Revision summary
Hobbes’s state of nature is a state of war: a condition of known readiness to fight where there is no common power. Competition, diffidence, and glory are the three causes of quarrel. Natural equality of vulnerability makes pre-emptive violence rational. The sovereign ends the war by monopolising judgment and force. Locke, Mill, and constitutional democracy keep a common power and then limit it, which Hobbes refused as a right against the sovereign.
Model answer
Introduction
Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan (1651) treats the state of nature as a state of war. War here is not only open battle. It is a known disposition to fight when there is no common power to keep all in awe.
Body
Why nature is war
- Hobbes starts from natural equality of vulnerability: the weakest can kill the strongest by secret plot or alliance.
- Three causes of quarrel follow: competition for scarce goods, diffidence (fear of being attacked first), and glory (reputation).
- Without a common judge, each has a natural right to everything that seems necessary to self-preservation, including another’s body.
- The result is continual fear and danger of violent death, and a life that cannot support industry, agriculture, or science.
- Covenants without the sword are words. Only a sovereign with effective power ends the war by monopolising judgment and force.
What the claim is not
- The state of nature is a logical reconstruction of life without political authority, not a dated anthropology of all tribes.
- Locke denied that nature is already war; he treated it as inconvenience without an impartial judge, and he kept a right of revolution.
- Rousseau treated unsocialised humans as not yet in Hobbesian war; war arrives with property and comparison.
- Foucault later studied power inside the ordered state, which Hobbes had pictured as the exit from war, not as war by other means.
Political use
- The argument justifies a strong sovereign, including in a commonwealth by institution, because the alternative is insecurity.
- Limited government after Locke, Mill, and Dahl’s polyarchy accepts the need for a common power and then binds that power by law, rights, and contestation.
- Indian public order clauses and the Union’s duty to protect States against internal disturbance (Article 355) still assume that political authority exists to prevent a return to private force.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD SN[State of nature] --> EQ[Equal vulnerability] EQ --> W[State of war] W --> S[Sovereign common power] S --> P[Peace and industry] L[Locke Mill] --> LIM[Limits on that power]
Conclusion
Hobbes identifies the state of nature with a state of war because equal vulnerability, competition, fear, and glory have no common judge. The sovereign is the exit. Later liberals keep the common power and add legal limits that Hobbes did not grant against the sovereign.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Foucault's concept of power.
Next question in the 2023 paper (Q1). View answer →
-
Did Hobbes say all historical societies began in war?
No. The state of nature is an analytical condition of no common authority. It is used to justify why that authority is needed.
-
How does this differ from Locke?
Locke’s nature has natural law and property; war is a later degeneration. Hobbes makes war the default of ungoverned equality.
PYQ trend
When UPSC asked this
Related PYQs from other years, newest first. Open a question to read it.
-
2023 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science. -
2023 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights. -
2023 · Q1(e) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Decline of political theory. -
2023 · Q2(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 20 marks
Success of contemporary democracies lies in the State limiting its own power. Explain -
2023 · Q2(c) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
'Credo of Relevance' in post-behaviouralism advocates the importance of action science. Analyze -
2023 · Q4(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 15 marks
"The legal subordination of one sex to another is wrong in itself, and now one of the chief hindrances to human development." (J. S. Mill). Comment -
2022 · Q1(a) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Systems Approach. -
2022 · Q1(b) · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Cultural Relativism.
More from this paper
Q1(a) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Normative approach in Political Science.
Political Theory
The normative approach asks what political life ought to be and argues about justice, liberty, and obligation. Plato, Aristotle, the contract theorists, Mill, and Rawls are central practitioners. Easton and Dahl supply empirical maps of systems and decisions that cannot replace the question of right. Communitarian critics warn that abstract persons can hide real communities. Indian Parts III and IV show that a constitution is itself a public set of ought-statements.
Q1(b) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Multicultural perspective on rights.
Political Theory
Multicultural theory treats culture as a condition of using liberty, not as a private hobby. Kymlicka, Taylor, Parekh, and Walzer argue for recognition and, in some cases, group rights. Indian Articles 25 to 30 and linguistic states are the constitutional form of that argument. Ambedkar’s Article 17 and sex-equality limits block a group veto over civil liberty. The perspective fails if it either ignores minorities or traps persons inside the group.
Q1(d) · UPSC Mains 2023 · PSIR GS 1 · 10 marks
Foucault's concept of power.
Concept of power, hegemony, ideology and legitimacy.
Foucault treats power as productive relations that form subjects through discipline and the government of populations. The concept goes beyond Hobbes’s sovereign sword and Dahl’s A-over-B decisions. Power and knowledge work together in prisons, clinics, schools, and statistics. Resistance is inside power relations, not a pure exterior. The account describes how people are governed; it does not by itself say which government is just.
Toppers' copies
Toppers' copies for this question will be uploaded soon.