Keyword Assignment

In the colloquial sense, sovereignty generally refers to the highest level of authority to exercise control over something. In politics, this term is used to describe the government’s

control over their territory, in that they have the authority to levy taxes, create economic policies, conscript an army, create and enforce laws, etc. Foucault explained this when said that

“sovereignty is not exercised on things, but above all on a territory and consequently on the subjects who inhabit it” (Foucault, “Governmentality” 1978). For most of history, the

sovereignty of a state, regardless of if it was democracy, dictatorship, republic, etc., was

considered sacred. That is, any attempt to impede or interfere with the sovereign authority was

considered hostile and possibly an act of war. In fact, as Foucault stated, classical political theory gives the sovereign of a territory the right to do as he or she pleases. He said that “You know that in the classical theory of sovereignty, the right of life and death was one of sovereignty’s basic

attributes” (Foucault, “Society” 240). By this, he means that the sovereign lorded over the people in all aspects of their lives, including the right to kill. For example, if a king or queen ordered

someone to be executed, it was done without hesitation. Likewise, in the modern era, governments also have this right, in that they have a monopoly on the use of force. In modern democracies, the elected government is considered to have sovereignty, and they have the

authority over life and death to enforce the law.

However, recent political theory does not hold sovereignty as sacred as it once did. That is, in the modern era, to declare oneself a sovereign, the needs of the people and the approval of the international community needs to be met. Foucault brings up the example of the Nazi party in the 1930s and the 1940s. Although they were initially elected to office, they seized the state through deceptive and violent means. At the helm, the Nazis gained the authority over life and death, and they distributed this power to their underlings. “This power to kill, which ran through the entire social body of Nazi society, was first manifested when the power to take life, the power of life and death, was granted not only to the State but to a whole series of individuals” (Foucault, “Society” 259). The Nazis, as well as the fascists in Italy under Mussolini, demonstrated the need for a new definition of sovereignty. Foucault explained that “The

sovereign must always, if he is to be a good sovereign, have as his aim, ‘the common welfare and the salvation of all’” (Foucault, “Governmentality” 1978). Hitler did not, clearly, have the best interest of his people in mind, especially those that were persecuted and killed. Millions of Jews,

Blacks, Gypsies, etc. were put to death at the hands of the sovereign. Therefore, sovereignty

comes with certain responsibilities, and if these are not met, the people and the outside world are permitted to change the sovereign. As Hume put it, “It never was pleaded as an excuse for a rebel, that the first act he perform’d, after he came to years of discretion, was to levy war against

the sovereign of the state” (Hume 549). Here, he explains that it is the right of the people to rebel against the sovereign if power is being abused, an idea that certainly runs counter to the classical definition of sovereignty.

With the above in mind, today, sovereignty has a bit of a different definition. That is, a sovereign’s right to rule is only permitted with the consent of the international community. If a person or group has seized power in a way that is considered to be illegitimate, then the other

countries, the UN, etc. will not recognize their right to govern. This leads to the new government not having the protections and that other sovereigns would have. Also, if the new government is not abusing their power, then international law recognizes the right to intervene. This is a fairly new concept that did not exist until the UN was founded after World War 2. The UN Charter recognizes “The Responsibility to Protect,” which means that countries are permitted to violate the sovereignty of a state when the case can be made for genocide or crimes against humanity (Responsibility to Protect). For example, in the 1990s, war in Yugoslavia broke out, and Slobodan Milošević began committing genocide against Muslims. NATO responded by deploying aircraft to prevent further harm to these communities. Such an action would have been a clear violation of the classical definition of sovereignty, though the modern definition allows for it.

Therefore, the definition of sovereignty has changed over time. For most of history, it meant an absolute authority over the state and everything contained within, including the people. However, as people gained more power, they demanded the sovereign should have responsibility for their welfare. If not then rebellion was not only possible but expected. Likewise, as humanity’s understanding of human rights evolved, the sovereign came under the scrutiny of the outside world. If the sovereign misused his or her power, then their sovereignty was not recognized and could be violated under international law. With this in mind, the definition of this word is constantly changing, and will likely change again in the future.

Epidemic

The word epidemic, generally speaking, means the rapid spread of something that affects many people. It is usually used in the medical sense to refer to diseases, such as polio, smallpox, measles, and Yellow fever. All of these started small and spread quickly throughout the population due to their infectious nature. This word can also be used to describe other phenomena that spread quickly. For example, it can be used to describe emotions, economic

collapse, invasive species, etc., all of which are communicable, in a sense, allowing them to be transmitted quickly through a group, a country, or even the world. For leaders, preventing

epidemics are a major cause of concern, and vast amounts of resources are invested in doing so, as well as understanding the root causes of them. In fact, epidemics, whether medical, economic, or otherwise, are the result of misplanning and a lack of knowledge.

