Straw Men and Political Philosophy: The Case of Hobbes

Abstract

This article examines the character of straw men as deployed by political and moral philosophers, using the example of politically motivated responses to the work of Thomas Hobbes. It attempts to give an Oakeshottian account of what is distinctive about the form of straw arguments within political philosophy before going on to identify some examples drawn from the reception of Hobbes' work. In the final section, discussion of the function of straw men points to their emancipatory role in the process of developing political theory. The article closes by drawing attention to the under-appreciated role that straw men play within the tradition of Western political thought, and the implications of this thought for our understanding of continuity within that tradition.

How (Not) to Use the History of Political Thought for Contemporary Purposes

“…Indeed, historical progress often happens this way: caricaturing their opponents helped Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Hume, and Burke develop and articulate their arguments (Parkin 2011, 564–67, 575–77). We do not reject Plato's defense of objective morality because it starts by caricaturing sophism; we assess Plato's position on its own terms.…”

Tocqueville and the Ostroms

“…Often, interdisciplinary discussions involve historical figures outside a model that recovers precise ‘motives and meanings’, and this is fine, but this article suggests that work at the crossroads of disciplines requires explicit discussion of what we are doing and what our models are in order to avoid confusion and missed opportunities. Jon Parkin (2011) has demonstrated how ‘straw men’, or intentionally caricatured representations of past thinkers, have a meaningful place in the history and progress of political philosophy. This may be the case for political economy and political science, too, and more self-reflective clarity in this regard would allow that type of interpretation to flourish, also.…”

A Pseudo Dichotomy: Hobbism and Kantianism in Political Philosophy

“…Since the complexities within the political philosophies are ignored criticism is easier. The result of this distortion is that ‘[i]nstead of a real person, a “man of straw” has been refuted’ (Parkin, 2011, p. 3). Jon Parkin maintains that the construction of ‘straw men’ has been prevalent throughout the history of political philosophy and is in some sense necessary.…”

“…Jon Parkin maintains that the construction of ‘straw men’ has been prevalent throughout the history of political philosophy and is in some sense necessary. Following Trudy Govier, Parkin defines a straw man as ‘a logical fallacy that occurs whenever “a person misrepresents an argument, or theory or claim, and then, on the basis of that misrepresentation, claims to have refuted the position that he or she has misrepresented”’ (Parkin, 2011, p. 2). In other words, ‘if someone claims X is true, and you represent him as having claimed Y and attack Y as though it were an accurate account of X, then the straw men fallacy has been committed’ (Parkin, 2011, p. 3).…”

“…One of the most obvious objections to this ‘straw man fallacy’ is that the distinction between a straw man and a legitimate interpretation is not always clear, for any complex political theory is always capable of ‘a wide range of legitimate interpretation’ (Parkin, 2011, p. 3). By drawing on Oakeshott's distinction between philosophical and political reflection, Parkin argues that straw men are likely to be fostered when an interpretation is a ‘transformation of philosophical reflection into [a] crude practical or ideological stereotype’ (Parkin, 2011, p. 3). In other words, Parkin argues that one way to distinguish straw men from legitimate interpretation is to ascertain whether the interpretation misrepresents the original position as a defence of problematic political ideologies.…”