Manliness and the Constitution by John M. Kang

8/6/2019 Manliness and the Constitution by John M. Kang

1/72Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1339645

MANLINESSANDTHECONSTITUTIONJOHNM.KANG*

INTRODUCTION ............................................................261 I. THOMASHOBBES:HOWHYPERMASCULINITY

NECESSITATESABSOLUTEMONARCHY ...............268 II. ROBERTFILMER:THEAUTHORITYOFTHEFATHER

ANDTHEMANLYMONARCH ...............................276 III.LOCKESATTACKONPATRIARCHALISMAND

ABSOLUTEMONARCHY.........................................283 IV.THEAUTHORITYOFTHEPEOPLE .........................287

A. Civility ............................................................2931. CriticismoftheKing ..............................2972. EnlightenmentEmbraceofCivility......3023. NecessaryforAdjudication...................313

B. Deliberation....................................................318 V. THEAMBIVALENTPLACEOFTHEGENTLEMANIN

THECONSTITUTIONALORDER..............................326

INTRODUCTION

Men

as

a

group

are

saddled

with

at

least

three

broad,

and

notnecessarilybaseless,caricatures:thehypermasculinebrute,thedutifulgentleman,andtheindependentthinkerwhoishis

*AssistantProfessorofLaw,St.ThomasUniversitySchoolofLaw.IwouldliketothankMarkBrandon,LauraGomez,TomJoo,andLenoraLedwonforconversation and, for comments on the Article, Keith Bybee, Nancy Ehrenreich,JamieFox, Lauren Gilbert, David Law, Athena Matua, and Ann McGinley. AndreaLuedecker and Adam Gersten provided research assistance. A version of thisArticle was presented at Lat Crit XII in Miami, the MiamiFlorida StateStetson

JuniorFacultyForum,theAssociationfortheStudyofLaw,CultureandHumanitiesconferenceattheUniversityofCaliforniaatBerkeley,theConferenceofAsianPacificAmericanLawFacultyattheUniversityofDenver,andthe2008meeting

in

West

Palm

Beach

of

the

Southeastern

Association

of

Law

Schools.

ThisArticleisforPeterH.Kang,Esq.,tirelessPublicDefenderand,inthebestsense,agentlemanoftheConstitution.


2/72Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1339645

262 HarvardJournalofLaw&PublicPolicy [Vol.32

ownman.Theseportraitsdomorethanpopulateourculture;theyinformtheSupremeCourtsconstitutionaljurisprudence.

First, let us consider the image of men as hypermasculine

brutes who are consumedby a propensity for atavism, violence, and domination.1 A characteristic of hypermasculinemenisthedesiretoavengeviolentlyperceivedwrongsdonetothem,includingwrongsintheformofpublicslights.2ThisdescriptionmaycalltomindtherabidMiamiDolphinsfanwhofeelscompelledtopunchtheloudmouthattheotherendofthesportsbarwhohasdishonoredthereputationofDanMarino.Wemayalsothinkoftheenragedhusbandwhobeatshiswifefor publicly humiliating him. Mindful of insults role in hypermasculinity, the Supreme Court has sought to preemptconditions where it can provoke violence. A stark example is

1.SeeMaryEllenGale,CallingintheGirlScouts:FeministLegalTheoryandPoliceMisconduct,34LOY.L.A.L.REV.691,746(2001)(explainingthatthehypermasculinegenderingofpoliceworkhasledtocorruption,excessiveforce,andextremeviolence);AngelaP.Harris,Gender,Violence,Race,andCriminalJustice,52STAN.L.REV.777,785(2000)(describinghypermasculinityastheexaggeratedexhibitionofphysicalstrengthandpersonalaggression);JamesE.Robertson,APunksSongaboutPrisonReform,24PACEL.REV.527,534(2004)(defininghypermasculinityasthe magnification of masculinity as expressed through radical individualism,violence, and the will to dominate). My use of the term hypermasculinitymeansessentiallythesamethingasmachismoasusedbyDonaldMosherandSilvanTomkins.MosherandTomkinsdefinedtheideologyofmachismoasasystemofideasformingaworldviewthatchauvinisticallyexaltsmaledominance

byassuming masculinity, virility,and physicality tobe the ideal essenceofrealmen who are adversarial warriors competing for scarce resources (includingwomenaschattel)inadangerousworld.DonaldL.Mosher&SilvanS.Tomkins,Scripting theMachoMan:HypermasculineSocialization andEnculturation, 25J. SEXRES.60,64(1988)(emphasisremoved).

2.AccordingtoMosherandSirkin,amachomanmustdefendhismasculineidentityfromanyassaultonhismasculinestatusorsexualpotency.Interpersonally...withmen,hemustdisplayacoolandaloofselfconfidenceashe iseverreadytorespondtoveiledinsultsduringverbalduelingwithverbalorphysicalaggressiveaction.DonaldL.Mosher&MarkSirkin,MeasuringaMachoPersonalityConstellation,18J.RES.PERSONALITY150,150(1984);seealsoCynthiaLee,TheGayPanicDefense,42U.C.DAVISL.REV.471,479(2008)(discussinghowsomemenwhoselfidentifyasheterosexualviolentlyattackgaymenwhomakeunwantedsexualadvancestowardthem);JamesE.Robertson,ClosingtheCircle:WhenPriorImprisonmentOughttoMitigateCapitalMurder,11KAN.J.L.&PUB.POLY415,421(2002) (Many male inmates respondby exaggerated displays of manhood, inwhich evenminor slightsbyothersbecome directchallenges to their masculinestatus.); Frank Rudy Cooper, Whos theMan?:Masculinities and Police Stops

(Suffolk University Law School, Research Paper No. 0823, 2008), available athttp://ssrn.com/abstract=1257183(arguingthatpolicefrisksmaybepromptedbyadesirebypoliceofficerstoasserttheirhypermasculineidentities);infraPartI.


3/72

No.1] ManlinessandtheConstitution 263

thefightingwordsdoctrine,createdbytheCourtinChaplinskyv.NewHampshire.3TheCourtallowedaprohibitiononfightingwords whenconstruedas those thatmenofcommon intelli

gence would understand wouldbe words likely to cause anaverageaddresseetofight.4Fightingwordscanbethreatening, profane or obscene revilings, especially when utteredfacetoface.5Fightingwords,theCourtdeclared,shouldnotreceive constitutional protectionbecause by their very utterance,[they]inflictinjuryortendtoinciteanimmediatebreachofthepeace.6TheCourtelaborated:

Ithasbeenwellobservedthatsuchutterancesarenoessentialpartofanyexpositionofideas,andareofsuchslightsocialvalueasasteptotruththatanybenefitthatmaybederivedfromthemisclearlyoutweighedbythesocialinterestinorderandmorality.7

Noticethatthefightingwordsdoctrinetargetsmenanddrawsfrom a gendered worldview. [M]en of common intelligenceandordinarymen8arethetouchstoneand,althoughwomentheoretically can also retaliate with violence against men orwomen, theChaplinsky Court never refers to the female perspective. For the Court, only men threaten the public peacewith their anger and, thus, only men must notbe needlesslyaggravated.

Against this image of hypermasculinity stands the ideal ofthe gentleman: civil, dutiful, gracious, and protective of theweak.9Hereisthemanwhounfailinglyabsorbsthecasualparade of daily slights with stoic politeness and, in his old

fashionedandperhapsvaguelychauvinisticway,alwaysopensdoors forwomen.Thegentlemanalsodiffers from thehyper

3.315U.S.568(1942).4.Id.at573.5.Id.; seealso Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 30910 (1940) (Resort to

epithetsorpersonalabuseisnotinanypropersensecommunicationofinformationoropinionsafeguardedbytheConstitution,anditspunishmentasacriminalactwouldraisenoquestionunderthatinstrument.).

6.Chaplinsky,315U.S.at572.7.Id.8.Id.at573(emphasisadded).

9.See THOMAS L. SHAFFER WITH MARY M. SHAFFER, AMERICAN LAWYERS AND

THEIRCOMMUNITIES:ETHICS INTHELEGALPROFESSION43,86,93(1991)(arguingthat a gentleman possesses, among other things, civility, duty, kindness, and adesiretoprotecttheweak).


4/72


masculinebrutebybeingmindfulofhiscivicresponsibilities.10In1996,theVirginiaMilitaryInstitute(VMI)caseaffordedtheSupremeCourtanopportunitytoponderthemeaningofbeing

agentleman.11TheCourtrejectedVMIspolicyofdenyingadmission to women applicants,because the policy violated theEqual Protection Clause and, more specifically, VMIs policystoodasanobstacletotheCourtsadvancementofgenderneutrality.12ForJusticeScalia,whodissented,theCourtsvindication of gender neutrality defeated a public sanctuary whereyoungmencoulddevelopvirtuesasgentlemen.JusticeScaliafound powerfully impressive the schools requirement thatitsstudentsabidebyalistofrulesforgoodbehaviorknownastheCodeofHonor.13TheCodeinsisted,amongotherthings,thatagentleman:

Doesnotgotoaladyshouseifheisaffectedbyalcohol.He

istemperateintheuseofalcohol.

Does not losehis temper; nor exhibitanger, fear,hate,embarrassment,ardororhilarityinpublic.

[N]everdiscussesthemeritsordemeritsofalady.

Doesnotputhismannersonandoff,whetherinthecluborin aballroom. He treats people with courtesy, no matterwhattheirsocialpositionmaybe.

Doesnotlickthebootsofthoseabovenorkickthefaceofthosebelowhimonthesocialladder.14

These responsibilitiesaresurelyarduous formanymen,especiallyof collegeage,butVMI formally expected its recruitsto embrace opportunities to fulfill the Codes tenets. Tobe agentlemanatVMIwas toattaina lustrousnobility,apremisethatfindsexpressionintheCodespreface:

10.Seeid.Thereisperhapsnobetterexemplarofthesetraitsinfictionthanthelawyer Atticus Finch.See HARPER LEE, TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD (1960).See alsoSHAFFER WITHSHAFFER,supranote9,at43,4546 (discussingAtticusFinchasaquintessentialgentleman).

11.UnitedStatesv.Virginia,518U.S.515(1996).

12.

See

id.

at

534,

557.

13.Id.at60203(Scalia,J.,dissenting).14.Id.


5/72


Without a strict observance of the fundamental Code ofHonor, no man, no matter how polished, canbe considered a gentleman. The honor of a gentleman demands theinviolabilityofhisword,andtheincorruptibilityofhisprinciples.Heisthedescendantoftheknight,thecrusader;heisthe defender of the defenseless and the champion ofjustice...orheisnotaGentleman.15

Somewhatcomplementary to the imageof thegentleman istheidealofmenasindependentand,especiallyinthepoliticalrealm,as independent thinkers.16Nojudgearticulated the latterviewwithmorepoignancy thanJusticeBrandeis inhis famous concurrence in Whitney v. California.17 Conventionallylaudedforitsbracingsupportoffreespeech,JusticeBrandeissopinion is partly a discourse about male identity. He arguedthatmenmustpossessastoutcouragetoexercisetheirconstitutional rights. The Framers, Justice Brandeis asserted, believed liberty tobe the secret of happiness and courage tobethe secret of liberty.18 Unfortunately, Justice Brandeis providedlittledirectexplanationforthestatementsmeaning.Hesimplyannouncedthatcouragemustcounteractthepathologyof fearbecausefearbreeds repression...repressionbreedshate...hate menaces stable government and the path ofsafetyliesintheopportunitytodiscussfreelysupposedgrievances and proposed remedies.19 Courage is not exclusive tomen,but its etymology in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew derivesfromthewordforman,asiftobecourageousisnecessarilytobemanlyandvice versa.20Thiscorrelationwasnot lostonJustice Brandeis. Although theWhitney case concerned Charlotte Anita Whitney, a woman, and probably a courageous

15.Id.at602.

