Leaders are Born and Made: The Role of Education

Felibert R. Salvador, Ph.D.

Divine World College of Laoag

 “The task of the leader is to get his people from where they are

to where they have not been.”
                                                                 - Henry Kissinger

Abstract

There has been a debate for a number of years concerning the issue of what makes a great leader. This debate is usually summarized into two schools of thought. The one school proposes that leaders are a select few people who are born with the unique set of skill and have rare leadership abilities/traits. The other school of thought proposes that leaders are made, that is they learn, grow and develop into great leaders through the books they read, the people they associate with, education, and training and from their personal experiences. (Ambler)

This article presents several opinions, arguments and propositions that indeed leaders are not born but they are made.

Keywords: leadership, ethical, credible, astute, visionary, goals, success

Introduction

Leadership is a process of getting things done through people (Handbook on Leadership Development, 1971). Leaders are not born but they are made. They possess characteristics such as great ethical deportment, credible attitude, politically astute thinking and action and are competent in all they do for their organization. These kind of leaders also have values like honesty and straightforwardness which helps them to develop inspiring and visionary characteristics which further help them in attaining goals which are both, long- and short-term and help in the success of the group.

Leadership Defined

What is leadership? A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal. (About.com, 2011) This definition of leadership captures the leadership essentials of inspiration. Effective leadership is based upon ideas that inspire people to follow and to commit themselves into a common goal, but won't happen unless those ideas can be communicated to others in a way that engages them. Put even more simply, the leader is the inspiration and director of the action. He is the person in the group that possesses the combination of personality and leadership skills that makes others want to follow his direction (Bass, 1990). Thus, in other way leadership also has been described as a process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task (Stogdill, 1989). Such leadership capabilities and qualities are not inborn but can be developed gradually through education, training, experience and self-study (Edi Kumik, 2011).

Theories of Leadership

There are eight theories of leadership as enumerated by Kendra Cherry in her article “8 Major Leadership Theories”

1. "Great Man" Theories:

Great man theories assume that the capacity for leadership is inherent – that great leaders are born, not made. These theories often portray great leaders as heroic, mythic and destined to rise to leadership when needed. The term "Great Man" was used because, at the time, leadership was thought of primarily as a male quality, especially in terms of military leadership. Learn more about thegreat man theories of leadership.

2. Trait Theories:

Similar in some ways to "Great Man" theories, trait theories assume that people inherit certain qualities and traits that make them better suited to leadership. Trait theories often identify particular personality or behavioral characteristics shared by leaders. If particular traits are key features of leadership, then how do we explain people who possess those qualities but are not leaders? This question is one of the difficulties in using trait theories to explain leadership.

3. Contingency Theories:

Contingency theories of leadership focus on particular variables related to the environment that might determine which particular style of leadership is best suited for the situation. According to this theory, no leadership style is best in all situations. Success depends upon a number of variables, including the leadership style, qualities of the followers and aspects of the situation.

4. Situational Theories:

Situational theories propose that leaders choose the best course of action based upon situational variables. Different styles of leadership may be more appropriate for certain types of decision-making.

5. Behavioral Theories:

Behavioral theories of leadership are based upon the belief that great leaders are made, not born. Rooted in behaviorism, this leadership theory focuses on the actions of leaders not on mental qualities or internal states. According to this theory, people can learn to become leaders through teaching and observation.

6. Participative Theories:

Participative leadership theories suggest that the ideal leadership style is one that takes the input of others into account. These leaders encourage participation and contributions from group members and help group members feel more relevant and committed to the decision-making process. In participative theories, however, the leader retains the right to allow the input of others.

7. Management Theories:

Management theories, also known as transactional theories, focus on the role of supervision, organization and group performance. These theories base leadership on a system of rewards and punishments. Managerial theories are often used in business; when employees are successful, they are rewarded; when they fail, they are reprimanded or punished. Learn more about theories of transactional leadership.

8. Relationship Theories:

Relationship theories, also known as transformational theories, focus upon the connections formed between leaders and followers. Transformational leaders motivate and inspire people by helping group members see the importance and higher good of the task. These leaders are focused on the performance of group members, but also want each person to fulfill his or her potential. Leaders with this style often have high ethical and moral standards.

