A large part of V for Vendetta revolves around the conflict between two political ideals or "ideologies": Anarchism and Fascism. The political philosopher Louis Althusser described ideology as a group of people's "imaginary relationship to their real conditions of existence" (the Puritan ideology, for example, conceived of their actual suffering as part of God's plan, sustaining their self-image as the Chosen People). So you can think of ideologies kind of the way we think of literary theories like postcolonialism as "lenses" - they are like lenses on humanity, even reality itself. The Anarchist and Fascist ideologies derive from the work of earlier political philosophers who produced different versions of what's called Social Contract Theory: the idea that a society is like an agreement among individuals to give up certain freedoms to gain other benefits. THOMAS HOBBES produced a version of social contract theory that inspired Fascism, while JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU produced an opposing version that became the basis of Anarchism. (A third version developed by JOHN LOCKE, which suggested individuals should establish a limited government to protect their rights to liberty and property, became the basis for our own American system of government, partially as a reaction to theocratic tyranny). Watch this video from 8-Bit Philosophy along with any additional research you find necessary, then produce a summary of Hobbes and Rousseau's ideas. Do you with agree with either of them? And do their arguments influence your views on V's revolution? Comment on a classmate post with a substantive response to receive extra credit beyond the 20 points for you first post.
28 Comments
Makenzie Lowrey
12/13/2015 05:48:30 pm
Hobbes believed that the "state of nature" would lead to much violence, and that humans needed to be pushed using brute force and that strict rules must be put into place in order for mankind to function. Rousseau's views were very different. He saw mankind as independent in it's state of nature, and believed that, with a structured government, anarchy and oppression would rise and everything would fall apart anyway. I believe more in the middle man. I was raised under a government, and I wouldn't be sure if any other way was good, I guess. I think that V is definitely following Rousseau's way of thinking, and I'm not sure if that'll be good for Great Britain at all.
Reply
Jackie Izzo
12/13/2015 07:43:35 pm
You make a very good point about being raised under a government your whole life, but I just feel everyone is born equal with guaranteed rights and liberties. I feel we don't live in fear, but we also need that guidance in our lives under a government. Great point!
Reply
Jackie Izzo
12/13/2015 07:39:55 pm
Thomas Hobbes believed in the idea of the “state of nature” and how fear is the main reason citizens of a society give up certain rights to be secure and safe. This is called the “Leviathan”. The fear of certain powerful people makes them feel intimidated and follow orders just to avoid death and turmoil. Jean- Jacques Rousseau felt that people are born independent and fend for themselves. He believes that people are better off without a government and that “man is born free, and is everywhere in chains”(Rousseau). Rousseau thinks people only give up rights not out of fear, but because they want to be equal. I mostly agree with Rousseau’s statement because I don't feel people live under a government in fear, citizens just want to have equal rights and liberties. V would also definitely base his ideas around Rousseau’s because he believes that people all have the power to rebel and are independent as a whole. He feels all citizens want to be equal and not to be ruled by a government.
Reply
Seamus Cochrane
12/14/2015 03:18:55 pm
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau were both political philosophers with two very different ideologies about how society should be run.l Thomas Hobbes' principle belief was that people are violent, brutish people and need a dominating absolute monarchy to retain order. He believed it was necessary for society to sacrifice some of its basic rights in exchange for peace. To contrast Hobbes' beliefs, Rousseau's ideology was that people are solitary, peaceful people and don't need a strong central government. Rousseau instead believed that the people needed to be self-governed, meaning that they came up with their own rules to follow and to do as they pleased. Personally, I think that Rousseau was on the right track. Society doesn't need so many rules and guidelines as they need a set of basic rules that everyone must adhere to. Having a strong, dictatorship-like government only creates frustration within the people and incites rebellion. In terms of the conclusion to V for Vendetta, I think that V had the right idea. The fascist state of Britain was corrupt and oppressed the people. It was time for the governed to take back their lives.
Reply
Brad Chavero
12/14/2015 06:01:37 pm
I strongly agree that the government V was fighting was wrong. However, what do you think about the people's manner in "taking back their lives"? At the end, they had flipped Conrad's wife's car and had been stealing from stars when guards weren't looking. Doesn't this sound quite evil, chaotic and Hobbes like? I completely agree with you on that I prefer Rousseau's theory over Hobbes, but I don't think the people in V's world were making the right changes to reach that state of nature filled with peace and a direct democracy government. It practically looked like the start of another war.
