John Locke’s Effect on History

John Locke was a British philosopher and writer who lived in Britain and Europe during one of the most tumultuous periods in European history: the last two-thirds of the 17th century. During this time, Europe was wracked by religious wars, while England saw the overthrow of the monarchy, Cromwell’s absolutism, and the Restoration of the monarchy. These turbulent times helped to form Locke’s philosophy, much of which was quite radical for the time. While not being particularly influential during his lifetime, his ideas lived on to inspire many statesmen, thinkers, and philosophers, including many of the “Founding Fathers” of the American Revolution.

Locke received his education at the prestigious Westminster School of London and later earned his bachelor’s and master’s degrees at Oxford. He was an excellent student but did not readily take to the classical educational philosophy in vogue at the time, preferring instead to study more modern philosophers. About fifteen years later, he earned a degree in medicine; he then became a personal physician to the Earl of Shaftesbury and saved his life by performing a difficult operation on him. Locke’s fortunes then waxed and waned with Shaftesbury’s fortunes. In 1683, Locke was forced to flee to the Netherlands when he fell under suspicion of being involved in the Rye House Plot, a conspiracy to assassinate Charles II and his heir. He used this time to write many of his most famous works. He returned to England in 1688 and became a renowned political figure, a frequent advisor to the Whig Party and a confidant of, among others, Isaac Newton and John Dryden. Locke died in Essex in 1703; he left no heirs and had never married.

The turbulence in the period of Locke’s life in England was caused by two questions that needed to be answered: 1) What is/should be the role of a nation’s rulers, and what should be the limits of monarchy? and 2) What is the relationship of God to man, and what role should the Church play in that relationship? These questions were distinct but by no means inseparable. Whatever authority existed over mankind, it was shared by secular and religious authority. In fact, Martin Luther’s essential argument in the Theses over a century ago had been that the institutions of Catholicism were not needed; that a person could interact directly with God. This was obviously a direct challenge to the Catholic Church’s power; indeed, to its very purpose. The religious wars between Protestants and Catholics that raged through Europe during Locke’s lifetime indicated that the question was far from being settled. In terms of secular authority, England was just beginning its transformation to a parliamentary system, one that sharply curtailed the king’s power compared to England’s days of absolute monarchy.

Locke definitely did not believe in the divine right of kings. It was widely believed at the time that even if a given monarch was indisputably a bad ruler, then that meant that God had sent that ruler to punish his subjects. Locke realized the truth, that men choose monarchs (or, by not revolting against them, give their implied consent to their rule), and thus “This Fatherhood which is to design the Person, and establish the Throne of Monarchs, whom the people are to obey, may…come into any hands, anyhow, and so by his Politicks to give to Democracy Royal Authority, and make an Usurper a lawful Prince” (Locke, 194). This was a radical idea, that whatever power monarchs, and by extension government in general, had was conferred on them not by divine fiat but by the consent of those governed. In the case of the British monarchy and parliamentary authority, Locke expressed this as implied rather than direct consent, i.e., if the governed did not consent to authority, then they would revolt. This had already happened in England during Locke’s lifetime; in fact, the deposing and execution of Charles I and the English Civil War were the central events of Locke’s boyhood and early life. Certainly, after the Restoration, Charles II did not sit comfortably on his throne; the persecutions that almost caught Locke during the Rye House Plot were symptomatic of that.

The true test of Locke’s ideas of governance and revolution would come a century after he wrote his Two Treatises. Thomas Jefferson was an avid reader and admirer of John Locke and cited him as one of the great thinkers who had inspired his own writings and political views. While Locke’s influence on Jefferson has been debated to some extent, most modern scholars agree, as Barbara Arneil puts it, that “The traditional view, in many respects, still holds true…the American Constitution is the practical manifestation of Locke’s political philosophy” (Arneil, 13). Locke’s thinking, that men should govern themselves, had a profound influence on how Jefferson and the other framers of the Constitution decided to craft that document. In the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson certainly channeled Locke. As the Encyclopedia Britannica (1952) noted in its article on the Declaration, “There can be no doubt, then, that five years before he drew up the Declaration, Jefferson regarded both Montesquieu and Locke as among the best authors of "elementary books of public right” (Encyclopedia Britannica, n.p.). In fact, Jefferson lifted a number of phrases verbatim from Locke’s Second Treatise and incorporated them into the Declaration. Even more importantly, he lifted Locke’s liberal ideas. It is perhaps hard to imagine today just how radical the idea was that authority was legitimized only by consent and that in the absence of said consent, the governed had the right to replace that authority. It was radical during the American Revolution, but Locke predated that by a century.