Leader is Born and Made

While there are people who seem to be naturally endowed with more leadership abilities than others, people can learn to become leaders by improving particular leadership skills. Leadership therefore is a winning combination of personal traits and the ability to think and act as a leader, a person who directs the activities of others for the good of all. Anyone can be a leader. The leader has to be practical and a realist yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist.
(Hoffer, 1951)

Not long ago, leadership was synonymous with having a position and title. Anyone with the proper spot on the organizational chart or political hierarchy was assumed to be a leader. It was an understandable assumption if you look at the political and social organizational history. Those responsible for the welfare of the many were authority figures of various forms. At different times they may have been royalty, land owners, captains of industry, or elected officials, but the public assumed that because of their station in life these people knew what they were doing. Sometimes, especially in the case of royalty, people believed their leaders were placed in their stations by a deity. It's tough to argue the illegitimacy of divine purpose. (Yaberbaum and Sherman)

As people began to realize that leadership was a skill, they started to rightly connect the concept with knowledge, not privilege. Today, leaders are less often defined as “the boss” and more commonly defined as people who point others in the right direction. You no longer have to be a CEO, the executive director of a charity, or a manager to be a leader.

Leadership Traits

The knowledge of the effective leadership traits is very essential for all those who wish to become successful leaders. All of us are taught right from childhood, to become leaders and not followers. But, why is it that many people try to become leaders and very few of them succeed? What sets the successful leaders apart from the other lot? The answer is that these people employ effective leadership strategies to achieve their targets.

Many authors who are recognized to be authorities in their own fields agree that the following are traits that a leader should possess in order to become triumphant in all his endeavors, (Leadership 501, 2010):

Visionary
One of the most important traits of a leader is his vision. A leader should have a compelling vision, and with his communication skills as outlined above, should be able to convey his vision to his team members so that they too work to achieve the dream. He should be able to make it a shared dream, rather than an individual dream. The leader has to be practical and a realist yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist. (Hoffer, 1951)

Honesty
Being honest is one of the most vital effective leadership traits in successful leaders. Honesty should be shown towards the organization which the leader is leading and also towards his fellow employees and stakeholders of the organization. Whether it is a small company or a large multi-national organization, honesty in the leadership of the company alone can take it ahead on the path of progress. Honest leaders have a lot of mass support and respect in their company, as well as in the society. The unity in the company increases a lot with honest leadership. (Benton, 2007)

Talent
Talent must be included in the effective leadership traits list. If you observe carefully, you will notice that most of the famous world leaders are highly qualified and have the ability to think in a more creative and unique way than the rest of the world. These people are visionaries and know very well, what will be the short term as well as the long term effects of their actions. Reasoning abilities, decision making, effective management and effective leadership styles constitute the concept of 'talent'. Though many leaders are said to be 'born-talented', this talent gets nurtured only with practical experience. (Developing-leaders.com)

Confidence and Enthusiasm

Confidence and enthusiasm are the essential and effective leadership traits, which make a great leader. A good leader should always be charged up and should boost the morale of his workforce. He should have tremendous energy and enthusiasm to work for long hours and achieve the set targets. Having faith in one's abilities and the eagerness to learn new things, improving with the changing times by adapting to the new technologies and learning from the previous mistakes are all signs of a smart and effective leadership. However, one should note that over confidence and excessive false pride can be a hindrance to the progress and development of the company or a team. The effective leadership traits include generating a team spirit among the workforce by proper implementation of strategies. (Buzzle.com, 2000)

Respecting Opinions of Others

Another one of the effective leadership traits is the important value of respecting the opinions of others. While taking any decision, whether big or small, all the concerned persons should be consulted and given prior information. Give the freedom to every person to voice his/her opinion freely and try to implement all those suggestions which are in the good interests of the team or organization. Taking decisions on your own without taking into account the presence of others gives rise to unnecessary feelings of rivalry and hatred, which will definitely prove to be detrimental to the interests of the entire group. Men are respectable only as they respect. (Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Presence of Mind and Decision Taking Abilities

Presence of mind and decision taking abilities are those effective leadership traits which can make a very successful leader. There are many situations wherein some kinds of difficulties attack the progress or even the existence of the group. Such situations can be overcome by presence of mind and taking brave decisions at the right time. Decision making is a very complex process and needs a dynamic leader to complete it. (JobBank)

The Role of Education and Training

            The role of education in creating a leader is indispensable. Education has been the essential factor in the formation of human behavior.  Its aim is to develop the capacities latent in human nature and to coordinate their expression for the enrichment and progress of society, by equipping people with spiritual, moral and material knowledge. True education releases capacities, develops analytical abilities, confidence in oneself, will power and goal setting competencies, and instills the vision that will enable a person to become self-motivating agent of social change, serving the best interests of the community. (Donald, 1998). Such description recognizes the crucial role of education the formation of leaders. 

