C.B. Macpherson's“Hobbes”: A Critique

Abstract

AbstractThis article is a critique of C. B. Macpherson's interpretation of Hobbes's Leviathan. In reading possessive individualism into Hobbes's work, Macpherson assumes two basic theses: a logical claim, that a specific model of society is required to derive a universal opposition among men's powers; and a textual claim, that this universal opposition is implied by Hobbes as an unstated postulate in chapters 10–11 of Leviathan. These basic claims are both unfounded. Logically, the postulated universal opposition of powers does not require Macpherson's model of society for its derivation. Indeed, on premisses preferred by Macpherson, the two are logically inconsistent. Textually, the postulated universal opposition of powers does not occur in Leviathan: a careful sifting of the text indicates that there is no direct evidence at all for this postulate. Notwithstanding the brilliance of possessive individualism as a contribution to modern political understanding, this theory cannot properly be ascribed to Hobbes.