Happy Slaves: A Critique of Consent Theory

by Don Herzog

.

Genres: Politics, Philosophy

Paperback

First published September 1, 1989

Reviews

[Kaleb · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another book down for my Paternalism class. I am apparently one of the first people to read this book, if Goodreads is any indication. The book is half history, half political philosophy; it traces the history of consent theory back to early modern England. Much of liberalism wasn't grabbed out of thin air, but was a response to the social and political problems of England at the time. For example, religious freedom emerged from the violent conflicts between Protestants and Catholics; Hobbes' view of sovereignty was a way of shutting down rebellions against the king. Super interesting book that shows the importance of history when grounding philosophical ideas; ideas don't come out of nowhere! I'll keep an eye out for this in the future, tracing ideas to particular historical events and processes.

[Elizabeth]

A book for my paternalism class.

[Nelson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a really spirited, robust historical critique of consent theory—the notion that what makes agents free is the fact that they can make choices. Herzog uses the classroom example of the happy slave to set his critique in motion: the idea that a slave can be brought to believe his situation is ideal and freely chosen and that he is content where he is. Most folks would react to this claim with outrage. In short, Herzog's project is to show why such outrage might be far too easy and, in the end, misplaced. To do this work, he goes back to the heyday of consent theory—seventeenth-century England. His romp through the minefield of conflicting opinions over religion and politics (not just among their seventeenth-century adherents but among the modern academic commentariat) is judicious, fair and often humorous. The lengthy back story is necessary to set the views of John Locke (for many, the father of Anglo-American consent theory) in their proper context (that is, it ain't just about Robert Filmer and putting the stake into the idea of obeying daddy anymore). This all necessitates pleasurable readings of often unpleasant thinkers like Hobbes. The historical work is necessary because ultimately Herzog wants to argue that consent theory _does_ do valuable work, even today, but that such work needs to be taken with an enormous amount of critical salt. The best chapter is the final one, where all the hard historical work pays off: "Consent theory is our map to what our social relations look like—and our guide to what they should look like. It is, on the whole, a reliable map, an admirable guide. But it isn't foolproof—how could it be?—and it isn't straightforward" (247). That's a pretty good summary of Herzog's argument; the pleasure (and one can't often say this about academic tomes of political philosophy) is in the getting to that point. Well worth reading for anyone trying to grapple with Hobbes or Locke or angry libertarians or stubborn Randians.