Leader development comes from the knowledge, skills, and experiences gained through institutional training or, organizational training, operational experience, and self-development. By always doing your best during training you are developing leader skills and attributes.

(Colonel Dandridge M. Malone)

10 Principles of Leadership:

According to Brad Sugars of Action COACH, a business coaching firm, the following are today’s relevant principles of leadership:

1.      Know yourself and seek self-improvement. In order to know yourself, you have to understand your "be", "know", and "do" attributes. This is possible by continually strengthening your attributes by reading and self-study.

2.      Be technically proficient. As a leader, you must know your job and have a solid familiarity with your employees' jobs.

3.      Seek responsibility and take responsibility for your actions. Search for ways to guide your organization to new heights. And when things go wrong, do not blame others.

4.      Make sound and timely decisions. Use good problem solving, decision-making, and planning tools.

5.      Set the example. Be a good role model for you employees. They will believe what they see - not what they hear.

6.      Know your people and look out for their well-being. Know human nature and the importance of sincerely caring for your workers.

7.      Keep your people informed. Know how to communicate with your people, seniors, and other key people within the organization.

8.      Develop a sense of accountability, ownership and responsibility in your people. These traits will help them carry out their professional responsibilities.

9.      Ensure tasks are understood, supervised, and accomplished. Communication is the key to this responsibility.

10.  Train your people as a team. By developing team spirit, you will be able to employ your organization, department, section, etc. to its fullest capabilities.

Conclusion

Leadership is the ability to inspiring or influencing others to strive the leader towards the leaders goal. A leader is an equal whom you decide to follow on your own free will, because you think he can lead you. You choose to follow him because he has a vision that you think is right. The one who is more forward thinking is leading. Leaders lead free men who decide to follow their leader on free will, to obtain something that is part of the vision that the leader has. The final test of a leader is that he leaves behind him in other men, the conviction and the will to carry on.
(Walter Lippman)

It is true that not every leader is a good manager, or supervisor, but every leader can be taught to be a good one.  A leader is someone others are willing to follow, almost without question. They may not always make the right decision, but they are confident in the decisions that they make. They are not afraid to admit when they are wrong, and they know when to change direction when an inappropriate choice has been made. For, even after a few mistakes, a true leader will not lose the confidence of his, or her, followers. People seek out leaders unconsciously, and leaders step to the forefront almost instinctively. Leaders are recognized, not chosen. In short, leaders have something within that the others just don't have. It is an intangible characteristic that can't be explained, but when you see it, you will recognize it.

Leadership is an art. It requires the application of special skills and techniques. Even if there are certain inborn qualities that make one a good leader, these natural talents need encouragement and development. A person is not born with self-confidence. Self-confidence is developed, honesty and integrity are a matter of personal choice, motivation to lead comes from within the individual, and knowledge can be acquired. While cognitive ability has its origin partly in genes, it still needs to be developed. None of these ingredients are acquired overnight. Leaders aren’t born, they are made. And they are made just like anything else, through hard work. And that’s the price we’ll have to pay to achieve that goal, or any goal. (Vince Lombardi)

References:

Ambler, G. (2007). The Practice of Leadership. Manifesto. Johannesberg, South Africa

Bass, B. (1990). From Transactional to Transformational Leadership: Learning to Share the Vision. Organizational Dynamics, 18, (3), Winter, 1990, 19-31.

Stogdill, R. M.(1989). Stogdill's Handbook of Leadership: A Survey of Theory and Research. Bass, B. (ed.) New York: Free Press.

Benton, D. (2007).“Honesty – A Primary Leadership Tool”. Published by Dream Manifesto. 2007

Gainey, D. (1998) The Education Leader's Role in Change: How To Proceed. Breaking Ranks: Making It Happen. Education Resourses Information Center. Retrieved from http://www.netplaces/leadership/leading-from-within.htm

Management Study Guide. (n.d). Theory of Management. Retrieved from http://www.managementstudyguide.com

About.com. (n.d). Management and Leadership. New York Times Company

The Handbook on Leadership Development. (1972). "Learning About Leadership". Adapted from Patrol and Troop Leadership. Published by the Boy Scouts of America.

