the will to make a
choice is inherent to humans or is it determined by any other external factors? This question
cannot be completely solved even today.
Even after several centuries we see the renaissance thinkers thinking over the same concepts
but in a completely new light. The slight yet consequential difference that lies in Plato and
Aristotle reflects in newer context with John Locke and Hegel. Even though both these
thinkers believed in the idea of freedom both seem to have different understanding of the idea
of freedom. For both these thinkers the context for thinking about freedom is the idea of
states. Even in the period of the ancient Greeks the idea of freedom was discussed in relation
with the idea of ethos and justice. Thus we can safely say that the problem of freedom is
primarily a moral and political problem than a metaphysical one. The difference in their
thought is because of the emphasis they lay on notions of thought, action and their ideas of
‘self’. John Locke like Aristotle relates the idea of freedom with the notion of ‘choice’ or
‘volition’ whereas Hegel like Plato, the idea of free will is about mastery over self-i.e.
mastery over one’s thought. So these ideas are parts of a dialectic of action against thought;
whether the idea of free will lies in volition or is it in thought and a journey towards realizing
‘absolute’ freedom? Let’s look at both their understanding of states and freedom closely to
unpack their ideas.
Freedom and State for Hegel - The idea of freedom, for Hegel is heavily dependent upon
his metaphysical ideas of reality, is derived from the idea of Spirit which is absolute in
nature. Paradoxically the inherent quality of spirit is free will. Thus these two concepts
(freedom and spirit) cannot be thought about separately. Hegel conceives the idea of freedom
as opposed to the idea of matter. Matter is something static, determined and guided by the
laws of Newtonian physics, whereas spirit is guided by the principle of freedom i.e. the
essence or the substance of spirit is freedom. Let’s look at Hegel’s definition of freedom
where he has combined the ideas like spirit, freedom and the self –conscious self. “It [matter]
strives toward ideality, for in unity it exists ideally. Spirit, on the contrary, is that which has
its centre in it itself. It does not have unity inside of itself but has found it; it is in itself and
with itself. Matter has its substance outside of itself; Spirit is Being-within-itself (self-
contained existence). But this, precisely, is Freedom. For when I am dependent, I refer myself
to something else which I am not; I cannot exist independently of something external. I am
free when I am within myself. This self-contained existence of Spirit is self-consciousness,
consciousness of self.” (G.W.F Hegel, 23)
Self in its natural state is both spirit and matter, thus it is a process of realizing the absolute
spirit i.e. freedom which is Being – within – itself. Thus very much like Plato existence is a
process of mastery over appetites or matter (state) in Hegel’s case. Hegel’s idea of freedom
and self - conscious Being comes very close to his idea of states. To fortify this argument
further let’s look at Hegel’s definition of self – consciousness. “In self-consciousness the two
coincide, for Spirit knows itself. It is the judgment of its own nature and, at the same time, the
operation of coming to itself, to produce itself, to make itself (actually) into that which it is in
itself (potentially).” (G.W.F Hegel, 23). In Hegel one sees the nature of spirit as a dialectical
process of spirit being absolute and matter trying to realise the absolute nature of freedom.
This idea of self – consciousness is the ideal synthesis of the dialectic of spirit and matter.
But human existence does not begin in this ideality. Freedom must be achieved as the
realisation of the absolute spirit. Hegel considers this abstract process of realising free will
and spirit, as a process of history. For him human being is a subject and an object of history.
Within this historical process there are specific means that humans have developed to achieve
the absolute nature of spirit i.e. freedom. The first of its means to realise this spirit is the idea
of state. In his book reason in history Hegel asks the following question “… but the carrying
out of a subjective, limited aim also requires a material element, either already present or to
be procured or to serve this actualization. Thus the question would arise: What is the material
in which the final end of Reason is to be realized?” (G.W.F Hegel, 49)
For Hegel the state is the moral whole that is achieved by the process of history. All will
operates under the moral law of history. It does not mean that subjective will does not exist. It
means that the subjective will is particular to an individual whereas the state is the common
will as ‘externally existing, genuinely moral life’. In this sense human beings need the
apparatus of the state for the process of realising the absolute freedom for each individual.
