Abstract
In this chapter, Daniel Layman argues that there is not one Lockean conception of IR but rather (at least) two mutually incompatible conceptions: one a Ciceronian moral cosmopolitanism and the other a colonialism centered on British interests. Opposing Locke’s philosophical writings with his economic works, Layman’s reading acknowledges the contradictions and incoherence present in Locke’s IR theory.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an authoritative treatment of Grotius’s and Pufendorf’s contributions to international thought and influence on later authors, see Tuck (1999).
- 2.
- 3.
On the depth and significance of Locke’s literary relationship to Hobbes, see Collins (2020).
- 4.
This methodological point tracks Skinner’s (2002, 76–79) advice to take care about the changing senses of our political language.
- 5.
- 6.
Locke repeatedly affirmed his appreciation for and commitment to Cicero as a source of moral wisdom (Marshall 1994, 157–204). Moreover, he recommended the study of Cicero to young men, not (as was then common) primarily as model of good Latin style, but a guide to moral and political thought and behavior (Locke 2000, 31, 239). As Peter Garnsey observes, Cicero was an eclectic thinker who did not hew exclusively to the doctrines of a single ancient school (Garnsey 1996, 129). However, his doctrine of natural law is paradigmatically Stoic, even if, as Stuart-Buttle argues, his epistemology was significantly more empirical—and even skeptical—than classical Stoicism’s (Stuart-Buttle 2019, 46–47).
- 7.
- 8.
On the dual character of Pauline cosmopolitanism as at once universal and exclusive, see Penman (2015, 303–305).
- 9.
In 1688, Locke sketched his framework for a religious society of “Pacifick Christians” who would live together on terms of genuinely Christian peace and mutual acceptance in the face of disagreement on adiaphora. See Locke “Pacific Christians” (1997, 304–306).
- 10.
For instance, Grotius’s formulation of the source and content of natural law and the law of nations was deeply indebted to Cicero’s natural-law doctrines (Straumann 2015, 37–50).
- 11.
As Michael Zuckert has shown, though, Filmer’s argument is perhaps not so foolish as Locke would have us believe, and Locke certainly makes no serious effort to present it fairly (Zuckert 1994, 55). Laslett suggests (plausibly) that James Tyrrell’s 1681 response to Filmer, Patriarcha non Monarcha, is much stronger than Locke’s as a reply even if it is somewhat weaker as a stand-alone work of political theory (Laslett 1988, 68).
- 12.
According to Hobbes, the first law of nature is “To seek Peace, and follow it” (Hobbes 1994, 1.14.5, 80). However, this is not because people have a natural right to be preserved but rather because peace furthers everyone’s fundamental interest in self-preservation.
- 13.
- 14.
Hill and Nidumolu (2021) argue that Locke’s conception of self-ownership, which grounds the moral power of labor to create private property rights in common resources, is grounded in the Stoic doctrine of “self-guardianship.”
- 15.
I thus agree with Michael Doyle and Geoffrey Carlson’s claim that “Locke explicitly analogizes the international system’s condition to that of equal, rational, and independent men in the state of nature” (Doyle and Carlson 2008, 660). I disagree, however, with their suggestion that Locke’s international system is anarchic, as I take the law of nature to constitute genuine law as Locke understands it (Doyle and Carlson 2008, 660).
- 16.
For a similar understanding of Locke’s approach to international relations, albeit framed in terms of the twenty-first-century frameworks of “liberalism” and “realism,” see Ward (2006).
- 17.
According to Hobbes, all that matters is that the conquered in fact transfer their rights to the conqueror. Neither the duress the conqueror might impose on them nor their past actions make any difference (Hobbes 1994, II.xvii.15, 109–110).
- 18.
Here I follow Armitage’s (2004, 607–615) reconstruction of the events surrounding Locke’s involvement with Carolina and its constitution.
- 19.
For discussion of Locke’s medical study and practice in Oxford during this time and his initial encounter with Shaftesbury, see Woolhouse (2009, 58–59, 70–73).
- 20.
This “imperial reading” of Locke has risen to prominence over the last several decades through important work by Arneil (1996), (Armitage (2004, 2012), and others. James Farr (2008) argues that Locke contributed to racist, colonial imperialism despite the absence of foundations for such imperialism in his theory of just war.
- 21.
For detailed discussion of Locke’s recommendations for Ireland as a dimension of his contribution to proto-industrial colonial thinking, see Pinheiro (2020, 20–28).
- 22.
As Skinner reminds us, though, understanding past thinkers correctly does not always amount to, or even involve, rendering them coherent (Skinner 2002, 67–72).
