Pateman On Locke Essay -- essays research papers fc

For years social contract theorists had monopolized the explanation of modern-daysociety. lavatory Locke was among those who advocated this speculation of a collectivelychosen set of circumstances. Carole Pate bit, on the other hand rejects many of thepillars of the social contract and specificall(a)y attacks sure aspects of Lockes argumentregarding agnaticism and patriarchy. Pateman defends her idea that the individual aboutwhich Locke writes is masculine, instead of the gender-encompassing form of the watchword"man." Pateman also argues that Locke denies the individuality of women. Instead ofscrapping his entire work, however, she grants him a couple of concessions, nonethelessacknowledging Locke as anti-patriarchal. If John Locke were around to defend histheories, he would probably experience an opinion about the treatment of his work. To accurately discuss Patemans view of Lockes paternal/patriarchal theory, aworking knowledge of the theory itself is necessary. Ac cording to Locke "all men bynature are equal"(Second Treatise 43) with the exception of children who guide notreached the full state of equality, but must obey their parents. house servant and political force-out is vested in the Father, according to Locke. As he puts it, "the vivid fathers offamilies, by an insensible change, became the politic monarchs of them too."(SecondTreatise 42) Locke does not reserve domestic power regarding children solely to theFather, however. Instead he claims that the mother "hath an equal title."(SecondTreatise 30) He plain defends the rights of children. Locke argues that children have thesame moral rights as any other person, though the childs inadequate mental facultiesmake it permissible for his parents to rule over him to a limited degree. "Thus we areinnate(p) Free, as we are born Rational not that we have actually the Exercise of either hop on that brings one, brings with it the other too." (Second Treatise 3 0) Locke doesspecify that children are free because of their "fathers title," in addition to beinggoverned by the law of their father. It is less clear in this situation whether Locke is utilisethe term "father" to include both parents as the "term" man can be interpreted to meanboth sexes. It is likely, based on the tradition of male heredity prevalent during his time,that Locke liter... ...tical monarchs." Another far-reaching defense Locke could coiffure for his theories is a simple clarification of terms. Pateman relies heavily on the factthat Lockes interpretation of "man" is man, not humanity. If the late philosopher werepresent today he could mop up precisely what he meant by this term, and dispel orsupport Patemans accusation. John Lockes view of the the social contract comes under attack by the reprehension of Carole Pateman. She not only refutes his use of terms, but also accusesLocke of ignoring women. Pateman claims that Locke pur posefully left women out ofthe original contract in the same fashion that he denies their individuality. Like mostpeople, Locke would likely defend himself and his theories to the best of his abilities ifhe were able. either way, Patemans critique provides the opportunity forreexamination of a widely accepted theory and theorist.Works CitedLocke, John. Second Treatise of Government. Indianapolis HackettPublishing Co, 1980.Pateman, Carole. The Sexual Contract. Stanford Stanford UP, 1988.Comments This is an evaluation of modern-feminist philosopher Carole Patemans explanation of John Lockes theories.