Thomas Malthus discusses this at length in his “An Essay on the Principle of Population.” In this now famous work, he says that both medical and economic epidemics are the result of overpopulation. He said that “But it is not improbable that among the secondary causes that produce even sickly seasons and epidemics ought to be ranked a crowded population and

unwholesome and insufficient food” (Malthus 36). When he first published this work in the late 1700s, he noticed, as did many others, that the population of Europe was rapidly climbing. He claimed that one consequence of this was that wages would decrease. With more people being alive, more labor would be available, thus forcing down wages. This explained the poverty that

he saw, and he predicted that it would lead to epidemic levels of abject poverty. As time went on, he believed, the world would end up in a state of poverty that was not sustainable, leading to

collapse, in much the same way as would happen if a disease is out of control. Malthus also saw that the food supply was not growing as fast as the population. To increase the food supply at this point in history it meant reclaiming new fields, which could only be a linear growth, whereas population grew exponentially. It was only a matter of time before there was not enough food, leading to people starving and society collapsing. Malthus said that “countries where subsistence was increasing sufficiency at times to encourage population but not to answer all its demands,

would be more subject to periodical epidemics” (Malthus 38). Here, he explained that periods of sufficient food lead to population growth but that the society could not handle the population growth due to a lack of further food and other resources.

For Malthus, other great thinkers, and leaders of all types, epidemics have always been a cause for concern. In particular, the threat of a rapidly spreading disease is always on their mind, as history is rife with examples when epidemics were destructive enough to change the course of history. Most notably was the Black Death, which was caused by the Bubonic Plague. During the 14th century, roughly half of the population of Europe, around 50 million people, were killed.

Such an event is not so easily forgotten. Foucault described how leaders have always been fighting to prevent something like again. He said that “This includes the direct effects of the geographical, climatic, or hydrographic environment: the problem, for instance, of swamps, and of epidemics linked to the existence of swamps throughout the first half of the nineteenth

century” (Foucault, “Society” 245). In this quote, he is describing how explorers and leaders, when they ventured into a new territory to create a colony or outpost, were aware of the threat that swamps posed. Swamps were the source of mosquitoes, some of which carried

communicable diseases, though they may not have been aware that this was the case. Rather, they merely made the connection of living near a swamp and the presence of disease and possibly an epidemic. Malthus contends that one of the reasons for the downfall of society due to overpopulation is an epidemic. As more people are living in more and more crowded areas, the rate of transmission increases exponentially, meaning an epidemic could spread at alarming rates. Likewise, with the need for more food to feed this population and more space to house them, new land would have to be reclaimed, meaning people would be forced to be in closer contact

with swamps or other potentially dangerous areas.

The above demonstrates the epidemics have caused untold damage to human civilizations and today they are still a cause for concern, though not for the same reasons. When Malthus formulated his ideas, they were valid, as he was correct about the exponential growth of population eclipsing food supply and other resources, leading to epidemics of both poverty and disease. However, this has not been the case for decades. Modern food production has largely

been able to keep pace with population growth due to innovations, such as advanced irrigation techniques, fertilizers, pesticides, etc. The food supply no longer grows linearly with each new field reclaimed for crops. Likewise, humanity has largely tamed the threat from mosquitoes and other medical threats. That is, humanity now has vaccines for Malaria, Smallpox, etc., as well as having better hygiene, nutrition, and various medications to prevent an epidemic. Though humanity is clearly in a better situation to prevent and combat an epidemic, some threats still remain. First, diseases are always cropping up and evolving, forcing medical professionals to

always be adapting and innovating. The most recent example of this is COVID-19, which sent the planet into lockdown and killed millions of people. Though medical professionals had plans ready for such an event, it caught them and the public off guard. Over time, the COVID-19 virus mutated, forcing medical professionals to create and distribute different types of vaccines to curb the spread and destruction. As of this writing, the world is still grappling with the virus.

Therefore, the word epidemic can have several meanings and has always been a major cause for concern. Some have defined it in the more general sense to refer to anything that

spreads quickly through a population. Malthus used it to refer to poverty. However, its most common use is to refer to a disease or virus, the spread of which could cause the collapse of

civilization. Epidemics have altered human history numerous times throughout history, and they will continue to do so in the future. In fact, humanity is in the middle of an epidemic altering its history, demonstrating just how destructive they can be. With this in mind, this word has been one of the most important and the most fearful.

Freedom

The word freedom is among the most ambiguous, though among the most important. In the most general sense, it can be defined to mean the ability to do what one pleases, such as what to say, speak, or act. However, through the lens of history, the meaning of this word has changed drastically, and in the last few centuries has humanity come closest to defining it in its truest

sense. That is, humanity’s success is due to two factors, individualism and cooperation.