Bibliography
Ahrensdorf, Peter, and Thomas Pangle. 1999. Justice Among Nations. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.
Armitage, David. 2004. John Locke, Caroline, and the Two Treatises of Government. Political Theory 32: 602–627.
———. 2009. John Locke’s International Thought. In British International Thinkers from Hobbes to Namier, ed. Ian Hall and Lisa Hill, 33–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
———. 2012. John Locke: Theorist of Empire? In Empire and Modern Political Thought, ed. Sankar Muthu, 84–112. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arneil, Barbara. 1996. John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Beitz, Charles. 2005. Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice. The Journal of Ethics 9: 11–27.
Cicero. 1913. On Duties, trans. Walter Miller. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
———. 1928. On the Republic and on the Laws, trans. Clinton W. Keyes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collins, Jeffrey R. 2020. In the Shadow of Leviathan: John Locke and the Politics of Conscience. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cuttica, Cesare. 2015. Sir Robert Filmer (1588–1653) and the Patriotic Monarch. Manchester: University of Manchester Press.
Doyle, Michael, and Geoffrey Carlson. 2008. Silence of the Laws? Conceptions of International Relations and International Law in Hobbes, Kant, and Locke. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 46: 648–666.
Farr, James. 2008. Locke, Natural Law, and New World Slavery. Political Theory 36: 495–522.
Garnsey, Peter. 1996. Ideas of Slavery from Aristotle to Augustine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Griffin, Miriam. 2017. Dignity in Roman and Stoic Thought. In Dignity: A History, ed. Remy Debes, 47–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hill, Lisa, and Prasanna Nidumolu. 2021. The Influence of Classical Stoicism on John Locke’s Theory of Self-Ownership. History of the Human Sciences 34: 3–24.
Hobbes, Leviathan. 1994 [1651]. Leviathan, ed. Edwin Curley. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Laslett, Peter. 1988 [1960]. Introduction. In Locke: Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Locke, John. 1876 [1697]. Encouragement of Irish Linen Manufacture. The Life of John Locke, vol. 2, ed. H.R. Fox Bourne. London: Henry S. King and Co.
———. 1960 [1689]. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 1997. Locke: Political Essays, ed. Mark Goldie. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2000 [1693]. Some Thoughts Concerning Education, ed. John W. Yolton and Jean S. Yolton. Oxford: Clarendon.
Manning, C.E. 1989. Stoicism and Slavery in the Roman Empire. In The Rise and Decline of the Roman World (Part II: Principate), ed. Wolfgang Haase and Hildegard Temporini, 1518–1543. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
Marshall, John. 1994. John Locke: Resistance, Religion, and Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, Martha. 1997. Kant and Stoic Cosmopolitanism. The Journal of Political Philosophy 5: 1–25.
Penman, Leigh T.I. 2015. The Hidden History of the Cosmopolitan Concept: Heavenly Citizenship and the Aporia of the Heavenly Community. Journal of the Philosophy of History 9: 284–305.
———. 2020. The Lost History of Cosmopolitanism: The Early Modern Origins of the Intellectual Ideal. London: Bloomsbury.
Pinheiro, Lucas. 2020. A Factory Afield: Capitalism and Empire in John Locke’s Political Economy. Modern Intellectual History 19: 1–28.
Pogge, Thomas. 1992. Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty. Ethics 103: 48–75.
Skinner, Quentin. 2002. Visions of Politics, Vol. 1: Regarding Method. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Straumann, Benjamin. 2015. Roman Law in the State of Nature: The Classical Foundations of Hugo Grotius’ Natural Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stuart-Buttle, Tim. 2019. From Moral Theology to Moral Philosophy: Cicero and Visions of Humanity from Locke to Hume. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tuck, Richard. 1999. The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tyrrell, James. 1681. Patriarcha Non Monarcha. London.
Van der Vossen, Bas. 2015. Locke on Territorial Rights. Political Studies 63: 713–728.
Waldron, Jeremy. 2012. Dignity, Rank, and Rights. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ward, Lee. 2006. Locke on the Moral Basis of International Relations. American Journal of Political Science 50: 691–705.
Woolhouse, Roger. 2009. John Locke: A Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zuckert, Michael. 1994. Natural Rights and the New Republicanism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Layman, D. (2024). Locke’s Conflicted Cosmopolitanism: Individualism and Empire. In: Bourcier, B., Jakonen, M. (eds) British Modern International Thought in the Making. International Political Theory. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45713-5_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-45713-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-45712-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-45713-5
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)