16.SeeLeslieBender,ALawyersPrimeronFeministTheoryandTort,38J.LEGALEDUC. 3 (1988), reprinted in FEMINIST LEGAL THEORY: FOUNDATIONS 58 (D. KellyWeisberged.,1993)(arguingthatmendesireindependencewhereaswomendesirecommunity);RobinWest,JurisprudenceandGender,55U.CHI.L.REV.1,612(1988)(arguingthatliberaltheoryenvisionsmenasindependentbeings).

17.274U.S.357,372(1927)(Brandeis,J.,concurring),overruledbyBrandenburgv.Ohio,395U.S.444(1969).

18.Id. at 375; see also Vincent Blasi,TheFirstAmendment and the Ideal ofCivicCourage:TheBrandeisOpinion in Whitney v. California, 29WM. & MARY L. REV.

653

(1988).

19.Whitney,274U.S.at375(Brandeis,J.,concurring).20.Seeinfranotes35657andaccompanyingtext.


6/72


one,21JusticeBrandeissonlyreferencetowomenasagenderinWhitney hardly rendered them courageous: Men fearedwitchesandburntwomen. It is the function ofspeech to free

men from thebondage of irrational fears.22Justice Brandeisdepicted women as passive objects of mens superstition orenlightenment;forhim,menwerethesolepoliticalactors,andthatiswhyheurgedmen,andnotwomen,tobecourageous.

TheAmericanconstitutionalenterprise,according toJusticeBrandeis,investeditshopesinmen,but,ontheotherhand,thefighting words doctrine and the Supreme Courts decision intheVMIcaseimplythatmencanpresentthreatstoit.ThetensionmaycauseustowonderhowtomakesenseofmaleidentityintheAmericanconstitutionalorder.ThisArticleexaminesthetensionbydelvingintothehistoricaloriginsofmaleidentityanditsrelationtotheAmericanConstitution.

This examination begins in the sixteenth and seventeenthcenturiesofearlymodernEngland,fortheAmericancolonistswould eventually have to grapple with ideas that arose fromthis period. Two of the most prominent conceptions of maleidentity inearlymodernEnglandmadeconstitutionaldemocracy,astheAmericansunderstoodit,philosophicallyunrealistic. Thomas Hobbes represents one conception, and RobertFilmertheother.

PartIpresentsapictureofearlymodernEnglandwherethespectacleofmenengagedinpublicbrawlsoverissuesofhonorwascommon.Reactingtothispublicviolence,theseventeenthcenturyphilosopherHobbesbemoanedthatmenshypermascu

linitymadethemineligibleforthedisciplinedandmatureenterpriseofselfgovernment.Onlyanabsolutemonarch,Hobbesinsisted,couldcontrolmenforpurposesofcollectivepeace.

Part II shows that Filmer, another prominent seventeenthcenturyEnglishphilosopher,alsobelievedthatmenweregenerallyincompetentforselfgovernment.UnlikeHobbes,Filmerarguedthatmenwerepsychologicallyinfantileandthuslackedthemanlyindependenceforselfgovernment.Onlytheking,wroteFilmer, had the requisite manliness of a powerful father, andmenrequiredthefathersloveandguidancewhileowinghim

21.

See

generally

Ashutosh

A.

Bhagwat,

The

Story

of

Whitney

v.

California:

The

Power

ofIdeas,inCONSTITUTIONALLAWSTORIES407,40912(MichaelC.Dorfed.,2004).22.Whitney,274U.S.at376(Brandeis,J.,concurring).


7/72


completeobedience.Bythelateseventeenthcentury,however,philosopherslikeJohnLockebegantochallengeabsolutemonarchy in a manner that would influence how the American

coloniststhoughtaboutmaleidentityanditsrelationshipwithpoliticalauthority.PartIIIoutlinesthisshift.

Although the American colonists were not the first to challenge absolute monarchy, they were the first to create a government thatcompletelydidawaywithaking.This radicallydemocratic move, in turn, required the colonists to imagineconceptions of male identity that would help to underwritetheir change in governance. The colonists first had to parryHobbess and Filmers arguments for the kings authority. Insteadofbestowingupon thekingthemantleof indispensablerefereeorlovingpatriarch,theAmericans,asillustratedinPartIV,ridiculedhimasahypermasculinebrute.Bydelegitimizing

the king, the colonists cleared a philosophical path for a newgovernmentwhereallauthorityformallyresidedwiththepeople themselves. That move in turn prompted the colonists todevelop an account of public virtue that expected men tobehaveinamannerthatwoulddemonstratetheircompetenceforselfgovernment.AgainstHobbes,thecolonistspressedAmerican men to embrace civility, including civility toward socialinferiors,ratherthanallowingAmericanmentobedrivenbyaviolent hypermasculinity. Against Filmer, the colonists urgedAmericanmentoevincetheirmanlyindependencebydeliberatingpolitical truths insteadofdeferring tosocialbetters.Forthese reasons, the political imperatives of the Constitution

helped

to

create

a

model

of

an

independent

minded

American

gentleman. The ideal of manliness as conceivedby the Founders, however, presently occupies an ambivalent place in ourconstitutionalculture.PartVreflectsonthiscondition.

ThisArticleseekstoofferauniquecontributiontotheexistinglegalscholarshiponmaleidentity.Muchofthatscholarshipiswrittenbyfeministprofessorswhoareprincipallyconcernedwith the study of female identity, and male identity only figuresintheanalysistotheextentitcanilluminatetheformer.23

23.SeeNancyLevit,FeminismforMen:LegalIdeologyandtheConstructionofMaleness,43UCLAL.REV.1037,1038(1996)([I]nseveralimportantrespects,apartfrom

thecrucialroleofculprit,menhavebeen largelyomittedfromfeminism.).Otherarticleshavelookedattheconstructionofmaleidentity.SeeNancyLevit,MalePrisoners:Privacy,Suffering,andtheLegalConstructionofMasculinity, inPRISONMASCU


8/72


Suchafocusisunderstandablegiventhatfeministscholarshipseekstoempowerwomenbyexposinggenderbias.24ThisArticle focuses squarely on male identity as deserving its own

analysis.Furthermore,thearticlesthatdofocusonmale identity tend todwellon issuespertaining tostatutory interpretation or the Equal Protection Clause, such as employment discrimination,25singlesexeducation,26andprisons.27ThisArticleexploresmaleidentityas itrelatestogeneralnotionsofpoliticalauthority,thearrangementofinstitutionalpower,andcivicethosin short, some of the fundamental aspects of constitutionalenterprise.

I. THOMASHOBBES:HOWHYPERMASCULINITY NECESSITATESABSOLUTEMONARCHY

The

most

quoted

line

from

Thomas

Hobbess

lengthy

book

Leviathan declares that the life of man, when there is nocommonpowertokeepthemallinawe,ispoor,nasty,brutish,andshort.28Withthisweirdlybleakintroduction,Hobbesprepared the reader for perhaps the most famous argumentagainsta limitedgovernmentsuchas thatcreatedby theU.S.

LINITIES93102(DonSaboetal.eds.,2001)[hereinafterLevit,MalePrisoners];AnnC.McGinley,HarassingGirlsattheHardRock:MasculinitiesinSexualizedEnvironments,2007U.ILL.L.REV.1229[hereinafterMcGinley,Harassing];AnnC.McGinley,MasculinitiesatWork,83OR.L.REV.359(2004)[hereinafterMcGinley,Masculinities];seealsoMaryAnneC.Case,DisaggregatingGenderfromSexandSexualOrientation:TheEffeminateManintheLawandFeministJurisprudence,105YALEL.J.1(1995).Forother

examples of scholars who have defined manhoodbyjuxtaposing it withwomanhood, see MARK E. KANN, A REPUBLIC OF MEN: THE AMERICAN FOUNDERS, GENDEREDLANGUAGE,ANDPATRIARCHALPOLITICS1619(1998).

24.ProfessorWeisbergexplained:Feminist legal theorists,despitedifferencesinschoolsofthought,areunited intheirbasicbeliefthatsocietyispatriarchalshapedby and dominatedby men. Feministjurisprudence, then, provides ananalysisandcritiqueofwomenspositioninpatriarchalsocietyandexaminesthenatureandextentofwomenssubordination.D.KellyWeisberg,IntroductiontoFEMINISTLEGALTHEORY:FOUNDATIONS,supranote16,atxv,xvii.

25.See, e.g., McGinley,Harassing, supra note 23; McGinley,Masculinities, supranote23.

26.See,e.g.,WilliamHenryHurd,GonewiththeWind?VMIsLossandtheFutureofSingleSexPublicEducation,4DUKEJ.GENDERL.&POLY27(1997);JonA.Soderberg,TheConstitutionalAssaultontheVirginiaMilitaryInstitute,53WASH.&LEEL.REV.429(1996).

27.

See,

e.g.,

Levit,

Male

Prisoners,

supra

note

23;

Robertson,

supra

note

1.

28.THOMAS HOBBES, LEVIATHAN: WITH SELECTED VARIANTS FROM THE LATINEDITIONOF1668,at76(EdwinCurleyed.,Hackett1994)(1651).


9/72


Constitution.HobbesassertedinseventeenthcenturyEnglandthat men were consumedby a violent hypermasculinity thatwasproblematic toevenbasicefforts atsocietalpeace.29 Note

thatHobbeswasindictingmenasasex,notmenintheuniversalist sense that subsumes women.30 Men, on his account,obsessively devoted themselves to the protection of theirhonor,andeventhemildestsocialslightswouldsetthemoff.31Worse,Hobbesbelievedthatformenviolencewasnotsimplyameanstoanend,butthatmenactuallyrelishedopportunitiestoinflictitanddidnotflinchfromthosemomentswhentheyhadtoendure it.Belligerentandtouchy,men lackedthedispassionnecessary for the pacific and disciplinedbusiness of constitutional democracy.32 For Hobbes, the only type of governmentsuitable for men was an absolute monarchy that was strongenoughtoclampdownontheirhypermasculinepassions.33

WhatledHobbestomakesuchgrimassessmentsaboutmenashypermasculine?Hewasthinkingaboutmanslifeinearlymodern England, an astonishingly violent society evenby our contemporary American standards. It is telling, for example, thatLawrence Stone, a revered historian of the period, announcedthat early modern England was at least five times more violencepronethanEnglandinthelatetwentiethcentury.34Muchof theviolencewaspropelledbyadesiretopreemptoravengeassaultsononeshonor,andaglimmerofdisrespectcouldprovoke a fight.35 As Cambridge historian Mervyn James commented, [s]illy quarrels escalated intobattles in the streets.36Further,[c]onflictswererapidlytranslatedintothelanguageof

29.Seeinfranotes8089andaccompanyingtext.30.Hobbesmadefleetingreferencestowomen,butthesereferenceshighlighthis

ascribedgenderdifferences.Hedeclaredthatmenarenaturallyfitterthanwomenforactionsoflabouranddanger,andthatthereisallowancetobemadefornatural timorousness, not only to women (of whom no such dangerous duty is expected),butalsotomenoffemininecourage.HOBBES,supranote28,at126,142.