Humanity progress is both due to the achievements of individuals and those of the group, and a person and a society must choose which they value most. If the line is drawn too close to one of these, then the other suffers. For example, if a society values individualism too much, then

society becomes fractured and dysfunctional. Likewise, if a society promotes collectivism too much, then high achievers are not able to meet their full potential, thus hurting human progress. In these terms, freedom depends on a healthy balance between the two.

There are numerous examples of the above in human history. In countries where the government controls the economy, education, healthcare, etc., individual achievement is stifled, though the needs of the group are met. For example, in communist China, the people do not have a large degree of freedom at the expense of collectivism, though their educational, medical, etc. needs are virtually guaranteed. On the other hand, in the US, people are given a larger degree of freedom, which allows for entrepreneurs and innovators to flourish, though many people struggle to have these same needs met. History has shown that giving people more freedom is generally for the better. Locke explained this in his idea of the social contract, in which people give up

certain freedoms for certain benefits afforded by the group. That is, he explains that man is born free, though this freedom is not guaranteed unless it can be protected by some form of government. To obtain this guarantee, man agrees to enter into a society and to obey its rules, giving him the protection of the freedoms he has left (Locke’s Political Philosophy). With this in mind, the highest extent of freedom depends on some balance between individualism and the

state.

This is best demonstrated in terms of economics. People are naturally productive, and they use their products to trade with others for products they cannot obtain. The market naturally sets prices based on supply and demand, and contracts are entered into with a certain degree of trust in the other party. In this example, individualism is paramount, as it enables people to reach their highest potential. However, a problem arises when bad actors are present. For example, if a person breaks a contract or steals private property, then a higher authority is needed to set things right. Hume explains that “the freedom and extent of human commerce depend entirely on a fidelity with regard to promises” (Hume 547). This means that human commerce depends on a

certain level of trust in the other parties doing business. When one of these parties, though, breaks this trust, then the state, in whatever form it may be in, is needed to reconcile the dispute and compensate the victim. In the context of this discussion, freedom, then, is somewhat dependent on a higher level of authority, which may be responsible for taking away other freedoms.

Most of modern human history has been defined by this struggle. From the Magna Carta to the American Revolution and from colonization to the modern struggle over states rights, people have yearned for freedom, while still having the protections afforded to them by the state.

Malthus discusses the French Revolution, in which he says “the forcing manure used to bring about the French Revolution, and to give a greater freedom and energy to the human mind, has burst the calyx of humanity, the restraining bond of all society” (Malthus 87). In this quote,

Malthus explained that the French Revolution certainly increased humanity’s freedom, as it did away with the entrenched monarchy. However, this plunged society into chaos, resulting in an even worse dictatorship under Napoleon. His point here is that some measure of authority is

needed for humanity to be organized and for society to function. Without it, though people have more freedom, people are not living in better conditions. This highlights the above point that freedom depends on a balance between individualism and the state. Likewise, Malthus said that “The whole business of settlements, even in it’s present amended state, is utterly contradictory to all ideas of freedom” (Malthus 29). Here, Malthus takes the other side of the argument, in that the monarchies of Europe are repressive and stand in the way of individual freedom. Again, this demonstrates the above, in that there is no clear answer as to where to draw the line between the individual and the group.

Ultimately, the word freedom is not so clearly defined, as demonstrated throughout history. On one hand, it means to be free of a higher authority that limits what a person can do, think, or say. On the other hand, a higher authority is necessary to guarantee certain freedoms at the expense of others. That is, man living in a perfect state of nature does not have the

protections of some form of government, no matter how primitive it might be. Therefore, human history is marked by different societies trying to figure out where to draw the line between the needs of the individual and the needs of the group, as each is needed for humans to thrive. There is no clear answer where this line should be drawn, meaning that the definition of freedom is

always open to interpretation by an individual and by the state. This struggle is likely going to continue, as evidenced by the ongoing struggle in the US between the federal government and the rights of the states.

Works Cited Foucault, Michael. Governmentality. College de France.

Foucault, Michel. Society Must Be Defended : Lectures at the Collége de France, 1975-76.

London Penguin [Ca, 2008.

Hume, David. “A Treatise of Human Nature.” Amazonaws.com, 1739,

oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/342/Hume_0213.html.

“Locke’s Political Philosophy.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 9 Nov. 2005, plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke-political/.

Malthus, Thomas Robert. An Essay on the Principle of Population. 1798. Cambridge University Press, 1798.

“United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect.” United

Nations, 2019, www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/about-responsibility-to-protect.shtml.