Kumik, Edi. (2011). Leadership and Management. Retrieved from http://hubpages.com

Ward, Susan. (n.d). Leadership. Retrieved from http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/leadership/g/leadership.htm

Hoffer, E. (1951). The True Believer, New York. Retrieved from http://www.netplaces.com/leadership.htm

n" , "serif"; font-size: 12.0pt;"> 

Thomas Hobbes and the government

LORELEI JOY A. CORPUZ

The Biography of Thomas Hobbes

Thomas Hobbes was born in April 5, 1588 in Westport, Wiltshire, England. He died on December 4, 1679 in Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire at a remarkable age of 91. He was an English philosopher who is considered one of the founders of modern political philosophy  (Sheldon, 2001). Hobbes is best known for his 1651 book Leviathan, which established the social contract theory that has served as the foundation for later Western political philosophy  (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2017)

Early life

Hobbes's biography is dominated by the political events in England and Scotland during his long life  (Williams, 2017). Born prematurely on April 5, 1588, when his mother heard of the coming invasion of the Spanish Armada (a fleet of Spanish warships), Thomas Hobbes later reported that "my mother gave birth to twins: myself and fear"  (Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2017). His father was a quick-tempered vicar of a small Wiltshire parish church. Disgraced after engaging in a brawl at his own church door, he disappeared and abandoned his three children to the care of his brother, a well-to-do glover in Malmesbury. When he was four years old, Hobbes was sent to school at Westport, then to a private school, and finally, at 15, to Magdalen Hall in the University of Oxford, where he took a traditional arts degree  (Sorell, 2013).
Although he was not born to power or wealth or influence, his intellectual abilities, and his uncle's support, brought him to university at Oxford.

In his adult life, Hobbes worked for one of the wealthy and aristocratic family, the Cavendishes. He worked as a page and tutor of the young William Cavendish. Over the course of many decades Hobbes served the family and their associates as translator, traveling companion, keeper of accounts, business representative, political adviser, and scientific collaborator  (Sorell, 2013). This association provided him with a private library, foreign travel, and introductions to influential people  (Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2017). Through his employment, Hobbes entered circles where the activities of the King, of Members of Parliament, and of other wealthy landowners were known and discussed, and indeed influenced. Thus intellectual and practical ability brought Hobbes to a place close to power. As the Civil Wars was being set, wars that would lead to the King being executed and a republic being declared, Hobbes felt forced to leave the country for his personal safety, and lived in France from 1640 to 1651. Even after the monarchy had been restored in 1660, Hobbes's security was not always certain. Powerful religious figures, critical of his writings, made moves in Parliament that apparently led Hobbes to burn some of his papers for fear of prosecution  (Williams, 2017).

Hobbes lived in a time of upheaval. This turmoil had many aspects and causes, political and religious, military and economic. England stood divided against itself in several ways. The rich and powerful were divided in their support for the King, especially concerning the monarch's powers of taxation. Parliament was similarly divided concerning its own powers with reference to the King. Society was divided religiously, economically, and by region. Inequalities in wealth were huge, and the upheavals of the Civil Wars saw the emergence of fundamental religious and political sects. Civil war meant that the country became militarily divided. Hobbes's greatest fear was social and political chaos - and he had ample opportunity both to observe it and to suffer its effects  (Williams, 2017).

In October 1679, Hobbes suffered a bladder disorder, and then a paralytic stroke from which he died on December 4, 1679. His last words are said to have been "A great leap in the dark" in his final moments. He was interred in St John the Baptist's Church, Ault Hucknall, in Derbyshire  (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2017). 

His Works

Although social and political turmoil affected Hobbes's life and shaped his thought, it never hampered his intellectual development. His early position as a tutor gave him the scope to read, write and publish and brought him into contact with notable English intellectuals such as Francis Bacon. His self-imposed exile in France brought him into contact with major European intellectual figures of his time, leading to exchange and controversy with figures such as Descartes, Mersenne and Gassendi  (Williams, 2017).

Hobbes’ first work, a translation of Greek historian Thucydides's History of the Peloponnesian Wars, did not appear until 1629. Thucydides held that knowledge of the past was useful for determining correct action, and Hobbes said that he offered the translation during a period of civil unrest as a reminder that the ancients believed democracy to be the least effective form of government  (Encyclopedia of World Biography, 2017).

Hobbes earned his first philosophical fame in his work entitled The Elements of Law (1640). This was Hobbes's attempt to provide arguments supporting the King against his challengers. De Cive [On the Citizen] (1642) has much in common with Elements, and offers a clear, concise statement of Hobbes's moral and political philosophy. His most famous work is Leviathan, a classic of English prose. Leviathan expands on the argument of De Cive, mostly in terms of its huge second half that deals with questions of religion. Other important works include: De Corpore [On the Body] (1655), which deals with questions of metaphysics; De Homine [On Man] (1657); and Behemoth (published 1682), in which Hobbes gives his account of England's Civil Wars. But to understand the essentials of Hobbes’s ideas and system, one can rely on De Cive and Leviathan. According to  Williams (2017), although Leviathan is more famous and more often read, De Cive actually gives a much more straightforward account of Hobbes's ideas.

