Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:09:21.183Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sovereignless State and Locke's Language of Obligation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2000

John T. Scott
John T. Scott*
Affiliation:
University of California, Davis
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern liberal states are founded on individual rights and popular sovereignty. These doctrines are conceptually and historically intertwined but are in theoretical and practical tension. Locke's political theory is a source for proponents of both doctrines, and the same tension that runs through modern liberal thought and practice can be found in his theory. Rather than define the state in terms of a single sovereign authority, Locke constructs a sovereignless commonwealth with several coexisting claimants to supreme authority. He rejects sovereignty as what unifies the state, and he wants to replace the discourse of sovereignty theory with a language of obligation that will help bind together the sovereignless state. This language permits its adherents to articulate the reasonable basis and limits of political power. An understanding of Locke's sovereignless state helps us better comprehend the tensions embodied in discourses about individual natural rights, popular sovereignty, and governmental authority heard in the liberal state.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 94 , Issue 3 , September 2000 , pp. 547 - 561
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aaron, Richard I. 1955. John Locke. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Abrams, Philip. 1967. “Introduction” to Two Tracts on Government, by Locke, John. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Allen, J. W. 1928. A History of Political Thought in the Sixteenth Century. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
Andrew, Edward. 1988. Shylock's Rights: A Grammar of Lockean Claims. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1984. The Politics, trans. Lord, Carnes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1968. “Locke's State of Nature: Historical Fact or Moral Fiction?” American Political Science Review 62 (September): 898–915.10.2307/1953439CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1986. Revolutionary Politics and Locke's “Two Treatises of Government.” Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1992. “The Politics of Locke's Two Treatises of Government .” In John Locke's “Two Treatises of Government”: New Interpretations, ed. Harpham, Edward J.. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Pp. 14–49.Google Scholar
Barker, Ernest. 1962. “Introduction” to Social Contract, by Locke, John. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bellah, Robert N., ed., with Madsen, Richard, Sullivan, William M., and Tipton, Steven M.. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bodin, Jean. [1566] 1945. Method for the Easy Comprehension of History, trans. Reynolds, Beatrice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Bodin, Jean. [1577] 1962. Six Bookes of a Commonweale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Burgess, Glenn. 1992. The Politics of the Ancient Constitution. College Station: Pennsylvania State University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connolly, William E. 1974. The Terms of Political Discourse. Lexinggon, MA: Heath.Google Scholar
Cox, Richard. 1960. Locke on War and Peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Danford, John W. 1978. Wittgenstein and Political Philosophy: A Reexamination of the Foundations of Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Den Hartogh, G. A. 1990. “Express Consent and Full Membership in Locke.” Political Studies 38 (1): 105–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, John. 1967. “Consent in the Political Theory of John Locke.” Historical Journal 10 (2): 153–82.10.1017/S0018246X6700001XCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, John. 1969. The Political Thought of John Locke. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dworetz, Steven M. 1990. The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Figgis, J. Neville. 1896. The Divine Right of Kings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Filmer, Robert. [1675] 1991. Patriarcha, ed. Sommerville, Johann P.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Theory.Google Scholar
Flathman, Richard E. 1972. Political Obligation. New York: Atheneum.Google Scholar
Franklin, Julian H. 1978. John Locke and the Theory of Sovereignty. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gierke, Otto von. 1957. Natural Law and the Theory of Society, 1500–1800, trans. Barker, Ernest. Reprint. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Glendon, Mary Ann. 1991. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment of Political Discourse. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Glenn, Gary D. 1984. “Inalienable Rights and Locke's Argument for Limited Government: Political Implications of a Right of Suicide.” Journal of Politics 4 (February): 80–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gough, John. 1973. John Locke's Political Philosophy. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grant, Ruth W. 1987. John Locke's Liberalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, Ruth W. 1988. “Locke's Political Anthropology and Lockean Individualism.” Journal of Politics 50 (February): 42–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. [1650] 1994a. Human Nature and De Corpore Politico. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hobbes, Thomas. [1651] 1994b. Leviathan, ed. Curley, Edwin. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Höpfl, Harro, and Thompson, Martyn P.. 1979. “The History of Contract as a Motif in Political Thought.” American Historical Review 84 (October): 919–44.10.2307/1904609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunton, Philip. [1643] 1986. A Treatise of Monarchy. In Divine Right and Democracy: An Anthology of Political Writing in Stuart England, ed. Wootton, David. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin. Pp. 175–213.Google Scholar
Huyler, Jerome. 1995. Locke in America: The Moral Philosophy of the Founding Era. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Kantorowicz, Ernst H. 1957. The King's Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kendall, Willmoore. 1965. John Locke and the Doctrine of Majority-Rule. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kenyon, J. P. 1977. Revolution Principles: The Politics of Party, 1689–1720. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lamprecht, Sterling Power. 1962. The Moral and Political Philosophy of John Locke. New York: Russell and Russell.Google Scholar