Hegel writes “[What counts in a state is the practice of acting according to a common will
and adopting universal aims. Even in the crude state there is subjection of one will under
another; but this does not mean that the individual does not have a will of his own. It means
that his particular will has no validity. Whims, lusts are not valid.” (G.W.F, 50) Here we see a
clear emphasis on the state’s collective will has a greater importance than the subjective will
of the individual. For Hegel, the state is in the same condition as the spirit i.e. it is inherently
the absolute free will which must be realised through the material reality. In another book
published by Hegel almost two decades later called Philosophy of Rights he has remained
consistent with his idea and establishes a more direct and clear relation between will of state
as opposed to individual will. “The state is the realized ethical idea or ethical spirit. It is the
will which manifests itself, makes itself clear and visible, and substantiates itself. It is the will
which thinks and knows itself, and carries out what it knows, and in so far as it knows. The
state finds in ethical custom its direct and unreflected existence, and it’s indirect and reflected
existence in the self-consciousness of the individual and in his knowledge and activity. Self-
consciousness in the form of social disposition has its substantive freedom in the state, as the
essence, purpose, and product of its activity.” (G. W. F. Hegel, 194) According to this
definition the individual self-consciousness is clearly dependent upon the external (social
dispositions) until it realises itself as the Being – with - itself i.e. as the spirit. This is a
complex set of definitions to understand the relation between state, freedom and self or the
individual. In a sense in Hegel we find a subjection of individual will to the collective will.
State as that entity that is the material form of the absolute will, spirit to be realised. State
here is the guardian of the moral law derived from history. Thus we can see in Hegel free will
is not the sheer right to make a choice but rather individual will itself is dis-positioned into
states, family and civil society. That is to say that individual will is determined by the
absolute will of the state.
Locke’s idea of Freedom and state
Although Locke would agree with Hegel over the problem of free will he does not have the
same understanding of it as Hegel. For Hegel, as we have seen the moral law is derived from
the critical understanding of the historical process. Here lies the first difference between
Locke’s understanding of moral laws. For Locke the moral laws are derived by the laws of
nature which he calls the ‘state of nature’. For him human being is born with agency to
exercise certain rights. These rights are called natural or fundamental rights even today.
These rights are possessed by individuals as virtue of being a human being. These natural
rights are derived from the laws of nature. The right of all human beings to defend oneself
against any threat to survival is an example of natural rights. Here we can see the first major
difference in Hegel and Locke’s understanding of freedom and the means to exercise that
freedom. For Hegel, as we have seen the moral law is derived from the process of history.
Whereas for Locke the principle of moral law is derived from natural, physical laws. Here the
difference is the conception of human being as such. For Hegel we can clearly see that the
ontology of human beings is essentially cannot be limited by mere natural, physical laws. To
be human is to be guided by thought which is an intangible entity, to which the laws of nature
may or may not apply. Hegel agrees with Locke that in the process of realising the free will
the first is to accept universality of human beings and by that virtue everyone must have
certain fundamental rights. But in order to rise above the mere natural state which is closer to
the animal side than the side of the rational being one must also have a sense of dispositional
existence of moral laws and will. In a sense for Hegel Human beings are something more
than nature and other animals. But for Locke, human will is or has to be determined by the
natural laws. In a sense to be universally lawful, human beings must have consent over ‘state
of nature’. To put it in other words, if there is a moral law for all humans, then it must be
derived from nature. Hegel criticises this notion of individual rights in following words.
“When anyone bases a claim upon his mere formal right, he may be wholly selfish, and often
such a claim comes from a contracted heart and mind. Uncivilized man, in general, holds fast
to his rights, while a more generous disposition is alert to see all sides of the question.
Abstract right is, moreover, the first mere possibility, and in contrast with the whole context
of a given relation is still formal.” (G.W. F. Hegel, 53) For Hegel individual rights is only the
preliminary possibility for the individual to actualise the free will. Individual will and the
rights that come with it are only a part of the whole issue, simply because one’s individual
will could be an impediment upon another’s free will. Thus one must consider something
greater than one’s own free will. One must consider the will of the other as equally
substantial as one’s own will. Thus abstract right is only a possibility for the realisation of the
absolute will. To him it is actually the uncivilised man that is hell bent on his/her own rights.