His final works were a curious mixture: an autobiography in Latin verse in 1672, and a translation of four books of the Odyssey into "rugged" English rhymes that in 1673 led to a complete translation of both Iliad and Odyssey in 1675 (Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 2017).

Social Contract Theory

            Hobbes is famous for his early and elaborate development of what has come to be known as “social contract theory”, the method of justifying political principles or arrangements by appeal to the agreement that would be made among suitably situated, rational, free, and equal persons. He is infamous for having used the social contract method to arrive at the astonishing conclusion that we ought to submit to the authority of an absolute—undivided and unlimited—sovereign power  (Lloyd & Sreedhar, 2014).

According to Thomas Hobbes (1651), the state of nature does not refer to a peaceful, harmonious social life but instead it is a hellish life with chaos and violence. Hobbes believes that the state of nature in history was a “state of warre” during which all individuals struggled against all other individuals and finally ended this chaotic life by making a social contract.

“For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself” (Hobbes, p. 192).

Hobbes believes that human beings are naturally selfish and they can do all kinds of bad acts when they can gain from these bad acts. This understanding of the enormous selfishness of human beings directs Hobbes to a very dark theory, which does not trust in human beings and thus favors a regime of absolute monarchy with severe rules and little space for freedoms. Hobbes considers human beings as rational egoists that always look for the maximization of their self-profits, and he tries to explain the transition from the state of nature to the organized state by human beings’ realization that it is more profitable to live in an organized state  (Makaleleri, 2011).

“Nature hath made men so equal, in the faculties of body, and mind, as that though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind than another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himself any benefit, to which another may pretend, as well as he” (Hobbes, p. 183).

Hobbes thinks that humans are somehow naturally equal and there is not too much difference between their mental and physical abilities. According to him, this equality of ability increases the competition for limited resources between people, especially in a world without a central binding power in which even the weakest can beat the strongest by taking help from others or by using weapons, etc. So, in a stateless stage individuals have the motive to compete with others in a very hostile sense; in addition, they live with the fear of being killed or losing what they have  (Makaleleri, 2011).

“from equality proceeds diffidence” (Hobbes, p. 184).

Hobbes calls this fear “diffidence” and explains it as the lack of confidence people have in the state of war due to their inevitably unsafe lives. This fear forces individuals to look for power after power not only to gain more profit, but also to protect what they have in their hands. After competition and diffidence, the third motive that orients people in the state of war according to Hobbes’ theory is the desire to have glory. People want to have reputation and power but what they really want is to prevent potential threats by frightening or threatening other people who could attack and kill them in this unsafe world. Hobbes concludes his theory by the realization that rational egoist human beings will profit more in an organized state, and thus, to make a social contract among them and give their power to a sole person who would be like a mortal God called “Leviathan” who would provide peace and order in society by making laws deriving from laws of nature and by punishing guilty people.

“This is the Generation of that great LEVIATHAN, or rather of that Mortal God, our peace and defence. For by this Authoritie, given him by every particular man in the common-wealth, he has the use of so much power and strength conferred on him, that by terror thereof, he is inabled to forme the wills of them all, to peace at home and mutual ayd against their enemies abroad” (Hobbes, pp. 227-228)

Life without Rule and Right to Property

Life without Rule

Humans are nowadays born to this world with lots of rules and regulations. Most of us in this world lives in places where there are institutions called “states” which regulate and organize social life. Today, the existence of the state has become an absolute condition for the well-being of society. However, the emergence of the state did not come simultaneously with the beginning of human life. People lived for a long period of time without the presence of the state. They lived freely without a principal power to govern them.

Many philosophers have tried to explain the necessity of the existence of the state by imagining or studying this stateless period of time. Thomas Hobbes is one of these philosophers who tried to explain the transition from this stateless stage called “the state of nature” to an organized state by means of social contract theory in his masterpiece “Leviathan”. According to Makaleleri (2011), Hobbes’ theory can be considered as very pessimistic and dark but we cannot underestimate the role of political problems that he witnessed during his lifetime in shaping his theory. Hobbes saw Spanish Armada, 30 Years War, First & Second Bishops’ War, Scottish invasion of England, Irish Rebellion and English Civil War.