Reply
Biggs
12/14/2015 06:57:32 pm
V claims so many years of authoritarian oppression guaranteed this chaotic cycle, but once the madness ran its course, there would be the possibility of something new. Not saying that proves Hobbes wrong, just that it could support Rousseau's view that SOCIETY distorts our human instincts to cooperate and seek happiness and brings out these monstrous aspects of us, which then have to get released before anything new can happen (kind of like your thesis that Proctor had to become the 'id' in order to create a new superego).
Matthew Vaderveer
12/14/2015 03:25:52 pm
Hobbes believed that people were naturally scared and evil. He believed that a system of government was formed by the people to sacrifice some freedom to the “leviathan” for protection. He believed that laws keep people from constant anxiety or fear of other people.
Reply
Kathleen Patterson
12/14/2015 09:33:51 pm
I agree that the world we live in today doesn`t really fall 100% under either philosopher. However, I think that both of them, not just Rousseau, believed in the natural goodness of people, as long as they were unprovoked by other factors such as anxiety or jealousy.
Reply
JBiggs
12/17/2015 05:17:04 am
That's pretty interesting - Hobbes does agree we have the potential to be good if we get over our anxieties and insecurities, BUT he thinks we can only do that if some King/Dictator/State makes us even MORE scared of IT so we behave! A paradoxical potential indeed.
Suubi Mondesir
12/14/2015 04:12:47 pm
Thomas Hobbes believes in the concept of "the state of nature" and how fear can influence people into giving up their rights to stay safe and out of harms way. This is also called "leviathan". Hobbes thinks fear causes people to put laws and enforcement in place and give up basic rights in order to aviod death, termoil, anxiety and insecerity. Rousseau, on the other hand, believes humans are natually independent and peaceful. He feels we become filled with tention and animosity when we are envious of what we can't have, for example material things. As a result people conform to a soical construct, which is an agreement amongst the pepole to maintain equailty. In this respect Russeau believes people won't need a government if everyone is on the same level. Based on this information I do not agree with either theorist. I don't agree with Russeau because I believe there needs to be some form of authority and making everyone the same is not the way to go about it. However I do think envy plays an important role in why humans behave the way they do. Switching to Hobbes's perspective, I agree that fear controls us to a certain extent. However allowing a dictatorship to rule over the people is not the answer. Overall the theorists didn't change my opinion of V because I didn't agree entirely with their views. But they did clarify V's way of thinking which best matches with Rousseau's interpretations, because they both believe people are or should be independent. However V would also agree with Hobbes's point, which is fear causes people to make irrational decisions, so they can remain safe, even if its at a cost.
Reply
Biggs
12/14/2015 07:01:41 pm
"Leviathan" (Monster) is the nickname Hobbes gives to the Dictatorship he sets up - it will be huge and terrifying to keep citizens in line. To play Devil's advocate, why does there need to be some form of authority BEYOND the people themselves? If there is a social agreement, or wht Rousseau called a General Will, then people will do the right thing because the want to and it;s good for them, making them feel secure and without the fear that leads to violence OR the envy that comes from power/wealth inequalities.
Reply
Suubi Mondesir
12/22/2015 02:27:32 pm
There needs to be some form of authority that's higher than the people because without a higher authority everyone would just tend to their own desires. There would be no order and only chaos. We would no longer be a society that's functionable and efficient. Humans would become animalistic and survival mode would become the new norm. In most cases a social agreement isn't enough to maintain order and structure. For this reason, laws and rules have to be enforced. For example, the purpose behind having an Executive branch in our government, even though it's still a democracy. Humans can be untrustworthy and incapable of conducting themselves properly.
Courtney Fenty
12/21/2015 03:59:22 pm
I agree with this completely I also believe that it is hard for humans to overcome a fear of authority because there are so many consequences if you rebel. For example young kids are shot down for doing nothing wrong, what might happen if certain people did do something wrong? The government would be shooting people left and right for no reason. I do agree with this point totally.