For Locke free will is determined by the natural laws. So rather than human freedom as
achieved through a process it is a natural right of humans to be free. Thus unlike Hegel’s will
which is a process towards realising universal, absolute will Locke’s will lies in power to
exercise one’s choice, a choice that one makes according to the laws of nature. Here we come
across another dialectical difference that is of power against truth or absolute. To put it in
other words a historical truth against the contingently acquired power through social contract.
A social contract that is within humans as according to the laws of nature or the ‘state of
nature’.
According to Foucault in his book ‘Birth of Bio-politics’ he claims “Locke does not produce
a theory of the state; he produces a theory of government. So, we can say that the English
political system has never functioned, and liberal doctrine has never functioned on the basis
of, or even by providing itself with a theory of the state. They have adopted principles of
government.” (Foucault, 91) It is clear from the descriptions made about Locke’s idea of
freedom in the previous paragraphs that Locke’s idea is not a clearly a definition of state but
a set of principles which are largely derived from natural laws. In Hegel we find the
definition to be relying upon a certain historical rationality. For Locke we find certain set of
institutions as the foundation of state which is equated with ‘the art of governance.’
Conclusion –

Today when we attempt to define state it is a mixture of definitions provided by the thinkers
mentioned above. Of course particular instances of active states may provide an exception to
these definitions but largely the philosophical problem of individual will against the
collective will or the problem of action/ intent as opposed to thought can largely be situated
in the ideas raised by Locke and Hegel. The definition of modern state today is the following.

“Statehood today refers not merely to a set of institutions, but also to a body of attitudes,
practices and codes of behaviour that we follow consciously and willingly at times, and
unconsciously and unwillingly at other times.” (R. Bhargav, A. Acharya, 258)
There are two parts to this definition one defines the administrative role of the state and the
other part emphasises on state as a body that guides certain practices and behaviours. Further
these guidelines for behaviour and practices are followed willingly or unwillingly. This is
where we can see the first contradiction or the paradoxical position that a state holds. On the
one hand we have a set of institutions that enables human being to act according to his or her
fullest potential as a free entity and on the other state prescribes some guidelines that must be
followed irrespective of the obstruction of freedom they might cause to an individual. Here
we can clearly see that there is a problem with the definition of state. The two thinkers
discussed in this essay represent two parts of this definition. Firstly, John Locke a liberal
thinker who will promote the first part where state is a set of institutions i.e. a form of
governmentality and secondly, Hegel who would promote the second part of the definition
i.e. state as body of attitudes, behaviours and practices that a subject must follow willingly or
unwillingly; since Hegel believes in a state that is on the one hand an external necessity
through laws and on the other hand it is an immanent end within them. We can see that even
though for both thinkers human freedom is at the core of the whole discourse but the way we
exercise is completely different for these two thinkers. This discourse not only points out the
problem in the definition today but also point towards a fundamental symptom of human
beings. This symptom is that human beings want to exercise their free will as they want but
prefer not to exercise it at the cost of someone else’s free will. This is how the problem takes
shape at the level of ideas, of course at the level of reality we clearly see some powerful
agents taking advantage of their position to exercise the free will of the few and that is a
different problem. The roots of this problem can be found in the conception of freedom and
role of state proposed by Locke.

References –
 Hegel G. W. F, Reason in History translated by Robert S. Hartman, New York, The
BOBBS-MERRILL COMPANY, INC., 1953
 Hegel G. W. F., Philosophy of Right translated by S. W. Dyde. Kitchener, Batoche
Books, 2001
 Edited by, Bhargava Rajiv, Acharya Ashok, Political Theory: an Introduction,
Pearson Education, India, 2008
 Foucault Michel, Birth of Bio-Politics: Lectures 1978-79 at the College de France,
Palgrave Macmillan, France, 2008