            According to Hobbes, humans are by nature, needy and vulnerable. Our capacity to reason is as fragile as our capacity to know. Humans are prone to error and undue influence. When we act, we may do so selfishly or impulsively, or in ignorance, on the basis of faulty reasoning or bad theology of others’ emotive speech  (Williams, 2017).

Hobbes believed that in the absence of a state, human beings would react to each other with great savagery. He believed that all humans had equal ability to kill one and other creating a constant state of insecurity. As a result they would seek law and order for their own protection. They would all agree to place someone in authority to tell them what to do. Hobbes suggested that a number of people would appoint a king for the sole purpose of giving orders and preventing constant turmoil. He argued the only way to achieve this is by removing the individual's power and bestow it upon one man. As a consequence the king has an absolute right to make whatever laws he wants, he owes no responsibility to the individual other than to keep the peace. In effect Hobbes was setting up an absolute authority free of any contractual or natural law restraint entrusting all power to the ruler to enforce unity obedience  (Teacher, November, 2013).

Hobbes thinks the best we can hope for is peaceful life under an authoritarian-sounding sovereign. The worst, on Hobbes's account, is what he calls the "natural condition of mankind," a state of violence, insecurity and constant threat. In outline, Hobbes's argument is that the alternative to the existence of a state is a situation no one could reasonably wish for, and that any attempt to make the state accountable to the people must undermine it, so threatening the situation of a “state of nature” that we must all wish to avoid. Our only reasonable option, therefore, is a "sovereign" authority that is totally unaccountable to its subjects.

Life without Right to Property

Hobbes in his book, Leviathan, states the second law of nature, “that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war” (Leviathan, Ch. VI). Hobbes believed that it is natural and rational for people to give up some liberty in order to gain security of self-preservation. The condition in which people give up some individual liberty in exchange for some common security is the social contract. Hobbes defines contract as "the mutual transferring of right."

In the state of nature, everyone has the right to everything (including property) - there are no limits to the right of natural liberty. The social contract is the agreement by which individuals mutually transfer their natural right. In other words, I give up my natural right to steal your food because you give up your natural right to steal mine. In place of the natural right we have created a limited right; in this case the right of property. Hobbes notes that we do not make these agreements explicitly because we are born into a civil society with laws and conventions (i.e. contracts) already in place. It is by performing the thought experiment regarding the state of nature and following the chain of reasoning Hobbes put before us that we can see the foundations of our commitment to civil law  (Oregon State University, 2017).

Thomas Hobbes believed that in the state of nature/war, property did not exist. People might agree to divide a certain field between them, but without a coercive power, either side could evade on the bargain whenever it was convenient. For Hobbes, property exist only after the creation of a sovereign power capable of enforcing contracts  (Sommerville J. , 1992).

According to Hobbes, "From whence we may collect that the propriety which a subject hath in his lands consisteth in a right to exclude all other subjects from the use of them; and not to exclude their sovereign, be it an assembly or a monarch". Contrary to the philosophy of Bodin where the sovereign should respect his peoples’ property rights except in emergencies, Hobbes believed that people have no property rights at all against the sovereign.

In Hobbes' view, just as property is the creation of the state, so is marriage. A couple in the state of nature might agree to mutual fidelity and child support, but there would be nothing to stop either breaking their word if so inclined. Only with the creation of the state could marriage contracts be enforced, therefore the rules of marriage regarding adultery, divorce, polygamy, etc. were all at the discretion of the state's laws  (Sommerville J. , 2017).

 The Relevance of Government According to Hobbes

Governments were created, according to Hobbes, to protect people from their own selfishness and evil. Hobbes viewed government primarily as a device for ensuring collective security. Political authority is justified by a hypothetical social contract among the many that vests in a sovereign person or entity the responsibility for the safety and well-being of all  (Sorell, 2013).

In some of his early works, Hobbes only says that there must be a supreme sovereign power of some kind in society, without stating definitively which sort of sovereign power is best. In Leviathan, however, Hobbes unequivocally argues that absolute monarchy is the only right form of government.

