Rethinking the sexual contract: The case of Thomas Hobbes

Abstract

Feminist scholars have long debated on a key contradiction in the political theory of Thomas Hobbes: While he sees women as free and equal to men in the state of nature, he postulates their subjection to male rule in the civil state without any apparent explanation. Focusing on Hobbes’s construction of the mother–child relationship, this article suggests that the subjugation of the mother to the father epitomizes the neutralization of the ancient principle of ‘governance’, which he replaces with a novel concept of ‘power’ as formally authorized command. This scrutiny leads to three main conclusions: (1) a radicalization of Pateman’s concept of ‘sexual contract'; (2) the acknowledgement that patriarchy is inseparable from the logic of political authority constructed by Hobbes; and (3) the claim that criticism of patriarchal rule requires an overall problematization of the mainstream conception of political participation we have inherited from modern political science.

Hobbes y la ficción de la obligación política

“…Del hecho del cuidado, añadirá Hobbes en De Cive (IX.2-3), se deduce un consentimiento tácito o derivado por parte del infante. La maternidad, por ende, no aparece tanto como una cuestión biológica, o un vínculo afectivo particular derivado de esta, sino como una función que puede ser ocupada por cualquiera que provea de cuidados al infante (Rustighi, 2020). Las relaciones familiares servirán nuevamente de modelo una vez instituido el Estado, en tanto el dominio paterno y el despótico generarían, para Hobbes, los mismos derechos y consecuencias que la soberanía por institución, pues todas ellas estarían basadas en el consentimiento.…”

‘Shameful is the Only Word for It’: Hegel on Kant’s Sexual and the Social Contract

“…This, however, makes sense only if we grasp the new meaning of the concept of sovereign power, even in Kant's eccentric theory, which entails the a priori legitimation of a formal function of command. Fatherhood itself is now entirely identified with such a function and does not contemplate any form of superiority based either on nature or on virtue, as Hobbes makes perfectly clear (see Rustighi 2020). Now, when Kant masculinizes this function of power, he does it in response to a question that makes in fact no sense in the contractual framework, that is, the question 'who is better suited to govern?'…”

“…My goal is to suggest that, by illustrating how the marriage contract works, Hegel enables us to outline a very peculiar notion of 'patriarchy' that his ethical Aufhebung of the modern bourgeois family resolutely calls into question. This does not imply ignoring the sexist nature of the Hegelian family, but gives us the possibility to discriminate between two very different forms Rustighi, Lorenzo. 2020.…”