Of the Original Contract - Classic Text | Alexandria
Of the Original Contract, a pivotal essay by David Hume, endeavors to dismantle the then-prevailing Whig theory that legitimate government derives solely from the consent of the governed, supposedly established through an original contract. This seemingly straightforward demolition, however, masks a deeper philosophical intervention, challenging the very foundations of political obligation and raising enduring questions about the nature of authority. Was Hume truly rejecting consent altogether, or was he subtly reshaping its meaning?
The doctrine of an original contract had roots tracing back to ancient political thought, but it gained significant prominence during the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution of 1688. Figures like John Locke employed it to justify resistance against tyrannical rule, asserting that governments exceeding the bounds of the contract forfeited their legitimacy. Hume penned "Of the Original Contract" amidst the aftershocks of these events, published in his Essays, Moral, Political, and Literary (first edition 1748), when the Whig interpretation of history and political legitimacy was at its zenith. It was a direct challenge to the reigning orthodoxy.
Over time, Hume's critique has been interpreted in myriad ways. Some view it as a proto-utilitarian argument, emphasizing the benefits of established government regardless of its origins. Others see it as a cynical assessment of political power, suggesting that force and habit, rather than consent, ultimately underpin authority. Intriguingly, the essay also hints at a more nuanced perspective, acknowledging the importance of tacit consent and public opinion in maintaining stability. For example, Hume observes that even the most despotic rulers require the tacit agreement of at least some segment of society to maintain their power. Did Hume, in attacking the fiction of an original contract, unwittingly pave the way for alternative theories of consent?
Today, "Of the Original Contract" continues to spark debate among political theorists. It stands as a testament to the enduring power of skepticism in political thought and prompts ongoing reflection on the foundations of political legitimacy. As societies grapple with questions of authority and representation, Hume's essay serves as a powerful reminder to scrutinize the narratives we construct about the origins of power and to question the very nature of consent. What, then, constitutes legitimate political authority in a world where the notion of a pristine "original contract" seems increasingly elusive?