31.Seeinfranotes8289andaccompanyingtext.32.Seeinfranotes8089andaccompanyingtext.33.Seeinfranotes9092andaccompanyingtext.34.Lawrence Stone, Interpersonal Violence in English Society 13001980, in 101

PAST&PRESENT22,32(1983).35.See MERVYN JAMES, SOCIETY, POLITICS AND CULTURE: STUDIES IN EARLY

MODERN ENGLAND 308 (1986); LAWRENCE STONE, THE CRISIS OF THE ARISTOC

RACY:

15881641,

at

223

(1965)

(arguing

that

in

the

fifteenth

and

sixteenth

century,

menfoughtoverprestigeandproperty,inthatorder).36.JAMES,supranote35,at308.


10/72


thesword,andthiswasespeciallysowhentheyconcernedpoliticsorreligion,topicsthatarousedpride,andhenceinvolvedissues ofhonor.37Often, the onlymethod ofexpression fordissi

denceappearedtobeviolentthreats,asifthesocialdemandsoftolerating anothers competing opinion weighed unbearably onones honor.38 In this atmosphere, the gentry fought to get thebestpewinthechurch,39nobilitydueledoverwhowouldgetthemost honored seats in court,40 squires clashed over election asknights and for membership on commissions,41 and nobilityfoughtfortheprestigeofthemonarchsattention.42AccordingtoProfessorStone,[i]nasocietythatwasevenmoreobsessedwithstatusthanwithmoney,intangiblesofthissortarousedpassionswhichoftencouldonlybeappeasedinblood.43

To exacerbate matters, the local government had little successinmaintainingpeace.44Witnessthefollowingcatalogueof

lawlessness,madeall themoreappallingbyhavingbeenperpetrated,usuallyintheopen,bythemostprominentmembers

37.Id.38.SeeSTONE,supranote35,at22324.39.Seeid.at223.40.See A.J. Fletcher,Honour,Reputation and LocalOffending in Elizabethan and

StuartEngland,inORDERANDDISORDERINEARLYMODERNENGLAND92,98(AnthonyFletcher&JohnStevensoneds.,1985).

41.SeeSTONE,supranote35,at223.42.Seeid.HistorianA.J.Fletcheralsoremarkedthattherewerenumerousop

portunitiesforbattlesoverprecedence.Fletcher,supranote40,at97.Heofferedthiscatalogue:

In Elizabethan Norfolk factional politicsbecame so fraught that several

gentlemenintriguedatcourttohavetheirnameplacedabovealocalrivalatthenextrenewalofthecommissionofthepeace....Deeplyentrenchedquarrelscouldsplutterintoviolencewhenthetensionsofappearanceinthepublicarena focusedmensmindsonquestionsofpreeminence.Atthe Norwich sessions in 1582, Sir Arthur Heveningham, faced withchargesofmisconductbyEdwardFlowerdew,burstoutintoagreatandvehement kind of railing speech against him. Abrawl with their fists

betweenSirThomasReresbyandWilliamWentworthattheRotherhamquartersessionsinthe1590sturnedintoascufflewithswordsinvolvingthe two mens followers. Arguments over seating arrangements on the

benchwerenotuncommon.WhentheToryLordCheyneandtheWhigLordWhartonappearedtogetherontheBuckinghamshirebenchin1699,Cheyneobjectedtohisrivalsittingonthechairmansrighthandandafterthebusinesstheyretiredtoduel.

Id.at9798.

43.

STONE,

supra

note

35,

at

223.

44.See id.at230(Attemptsbythe localadministrationtodealwithfeudsbetweennoblesandsquiresusuallyendedinfailure.).


11/72


of the community. Thomas Hutchinson, also known as LordRadcliffe,hadassaultedSirGermainePoole,andgettinghimdownehebitagoodepartofhisnoseandcarriedytaway in

his pocket.45 The 14th Lord Grey of Wilton snuck up to SirJohn Fortescue and repeatedly struck him with a crabtreetruncheonashelaysenselessontheground,untilthelattersservantscametotherescue.46Thenobilityalsoemployedtheservicesofretainerswhowereoftennobetterthanthugs.47Forexample,Henry,EarlofLincolnalwaysattackedwith fifteenor sixteenbullies.48 A group from the Talbot and Cavendishclans ambushed and attacked with swords SirJohn Stanhopeand four men.49 The feud between two noble families, theMarkhams and the Holles, reached a climax asboth engagedtheir respective retainers in battle. Gervase Markham waswounded and, on the excuse that he was unfairly attacked

while

on

the

ground,

planned

to

shoot

John

Holles

while

Holles was not looking.50 The 2nd Lord Rich sent twentyfiveretainerstoattackEdwardWindhaminbroaddaylightonFleetStreet, and accompanied the attack with cries of Drawe villens,drawe,Cuttoffhis legges,andKyllhim.51AgroupofmenpummeledaservantoftheEarlofLeicester,presumablyunderordersofsomenobleenemyoftheEarl.52Thomas,Lord Burgh, tried to murder a man in hisbed.53 Ralph, Lord

45.Id.at225.46.Id.at226.Lessspontaneously,scheduledduels werealsoa common prac

tice. Historian PhilipJenkins has remarked on their prevalence even in the late

seventeenth

century:

Thedefenceofhonourorselfinterestoftenimpliedaresorttoviolence,andiftheoffendingpartywasoftoohighbirthtobemerelybeatenormobbed,thenaduelcouldresult.Gentlemenworeswords,wereportrayedwiththeminpaintings,andwereexpectedtousetheminaffairsofhonour....Duelswerefrequentwhenthecodeofhonourwassosensitive,andthesituationwasexacerbatedbythepoliticalbitternessofthelaterseventeenthcentury,whenpartisanrivalriescausedmany fights involvingsomeof thegreatestfamiliesofWales.

PHILIPJENKINS, THE MAKING OF A RULING CLASS: THE GLAMORGAN GENTRY:16401790,at200(1983).

47.SeeSTONE,supranote35,at227.48.Id.at225.49.Seeid.at22526.50.Seeid.at226.

51.

Id.

52.Id.53.Seeid.


12/72


Eure, firsthiredassassins tokilltheRecorderofBerwickand,whenunsuccessful,hiredanexperttotrytopoisonhim.54ProfessorStoneconcludedthat[s]toriesofthiskind,whichcould

beindefinitelyrepeated,provebeyondpossibilityofdoubtthatup to the end of the sixteenth century men saw nothing dishonourable in attackingby surprise with superior forces, andnothinginhittingamanwhenhewasdown.55

Even in a court of law, hypermasculine men foreboded violence. There was the common habit of noblesbringing armedretainerstoquartersessionsandassizes,theequivalentofcourtproceedings,tothreatenjudgesandopposingparties.56TheseventeenthcenturywriterJohnAubreyrecountedthat[i]nthosedays...noblemen (and also great knights as the Longs) whenthey went to the assizes or [quarter] sessions at Salisbury, etc.hadagreatnumberofretainersfollowingthem;andtherewere

(youhaveheard)feudes(i.e.quarrellsandanimosities)betweengreat neighbours.57 The feuding noble families of the RussellsandtheBerkeleysarrivedcollectivelywithfivehundredarmedmen to the Worcester quarter sessions; fortunately, peace wasbrokeredatthecourt.58AbloodieroutcomeinvolvedLordMorleys and Lord Stranges entourages, who werebrought to theLancasterassizes.59WonderfullytellingisanincidentinvolvingSir Edward Dymock. When thejudge accused him ofbringingarmedmentothecourt,Dymocksneeredthathismenwerenototherwisearmedbutwithsuchordinaryweaponsasmenusuallycarry.60TheEarlofSussextriedtoobeytherulestoleavehisretainersbehind,buthisrival,theEarlofLeicester,didnotrecip

rocate.61

The

former

complained

to

the

Queen.62

He

also

worried

a fewyears later thatanotherenemy,LordNorth,wouldbringarmedmen tocourt, inwhichcase,hewarned,Iwillcome insuchesortasIwyllnotferepertakersageynstme.63

54.Seeid.

55.Id.56.Seeid.at231.57.Id.58.Seeid.59.Seeid.60.Id.

61.

See

id.

at

232.

62.Id.at23233.63.Id.at233.


13/72


Hypermasculine violence was hardly the exclusive domainofnobles.In1594,JohnDurant,atanner,andHenryElwood,awaterman,became involved in a quarrel at Cambridge.64 El

wood,inhisadditionalcapacityasaconstable,hadtriedtoarrestDurantsfriend,provokingDuranttocallElwoodaflaptemoutheboye.65ElwoodretortedthathewasasgoodamanasDurantandyfthyknyfewereawayethoweshouldestseewhatIwoulddoby&bye.66Afightensuedandwitnessesreported that all of Durants face wasbeblodied.67 Also consider an episode from 1604between a group of Cambridgegentlemenstudents.68Charles Garth and George Wardprotested thatSamuelWoodley,whiledeputyproctorat theuniversity, had no right to confiscate their rapiers and daggers.69Feeling slighted, Garth and Ward told the townspeople thatWoodleywasbutsomecowardlyfellow&notthemannthat

he

was

reported

or

taken

to

be,

and

also

called

Woodleys

brotheracoward.70Afightensued,andGarthgreetedSamuelwithadagger,warning,Godswoundskeepebackeor Iwillletoutyorgutts.71Inanotherinstance,agroupofgentlemenscholars were indignant that a stable boy had carelesslyblockedtheirpathwithhishorse.72Thescholars,inanactthatwouldbid defiance to the modern stereotype of the shy andgentleacademic,box[ed]theboysearsandbeatthehorse.73Theboyresentedhisilltreatmentandthrewaboneatthegentlemen scholarsashescurried away.74Oneof thescholars repaid theboys insolencebystabbing thehorse. Inanotherexample,aCambridgeinnkeepercomplainedthatsomescholars,

feeling

that

the

innkeeper

had

insulted

their

honor,

had

mis

64.See ALEXANDRA SHEPARD, MEANINGS OF MANHOOD IN EARLY MODERNENGLAND127(2003).

65.Id.

66.Id.67.Id.68.Id.at141.69.Seeid.70.Id.at142.71.Id.

72.

Id.

73.Id.74.Seeid.


14/72


used&injured[theinnkeeper]bypullinghimbythebeard&kicking&offeringtostrikeupp[his]heles.75

Hypermasculineviolencewasnotlimitedtonoblesorschol

ars. William Maphew andJohn Trott, two Cambridge cordwainers,cametoblowsaftertheformershowedoffhisbootstohis friend at an alehouse.76 Trott found the act impudent andthrewoneofthebootstotheground,therebycausingMaphewto say that theboot was as good worke as you make, andthen a fight ensued.77 After the cordwainerJohn Dod calledhim a liar, the gentleman Henry Beston reminded the formerthatheBestondidcomeofabetterstock&kynn,then[Dod]oranyofhiskynndid,and,forpunctuation,slappedhimonthe face.78 These were hardly isolated incidents as [n]earlyonethirdoftheassaultcasesheardbytheCambridgeuniversity courts cited insults as provocation, and defendants fre

quentlyjustifiedviolentresponsesasunderstandableifnotappropriatereactions.79MeninearlymodernEngland,then,didnotshununlawfulpublicviolenceasdishonorable;theysawitastheenactmentofanexaltedcodeofhypermasculinity.

