Essay About John Locke And Social Contract Theorists

Pateman on Locke
Essay Preview: Pateman on Locke
Report this essay
For years social contract theorists had monopolized the explanation of modern
society. John Locke was among those who advocated this theory of a collectively
chosen set of circumstances. Carole Pateman, on the other hand rejects many of the
pillars of the social contract and specifically attacks certain aspects of Lockes argument
regarding paternalism and patriarchy. Pateman defends her idea that the individual about
which Locke writes is masculine, instead of the gender-encompassing form of the word
“man.” Pateman also argues that Locke denies the individuality of women. Instead of
scrapping his entire work, however, she grants him a couple of concessions, even
acknowledging Locke as anti-patriarchal. If John Locke were around to defend his
theories, he would probably have an opinion about the treatment of his work.
To accurately discuss Patemans view of Lockes paternal/patriarchal theory, a
working knowledge of the theory itself is necessary. According to Locke “all men by
nature are equal”(Second Treatise: 43) with the exception of children who have not
reached the full state of equality, but must obey their parents. Domestic and political
power is vested in the Father, according to Locke. As he puts it, “the natural fathers of
families, by an insensible change, became the politic monarchs of them too.”(Second
Treatise: 42) Locke does not reserve domestic power regarding children solely to the
Father, however. Instead he claims that the mother “hath an equal title.”(Second
Treatise: 30) He even defends the rights of children. Locke argues that children have the
same moral rights as any other person, though the childs inadequate mental faculties
make it permissible for his parents to rule over him to a limited degree. “Thus we are
born Free, as we are born Rational; not that we have actually the Exercise of either:
Age that brings one, brings with it the other too.” (Second Treatise: 30) Locke does
specify that children are free because of their “fathers title,” in addition to being
governed by the law of their father. It is less clear in this situation whether Locke is using
the term “father” to include both parents as the “term” man can be interpreted to mean
both sexes. It is likely, based on the tradition of male heredity prevalent during his time,
that Locke literally meant only a Fathers legacy affects the children.
With at least a basic background of Lockes views on paternal power, it is
possible to examine a feminist, namely Carole Patemans, view of the same theories.
Much like the other social contract theorists, Pateman believes that Locke leaves women
out of the picture. In Patemans eyes Locke excludes women from “participation in the
act that creates civil society.”(Sexual Contract: 21) Others have generously argued that
Locke omitted women from the original contract in order to keep from alienating his
(male) audience or, even though they are not mentioned directly, women still “could
have been party to the social contract.”(Sexual Contract:21) Pateman believes his
omission was the direct result of Lockes idea of an individual being masculine. When
Locke speaks of man and mans role in the social contract, Pateman takes “man” literally
to mean the male gender instead of as a universal term.
Pateman also concerns herself with Lockes status as a believer in paternal or
parental power. Although Locke stresses the Bibles fifth commandment (Honor thy
father and mother) he does not extend womens equality to other arenas. Instead,
according to Pateman, “the husband still exercises power over his wife, but the power is
less than absolute.”(Sexual Contract: 22) It is in this manner that Pateman attributes
male dominated government and politics to a traditional patriarchal system. To quote
Pateman directly:
The genesis of the (patriarchal) family is frequently seen as synonymous with
the origin of social life itself, and the origin of patriarchy and the origin of
society are treated as the same process.(Sexual Contract: 25)
Despite the image depicted here Pateman does grant that Locke appears to be
anti-patriarchal in many of his views.
Locke separates the family from politics. It is through this separation that
Pateman benevolently attributes his anti-patriarchalism. To begin, Locke states that a
man has no more power over his offspring because he conceived them than he earns
through the care for these children. From this it can be drawn that fathers have only the
power of benevolence with which to control the home. Paternal power in the home
must be earned and is forfeited through misuse. Pateman claims that “the separation of