Page 126 - DPOL201_WESTERN_POLITICAL_THOUGHT_ENGLISH

Western Political Thought

Notes Locke’s work primarily justified the right of resistance, and in the last resort of revolution, against
unjust authority. He repeatedly stressed that authority was legitimate if it was based on the
consent of the governed. He emphasized that all authority—political and parental—was a trust,
given by God. Therefore, no human being had a right over his own life, since the Christian
perception categorically saw life as gifted by God, and that all human rulers could take the lives
of their subjects or foreign enemies only if they had acted detrimentally towards public good. It
followed that rulers had this right given by God directly and not by the subjects.
Unlike Filmer, who interpreted the rights of rulers as a personal gift from God as giving them
ownership over human beings and material goods, Locke made a dear distinction between the
duties of subjects to obey and the rights of rulers to command. In most societies, most of the time,
the subjects had a duty to obey because civil order and peace were necessary prerequisites for a
decent and civilized human existence, but the rulers had a right to command only when they
deserved obedience. If they threatened civil peace and order, then the subjects had every right to
judge the degree and immediacy of that threat, and could resist it if they thought it to be serious.
Political authority became legitimate, and rulers had the legitimate right to command if they had
provided practical services to their subjects. For Locke, the ruler became therefore a trustee, far
from being an owner of the subject, thereby turning Filmer on his own head.
Parental and Patriarchal Authority
Locke distinguished political from paternal power. Individuals had the right to resist a government
that was tyrannical, thus requiring him to show that subjects did not have an unconditional
obligation to obey (as contended by the patriarchists), simply by virtue of their birth. He
demonstrated the limits of a natural father’s authority by separating parental from political
authority. Parental authority was natural, not in the sense contended by patriarchists. Political
power, on the contrary, was conventional.
Accepting the Christian dictum that children had to obey their parents, Locke pointed out that he
was establishing parental rather than paternal authority. Since parental authority was shared, it
could not be a model for the rule of an individual, as insisted by the patriarchal monarchists.
Obedience towards parents was temporary till one became morally responsible. The rights of the
parents were natural not because they had given birth to their children as contended by the
patriarchists, but because it was their duty to take care of them and educate them till they were
capable of being independent, which could be revoked if they neglected their duties. What was
due to the parents was honour and not obedience. Moreover, this honour was due to both fathers
and mothers and not only to fathers. While children honoured their parents, subjects obeyed the
rulers. Inheritance was a virtual right which children had because it was the duty of the parents
to not only provide for their survival, but also give them conveniences and comforts of life to the
best of their ability.
Locke granted mothers an equal title with fathers to authority over their children. He specified a
political role for women, enabling them to enjoy rights and powers within their homes. Mothers
had a right to parental respect independent of the will of the fathers, for they had their own
responsibilities towards their children. Locke granted freedom to wives from their husbands. For
instance, in an unhappy marriage the wife had the liberty to leave her husband. While discussing
conquests, he granted the wife property for which she had laboured. He regarded a husband’s
authority over his wife as derived from a contract and not from nature. He saw women as
contributing to civic culture, though he did not expand nor suggest ways and means of their
political activity.
Although Locke contended that natural differences between men and women were irrelevant
since women were politically equal, he agreed with Filmer that the natural differences between
the sexes entailed the subordination of women. He took it for granted that a husband’s rule over

120 LOVELY PROFESSIONAL UNIVERSITY