Such was life inearlymodern England,and itcertainlyprovidedamplejustificationforHobbesscuriouscommentthatthelifeofman ispoor,nasty,brutish,andshort.HobbeshadworriedthatthemenofearlymodernEnglandwerebesetbyahypermasculinity that made constitutional democracy, let alonesocietalpeace,impossible.Hesetouthisargumentsbypositinga hypothetical natural condition of mankind prior to government,80whoseunsettlingdetailswere intended toexagger

atethepublicviolenceinearlymodernEngland.81Inthisnaturalcondition,oneofthechiefcausesofquarrelamongmen is

glory.82 Quarrels over glory occur for trifles, as a word, asmile, a different opinion, and any other sign of undervalue,eitherdirect intheirpersons,orbyreflection intheirkindred,

75.Id.at146.76.Seeid.at143.77.Id.78.Id.79.Id.

80.

HOBBES,

supra

note

28,

at

74.

81.Seeid.at7677.82.Id.at76.


15/72


their friends, their nation, their profession, or their name.83Hobbesdidnotbelievethatintolerancefordifferencenecessarilyleadstostrife.Whatleadstoitistheapparentcontemnors

intolerantsignofundervaluehisshowofdisrespectthatstirs the contemneds intolerant resentment and sometimesrage.84Pride,Hobbesdeclared,provokesaman toanger, theexcess whereof is the madness called RAGE and FURY.85 ToHobbes, pride seemed the most hypersensitive passion of all,for it cannot tolerate others contradictory opinions or socialslights.Unabletotolerateothersslights,itsuccumbstoexcessive desire of revenge.86 Pride canbecome excessive lovewhich, when confronted with one recognized as more honorable,canbecomejealousrage.87Menalso fighteachother,according to Hobbes, for reputation.88 That is, they use violence to make themselves masters of other mens persons,

wives,

children,

and

cattle.89

The

natural

condition

of

man

thusprovidesadditionalargument,ifmorewasnecessaryduringtheseventeenthcentury,thatthehypermasculinityofmenpreemptspossibilitiesforcollectivepeace.

Hobbesaccordinglyassertedthattoestablishsocietalpeace,menmustobeyakingwieldingabsolutepoweroverhissubjects.Hewarnedthatjustice,equity,modesty,mercy,and(insum)doingtoothersaswewouldbedoneto[,]ofthemselves,withouttheterrorofsomepowertocausethemtobeobserved,arecontrarytoournaturalpassions,thatcarryustopartiality,pride,revenge,andthelike.90Hobbesproposedthatmenau

83.Id.84.Id.at7576.85.Id.at41.86.Id.87.Id. Hobbes stated that [h]onourable is whatsoever possession, action, or

qualityisanargumentandsignofpower.Id.at53.88.Id.at76.89.Id.

90.Id.at106(emphasisremoved).ProfessorHarveyMansfieldwrote:Hobbes pointedly omits courage, the virtue of manliness in premodernthought, from a list of the virtues. What is manliness, essentially, forHobbes?Itisnotavirtuebutapassion,apassionforpreeminencethathecallsvainglory,orvanity.Itisappetitebutnotforanyparticularthing,thusageneralizedappetitethatcompelsmentoaggression.

HARVEYC.MANSFIELD,MANLINESS166(2006)(footnoteomitted).Theviewsummarizedhereconflateshypermasculinitywithmanliness.Bycontrast,theAmericancoloniststookpainstodifferentiatethem.SeeinfraPartIV.


16/72


thorizeasinglemanasasovereignmonarchtoactontheirbehalf for their collective peace and safety.91 Under this procedure,mencannotwithdrawtheirconsentshouldtheybecome

dissatisfied with the sovereign.92 That Hobbes would requireall men to give up their rights to govern themselves foreverreflects Hobbess dour cynicism regarding the capacity of hypermasculinementoreformtheirantisocialtendencies.

Hobbesssupportforabsolutemonarchywastraditional,buthisrelianceonauthorizationwasnot.Inaworldofrigidsocialhierarchy,hewasunusualforhistimeinpositinganaccountofauthorizationwherebymen individuallyelected toestablishapoliticalsociety,andthusweretreatedasfreeandequal.Moretraditionaljustificationsformonarchicalauthorityappealed totropesofsocialdeferenceinthecontextsofaffectandreligion.93But like Hobbess argument from authorization, these argu

ments, as Part II will show, also relied indispensably on conceptionsofmaleidentity.

II. ROBERTFILMER:THEAUTHORITYOFTHEFATHERANDTHEMANLYMONARCH

Hobbes argued that the kings authority was consciouslycraftedbymenwhohadcollectivelyconsented toauthorizeasinglemanasthesovereigntorepresentthemall.ButHobbessauthorizationtheorywasnottheonlyor,initstime,eventheprevalentmeanstojustifythekingsabsolutepower.Thefa

91.Hobbeswrote:Theonlyway toerectsuchacommonpowerasmaybeable todefendthemfromtheinvasionofforeignersandtheinjuriesofoneanother...isto confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon oneassemblyof men, that mayreduceall theirwills,bypluralityof voices,unto one will, which is as much as to say, to appoint one man orassembly of men to bear their person, and every one to own andacknowledgehimselftobeauthorofwhatsoeverhethatsobeareththeirpersonshallact,orcausetobeacted, inthosethingswhichconcernthecommonpeaceandsafety,andthereintosubmittheirwills,everyonetohiswill,andtheirjudgments,tohisjudgment.

HOBBES,supranote28,at109.

92.Id.(This ismorethanconsent,orconcord; it isarealunityofthemall,inone and the same person, madeby covenant of every man with every man, insuchmanneras ifeverymanshouldsaytoeverymanIauthoriseandgiveupmy

right

of

governing

myself

to

this

man

.

.

.

on

this

condition,

that

thou

give

up

thy

right

to

him,andauthorizeallhisactionsinlikemanner.).93.SeeinfraPartII.


17/72


voredalternativewaspatriarchalism,anditsheraldedtextwasSir Robert Filmers Patriarcha.94 The king, Filmer urged, wasandshouldbetreatedasapowerfulanddivinefatherentitled

toabsoluteobediencefromhissubjects.95Thesubjects,inturn,werepoliticallyhelplesschildrenwhorequiredtheguidanceofapatriarchalking.96

Patriarchalisms conception of male identity differed fromthatinHobbessauthorizationtheory.Hobbessargumentsalways derived from a nononsense desire to establish societalpeace.Anomnipotentkingmightbeirresponsible,butHobbesinsisted that even an irresponsible king wasbetter than thedissolute condition of masterless men, without subjection tolawsandacoercivepower to tie theirhands fromrapineandrevenge.97 Filmers thesis is not so spare in its expectations.Men,onFilmersaccount,needandcravetheloveofapower

ful patriarch, and, like reverential sons, they desire to submitthemselves to his commands without question. According tothis logic, the kind of constitutional democracy the colonistsadvocatedwouldproveunwise forat least two reasons:One,men would lack the mature competence to reason for themselvesasautonomouscitizens,andtwo,theywouldlackakingwho would furnish fatherly guidance and upon whom theywouldwanttobestowlovingobedience.

Filmersnormativeperspectivewasnoteccentricforitstime.PatriarchalismcametoinstitutionalrealizationinEnglandunder King James I in the late sixteenth century.98 ContraHobbessimpersonaldictionofauthorization,KingJamesgave

ustheidiomoffamilialaffect:

94.ROBERTFILMER,PATRIARCHAANDOTHERWRITINGS(JohannP.Sommervilleed.,CambridgeUniv.Press1991)(1680).

95.Id.at12(Ifwecomparethenaturaldutiesofafatherwiththoseofaking,wefindthemtobeallone,withoutanydifferenceatallbutonlyinthelatitudeorextent of them. As the father over one family, so the king, as father over manyfamilies,extendshiscaretopreserve,feed,clothe,instructanddefendthewholecommonwealth.Hiswars,hispeace,hiscourtsofjusticeandallhisactsofsovereigntytendonlytopreserveanddistributetoeverysubordinateand inferiorfather,and to their children, theirrights andprivileges,so thatall thedutiesofakingaresummedupinanuniversalfatherlycareofhispeople.).

96.Seeid.97.HOBBES,supranote28,at117.

98.See GORDONJ. SCHOCHET, PATRIARCHALISM IN POLITICAL THOUGHT: THEAUTHORITARIAN FAMILY AND POLITICAL SPECULATION AND ATTITUDES ESPECIALLYINSEVENTEENTHCENTURYENGLAND86(1975).


18/72


AgoodKing,thinkinghishighesthonourtoconsistintheduedischargeofhiscalling,emploiethallhisstudieandpaines,toprocureandmaintaine,by themakingandexecutionofgoodLawes, the wellfare and peace of his people; and as theirnaturall father and kindly Master, thinketh his greatest contentmentstandethintheirprosperitie,andhisgreatestsuretiein hauing their hearts, subiecting his owne priuate affectionsandappetitestothewealeandstandingofhisSubiects.99

KingJamesechoedtheseviewselsewhere:[A]stheFatherbyhisfatherlydutyisboundtocareforthenourishing,education,and vertuous government of his children; even so is the kingboundtocareforallhissubjects.100

Yetifthekingwasmorallyexpectedtocareforhissubjects,thesubjectsowedhimunconditionalobedience:

[I]fthechildrenmayuponanypretextthatcanbeimagined,

lawfullyriseupagainst their Father,cut him off, &chooseany other whom they please in his roome; and if thebodyforthewealeofit,mayforanyinfirmitiethatcanbeinthehead, strike it off, then I cannot deny that the people mayrebell, controll, and displace, or cut off their king at theirownepleasure,anduponrespectsmovingthem.101

Overthrowingaking,ajustifiableactfromourpresentperspective, ismadeunthinkablebyequatingitwiththetabooofpatricide.Filmeralsowrote that[t]he fatherofa familygovernsbynoother lawthanbyhisownwill,notbythe lawsorwillsofhissonsorservants,andthat[t]hereisnonationthatallows children any action or remedy forbeing unjustly gov

erned.102

According

to

patriarchalism,

if

any

legal

limits

were

tobesetontheking,theyweretobe,likethesocial limitsonthefather,entirelyselfimposed.103Patriarchalism,at itsbase,treated status as natural and supported authority and dutywithout reciprocity.104 Patriarchalism thus denies masculin

99.KINGJAMES,THEPOLITICALWORKSOFJAMESI1819(CharlesHowardMcIlwained.,HarvardUniv.Press1918)(1616).

100.SCHOCHET,supranote98,at87.101.Id.102.FILMER,supranote94,at35.103.Seeid.(ForaskinglypowerisbythelawofGod,soithathnoinferiorlaw

tolimitit.).

104.SCHOCHET, supranote 98,at83.Thiswas all themoresobecause, on Filmersaccount,thekingsauthorityasthefatherofhispeoplederivedfromGod.AlthoughHobbeshadidentifiedordinarymenasthesourcebywhichthesover


19/72


itysconstituent properties inpower,strength, and independence to everyone save the king; as figurative children, malesubjectsareinfantilizedandtheirmanhoodpreempted.