In The Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes talks about his views of human nature and describes his vision of the ideal government which is best suited to his views.  Hobbes believed that human beings naturally desire the power to live well and that they will never be satisfied with the power they have without acquiring more power.  After this, he believes, there usually succeeds a new desire such as fame and glory, ease and sensual pleasure or admiration from others.  He also believed that all people are created equally.  That everyone is equally capable of killing each other because although one man may be stronger than another, the weaker may be compensated for by his intellect or some other individual aspect. Hobbes believed that the nature of humanity leads people to seek power.  He said that when two or more people want the same thing, they become enemies and attempt to destroy each other.  He called this time when men oppose each other - war.  He said that there were three basic causes for war: competition, distrust and glory.  In each of these cases, men use violence to invade their enemies’ territory either for their personal gain, their safety or for glory.  He said that without a common power to unite the people, they would be in a war of every man against every man as long as the will to fight is known.  He believed that this state of war was the natural state of human beings and that harmony among human beings is artificial because it is based on an agreement.  If a group of people had something in common such as a common interest or a common goal, they would not be at war and united they would be more powerful against those who would seek to destroy them.  One thing he noted that was consistent in all men was their interest in self-preservation.
Hobbes view of human nature lead him to develop his vision of an ideal government.  He believed that a common power was required to keep men united.  This power would work to maintain the artificial harmony among the people as well as protect them from foreign enemies.  This power would either be one man or an assembly appointed by the people.  The people would make an agreement among themselves to all submit to this ruler.  The people would submit their wills to the will of their ruler who would in turn assure their self-preservation.  Thus the ruler would have absolute control over his domain.  Hobbes referred to this kind of ruler as a Sovereign and his people as subjects  (123 HelpMe Editors, 2017).

Hobbes is a strong advocate of monarchy as the best form of government and the only one that can guarantee peace. In general, Hobbes seeks to define the rational bases upon which a civil society could be constructed that would not be subject to destruction from within. Accordingly, he delineates how best to minimize discord, disagreement, and factionalism within society—whether between state and church, between rival governments, or between different contending philosophies. Hobbes believes that any such conflict leads to civil war. He holds that any form of ordered government is preferable to civil war. Thus he advocates that all members of society submit to one absolute, central authority for the sake of maintaining the common peace. In Hobbes’s system, obedience to the sovereign is directly tied to peace in all realms. The sovereign is empowered to run the government, to determine all laws, to be in charge of the church, to determine first principles, and to adjudicate in philosophical disputes. For Hobbes, this is the only sure means of maintaining a civil, peaceful state and preventing the dissolution of society into civil war  (SparkNotes Editors, 2005).

Because the people were only interested in promoting their own self-interests, Hobbes believed democracy - allowing citizens to vote for government leaders - would never work. Hobbes wrote, "All mankind [is in] a perpetual and restless desire for power... that [stops] only in death." Consequently, giving power to the individual would create a dangerous situation that would start a "war of every man against every man" and make life "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short"  (Hobbes, 1651).

      Despite his distrust of democracy, Hobbes believed that a diverse group of representatives presenting the problems of the common person would, hopefully, prevent a king from being cruel and unfair. During Hobbes' lifetime, business began to have a big influence on government. Those who could contribute money to the government were given great status, and business interests were very powerful. In order to offset the growing power of business, Hobbes believed that an individual could be heard in government by authorizing a representative to speak on their behalf. In fact, Hobbes came up with the phrase "voice of the people," which meant that one person could be chosen to represent a group with similar views. However, this "voice" was merely heard and not necessarily listened to - final decisions lay with the king  (Geib, 2017).

Conclusion

Thomas Hobbes is an English philosopher who became famous for his political thought. He has set intriguing and arguable claims on the natural condition of mankind, known as the “state of nature”, where humans are by nature selfish, materialist and cruel creatures. The state of nature, according to Hobbes, is the "war of every man against every man," where people will fear for death and violence. This state is so horrible and Hobbes’ primary concern is how humans can live in peace and avoid the “state of war”. For Hobbes, the best way to achieve peace is to construct the Leviathan through social contract. That is, a peaceful society can be achieved if humans will obey an unaccountable sovereign, an artificial being called the Leviathan, who is empowered to decide on every social or political issue. Under the Social Contract, individuals mutually transfer their natural rights, including rights to property, to the Sovereign.

            Hobbes’ views may have stemmed from his life experiences – a boy abandoned by his father, raised by an uncle and lived most of his life working for the royals and other influential people in his era. He lived in a time of political uprising where monarchy was questioned and parliamentary politics was being supported by some people in his era. There was division of power and Hobbes saw and experienced its devastating effects. Having lived close to the royals and influential people, Hobbes became a strong advocate of absolute monarchy.