Reply
Kay Franzese
12/14/2015 05:49:47 pm
Thomas Hobbes and Jeac-Jacques Rousseau both agreed that the concept "state of nature" was a beastly existence without any morality. They knew that the people had to follow some rules to keep people from chaos. Hobbes believed people were naturally scared and fearful and needed to surrender some of their rights to a leviathan who can rule them and give them protection. Rousseau believed people are naturally good, independent, and peaceful. He believed that people would be better off without a government and that people should follow basic rules that will maintain equality. Although I believe neither way is a healthy society to live in, I do believe that Rousseau's ideology is the better of the two. Too much power given to one person can be taken advantage of and turn into a society like the one in V for Vendetta. When people are ruled in fear, they are likely to rebel and overthrow the "leviathan" that was supposed to provide them protection. I think V was trying to lean the government towards Rousseau's way of thinking, but without going all the way towards his ideology. V was trying to help the government find balance between the two ideas; he wanted authority to have limits and the people to have rights and freedom.
Reply
Brad Chavero
12/14/2015 05:50:07 pm
Thomas Hobbes was a very big doubter in humanity. He believed that humans were naturally evil without government and that they were always bent on killing, selfishness, and harm. As a result, he believed that in order for societies to exist in peace, they must look to one absolute ruling body to keep everyone in line. Because humanity is already in chaos and naturally evil in their natural state, this would only occur by brute force of the strongest who could fight. These victors would then always get their decision on how to rule their beaten foes (now their people) which as history has shown, results in the formation of fascist/dictatorships like those ruled by Stalin (dictatorship of Russia/Soviet Union) and Hitler (fascist government of Germany). Jean-Jacques Rousseau, on the other hand, was the exact opposite. He believed that humans were actually peaceful and harmonized in a non-government state of nature. Rousseau saw that people did fine on their own and that rulers and governments created by Others (those that sought to destroy peace and are not nice such as the dictators mentioned before) were the governments that disrupted the peace and order that uncivilized humans had already accomplished. Therefore, Rousseau believed that the best governments are those that are direct democracies created by these purely good people, as they will be formed by these people’s consent meaning the harmony will not be disrupted and that everyone’s opinion will directly be heard by the government allowing for changes to occur that satisfy all. I personally agree and disagree with both theories at the same time. I believe that the reality is that people in their natural state act both evil and pure. Some take advantage of there being no rules to do harm to others while some want to simply interact with others based on their morals (coming from religion or another non-government source). Because of this, I am more of a Locke supporter because I believe that people should be protected on basic principles such as their life, freedom, and property (Rousseau's theory in Locke’s), but I also think there must be some enforcement in play to protect these natural rights of all, from those evil ones that wish to take them away (Hobbes theory in Locke’s). Finally, Hobbes’s theory does influence my decision on V’s revolution. It is very true that the government in play is an evil source and that it should be overthrown for all its harm to the people, but V’s matter in doing so with his knives, strength, explosives, and torture reveal that he too is evil proving Hobbes’s theory that humanity in a natural state is evil. Plus, the graphic novel ends with the city still in chaos with cars being flipped and people rioting once again showing the evil Hobbes saw in humanity in their natural state.
Reply
Biggs
12/14/2015 06:53:39 pm
Brad, I really appreciate the effort you put into this analysis. This is an excellent summary of the Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau divide and its implications for human social structure. However, I question whether the end of the novel shows a Hobbsean perspetive. Both Rousseau and Lock felt that if a corrupt regime took power over the people, they had a "natural" right to rebellion. (Is that the point of the panel showing Le Miserables during the ending?)
Reply
Brad Chavero
12/22/2015 03:59:03 pm
It’s actually very funny I wrote some of the above as yesterday’s conversation and your response definitely had me on the Locke and Rousseau side. I completely am switching my stance on the ending. After openly discussing the theories last class, I definitely see the ending as an option for what CAN happen. This leaves us readers to decide who we think ultimately prevails. For Hobbes thinkers, it may seem that Helen Heyer may be strong enough and evil enough to reacquire the fascist government on her terms. For Rousseau’s perspective, Finch walking away from the city and the new V helping move the people along could be enough to establish a democracy of some kind where the people can rule themselves after eliminating the remaining fascists. Honestly, I think it can go both ways but I would lean towards Rousseau because the people should have hopefully just learned their lesson through the first V. However if they have not, Evey V is here, and she is here to stay to help the people along so that one day, they can be freed too forever like she, V, Finch, and Valerie were.