The endorsements of absolute monarchy will seem odd todemocratic minds,butjust as Hobbess condemnation of hypermasculinityresonatedwiththosewhoboretheviolentdisruptionsofanhonorculture,Filmerspoliticalposition foundadherents under KingJames in Stuart England. In contemporary America the critique of patriarchy has converged on itsdisempowerment of women;105 patriarchy in the seventeenthcentury was also the chiefjustification for subordinating sociallyinferiormen.106

eigncouldderivehisauthority,FilmerlocatedthesameinGod.SeeFILMER,supra

note

94,

at

78.

Kings

in

seventeenth

century

England,

Filmer

argued,

could

trace

their lineage to Adam, to whom God had firstbestowed the right of completeauthority.Seeid.at7.Itmayseemabsurd,heconceded,tomaintainthatkingsnowarethefathersoftheirpeople,sinceexperienceshowsthecontrary.Id.at10.ButFilmercontinuedtoinsistontheanalogy:

Itistrue,allkingsbenotthenaturalparentsoftheirsubjects,yettheyalleitherare,oraretobereputedasthenextheirstothoseprogenitorswhowereat first the naturalparents of thewholepeople, and in their rightsucceed to the exercise of supremejurisdiction. And such heirs are notonlylordsoftheirownchildren,butalsooftheirbrethren,andallothersthatweresubjecttotheirfathers.

Id.at10.Inanycase,onFilmerstermspeoplecouldnotchoosetheirleadersbecausedivinesanctionunderwritestheauthorityofmaleleaders.See id.at1011.This was manly authority that was divinely sanctioned. Accordingly, there wasnoroomforconstitutionallimitsunderpatriarchalgovernment.

105.See, e.g., Mary Becker,Patriarchy and Inequality:Towards aSubstantiveFemi

nism,1999U.CHI.LEGALF.21;NikolausBenke,WomenintheCourts:AnOldThorninMensSides,3MICH.J.GENDER&L.195(1995);BarbaraKatzRothman,DaddyPlantsaSeed:PersonhoodUnderPatriarchy,47HASTINGSL.J.1241(1996);GilaStopler,GenderConstructionandtheLimitsofLiberalEquality,15TEX.J.WOMEN&L.43(2005).

106.ProfessorSchochetexplained:Beforeamanachievedsocialstatusifheeverdidhewouldhavespenta great many years in various positions of patriarchal subordination,passing successively from the rule of his father to that of a master, anemployer,alandlord,andperhapsamagistrate.Ifhewerehighenoughinthesocialscaletoreceiveaformaleducation,hewasalsosubjecttothecontrolofhisteacher.Theauthorityofministers,whichtouchedeveryoneinthepopulation,wasafurtherpartofthissamelargerpattern.Thereisnothingparticularlystrikingaboutthesevariousformsofsubordinationinthemselves.Whatissignificantisthattherelationshipstheycomprisedmasterandservant,teacherandstudent,employerandworker,landlord

and

tenant,

clergyman

and

congregant,

and

magistrate

and

subjectwere

allunderstoodasidenticaltotherelationshipoffatherandchildren.SCHOCHET,supranote98,at66.


20/72


Anumberoffactorscontributedtothewidespreadacceptanceofthissocialarrangement.Forexample,itwasonethatorderedamanslifefromhisbirth.107Mostimportant,though,patriarchy

was propped upby religious leaders. The article of faith, as itwere, derived from the Old Testamentspecifically, the FifthCommandment injunction toobeyonesparents.TheAnglicanChurch formulated a theory of patriarchybased on the FifthCommandments injunction to Honour thy father and thymother.108AspoliticaltheoristGordonSchochetwrote,ThereshouldbenoquestionthatEnglishmenofallbackgroundsweretaught very early in their lives that they had to obey the kingbecauseGodordereditwhenHegavetheFifthCommandmentto Moses.109 It is safe to assume that nearly everyone hadlearnedtheChurchscatechismandwasrequiredtoreciteduringservicesthereligiousdutytohonourandobeytheKingand

all

that

are

put

in

authority

under

him:

to

submit

myself

to

all

mygovernors, teachers,spiritualpastorsandmasters: to ordermyself lowlyandreverentlytoallmybetters.110ConsideralsotheShorterCatechismoftheWestminsterAssembly:

Q[uestion]64.WhatisrequiredinthefifthCommandment?

A[nswer].ThefifthCommandmentrequireththepreservingthe honour, and performing the duties,belonging to everyoneintheirseverallplacesandrelations,asSuperiors,Inferiors,orEquals.

Q.65.WhatisforbiddeninthefifthCommandment?

A.

The

fifth

Commandment

forbiddeth

the

neglecting

of,

or

doing anything against, the honourandduty whichbelongethintheirseverallplacesandrelations.111

107.Id.at73([The]individualwasconfrontedwithapatriarchallyruledfamilyandsocietyfrombirth;untilamanbecametheheadofhisownhousehold,hewassuccessivelyinthestatusofafilialinferiortohisfather,hismaster,andhisemployer....These familial experiences must have played a central role in thepoliticalsocializationprocessinStuartEngland....).

108.Id.109.Id.at81.110.Id.at78(quotingCATECHISMOFTHECHURCHOFENGLAND(1549),reprintedin

PHILLIPSCHAFF,3AHISTORYOFTHECREEDSOFCHRISTENDOM51920(London1878)).

111.Id.at79(alterationinoriginal)(emphasisremoved)(quotingWESTMINSTERASSEMBLY OF DIVINES, THE SHORTER CATECHISM (1644), reprinted in CATECHISMSOFTHESECONDREFORMATION2223(London1886)).


21/72


Similarly,John PoynetsCatechismusBrevis, abook prescribedby the king to be used in all schools, interpreted the FifthCommandmentasorderingstudentstolove,feare,andrever

encetheirnaturalparentsandstatedthattheCommandmentbyndethusalsomosthumbly,andwithmostnaturalaffectionto obei the magistrate: to reverence the Minyesters of thechurch,oureScholemasters,withaloureelders,andbetters.112Ananonymouscatechismfrom1614referredtothefatherandmotheroftheFifthCommandmentas[o]urnaturallParentes,thefathersofourCountrie,orofourhouses,theaged,andourfathers inChrist.113 Robert Ramobserved in1655 that obediencewasdueto1.OurnaturallParentes,FathersandMothersintheflesh.2.OurCivilParents,Magistrates,Governours,andall inAuthority.[and]3.OurspiritualParents,Pastors,Ministers,andTeachers.114IninterpretingtheFifthCommandment,

clergyman

Richard

Allestree

clarified

that

there

were

three

Parents to whom obedience was due: the civil, the spiritual,andthenatural.115Allestreecontinued:[t]heCivilParentishewhomGodhathestablishedtheSupremeMagistrate,whobyajustrightpossessestheThroneofanation,andheisacommonfatherofallthosethatareunderhisauthority.116

Likewise, clergyman Humphrey Brailsford expounded therightsofinferiorsinamannermorerevealingaboutthedepthof dependency on superiors. His interpretation of the FifthCommandments exhortation to honor ones parents demonstrateshisview:

Thesewords,FatherandMother, includeallsuperiours,as

wellasaCivilParent(theKingandHisMagistrates,aMaster,aMistress,oranHusband)andanEcclesiasticalParent(the Bishopand Ministers) as the natural Parent thatbegatandborethee:toalltheseIoweRevereanceandObediance,ServiceandMaintenance,LoveandHonour.

112.Id. at 7980 (quotingJOHN POYNET, A SHORT CATECHISM, OR PLAYNE INSTRUCTIONfol.vi.(London1553)(atranslationofCatechismusBrevis)).

113.Id. at 80 (quoting SHORT QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, CONTAYNING THESUMMEOFCHRISTIANRELIGIONsigs.B2B3(London1614)).

114.Id.(alterationinoriginal)(quotingROBERTRAM,THECOUNTRYMENSCATECHISME:OR,AHELPEFORHOUSEHOLDERS39(London1655)).

115.

See

id.

116.Id.(quotingRICHARDALLESTREE,THEWHOLEDUTYOFMANLAIDDOWNINAPLAINANDFAMILIARWAY,atxxvii(London1842)(1658)).


22/72


...And I must have from my Natural Father, Maintenance,Education,Instruction,CorrectingandBlessing:Frommy King,Justice, Reforming Abuses in Religions, Encouragement to theGood, Punishment to the Bad ...From myMaster (or Mistress) Instruction, Food, Correction, Wages:FrommyMinister,aGoodExampleandwholsomeAdministrationofSpiritualThings.117

Obediencetothekingwassimplythehighestrung inapervasivehierarchythatwasseenasnaturalanddivinelyordered.Onthisview,menrequiredastrictsocialandpoliticalhierarchysothattheycouldfindpersonstowhomtheycouldoweobedience,andfromwhomtheycouldreceiveloveanddirection.

In light of Filmers statements, one may wonder how tomake sense of Hobbess depiction of the life of man as poor,nasty,brutish, and short. This Articles discussion of Filmer

suggests

that

a

structure

of

patriarchal

relationships

effectively

regulated men and preserved the semblance of peace, butHobbeshadconjuredasceneofunrulymasculinityandsocietal disorder. Given that Filmer and Hobbes were describingroughly the same period of early modern England, whatshould one make of these seemingly incongruous narratives?Onereading isthatthefightsovermanlyhonorcoexisteduneasily with patriarchys story of social cohesion.118 Anotherreadingisthatthefights,insteadofunderminingthehierarchicalorderpresupposedbypatriarchy,wereevidenceof itsappeal, as menjockeyed violently for a higher social position.Violence in early modern England was a vital tool in mens

maintenance

of

hierarchy

and

reputation,

routinely

used

to

ar

ticulatesubtlestatusdistinctionsbetweenmen.119Stillanotherexplanation is that what Hobbes solemnly delivered as sociological truth was deliberately exaggerated to strengthen theappealofhispoliticalpropositions.120

117.Id. at 8081 (alteration in original) (quoting HUMPRHEY BRAILSFORD, THEPOORMANSHELP40(London1692)).

118.See SHEPARD, supra note 64, at 151 (Patriarchal expectations of orderlycomportment in men were therefore directly contravenedby codes of conductwhichseemtohavegovernedmens interaction inthestreetsandfieldsofearlymodernEngland.).

119.Id.at140.

120.ConsiderhowHobbesmisrepresentedAristotlesthoughtsabouttheinherentlysocialnatureofhumanbeings.SeeDONHERZOG,HAPPYSLAVES:ACRITIQUEOFCONSENTTHEORY77(1989).


23/72


What isclear isthattheaccountsofmenas infantileanddependent,inFilmersterms,orashypermasculineandviolent,inHobbess,werecriticalinbolsteringthecaseforabsolutemonar

chy.Yetcriticsofabsolutemonarchyexistedaswell.EvenbeforeThomas Paine compared the king to an ass,121 English advocates for limited government made themselves heard. WritingnearlyonehundredyearsbeforePaine,nonewasmoreprominentthanJohnLocke.

III. LOCKESATTACKONPATRIARCHALISMANDABSOLUTEMONARCHY

A contemporary of Sir Robert Filmer,John Locke used hisTwo Treatises of Government to skewer Filmers ideas, whichLockereferredtoasglibNonsenceputtogetherinwellsound

ing

English.122

Filmer

had

argued

that

the

king

properly

exer

cised absolute right over his subjects as a father did over hischildren.123ThenormativeforceofFilmersargumenthungonaparticularifbyour lightspeculiarreadingof theaccountof Adam in the Old Testament. It was a reading that Lockewouldnotsuffer.