It is pure speculation to suggest how the government formed after the American Revolution might have turned out in the absence of Locke’s ideas, but the possibility suggests itself that it might have been far more absolutist. And of course, the question also arises of whether the revolution would have taken place at all. Certainly, the colonists were angry with King George III’s policies, but England (and America) had experienced rule by bad kings before, and the “divine right” of monarchs had dictated that such bad rule should be endured. Bernard Bailyn (1992) wrote that “In America, where the character of the people was ideal for the attainment of liberty, institutions should be devised that conformed not to inherited prejudices and the accidents of history but to the true principles of human liberty” (Bailyn, 286). Bailyn was a modern writer, but several words and phrases he uses echo back to Locke: institutions (not custom), true principles (not accidents of history), and liberty. Locke’s concept of liberty was not absolute, of course; he referred to the liberty to choose those who would govern. Jefferson dreamed of an agrarian democracy consisting of gentlemen farmers, a dream that was by no means shared by all of the Founding Fathers. In fact, what emerged from the Constitution Convention was not Jefferson’s ideal but rather, a federalist republic. It did, however, feature such unusual features such as universal suffrage (for men), three branches of government, and a bicameral legislature. Many of the Founders feared the chaotic nature of democracy and wanted to elect a king (George Washington was mentioned many times as a candidate). But Jefferson steered the discussion toward a more democratic outlook. Had he not had Locke as an authority and inspiration, he might not have resisted the pull toward absolutism as fiercely as he did. The current “messy democracy” we have in America owes as much to Thomas Jefferson (and thereby John Locke) as to any other man.

Today, Locke’s principles are as relevant as ever, and not just in the realm of political science. He was also one of the first rationalists. The Enlightenment and the scientific explosion that generated the Industrial Revolution would not have been possible without a widespread belief in and acceptance of empirical thinking. In An Essay on Human Understanding, Locke (1690) wrote that human understanding was conferred by experience alone; that a human being was born a tabula rasa (blank slate) on which experiences and knowledge would be written:

Whence has it all the materials of reason and knowledge? To this I answer, in one word, From experience: in that, all our knowledge is founded, and from that, it ultimately derives itself. Our observation, employed either about external sensible objects or about the internal operations of our minds, perceived and reflected on by ourselves is that which supplies our understandings with all the materials of thinking. (Locke, On Human Understanding)

This is a radical departure from the various dogmas of the time that held that people’s natures and even destinies were fixed at birth. What I see as the most important implication of this thought is that racism, gender discrimination, or any other kind of unequal treatment is simply unfounded and therefore unjustified.

Therefore, when Jefferson wrote that it was not only a “truth” but also “self-evident” that “all men are created equal,” he was simply re-forming a thought of Locke’s. While America has struggled with actually implementing this idea in its entirety, the fact remains that it is at the center of the American democratic ideal, a way of addressing the human condition that has been exported to the world at large. While Locke was only one man, sometimes one man has tremendous influence. Perhaps if Locke had not existed, then someone else would have articulated his ideas, but probably not as eloquently or as forcefully. The world today might still be fitfully struggling with the birth of democracy, rationalism, and the concept of the value of man, and the United States as we know it might not even exist.

References

Arneil, B. (1996). John Locke and America: the defense of English colonialism. Oxford University Press.

Bailyn, B. (1992). The ideological origins of the American Revolution. Harvard University Press.

Jefferson, T. (1952). Declaration of independence. Encyclopedia Britannica.

Locke, J. (1988). Locke: Two Treatises of Government Student Edition. Cambridge University Press.

Locke, J., Ed. with critical apparatus, & Nidditch, P. H. (1970). An essay concerning human understanding, 1690. Scholar Press.