Allie Talavera
12/14/2015 07:08:52 pm
Hobbes believed in the concept of "the state of nature" and how citizens give up their rights due to fear in society. They wanted to feel safe and secure which lead them to sacrifice their freedom to "leviathon". On the other hand, Rousseau's ideas were very diverse. He thinks people are better off being their own leader without a government to oppress an individual's beliefs. I feel that both Hobbes and Rousseau made good points on the way society should be run. I believe that a government is needed to keep order, but we should also be able to do what we want with our lives. V had a Rousseau perspective on the way that government should be run in Great Britain. He follows the idea that citizens hold the power in society and they have the right to to rebel and do as they please without the government giving them orders.
Reply
Kathleen Patterson
12/14/2015 09:27:57 pm
Philosopher Hobbes believed the social contract of government was a mutual relinquishing of certain freedoms to rid of constant anxiety. From another view, philosopher Rousseau theorized that man was independent until modernization made people more aware of inequality and thus jealous, and angry at the government who caused it. I believe that both men have valid points, and it depends where you are in the world in order to decide whose side you lean towards. Hobbes has points in places such as the United States, because we all gave up lives of the past to come and agree to laws that are meant to provide equality. However, everywhere has a government, which always restrains the people in some way, providing a valid point for Rousseau. His more angry stance about government may be a valid argument for other countries such as Iran or Syria, where there are clearly inequalities in the people, like many women`s legal amount of showing skin and being constantly escorted by men. V would have supported Rousseau in what the government was like at the beginning of the story before he blew up Parliament, but would like a mutually agreed upon government, like Hobbes believes it is.
Reply
Kathleen Patterson
12/23/2015 06:38:26 am
After discussing these topics in class, my beliefs are similar to the ideas of Michel Foucault, who believed that power is not a posession of certain groups or people, but power is in every interaction between all people. I don't believe that humans are naturally good or naturally evil, as every person is a little bit different, in makeup and personality. People have varying chemical balances, which in turn would mean that they have varying IDs, as the dopamine driving them gets dispursed in different amounts at different times. This means some people go to further extremes than others, and that characteristic can drive certain humans to be considered "evil". However, the concept of good against evil is something that was taught to us by those before, our "superiors". So, that interaction of power between a parent and a child creates the balance and interactions of power and level of goodness for one to follow for the rest of their lives.
Reply
Tyhler Harty
12/16/2015 07:31:51 pm
Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are two sides of a coin. On one side their is Hobbes who believes in a government that forces rules upon its people to keep order. While on the other side of this coin is Rousseau who believes in a government where the people choose to form a government out of free will. What both of these men influence V's revolution in their own way. Rousseau gives the idea of a government were the people are their own leaders and Hobbes's ideas produces the fascist government V is going to depose of.
Reply
Rachel Kline
12/16/2015 08:02:15 pm
Hobbes believed the "state of nature", or time before society was a war of all against all. He also believed man's basic nature was fear of security and death. He also thought that laws kept society vain. On the other hand, Rousseau thought the "state of nature" was a very calm time. He thought society should have remained free. He also thinks that government has created an unequal access to resources, causing jealousy and tension between people. I agree with Rousseau on this one. I think before government was created, people roamed freely about. They interacted when they wanted to and did not have to listen to anyone tell them what to do. I think government has taken away the peaceful aspect in some relationships. I also think government has caused jealousy and tension between people because it benefits some people sometimes and hurts others sometimes. I think in V for Vendetta, V was striving for a Rousseau like society because he wanted the people to step up and take control for themselves.
Reply
Meghan Pawlak
12/16/2015 08:07:43 pm
The way that I see it that with Hobbes wanted a government based on someone making the decision for them so that they don't have the anxiety of making the wrong choice themselves. Where with Rousseau he had faith the human kind would be able to look over the consequences that may come forth with their actions. In my opinion I favor more towards Rousseau in that the government should be based on the people for the people and not someone with some sort of god complex which V would most likely agree with.
