Reference no: EM133347909
In class I noted tensions - if not outright contradictions - in John Locke's thoughts about slavery (in his Second Treatise of Government, of 1689, and in his work on the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, of 1669): he opposes slavery in the Second Treatise; but he appears to have accepted a provision in the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina that "Every Freedman of the Carolinas has absolute power and authority over his negro slaves." This duality got me thinking about a similar tension - if not outright contradiction - in Thomas Jefferson's thinking.
Jefferson was the primary author of the US Declaration of Independence, and - among his other achievements - he was the third president of the United States, from 1801 to 1809. Below you will find two passages from Jefferson that would seem to be contradictory. Moreover, the second set of comments exemplifies white racist ideas that were widespread among white Americans at the time. Consequently, many of us - but particularly people of color - will likely find the second set of comments offensive. Nonetheless, such ideas are part of the historical record (as were John Locke similar ideas) and have shaped the modern world in profound ways.
Be prepared to discuss what the fact that Jefferson made BOTH of these remarks might tell us about the following: (i) implicit or explicit ideas about justice, power, and knowledge from Socrates, Thrasymachus, Gaventa, and Foucault; (ii) the challenges of achieving in democratic politics in our time what Robert Dahl calls "enlightened understanding."
In the US Declaration of Independence ("The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America"), Jefferson wrote,
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Note the Lockean character of these remarks.
Nine years later, in his Notes on the State of Virginia (1785), Jefferson wrote the following, which indicates that he did NOT actually consider all people as equals:
"... I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications. Will not a lover of natural history then, one who views the gradations in all the races of animals with the eye of philosophy, excuse an effort to keep those in the department of man as distinct as nature has formed them? This unfortunate difference of color, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people. Many of their advocates, while they wish to vindicate the liberty of human nature, are anxious also to preserve its dignity and beauty. Some of these, embarrassed by the question `What further is to be done with them?'"
Here are a couple of questions regarding these remarks:
a. How might we explain the apparent contradiction in Jefferson's remarks of 1776 and 1785 in light of the theories of power of John Gaventa and Michel Foucault?
Hint: If we take Jefferson to be stating his actual beliefs in both sets of comments, as seems to have been the case, then Foucault's theory of power and knowledge (or power/knowledge) might better explain the apparent contradiction in Jefferson's remarks. Alternatively, if we have reason to think that Jefferson was deliberately stating views that he did NOT believe in the second set of remarks (in his Notes on the State of Virginia, in 1785) - say, for purely strategic reasons, such as to justify white people's domination of Black people - then Gaventa's theory of power might better explain the apparent contradiction in Jefferson's remarks. Note: To my knowledge there is no evidence to indicate that Jefferson did not believe what he wrote.
b. How might we think about the apparent contradiction in Jefferson's remarks of 1776 and 1785 in light of the competing theories of justice that Plato in The Republic attributes to Socrates and Thrasymachus?
c. This last question is a bit more speculative. What might the prevalence of such competing, if not contradictory, ideas tell us about the challenges of achieving in democratic politics in our time what Robert Dahl calls "enlightened understanding"?
For this question, I need help on:
Be prepared to discuss what the fact that Jefferson made BOTH of these remarks might tell us about the following: (i) implicit or explicit ideas about justice, power, and knowledge from Socrates, Thrasymachus, Gaventa, and Foucault; (ii) the challenges of achieving in democratic politics in our time what Robert Dahl calls "enlightened understanding."
and
a. How might we explain the apparent contradiction in Jefferson's remarks of 1776 and 1785 in light of the theories of power of John Gaventa and Michel Foucault?
b. How might we think about the apparent contradiction in Jefferson's remarks of 1776 and 1785 in light of the competing theories of justice that Plato in The Republic attributes to Socrates and Thrasymachus?
c. This last question is a bit more speculative. What might the prevalence of such competing, if not contradictory, ideas tell us about the challenges of achieving in democratic politics in our time what Robert Dahl calls "enlightened understanding"?