First, Filmer argued there was never a time when men enjoyednaturalfreedom,becauseAdamwasthefirstpatriarchalking, in a long line of kings, tobe granted a rightby God torule over others.124 Locke incredulously retorted, WhateverGodgavebythewordsofthisGrant[intheBookofGenesis],itwas not to Adam in particular, exclusive of all other Men:

whatever

Dominion

he

had

thereby,

it

was

not

a

Private

Do

minion, but a Dominion in common with the rest of Mankind.125 The Bible, Locke explained, declared that God hadgivenallmen,notjustAdam,arightofdominion.126Mischievously,Lockealsopointedout thatGodhadgiven thepowerofdomaintothemonlyafterHehadcreatedEve,thussuggest

121.THOMAS PAINE, COMMON SENSE, reprinted in THOMAS PAINE, COLLECTEDWRITINGS5,16(EricFonered.,1995)(1776)[hereinafterPAINECOLLECTION].

122.JOHN LOCKE, TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT 13738 (Peter Laslett ed.,CambridgeUniv.Press1988)(1691).

123.SeeFILMER,supranote94,at1012.124.Seeid.at7.

125.

JOHN

LOCKE,

The

First

Treatise

on

Government,

in

LOCKE,

supra

note

122,

at

141,161(emphasisremoved).126.Seeid.


24/72


ing in a mood of protofeminism that God had given Eve anequalrighttorule.127Besides,hejeered,whywouldGodwanttorewardwithkingshipa foolas insolentasAdam,whodis

obeyedHisordersandfelltosin?128Thiswasnotatime,whenAdamcouldexpectanyFavours,anygrantofPriviledges,fromhisoffendedMaker.129

Next,LocketackledFilmersargumentthatAdamembodiedand introduced the inviolable principle that fathers may ruletheirchildren,andthat,byextension,kingsmayruletheirsubjects.ForasAdamwas lordofhischildren,Filmerhaddeclared,sohischildrenunderhimhadacommandandpowerovertheirownchildren,butstillwithsubordinationtothefirstparent,who is lordparamountoverhischildrenschildren toallgenerations,asbeingthegrandfatherofhispeople.130PuttingasidethecuriousabsenceofanyrecognitionbyFilmerthat

Adam is conventionally accepted as the father of all peoplesafterhim,what isLockesresponse?LockesuggestedthatFilmerbelievedfathershavePowerovertheLivesoftheirChildren,becausetheygivethemLifeandBeing.131ThisargumentpresupposesthatexposingorsellingtheirChildrenisaProofoftheirPoweroverthem.132ButLockesnappedbackthattheDensofLionsandNurseriesofWolvesknownosuchCrueltyasthis.133[D]oes[God]permitus,Lockeasked,todestroythosehehasgivenustheChargeandCareof,andbythedictatesofNatureandReason,aswellashisRevealdCommand,requiresustopreserve?134

AftercriticizingFilmer,Lockeofferedhisownaccountofthe

originsof society.Whereas Filmerbegan withGods appointmentofAdamasthefirstkingonearth,Lockebeganhisnarrativewithastateofnatureprecedinggovernmentwhereallmenpossessedthesamerightsandobligations.135Astateofnature

127.Seeid.128.Seeid.at172.129.Id.130.FILMER,supranote94,at67.

131.LOCKE,supranote125,at178(emphasisremoved).132.Id.at180.133.Id.at181.

134.

Id.

135.JOHNLOCKE,TheSecondTreatiseofGovernment,inLOCKE,supranote122,at265,269.


25/72


isaStateofperfectFreedominwhichmenmayordertheirActions,anddisposeoftheirPossessions,andPersonsastheythink fit...withoutasking leave,ordependingupon theWill

ofanyotherMan.136Theonlymoral limit istheLawofNature.137 Locke explained that Reason, which is that Law,teaches all Mankind, who willbut consult it, thatbeing allequal and independent, no one ought to harm another in hisLife,Health,Liberty,orPossessions.138Thedescriptionofferedheremaybemoremysteriousthanwewouldwish,butitspolitical uses were palpable. Lockes pronouncement that menpossessreasonandthat,theoretically,anyonecouldusereasontocomprehendthelawofnaturerefutedtheguardiansofabsolutemonarchylikeHobbes,whoarguedthatmenweretoohypermasculine for selfgovernment, and Filmer, whobelievedthat men were too infantile. Furthermore, Lockes conception

of

the

state

of

nature,

by

acknowledging

the

equal

freedom

of

all to do as they think fit, rejected the notion that any oneman, including Adam, had unlimited power over anotherbyvirtue of divine right or goodbirth. Locke tried to fortify hisaccountofthelawofnaturebydubbingitameasureGodhasset to theactionsofMen,139acharacterization thatalso functionedasan indirectjabagainstFilmers relentless invocationofdivineauthority.

Alas,problemsariseinLockesstateofnature.Somemenwillfullyviolatethe lawofnature140whileothersdisagreeviolentlyover its ambiguous meaning as applied to their cases.141 LockelamentedthatnothingbutConfusionandDisorderwillfollow

in

the

state

of

nature.142

Self

love

will

make

Men

partial

to

themselvesand theirFriends143whileIllNature,PassionandRevenge will carry them too far in punishing others.144 This

136.Id.(emphasisremoved).137.Id.138.Id.at271.139.Id.at272.140.Seeid.at27576,280,351.141.Seeid.at351.

142.

Id.

at

275.

143.Id.144.Id.


26/72


situation imperils person and property.145 What began as aplacidstateofnaturedegeneratesintoastateofwarwheremenseek to subdue each other.146 To leave this state of war, Locke

argued,menmustconsentwitheachothertoentercivilsociety,for it is only in civil society that men can establish indifferentjudgeswithpowersofenforcement.147AccordingtoLocke,civilsocietyisformedwhenmencometogetherandagreetoabstainfromexercisingtheirindividualnaturalrightstoenforcethelawof nature.148 After such an agreement, men may create a governmentthatwillseektoprotecttheirsafetyandproperty.149

But this government is not without legal limits. Locke announcedthatwhenevertheLegislatorsendeavourtotakeaway,anddestroythePropertyofthePeople,ortoreducethemtoSlavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state ofWarwiththePeople,whoarethereuponabsolvedfromanyfar

therObedience.150[S]uchRevolutions,Lockequalified,happen not upon every little mismanagement in publick affairs.151For him, [g]reat mistakes in the ruling part, many wrong andinconvenientLaws,andalltheslipsofhumanefrailtywillbebornbythePeople,withoutmutinyormurmur.152Revolutionisjustified, however, if people have some manifest evidence regarding the evil intention of their Governors.153 In thesestatements, Locke distinguished himself from Hobbes.154Hobbeshadarguedthatintheabsenceofastate,there isviolent anarchy.155 Locke,by contrast,believed that civil societycansurvive thedismantlingofa tyrannicalstate.By thusdis

145.Seeid.at35051.Lockefoldedapersonsrighttohisbodilysafetyintotherightofproperty.HewrotethateveryManhasaPropertyinhisownPerson.ThisnoBodyhasanyRighttobuthimself.Id.at287.

146.Seeid.at27879.147.Seeid.at276,352.148.Seeid.at33031.149.Seeid.at33132.150.Id. at 412 (emphasis removed). Professor Mansfield remarked that Locke

encourages a manly vigilance in politics...that has endured to our time.MANSFIELD,supranote90,at176.

151.LOCKE,supranote135,at415(emphasisremoved).152.Id.at415(emphasisremoved).153.Id.at418.154.SeeMANSFIELD,supranote90,at177(Forthesakeoffreedom[Locke]al

lowed

more

to

manliness

than

did

Hobbes:

free

and

manly

go

together

like

soul

andbody,mutuallysupportiveandfitforeachother.)155.SeeHOBBES,supranote30,at76.


27/72


tinguishing civil society from the state, Locke added anotherconceptualpropagainstunlimitedmonarchy.

Notwithstandingthesepositions,Lockeneveradvocatedthe

abolishment of the monarchy; he only wanted restrictions onits rule.156 The general sentimentsbehind Lockes arguments,however,begantointensifyinAmericaandtomanifestthemselves through more democratic arrangements in governmentthatreliedonconceptionsofmaleidentitydifferentfromthoseofFilmerandHobbes.

IV. THEAUTHORITYOFTHEPEOPLEAsLockedemonstrated,theAmericanswerenotthefirstto

criticizethekingsabsoluteauthority.Whatsetthemapartwasthattheirpoliticalvisionentirelyrejectedtheneedforanyking.

Partly

for

this

reason,

the

historian

Gordon

S.

Wood

has

called

theAmericanRevolutionasradicalandsocialasanyrevolutioninhistory.157

Withtheirrejectionofpatriarchy,thecolonistspreparedfortheformalempowermentofthecommonpeople.Thegreatestexpressionof thisdemocraticethoswas theDeclarationof Independence.Herearetheoftquotedwords:

Weholdthesetruthstobeselfevident,thatallmenarecreatedequal,thattheyareendowedbytheirCreatorwithcertain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Libertyand thepursuitofHappiness.That tosecure theserights,Governmentsare institutedamongMen,deriving theirjust

powers

from

the

consent

of

the

governed,That

whenever

anyFormofGovernmentbecomesdestructiveoftheseends,itistheRightofthePeopletoalterortoabolishit,andtoinstitutenewGovernment, layingitsfoundationonsuchprinciples and organizing its powers in such form, as to themshallseemmostlikelytoeffecttheirSafetyandHappiness.158

Though familiar, the words are startling whenjuxtaposedagainst thearguments of Hobbes and Filmer. Hobbes had ar

156.LOCKE, supra note 135, at 40203. Note here that Lockesjustification forwritinghismostfamouswork,TheSecondTreatiseofGovernment, istoestablishthe Throne of our Great Restorer, Our present King William; to make good his

Title,

in

the

Consent

of

the

People.

LOCKE,

supra

note

122,

at

137.

157.GORDONS.WOOD,THERADICALISMOFTHEAMERICANREVOLUTION5(1992).158.TheDeclarationofIndependencepara.2(U.S.1776).


28/72


gued that men,being violently hypermasculine, could securecollectivepeaceonlybyconsentingwitheachothertoobeyalmostanycommandbythesovereign.AccordingtotheDecla

ration,menconsentnotwitheachotherbutwiththeirpoliticalleaderssuchthatwhenevergovernmentbecomesdestructiveof the ends of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness,menmayalteror...abolishit.AndwhereasHobbeswouldpermit resistance only when the sovereign threatened death,the Declaration states that such resistance is warranted whenthegovernmentthreatensamansrighttolibertyorevenhappiness.TheDeclarationalsochallengesFilmersaccountofpoliticalauthority.AlthoughFilmerhadinvokedGodasasourceofthekingsabsoluteauthority,theDeclarationinvokesGodasthe source for the peoples right to depose such authority. Sotoo, Filmer had posited that the privileged few were selected

by

God

to

rule

over

others;

the

Declaration

proclaims

that

all

menarecreatedequal insofarasallpossessrights torevolution. The closest English analogue to the Declaration of Independence is Parliaments Declaration of Rights in 1689.159 Yetthe latterdidnotrefertothosethingsthatdefinedtheAmericanDeclarationofIndependence:theuniversalequalityofmenandthepeoplesrightofrevolution.160

TheFederalConstitutionalsolocatesitsauthorityinthePeople.ItsPreamblereads:

WethePeopleoftheUnitedStates,inOrdertoformamoreperfectUnion,establishJustice,insuredomesticTranquility,provideforthecommonDefence,promotethegeneralWel

fare,andsecuretheBlessingsofLibertytoourselvesandourPosterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for theUnitedStatesofAmerica.161

Thereisnomentionofkings.TheConstitutioniscreatedbythePeopleoftheUnitedStatesandforourselvesandourPosterity.162 Likewise, the Ninth Amendment states that [t]heenumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall notbeconstrued to deny or disparage others retainedby the peo

159.SeeMICHAELP.ZUCKERT,NATURALRIGHTSANDTHENEWREPUBLICANISM5,7(1994).

