Myth in Political Theory

Myth in Political Theory

Does all political theory ultimately rest on myth? It seems as though most, if not all of the theorists we have studied in this course have some notion of mythology in their doctrines. The question thought should be; is a myth a necessary aspect of political theory? In my opinion it is. Most people in our society follow a mythological belief called religion. Whether you believe your form religion to be a true statement of history or simply a guideline from a fictional history, ultimately the origins of most religions are a myth. The most important aspect of religious belief is the creation myth. From the Christian myth of Adam and Eve to the Inca creation myth of god Con Tiqui Viracocha every religion has one, and as I will attempt to point out in this paper, because it is a foundation of our social and spiritual way of life the political theories that govern us must too rest on myth.

The first thinker I would like to look at is the first we studied, Plato. Plato used mythology continuously in his Republic. One of the most famous myths Plato put forth was the "Noble Lie" or "Magnificent Myth". The Noble Lie was a creation myth that was to be told to young children in order to create a unified society yet at the same time creating class distinctions. It was meant to replace any national traditions which any community has and replace it with one that is state imposed. This is a much more literal example then the other thinkers I will discuss.

The first modern political thinker Niccolo Machiavelli taught that the foundation for a state is an individual's instinct for self preservation. The effective ruler is one who succeeds in identifying this instinct with the instinct for the preservation of the city-state. How does he do that? By violence and fear. We see the same thing in Thomas Hobbes. In his system, the source of the political order is the fear of death. Hobbes assumed that the way to identify the essence of human nature was to hypothesize what we would be like if we were stripped of all laws, tradition, customs; basically of civilization itself. This pre-political condition Hobbes called the "state of nature."

John Locke too begins with the "state of nature" but for him the threat of death does not come from other people but from hunger. By exerting his labor force to find or grow food, the individual cerates property. And to protect that property more effectively, he enters into a social contract with others. The motivation for political life, then, is not duty or love of justice, but simple self-interest.

As with Hobbes this is a form of foundationalism. For Locke, all that exists ultimately are individuals and their needs or wants. We know better than anyone else what we want or need and no one else can tell us what will make us happy. That means that we do not need to look at someone else with special wisdom or virtue to be rulers. The individuals' desires form the foundation for political philosophy.

Finally, Jean Jacques Rousseau also begins with a "state of nature", but for him, the individual is stripped down to the point where he has no nature. He is unformed, undefined, a peaceful beast, but a beast nonetheless. Thus Rousseau's