Customer Reviews

The Politics Of Obedience The Discourse Of Voluntary Servitude

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

"The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude" has influencedsome of the world's greatest social thinkers; from Leo Tolstoy toMohandus Gandhi to Ayn Rand. Written in the 1550s, as something of an underground tract or pamphlet by a young French student and friend of essayist Michelle de Montaigne, this short work remains a timeless expose of the psychology and inherent corruption involved in social or political power. The work has been in and out of print in English (Some of its various titles over the years were "Slaves By Choice," "Anti-Dictator," "The Will To Bondage," and "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude"). In North America it has been out of print for some time now, unfortunately. Since its original circulation in the early 1550s as "de la servitude volontaire ou contr'un," this short but powerful work seems to find its way back into print whenever the winds of social change began blowing toward tyranny.

"The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude," written by the young French student and friend of Michelle de Montaigne, Etienne de la Boetie during the 1550s, is now a much neglected work (in English). The work's importance and timeless quality is comparable to that of Niccolo Machiavelli's "The Prince." It is a very brief work of about 40 pages in length. This brevity is part of the work's power. In these few pages, the author is able to explain the origin and inherent corruption of the tyranny of all government. The work is a classic in civil disobedience; I suppose you could say it defined the term. It should be read by all who value their freedom and view tyranny -- in any form -- as an abomination.

"...And you are at once free. I do not ask that you place hands on the tyrant, but merely cease to obey him, and you will see him, like a colossus, fall of his own weight and break into pieces." So begins this short classic. It reads as if written with words of fire. Astonishing clarity and moral certitude bathe the ideas expressed. There is no room for temporarizing in La Boiete; the breathtaking clarity of his ideas blew cobwebs from my mind. It was like learning to walk on two legs instead of four. Some toung in cheek references to how his rhetoric does not apply to the France of the Capetian dynasty merely add flavor and wit to his insights. Non-violent resistance and civil disobedience both trace their modern pedigrees to this work. This is a book for the ages, and it is a shame that it is not widely available in English. (Knowledge Products excerpts it on tape in their, "Giants of Political Thought" cassette series.) I wish every student could be given a copy of this book; then, our liberty would face a brighter future than now appears to be the case. -Lloyd A. Conway

Boetie wrote his "Discourse" around 1553 when he was about 22 years of age and a student at the University of Orleans. This libertarian essay, two centuries ahead of its time, was never published by the Catholic and soon-to-be conservative Boetie. Huguenots published it anonymously in 1574 and fully credited it in 1576 (Boetie died in 1563 at 32 years of age).

The "Discourse" is an abstract, universal, naturally reasoned argument passionately calling for widespread civil disobedience to tyranny. Harold Laski later made the observation that "A sense of popular right such as the Friend of Montaigne [Boetie] depicts is, indeed, as remote from the spirit of the time as the anarchy of Herbert Spencer in an age committed to government interference" (see his "A Defence of Liberty Against Tyrants, p 11). Boetie appealed to man's universal nature rather than presumed or real historical precedents resulting in a timeless document that speaks to all ages.

Boetie begins "I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him . . .". He asks "Shall we call subjection to such a leader cowardice? . . . If a hundred, if a thousand endure the caprice of a single man, should we not rather say that they lack not the courage but the desire to rise against him, and that such an attitude indicates indifference rather than cowardice? . . . What monstrous vice, then, is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice, a vice for which no term can be found vile enough?"

Boetie made a profound insight into the nature of the State - all states, including tyrannous ones, are based upon general popular acceptance.

Boetie continues "If we led our lives according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her, we should be intuitively obedient to our parents; later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody". He says ". . . there can be no further doubt that we are all naturally free", and asks "what evil chance has so denatured man that he, the only creature really born to be free, lacks the memory of his original condition and the desire to return to it?"

"He who thus domineers over you . . . How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?", he asks, ". . . you can deliver yourself if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed".

Boetie is saying that tyranny dissolves when the majority of the ruled withdraws its consent and thereby deprives the ruling minority of its support and grudging acceptance. Yet, the ruled seldom accomplish this. Boetie tells us the reason is "habituation":

"It is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come after them obey without regret and perform willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. This is why men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they are born . . . it is clear enough that the powerful influence of custom is in no respect more compelling than in this, namely, habituation to subjection. It is said that . . . nature . . . has less power over us than custom."

Boetie made a second profound insight into the nature of the State - all states are in essence a hierarchy of privilege that benefits a limited minority. In his illustration of this point, Boetie employes the language of natural law and natural rights.

Boetie also noted the State's use of propaganda and techniques of information warfare (IW) employed upon its subjects to maintain servility. He says "it has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration."