160.

See

id.

at

614.

161.U.S.CONST.pmbl.162.Seeid.


29/72


ple.163TheTenthAmendmentsimilarlyidentifiescertainrightsownedby thepeople that theoreticallycanbeusedagainst thegovernment:ThepowersnotdelegatedtotheUnitedStatesby

theConstitution,norprohibitedbyittotheStates,arereservedtotheStatesrespectively,ortothepeople.164

Animatingtheseinstitutionalcommitmentsisthephilosophyof republicanism.165 Although ambiguous, the term does findreferenceintheConstitution:TheUnitedStatesshallguaranteetoeveryStateinthisUnionaRepublicanFormofGovernment,andshallprotecteachofthemagainstInvasion.166JamesMadison insisted thatthenewAmericangovernmentmustbestrictlyrepublicanandthatnootherformwouldbereconcileable with the genius of the people of America.167 Whatthen are the distinctive characters of the republican form?askedMadison.168Heanswered:

[W]emaydefinearepublictobe,oratleastmaybestowthatnameon,agovernmentwhichderivesallitspowersdirectlyor indirectly from the greatbody of the people; and is administeredbypersonsholdingtheirofficesduringpleasure,foralimitedperiod,orduringgoodbehaviour.Itisessentialtosuchagovernment,thatitbederivedfromthegreatbodyof the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or afavoured class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical no

bles, exercising their oppressionsby a delegation of their

163.U.S.CONST.amend.IX.164.U.S.CONST.amend.X.NotealsothatArticleVsmechanismsforconstitu

tionalamendingmaybeunderstoodasendorsingparticipationbythepeopleand

theirimmediaterepresentativesinconstitutionalrevision.WAYNED.MOORE,CONSTITUTIONALRIGHTS ANDPOWERSOFTHEPEOPLE5 (1996).ChiefJusticeJohnMarshallechoedthisview:ThegovernmentoftheUnion...is,emphaticallyandtruly,agovernmentofthepeople.Inform,and insubstance, itemanatesfromthem.Itspowersaregrantedbythem,andaretobeexerciseddirectlyonthem,andfortheir

benefit.McCullochv.Maryland,17U.S.(4Wheat.)159,199(1819).165.SeeCASSR.SUNSTEIN,THEPARTIALCONSTITUTION(1993);SuzannaSherry,

ResponsibleRepublicanism:EducatingforCitizenship,62 U. CHI. L. REV. 131 (1995);Symposium,TheRepublicanCivicTradition,97YALEL.J.1493 (1988).SeegenerallyM.N.S. SELLERS, AMERICAN REPUBLICANISM: ROMAN IDEOLOGY IN THE UNITEDSTATES CONSTITUTION (1994). Professor Laura Kalman argues that some prominent leftwing professors have mangled republicanisms historical character intheir zeal to conscript it as a philosophicalbanner. See LAURA KALMAN, THESTRANGECAREEROFLEGALLIBERALISM(1996).

166.U.S.CONST.art.IV,4.

167.

THE

FEDERALIST

NO.

39,

at

194

(James

Madison)

(George

W.

Carey

&

James

McClellaneds.,2001).168.Id.


30/72


powers, might aspire to therank of republicans, and claimfortheirgovernmentthehonourabletitleofrepublic.169

Madisonexplained thatAmericaalonehada trulyrepublican

government.EvenEngland,with itsconstitutionand itsseparation of powers, was not republican in his viewbecause itsgovernmentwaspartlycontrolledbyahereditaryaristocracyandmonarchy.170Nowonder thegenerally lowkeyMadisondeclared that the colonists accomplished a revolution whichhasnoparallelintheannalsofhumansociety.171

Yet,because the republicanism articulatedby the Constitution lacked precedent, anxiety about its success abounded.AlexanderHamiltonatonceacknowledgedtheauthorityofthepeople and the dangers of giving them untrammeled discretion.Forhim,theprojectofrepublicangovernmentcouldbeinterpreted as a test to determine the important question of

whethersocietiesofmenarereallycapableornot,ofestablishing good government from reflection and choice, or whethertheyareforeverdestinedtodepend,fortheirpoliticalconstitutions,onaccidentandforce.172ItisentirelypossibleforAmericans tomakeawrongelection,173ashistoryshows thatevensmall republics floundered.It is impossible,Hamiltonwrote,to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy,without feelingsensationsof horroranddisgustat thedistractionswithwhichtheywerecontinuallyagitated,andattherapidsuccessionofrevolutions,bywhichtheywerekeptperpetuallyvibratingbetweentheextremesoftyrannyandanarchy.174

Evenifthereferencestotyrannyandanarchydonotex

actly maponto what Hobbes had called, respectively, absolute

169.Id.Seealsoid.NO.49,at261(JamesMadison)([T]hepeoplearetheonlylegitimatefountainofpower.).Ontheotherhand,theFederalistPaperswerenotinfavorofdirectdemocracy.Seeid.NO.10,at46(JamesMadison)([A]puredemocracy,bywhichImean,asocietyconsistingofasmallnumberofcitizens,whoassembleandadministerthegovernmentinperson,canadmitofnocureforthemischiefsoffaction.).

170.Id.NO.39,at194(JamesMadison).171.Id.NO.14,at67(JamesMadison).172.Id.NO.1,at1(AlexanderHamilton).JohnJayofferedarelated invitation:

When the people of America reflect, that the question now submitted to theirdetermination,isoneofthemostimportantthathasengaged,orcanwellengage,their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a

very

serious,

view

of

it,

must

be

evident.

Id.

NO.

2,

at

5

(John

Jay).

173.Id.NO.1,at1(AlexanderHamilton).174.Id.NO.9,at37(AlexanderHamilton).


31/72


monarchy and the state of nature, Hamilton, like Hobbes, appearedtorecognizethatmansinherentflawscansabotageselfgovernment.Happywillitbe,Hamiltonmused,ifourchoice

shouldbedirectedbyajudiciousestimateofourtrueinterests,uninfluencedby considerations foreign to the public good.175But,helamented,thisismoreardentlytobewishedfor,thanseriouslytobeexpected.176FortheplanoftheFederalConstitutionaffectstoomanyparticularinterests[and]innovatesupontoomanylocalinstitutions,nottoinvolveinitsdiscussionavarietyof objectsextraneous to itsmerits,andof views,passionsandprejudiceslittlefavourabletothediscoveryoftruth.177

Madison also voiced these worries, especially with regard tofactions. He defined a faction as a majority or minority of thewhole,whoareunitedandactuatedbysomecommonimpulseofpassion,orofinterest,adversetotherightsofothercitizens,orto

thepermanentandaggregate interestsof thecommunity.178

Toextinguishthecausesoffactionswouldbeimpossible,forthelatentcausesof factionaresown in thenatureofman.179First,there is mans reason, which remains fallible and which willengenderdifferentopinionsthatwillorganizethemselvesintoconflictinggroupinterests.180Second,[a]slongastheconnectionsubsistsbetweenhisreasonandhisselflove,hisopinionsandhispassionswill have a reciprocal influence on eachother;and theformer will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.181Indeed,Madisonlamentedthat[i]nallverynumerousassemblies,ofwhatevercharacterscomposed,passionneverfailsto wrest the sceptre from reason.182 So inevitable is passions

force

that

[h]ad

every

Athenian

citizen

been

a

Socrates,

every

Athenianassemblywouldstillhavebeenamob.183Theseobservationssuggestthat,becauseofdefectsinmansna

ture, republics were not guaranteed to remain stable. Paradoxically,theFramershadnochoicebuttoputmuchoftheirfaithin

175.Id.NO.1,at1(AlexanderHamilton).176.Id.177.Id.178.Id.NO.10,at43(JamesMadison).179.Id.180.Id.

181.

Id.

182.Id.NO.55,at288(JamesMadison).183.Id.


32/72


33/72


similarviewsinasermondeliveredbeforetheNewHampshirelegislatureonthecommencementofthestatesnewconstitution.

Inaword,thehistoryofallnationsandages,shewsthatpub

licvirtuemakesapeoplegreatandhappy,vicecontemptibleand miserable....In absolute governments, the principle ofhonormay insomemeasuresupply theplaceofvirtue,andthere maybe the shew of public happiness and grandeur,whilethepeoplearereallyinastateofslavery;butasvirtueisthebasisofrepublics,theirexistencedependsuponit,andthemoment that thepeople ingeneral lose their virtue,andbecomevenalandcorrupt, theycease tobefree.Thisshewsofwhat importance itis topreservepublicvirtueundersuchaconstitutionasours,andhowmuchitbecomesallwhohaveanyregardtothegoodoftheircountry....191

Here,McClintockexplicitlysegregatedhonor fromvirtue

by

charging

virtue

to

do

work

for

the

good

of

their

country,

whilerebuffinghonorasobsessedwithvenality.Whatdothesecallsforpublicvirtuehavetodowithmale

identity and the Constitution? Public virtue made demandsonmentofashiontheiridentitiesinawaythatwouldevincetheircompetenceforselfgovernment.ThismeantthatAmericanmenalsohadtorefutethecompetingdescriptionsofmaleidentity ascribed to themby those, like Filmer and Hobbes,who would have denounced the Constitution as unviable ordangerous.Americanssoughttoshowthattheirmenwereneither hypermasculine nor infantilized, both traits that mademen ineligible for constitutional democracy in the eyes of

Hobbes

and

Filmer.

The

Americans

thus

produced

an

ideal

of

agentlemanwhonotonlywasabidinglycivil in the faceofinsultsand injuries,butalsoalwaysinsistedonthinkingforhimselfwithcalmdeliberation.Civilityanddeliberation,then,becametwooftheforemostpublicvirtuesforAmericanmen.

A. CivilityBeyond itsaffiliationwithadaintyetiquette,civilitycanbe

an indispensable social adhesive for a community. As hintedby its etymological presence in civilization and civil society, civility is atbase an ethic of cooperation, or as Stephen

191.SamuelMcClintock,ASermononOccasionof theCommencementof theNewHampshireConstitution,in1POLITICALSERMONSOFTHEAMERICANFOUNDINGERA,17301805,at789,805(EllisSandozed.,1998).


