Thomas Hobbes and the Divine Politics of Anarchy

This chapter presents Thomas Hobbes as a theorist of imposed order. The central claim is that Hobbes’s conception of political order, an artificial arrangement arising from will and consent, reflects the intellectual commitments of nominalist theology. Uncovering the theological presuppositions of his thought opens space for an understanding of international order that is quite different from what the ‘Hobbesian’ tradition portrays as a domain of endemic violence. Hobbes is correctly imagined as a theorist of interstate society. The chapter examines the unity of philosophy and theology in Hobbes’s thought, focusing on a recurring analogy between divine action and human action. Human beings make and unmake their world, including the commonwealth, as God created the universe. Modern theorists reproduce these theological ideas when they invoke Hobbes to illustrate the character and consequences of anarchy. Hobbes, conceived as a theorist of imposed order, exemplifies what has become the dominant discourse of international order. The implication is that modern theories of international order might not be as uniquely modern or purely secular as contemporary theorists typically assume.

Order and Theology

This chapter introduces political theology as an approach to interpreting and analysing the idea of order. The central claim is that widely held conceptions of international order, for example, a multitude of states organized in terms of a spontaneous balance of power or relationships self-consciously constructed through will and consent, reflect intellectual commitments that originate in medieval theology. Specifically, the chapter argues that modern thinking about international order is mediated by rival theories of order that arise out of medieval dispute about the nature of God and the extent of his power. Two overriding objectives guide this investigation. The first is to provide a better intellectual history of late medieval and early modern traditions of thought and to illuminate how they shape contemporary thinking about international order. The second is to conduct a theoretical investigation of international order in terms of its presuppositions. This involves interrogating the conditions and assumptions that render the idea of international order intelligible as what it is. Uncovering this theological inheritance repositions widely shared beliefs about the place of theology in modern international thought, the debates that define the theoretical cartography of the field, and the kind of knowledge that explains the idea of international order.

Political Theology II

This chapter argues that the idea of a society of states (or international society) reflects the theory of imposed order. The central claim is that the constitutional character of international society is intelligible in terms of postulates that can be traced to nominalist theology. The society of states is an association composed of singular existents, with each being free in respect of all the others, which are related in a system of external relations—rules of law—that are legitimized by consent. The discussion explores the nominalist character of this way thinking in the context of medieval debates about the nature and government of the Church, which developed into a general theory of constitutional government. In this sense, a society of states, like a system of states, is a worldly application of nominalist theology. Differences between ideas of system and society are intelligible only from a position within a nominalist framework of thinking and knowing. The chapter concludes by discussing the indeterminacy of the theory of imposed order in a world that affords no recourse to God when trying to reconcile the demands of freedom and the requirements of order.

Martin Luther and the Theology of the Two Kingdoms

This chapter explores the nominalist orientation of Martin Luther’s separation of sacred and secular, signified by his two kingdoms framework. The aim is to show that his thinking about the nature of God, character of creation, and authority of Scripture resonates with the theory of imposed order. Luther gives priority to the will, as against reason, which follows from his preoccupation with God’s freedom and power. This points to an inner unity in Luther’s thought, whereby his theology informs a parallel understanding of reality that emphasizes the contingency of singular things, a system of external relations, and explanation in terms of efficient causes. Luther’s importance in this context is not discerned in what he contributes to political theory; he transmits the nominalist way of knowing and explaining reality that others would use to theorize political order. Consequently, his separation of the earthly kingdom and the spiritual kingdom does not de-theologize politics as much as signal the ascendency of the theory of imposed order and its theological commitments. In this respect, he contributes indirectly to a way of thinking and speaking about political order that stresses the nominalist vocabulary of will and artifice.

Renaissance, Reformation, and the Road to Westphalia

The purpose of this chapter is to challenge the ubiquitous narrative that portrays the transition from medieval to modern as the start of the progressive secularization of international relations. Setting the emergence of the modern states system against the backdrop of medieval institutions and practices privileges evidence of change, while concealing evidence of continuity. The discourse of Westphalia provides the dominant interpretive frame of this narrative. This chapter recovers threads of continuity, without denying the significance of change, by explaining the transition from medieval to modern in the context of change within inherited continuity. It examines the role of the Renaissance and Reformation, events regularly portrayed as harbingers of revolutionary change, in carrying ideas associated with the theory of imposed order into the modern world. The main contention is that the boundary that separates medieval and modern is less fixed and more porous than most theorists of international relations seem to realize. Neither the Renaissance nor the Reformation inaugurate a turn away from religion. Both emphasize the primacy of the will, consistent with the theory of imposed order, which is given to imagining political order as a construction born of word and deed. Recovering the threads of continuity that connect medieval and modern is a crucial step in advancing the larger argument of this book, namely that modern theories of international order reflect a medieval inheritance that can be traced to nominalist theology.