In conclusion, Boetie should be considered the first "Gandhi" or advocate of civil disobedience and it should be noted that he grounded his notions in man's natural right to liberty as dictated by natural law. His insights into the State ring true today. Modern Americans allow themselves to be regulated, taxed, and shipped off to invade and bomb their global neighbors to the same extent as their "cousins" across the pond in the United Kingdom - a phenomenon that no doubt has their liberty-loving forefathers rolling in their graves. Boetie hoped education would induce the withdrawal of consent, but as his turn to conservatism lays tribute, it is the weight of the yoke that prompts any reaction.

Etienne de la Boetie's THE POLITICS OF OBEDIENCE has also been named THE WILL TO BONDAGE edited by James J. Martin. The focus of the Boetie's book is the fact that the "Terrible Tyrant" is often a wimp and a coward and only survives because of the sychophants who readily obey him and betray each other to prove their loyalty.

Boetie cites historical examples of tyrants who ruled large populations due to the fact that their immediate supporters and the masses of people were immune to thinking that they could do better if their changes or regime changes. Yet, history provided very few examples up to the time of Boetie(the 16th. century). Boetie witnessed some of the excesses of the Reformation and Counter Reformation and the fact that tyrants were only too willing to take advantage of religious hatred to exploit their subjects.

Boetie's work is relevant in the 21st. century. The game of politics has not changed much except for the fact that The State has expanded exponentially since the 16th century. Boetie's argument that thinking only have to withdraw their support to bring the State to its knees which Ghandi did in India. Yet, there are so few surviving examples of this political ploy to expect too much except to write for the record.

What has made the situation worse is that the State has layers of burcaucracy with brainless bureaucrats who staff these powerful offices. These bureaucrats are basically useless and stupid and easily fit James J. Martin's description as "The New Stupid." They are useless which is why the State has made them indespensible.

This book has been reissued only a few times since it was first published in 1577. Yet, the reappearence of this book is a good sign that some people still consider it an important study in understanding the State

The Politics of Obedience, an essay by Etienne de la Boetie, a 16th century contemporary of Montaigne, begins by asking a question. How can tyrants rule over a multitude of men who, collectively, are many times stronger than the tyrant?

In the first part of his essay, De la Boetie gives a facile answer: that men insufficiently love liberty. (Two centuries later, David Hume provided the key to a more satisfying answer by describing the collective action problem: it is in the interests of all to overthrow a tyrant, but those who act first will bear a disproportionate share of the costs - indeed, they will very likely lose their lives. Knowing this, rational people hang back, waiting for someone else to act, with the result that no one does.)

Later in the essay, however, De la Boetie makes a valuable contribution by describing the patron-client relationships that always accompany tyrannies. A tyrant surrounds himself with a few chiefs and henchmen who protect the tyrant in return for the opportunity to amass wealth through their own little tyrannies. And each of them is supported by lower-ranking petty chiefs who support the regime so that they can extract wealth from the common people through still smaller tyrannies. In other words, men "accept servility to acquire wealth."

The essay is charmingly written and can be read in an hour or two. The paperback edition by Kessinger Publishing is elegantly produced but expensive.

Before MLK, Gandhi, Tolstoy, or Thoreau, there was the brilliant Etienne de La Boetie, who explored civil disobedience, resistance to tyranny, and the brutal exploitative nature of the state.

Murray N. Rothbard's insightful introduction places this pioneering work in historical context and in the pantheon of Libertarian classics.

Un ensayo del siglo 16 intitulado Discourse of Voluntary Servitude del jurista francés Étienne de La Boétie (1530-1563) discurre acerca de una cuestión que obsesiona a aquellos que aman la libertad: ¿Por qué los individuos obedecen leyes que son injustas?

El Discourse ofrece una perspectiva. El mismo examina la psicología de aquellos que obedecen, la de aquellos que imparten las órdenes, y la de aquellos que se resisten a ellas. La Boétie estaba en particular, interesado en dilucidar porqué obedece la gente. Se preguntaba, "Si un tirano es un solo hombre y sus súbditos son muchos, ¿por qué consienten ellos su propia esclavitud?"

La Boétie no consideraba que el estado gobernase principalmente a través de la fuerza. En principio, había muchos más esclavos que agentes del estado: incluso si un pequeño porcentaje del populacho se negaba a obedecer una ley, esa ley se volvía inaplicable. Además, la mayoría de los individuos obedecían sin que fuesen obligados a hacerlo. La Boétie desarrolló una explicación alternativa a la que denominó la "servidumbre voluntaria."

La Boétie adquirió su prestigio sobre la base de un breve ensayo en el que sostenía que la tiranía es "derrotada de manera automática" cuando los individuos se rehúsan a consentir su propia esclavitud. Su argumento ha llevado a que muchos concluyeran que la resistencia no-violenta y la desobediencia civil son las mejores estrategias con las cuales oponerse al poder estatal.