34/72


Carterwrote,thesumofthemanysacrificeswearecalledtomake for the sake of living together.192 And living togetherimpliestheexistenceofacommunity,aconnectionmadelucid

in thenowforgottenbutoncetangledsemanticoriginsofcivilityandcitizenship.193Usingcivility to refer to the latter,Coverdalein1568wroteinChristsCrossthat[y]ourjoyisinheaven,whereyourconservationandcivilityis.194Referringagain to citizenship, WyclifesActs from 1382 reads, I withmoche summe gat this ciuylite.195 Similarly, civility onceserved as a standin for [p]olity, civil organization and government.196Towit:In1537,Starkeyannounced inToPolethat[i]nthejoyningofthesetwolivestogether...stondeththechiefpoint of true christian civility.197 More generally, civility was[c]onformity to theprinciplesofsocialorderandbehaviourbefitting a citizen.198 So Spenser declared in 1596 that [t]hey

should

have

beene

reduced

to

perpetuall

civilitie,

and

Milton

wrotein1641thatitwasimportant[t]oinbreedandcherishinagreatpeopletheseedsofvertu,andpublickcivility.199

Of course, the contemporary understanding of civility doesnotconflateitwithcitizenship.Evenbythe1600s,peopleusedcivility to mean an act or expression of politeness200 and[d]ecency and seemliness.201 As the Chicago sociologistEdwardShilsexplained,civilityaswepresentlyunderstanditisabroaderphenomenonthancitizenshipinthestate.202Hepositedthatcitizenshipisaphenomenonofthestate,inthatitisthecomplexofactionsofsubmissionto,criticismandactiveguidanceofthegovernment.203Bethatasitmay,Shilsmadea

192.STEPHENL.CARTER,CIVILITY:MANNERS,MORALS,ANDTHEETIQUETTEOFDEMOCRACY11(1998);seealsoJohnM.Kang,TheUsesofInsincerity:ThomasHobbessTheoryofLawandSociety15L.&LITERATURE371(2003)(makingananalogousargument).

193.See3OXFORDENGLISHDICTIONARY256(2ded.1989).194.Id.195.Id.196.Id.at257.197.Id.198.Id.

199.Id.200.Id.201.Id.

202.

EDWARD

SHILS,

THE

VIRTUE

OF

CIVILITY:

SELECTED

ESSAYS

ON

LIBERALISM,

TRADITION,ANDCIVILSOCIETY73(StevenGrosbyed.,1997).203.Id.ThepoliticaltheoristJudithShklarelaborated:


35/72


suggestivecommentaboutcivilitys relation topoliticalmembership:

Civilityisneverthelessafunctionofasenseofmembership

inanationalsocietycoterminouswiththeboundariesofthestate.Thesocietywhichistheobjectofcivilityisanationalsociety;thestatewithinwhichitoperatesisanationalstate.Nationality and civilityseemed at one time to grow apace;theywerenotidenticalbuttheywereintimatelyintertwined

becausecivilitywasfocusedonthenationalsociety.204

These remarks at first seem somewhat implausible. Are wenotciviltothosewhoarenonAmericans,and,whentravelingabroad,havewenotbeentreatedwithcivility,evenbypeoplewhohateourgovernment?Still,althoughnotthesameascitizenshipornationalism,civilitycanserveasameanstowardanations collective identity and socialcohesion.Recall Lockes

account of civil society as separate from the state. For Locke,theabsenceofthelatterneednot,asHobbesthreatened,returnpeople to thestateofnature;civilsocietycouldendure.Shils,likeLocke,declared that[t]he ideaofcivilsociety is the ideaof society which has a life of its own, and which is separatefromthestate,andlargelyinautonomyfromit,whichliesbeyondtheboundariesofthefamilyandtheclan,andbeyondthelocality.205Oneindexofaproperlyfunctioningcivilsocietyis,forShils,awidespreadpracticeofcivility.206Forcivility,inpoliticalterms,isanattitudeofconcernforthegoodoftheentiresociety....It issolicitousof thewellbeingof thewholeofthe

Goodcitizenshipshouldnotbeconfusedwithwhatisusuallymeantbygoodness....Goodcitizens fulfill thedemandsof theirpolity, and theyarenobetterandnoworseascitizensthanthelawsthattheyframeandobey.Theysupportthepublicgoodasitisdefinedbytheirconstitutionand itsfundamentalethos.Thegoodpersonandthegoodcitizencouldonlybe identical in aperfectstate, and even thenonly if we accept thenotion thatcivic virtue, manly rectitudeas the term implies, is thebesthumancharacter.Withthatexception thepossibilityof tensionbetweenpersonalmoralityandcitizenshipisalwayspossibleandevenlikely,andthereare,ofcourse,regimessoterriblethatgoodpeopleareboundtobe

badcitizensthere,butAmericahasneverbeenquitethatbad.JudithN.Shklar,AMERICANCITIZENSHIP:THEQUESTFORINCLUSION67(1991).

204.SHILS,supranote202,at17(differentiatingnationalityfromcivilityandnotingthat[w]hennationalitybecomesnationalistic, itusuallyhasbecomeuncivilas well; the demand for complete national solidarity has often involved uncivil

suppression).

205.Id.at32021.206.Seeid.at32021,335.


36/72


larger interest.207 But unlike nationalism, which places nationalprideaboveindividualwellbeing,civilityisrespectforthedignityandthedesirefordignityofotherpersons.208Ci

vilityis,Shilsstated,conductwhichaccords,howeversuperficially and however conventionally, esteem to others, eitherfor particular properties or in general.209 A civility worth itsnametreatsothersas,atleast,equalindignity,neverasinferior in dignity.210 And consider Professor Carters injunctionthat[r]ulesofcivilityare...alsorulesofmorality: it ismorallyproper to treatour fellowcitizenswithrespect,andmorally improper not to.211 So, too, Shils declared, civility as afeature of civil society considers others as fellowcitizens ofequaldignityintheirrightsandobligationsasmembersofcivilsociety.212Evenwhencivilityisinsincere,213theseremarkssuggest that, at its heart, civility as a political practice involves a

commitment,

albeit

sometimes

only

an

outward

one,

to

treat

those inonescommunitywithequalrespect.Here itmightbeuseful to compare the civility on offer to the honor soughtbymeninHobbessEngland.Civility,byitsverymeaningasequalrespectordignity,issomethingthatallcanpossess.Indeed,thelogicofcivilityrequires thatonebestow itonothers insteadofhoardingitforoneself.Honorispreciselytheoppositeofcivilityinsofarasitdoesnotacquireitsvalueunlessitisdeniedothers.

Consonant with this rendering of honor, Hobbes announcedthattheacknowledgementofpoweriscalledHONORandthatHONOURABLE are those signs for which one man acknowledgethpowerorexcessabovehisconcurrent inanother.214So

runs

the

litany

of

things

that

Hobbes

deemed

honorable:

Beauty of person, consisting in a lively aspect of the counte

207.Id.at335.208.Id.at338.209.Id.210.Id.211.CARTER,supranote192,at11.212.SHILS,supranote202,at338.Onecannotbecompletelycivilfor[s]elfishness

and parochiality are inexpungible from human life. Id. at 350. Plus, we may notwantconsummatecivility:civilitycanstiflediversity,dissent,and innovation, thesortsofthingsthataliberaldemocracydesiresandnourishes.Seeid.at97.

213.

See

Kang,

supra

note

192.

214.THOMASHOBBES,THEELEMENTSOFLAWNATURALANDPOLITIC48(J.C.A.Gaskined.,OxfordUniv.Press1994)(1640).


37/72


nance;215generalreputationamongstthoseoftheothersex;216toteachorpersuade...becausetheybesignsofknowledge;217riches;218 nobility...as signs of power in the ancestors;219

authorityasasignofstrength,wisdom,favourorrichesbywhich it is attained.220 All of these qualities are honorablebecause they are possessedby a few. This is why nobles dueledoverchurchseats,cordwainersfoughtoverwhosebootwasbetter, and squires pummeled each other for the attention of theking.Theregardforhonorobviouslydoesnothavetotakesuchviolent forms,but inearlymodernEngland, itdid.Civility,ontheotherhand,seekstomakeitselfavailabletoeveryoneintherelevant community; it isby nature a democratic resource ofwhichallarepresumptivelydeserving.

We should notbe surprised, then, that the American colonists adopted civility as a cornerstone of their republican vir

tue.221

After all, under republican government, the peoplesought togovern themselveswithoutaking.Civility,with itsemphasis on equal respect, would seem patently serviceable.Anexplorationoftheparticularsfollows.

1. CriticismoftheKingLet usbegin with the colonists criticism of monarchy, for

thisalsofurnishesuswithacommentaryabouthowmeninarepublican democracy should embrace civility and abjure hypermasculinity.ThomasPainedeliveredthemostincisivecriticisms against monarchic rule. Paine denied that kingsbeganfromanhonorableorigin,222fortheirsisfoundedonanarro

gantanddangerousmasculinity:

Itismorethanprobable,thatcouldwetakeoffthedarkcoveringofantiquity,andtracethem totheirfirstrise,thatwe

215.Id.at4849.216.Id.at49.

217.Id.218.Id.219.Id.220.Id.221.NotehereShilssroughequationofcivilitywithMontesquieusaccountof

republicanvirtue.SeeSHILS,supranote202,at335.JohnRawlssaccountofcivility

is

roughly

complementary

to

those

of

Shils

and

Montesquieu.

See

JOHN

RAWLS,

POLITICALLIBERALISM236(1993).222.PAINE,supranote121,at16.


38/72


shouldfindthefirstofthemnothingbetter than theprincipalruffianofsomerestlessgang,whosesavagemannersofpreeminence in subtility obtained him the title of chiefamongplunderers;andwhobyincreasinginpower,andextending hisdepredations,overawed the quiet anddefencelesstopurchasetheirsafetybyfrequentcontributions.223

Ajarringrhetoricalshiftwasastir.Filmerhadrepresentedthekingasthematureandmanlyfather,andHobbeshadstigmatized ordinary men as hypermasculine and requiring control.Bythelateeighteenthcentury,Painereversedtheseroles.Theking is a ruffian of some restless gang, whose savage manners...obtained him the title of chief among plunderers.224No longer thebenevolent patriarch, he overawed the quietanddefenseless topurchase theirsafetyby frequentcontributions.225Painedidnotarguethatthesovereignthreatenscivil

ity

just

because

he

wields

violence.

Hobbess

sovereign,

for

ex

ample, held a monopoly on violence but meant to subduehypermasculinemenforpurposesofcivilsociety.Bycontrast,the violenceondisplayby Painesmonarchsymbolicallyconnects him to the atavisticbrute in Hobbess state of nature;unlikeHobbesssovereign,Paineskingsignalstheabsenceofcivilsociety.

Thedifferenceliesinthelatterkingsattackoncivility.Paineskingusesviolencetoassaultthedignityofothers,andhetreatsthemasmeanstohissingularlypersonalends.WhereasCarterand Shils suggested that civility presupposes a community ofequals, the kings violence initiates a gunmans tyranny that

places

him

outside

the

limits

of

law.

By

laying

siege

to

the

norms

ofcivility,Paineskingfeelsnocompunctionintramplingontheprincipleoftheconsentofthegoverned.HencePaineworried:

WhenWilliamtheConquerorsubduedEngland,hegavethem law at the point of the sword; and until we consent,that theseatofgovernment, inAmerica,belegallyandauthoritatively occupied, we shallbe in danger of having it

223.Id.NotealsoFilmersconcessionthatmanykingsatfirstdomostunjustlyobtaintheexerciseof[thenaturalrightofasupremefather].FILMER,supranote94, at 11. But Filmer, unlike Paine, was quick to add that suc

Manliness and the Constitution by John M. Kang

Documents

Transcript of Manliness and the Constitution by John M. Kang