Laslett, Peter. 1988. “Introduction” to Two Treatises of Government, by Locke, John. Student ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Theory.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [c. 1660–1662] 1967. Two Tracts on Government, ed. Abrams, Philip. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1667] 1997a. “An Essay on Toleration.” In Political Essays, ed. Goldie, Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 134–59.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1689a] 1983. A Letter Concerning Toleration, ed. Tully, James H.. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1689b] 1988. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Laslett, Peter. Student ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Theory.Google Scholar
Locke, John. [1690] 1975. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Nidditch, Peter H.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. [1695] 1965. The Reasonableness of Christianity, ed. Ewing, George W.. Chicago: Gateway-Regnery.10.1093/oseo/instance.00017461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. [1703] 1997b. “Thoughts Concerning Reading and Study for a Gentleman.” In Political Essays, ed. Goldie, Mark. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 348–55.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1823. The Works of John Locke. 10 vols. London: Tegg.Google Scholar
Lutz, Donald S. 1988. The Origins of American Constitutionalism. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C. B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Madison, James. 1981. The Mind of the Founder: Sources of the Political Thought of James Madison, ed. Meyers, Marvin. Hanover, NH: Brandeis/New England University Press.Google Scholar
McClure, Kirstie M. 1996. Judging Rights: Lockean Politics and the Limits of Consent. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mornay, Philippe de [?]. [1579] 1969. Vindiciae contra tyrannos. In Constitutionalism and Resistance in the Sixteenth Century: Three Treatises by Hotman, Beza, and Mornay, trans, and ed. Franklin, Julian H.. New York: Pegasus. Pp. 137–99.Google Scholar
Pangle, Thomas L. 1988. The Spirit of Modem Republicanism: The Moral Vision of the American Founders and the Philosophy of Locke. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Pateman, Carole. 1985. The Problem of Political Obligation: A Critique of Liberal Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1965. “Obligation and Consent-I.” American Political Science Review 59 (December): 990–9.10.2307/1953218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520340503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1972. Wittgenstein and Justice. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pocock, J. G. A. 1957. The Ancient Constitution and the Feudal Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Polin, Raymond. 1960. La Politique Morale de John Locke. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Rabieh, Michael S. 1991. “The Reasonableness of Locke, or the Questionableness of Christianity.” Journal of Politics 53 (November): 933–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnick, David. 1984. “Locke and the Rejection of the Ancient Constitution.” Political Theory 12 (February): 97–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Resnick, David. 1992. “Rationality and the Two Treatises .” In John Locke's “Two Treatises of Government”: New Interpretations, ed. Harpham, Edward J.. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Pp. 82–117.Google Scholar
Sandel, Michael J. 1996. Democracy's Discontent: America in Search of a Public Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Schochet, Gordon. 1969. “The Family and the Origins of the State in Locke's Political Philosophy.” In John Locke: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Yolton, John W.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 81–98.Google Scholar
Schouls, Peter A. 1992. Reasoned Freedom: John Locke and Enlightenment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seliger, Martin. 1968. The Liberal Politics of John Locke. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 1986. The Evolution of Natural Rights in Liberal Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1992. The Lockean Theory of Rights. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A. John. 1993. On the Edge of Anarchy: Locke, Consent, and the Limits of Society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Skinner, Quentin. 1978. The Foundations of Modern Political Thought. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steinberg, Jules. 1978. Locke, Rousseau, and the Idea of Consent. Westport, CT: Greenwood.Google Scholar
Storing, Herbert J. 1981. The Complete Anti-Federalist, ed. Storing, Herbert. 7 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, Leo. 1953. Natural Right and History. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tarcov, Nathan. 1981. “Locke's Second Treatise and “The Best Fence against Rebellion.” Review of Politics 43 (April): 198–217.10.1017/S0034670500029727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarcov, Nathan. 1984. Locke's Education for Liberty. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard. 1993. Philosophy and Government, 1572–1651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tully, James H. 1980. A Discourse on Property: John Locke and His Adversaries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tully, James H. 1983. “Introduction” to A Letter Concerning Toleration by Locke, John. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Vaughn, C. E. 1925. Studies in the History of Political Philosophy Before and After Rousseau. 2 vols. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 1989. “John Locke: Social Contract Versus Political Anthropology.” Review of Politics 51 (Winter): 3–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weston, Corrine Comstock, and Greenberg, Janelle Renfrew. 1981. Subjects and Sovereigns: The Grand controversy over Legal Sovereignty in Stuart England. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511558658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, James Boyd. 1984. When Words Lose Their Meaning: Constitutions and Reconstitutions of Language, Character, and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolin, Sheldon S. 1961. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Wootton, David. 1986. “Introduction” to Divine Right and Democracy: An Anthology of Political Writing in Stuart England, ed. Wootton, David. Hammondsworth, UK: Penguin.Google Scholar
Zuckert, Michael P. 1994. Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.