Rival Conceptions of Order

This chapter lays out rival conceptions of order. The theory of immanent order is predicated on a doctrine of internal relations such that mutually related things jointly compose an interconnected whole. This whole imparts a necessary and rationally intelligible pattern of place and purpose, knowledge of which is acquired by investigating both efficient and final causes. The theory of imposed order is predicated on a doctrine of external relations. Singular things, having no intrinsic connections, enter into relations that are imposed from without, either by legislation or the force exerted by an impersonal mechanism. The result is a contingent pattern of order that is explained with reference to empirical observation and investigating efficient causes. Each of these theories of order presupposes a particular conception of God and a particular interpretation of the creation story in Genesis. These theories provide the ground of the argument that is developed throughout this book, namely that modern theories of international order are deeply indebted to ideas traceable to the biblical conception of God and the emphasis it places on will, power, and might. The implications here are twofold. First, modern international thought did not emerge de novo with the collapse of medieval Christendom. Second, particular conceptions of God give rise to analogies and metaphors that are used to comment on questions of politics and law. The chapter concludes by suggesting that the character of modern theories of international order is negotiated by the distinctive commitments of these rival theories.

Hugo Grotius and the God of International Society

This chapter presents Hugo Grotius as a theorist of immanent order. Uncovering the theological presuppositions of Grotius’s thought suggests that the claims of the ‘Grotian tradition’ of international society are substantially incorrect. Grotius is neither the far-sighted jurist nor the pioneer of modernity that he is typically made out to be. Investigating his conception of God as both rational and free informs a hierarchical and interconnected pattern of order that is luminous to reason, consistent with the theory of immanent order. The chapter argues that, despite being credited with secularizing natural law, Grotius’s thinking about law and rights is accommodated within God’s rational plan of the universe. This leads to two further claims. First, Grotius’s thought is less modern and less secular than it is typically portrayed by theorists of international order. Second, his thought exemplifies one of two poles (the other is represented by Hobbes) between which modern theories of international order oscillate. However, the theory of immanent of order survives mainly as a rhetoric that is set against what is done in the name of will and artifice.

International Order Beneath an Empty Sky

This chapter lays out a tension that arises in a world that is dominated by the theory of imposed order, yet makes room for the theory of immanent order as a rhetoric that is set against what it done in the name of will and artifice. Theorizing international order in contemporary international relations can be interpreted as an attempt to negotiate these rival positions. However, the chapter makes the critical point that these theories of order represent incommensurable positions. The one cannot be assimilated to the other to form a coherent composite theory of order. The chapter discusses the implications of a world that is torn between these incommensurable positions. The theory of immanent order provides a sense of transcendent truth that conditions what human beings make and do, but in a constructed world, consistent with the theory of imposed order, this transcendent truth is an artefact of the same freedom it seeks to regulate. This is a consequence of substituting human decision in place of God to secure the regularity of international order. Secular alternatives to God are sustained in the same way that nominalist theologians repose confidence in God: through faith or belief. The chapter concludes by arguing that this theological inheritance begins to unravel at a certain point because, unlike God, human beings are conditionally, rather than absolutely, good. The danger is that abiding uncertainty exposes the regularity of international order to the arbitrary whims of power.

Political Theology I

This chapter argues that the idea of a system of states exemplifies the theory of imposed order. The chapter begins by exploring the relation between theology and early modern mechanical philosophy. Comparing the operation of political systems to the operation of impersonal machines commonly rested on a parallel between the creative activity of human beings and the creative activity of God. This parallel retains the structure of a theological mode of argument, although God plays no direct role in explaining how such a system produces and maintains order. The structure of this mode of argument is present in prominent accounts of anarchy and the balance of power and it is reflected in analogies and metaphors that are invoked to explain how a system of states works. The chapter illustrates the logical efficacy of this argument in the context of Kenneth Waltz’s structural realism. Waltz translates the nominalist mental universe of singular existents, radical contingency, and a system of external relations into a states system composed of atomistic units, uncertainty born of abiding insecurity, and a pattern of order that springs from self-help. When this theological ground is uncovered it is possible to imagine a states system theorized in terms of anarchy and balance of power as the political analogue of the theological problem of reconciling God’s freedom with the regular order of nature.