            Hobbes demonstrated the need for a government pretty well. He, along with John Locke, had defended that the existence of a government arises out of a social contract that individuals need a sovereign to safeguard them. However, Hobbes’ ideal government is an absolute monarchy and people do not have chance to question or object to the deeds, decisions of the Leviathan. He thought that people would not be able to be productive or live in peace without a strong authoritative power telling them what to do. He believed that this should come in the form of an absolute ruler so that there would always be a consistent exercise of political authority. Contrary to Hobbes, John Locke believed that people had rights that were intrinsic and could not be taken away by others, such as the right to property and to happiness. He believed that people should be free to make their own choices as long as they were not dangerous to others. Locke also believed that the government should be representative and that the people should have the opportunity to elect leaders. However, despite this belief in representative government, Locke only wanted people with land and an education to be able to be elected because he felt the average person would not be able to make good decisions for the nation. Hobbes ideal government, which is absolute monarchy, is prone to abuse by those in power. It can come in the form of dictatorship which is not applicable to the dynamics of modern societies unlike Locke’s which is more suitable.

Though Hobbes made a strong point on the necessity of a government, his reason for its existence is arguable. His claims that humans are by nature selfish, brutish and nasty is somewhat pessimistic. Jean-Jacques Rousseau offers a better conception of human nature. For Rousseau (1762), violence is a learned behavior and that humans have a built-in innate mechanism to not harm other humans. This means that conception of good and evil are as innate and inherent to us as our capacity to recognize and feel pain and pleasure. It means that morality is inscribed by birth, ready to be constructed through our natural experiences. Rousseau believes that humans are driven by compassion, pity, and self-love and he views human nature as inherently good. This is a more accurate depiction of the ‘actual state of nature’ where cooperation is possible. This is because it mediates much of the conflict within the state of nature while allowing for the establishment of a sovereign.

Hobbes’ philosophy rejected traditional higher law doctrines and encouraged people to accept the established laws and customs of their nations, even if they seemed oppressive, for the sake of civil peace and security. His analysis has been a cause of the demise of natural law, that all of our rights come from God or nature and are inherent to our being, and the acceptance of positive law, that our rights are granted by the government, society or other men and therefore can be taken back by them as well, as the only reliable guide for political authority.

References

123 HelpMe Editors. (2017). Hobbes' View of Human Nature and his Vision of Government. Retrieved from 123 HelpMe.com: http://www.123helpme.com/assets/13117.html

SparkNotes Editors. (2017). SparkNote on Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Retrieved from Spark Notes: https://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/hobbes/ 

Encyclopedia of World Biography. (2017). Thomas Hobbes Biography. Retrieved from www.notablebiographies.com: http://www.notablebiographies.com/He-Ho/Hobbes-Thomas.html

Geib, R. (2017). Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). Retrieved from www.rjgeib.com: http://rjgeib.com/thoughts/nature/hobbes-bio.html

Hobbes, T. (1642). De Cive. Retrieved from https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/Hobbes%20Excerpts.htm#property

Hobbes, T. (1651). (R. Hay, Ed.) Retrieved from http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3113/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf

Lloyd, S. A., & Sreedhar, S. (2014). Hobbes' Moral and Political Philosophy. (Spring 2014 Edition). (E. N. Zalta, Ed.) Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/hobbes-moral/

Makaleleri, O. O. (2011). Thomas Hobbes and His Theory of Social Contract. Retrieved from ydemokrat.blogspot.com: http://ydemokrat.blogspot.com/2011/01/thomas-hobbes-and-his-theory-of-social.html

Oregon State University. (2017). Thomas Hobbes: Social Contract Theory. Retrieved from InterQuest: https://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl201/modules/Philosophers/Hobbes/hobbes_social_contract.html

Rousseau, J.-J. (1642). Treatise on Education. (1911 edition). (B. Foxley, Trans.) Retrieved from Oll Liberty Fund.com: http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/rousseau-emile-or-education

Sheldon, D. G. (2001). The History of Political Theory: Ancient Greece to Modern America. In American University Studies. McGraw Towerbooks.

Sommerville, J. (1992). Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context. London: Macmillan.

Sommerville, J. (2017). Thomas Hobbes of Malmesbury. Hobbesian Politics. Retrieved from https://faculty.history.wisc.edu/sommerville/367/367-092.htm

Sorell, T. (2013). Thomas Hobbes, English Philosopher. Retrieved from Encyclopaedia Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Hobbes

Teacher, L. (November, 2013). The Social Contract Theories of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Retrieved from www.lawteacher.net: https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/contract-law/the-social-contract-theories-of-thomas-hobbes-and-john-locke.php?cref=1 

Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. (2017). Thomas Hobbes. Retrieved from Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hobbes

Williams, G. (2017). Hobbes: Moral and Political Philosophy. Retrieved from Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy Resource, A Peer Reviewed Academic Resource: http://www.iep.utm.edu/hobmoral/