Reply
Akin Gaddis
12/17/2015 04:31:30 am
I agree with Locke's political ideology completely. In m opinion people cannot govern them selves without there being some sort of chaos. I think that there will always be people that aim to do harm or bad to others, or hurt others for personal gain. The government cannot be too powerful, if it is it will abuse its power to keep citizens inline. A perfect example of this is the government in V for Vendetta. This Fascist government has complete control over the people and removes personal freedoms to preserve order. The best way to preserve order is the Democracy. This is the best way in my opinion because order needs to be kept somehow, but the people must have a say, the solution is that the people elect officials that represent their personal ideas to represent them in the government.
Reply
Liliana Krupinski
12/21/2015 05:32:21 am
Hobbes believed in the state of nature, the time before any kind of civilization. In this state, there are no rules keeping man from doing what he truely wants or feels. But he thought this time scared the people living in it because there was nothing stopping anyone from stealing or killing. So they developed a rule system to protect everyone. In doing so, they give up some of their past freedoms and in return, they are safer. Rousseau also believed in the state of nature. However, he thought it was a calmer, more peaceful time than Hobbes thought. He thought that it was when man was truely free and developing rules and a soviety took that away. Hobbes though that the social contract between the people on the new government, giving up some freedoms in exchange for safety and protection, was much needed. While Rousseau thought it was unnecessary and caused jealousy between the people. I agree with Hobbes because I think you can't have everything you want: both total freedom and security. Giving people total freedom means killing someone or stealing something isn't punishable because you're free to do whatever you want. This of course leads to a lack of safety. In my opinion, the safety of the people is more important than complete freedom so some rights or freedoms have to be taken away by the government.
Reply
Courtney Fenty
12/21/2015 03:43:46 pm
I agree with Rousseau because although yes society does need some kind of middle ground, but majority of humans know and are good people and except for the group of people who are not so good, we do have the ability to be good. If everyone got the chance to just have a small set of rules for everyone to follow and we just got the chance to be our own leaders no one would be so angry all the time and act out against the government. For example because it is wrong to steal and people know the the consequences for stealing, they feel that they have to bring a gun and hurt people just to get what they want. Yes, you shouldn't steal from people but because being in power and having money is important to some they go to stealing to get what they want and be at the top. Equality would be nice but the reality is, is that everyone is different and has different opinions and not everyone agrees on everything.
Reply
Seamus Cochrane
12/22/2015 04:08:21 pm
I agree with Hobbes' belief that people need a strong central government in order to properly function. Human beings are still primates at heart, and we are driven by our primal instincts. Without order, it would just be a continuous struggle of man against man, all fighting for control of power, resources, land, etc. This was illustrated in V for Vendetta by the chaotic period after V disabled the government's surveillance system. People were in the streets fighting, looting, and wreaking havoc. As soon as society begins to fall apart, humans digress to their primal ways and begin to fight amongst themselves. Furthermore, a system of self government would make much fewer decisions with a much larger degree of compromise. Every person wants a different thing and has different beliefs on how to resolve arguments, so coming to a unanimous decision for anything would be next to impossible. A person or small group of people running the show in government wouldn't have to go through hours upon hours of debate only to resort to a compromise that leaves everyone unhappy. And even if this leader were to make the wrong decision/decisions, the people would be able to scapegoat that person. If people love to do anything, it's blame other people. And in a self government system, one mistake means everyone is at fault. There would be no one to scapegoat. Finally, a strong government would be able to maintain order and security much better than a self governed system. Central governments are able to come up with rules and guidelines to follow when maintaining order, while a self governed system would have to use a vigilante system; a system of gunslingers and self-proclaimed protectors, each with their own agenda. To conclude, a strong central government is more efficient, effective, and a better provider of protection than Rousseau's idea of Self-Government.
Reply
Rachel Kline
12/22/2015 05:44:55 pm
After discussing this topic in class, I agree with Rousseau even more than before. I think people are capable of running themselves. The only thing that is holding us back is the voice in our mind telling us this is the way its always been. If there had never been that first government, society would not expect to be restricted by one. Instead, society expects some authority above them to control them. If we did not have an expectation of government and authority, we would be able to take care of ourselves without one.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
Categories
AuthorMr. Justin Biggs Archives
August 2016
|