The concept of a social contract, traditionally understood as an agreement between individuals and their government, is increasingly being applied to the international sphere. While the origins of this idea can be traced back to philosophers like Thomas Hobbes, who emphasized the need for order and security, its modern interpretation, particularly as it relates to global cooperation, draws heavily from the work of Woodrow Wilson and, more recently, insights into cultural difference offered by anthropologists like Ruth Benedict and philosophers like Emmanuel Lévinas.
Hobbes, writing in the 17th century, posited that individuals cede certain liberties to a sovereign power in exchange for protection. This foundational idea, as McLean notes, highlights the inherent tension between individual freedom and collective security. The core principle, however, remains the establishment of a framework for predictable coexistence, allowing for basic societal functions like agriculture and personal safety. This need for security, according to Hobbes, is a fundamental “responsibility of the individual.”
The application of social contract theory to international relations is a more complex undertaking. Thomas Weatherall links the concept to notions of agreed-upon international laws and morality, suggesting a framework for governing interactions between states. However, it was Woodrow Wilson, in the early 20th century, who significantly expanded this notion, advocating for internationalism and “cooperative politics.” While not a strong proponent of the social contract domestically, Wilson’s vision centered on the sovereignty of nation-states and the establishment of international organizations – most notably, the League of Nations – to ensure collective security and peaceful coexistence.
Wilson believed that international cooperation, and a commitment to self-determination, could prevent future global conflicts. His approach, described as “Wilsonian idealism” by Steigerwald, aimed to create a liberal political world order. However, Kennedy points out that Wilson’s internationalism was also rooted in a pragmatic understanding of U.S. National security, believing that a stable international environment would reduce the need for domestic militarization.
A crucial, and often overlooked, dimension of the international social contract lies in acknowledging and respecting cultural differences. This is where the work of Ruth Benedict becomes particularly relevant. Benedict, drawing on the work of Oswald Spengler and Friedrich Nietzsche, developed a framework for understanding archetypal cultural differences between modern and traditional societies. She identified three major philosophical approaches characterizing Western modernism, contrasting them with the values and beliefs prevalent in traditional cultures.
Benedict’s analysis highlights the potential for profound differences in worldview. She describes a “Faustian” archetype, characterized by conflict and a relentless pursuit of knowledge, contrasting it with the “Apollonian” approach, which emphasizes harmony, tradition, and ritual. Nietzsche further complicates this picture with the “Dionysian” archetype, which seeks wisdom through ecstatic experience. Benedict notes that some cultures, like certain Eskimo groups, historically have not conceived of warfare, while for others, it is central to their way of life. These fundamental differences, she argues, must be considered when attempting to build a framework for international cooperation.
Importantly, Benedict acknowledges a historical preference for Western cultures in anthropological thought, but emphasizes the need to understand other cultures on their own terms. Her detailed examination of cultures like the Pueblo peoples of the American Southwest demonstrates a commitment to holistic understanding and a rejection of ethnocentric bias. She encourages a “relativity” of cultures, seeking to understand valuation across practices without resorting to simplistic judgments.
This recognition of cultural difference is further amplified by the work of Emmanuel Lévinas, who emphasizes the concept of “alterity” – the absolute uniqueness and otherness of the individual. Lévinas cautions against the tendency to view history as a harmonious process of conflict resolution, arguing instead that it is built upon a foundation of irreducible differences. He suggests that our willingness to recognize and appreciate the absolute alterity of others is crucial for transcending conflict and fostering genuine human connection.
The implications for the international social contract are significant. If we accept Benedict’s and Lévinas’ insights, then a successful framework for global cooperation must embrace and accommodate cultural diversity. This requires respecting the right of traditional peoples to maintain their lawful practices and traditions, as well as fostering an environment where both traditional and modern economies can coexist. As Sohn and Pyakurel suggest, this includes acknowledging the cultural sovereignty of different groups – their right to preserve their unique identities and ways of life.
This is not simply a matter of tolerance, but a recognition that diversity itself is a source of strength, and resilience. The coexistence of traditional and modern societies, economies, and cultures, from remote communities in the Amazon basin to bustling metropolises in Asia and Europe, is a defining characteristic of the 21st century. The challenge lies in creating a global framework that can accommodate this diversity while upholding the principles of peace, security, and justice for all. As Benedict observed, the alternative – a descent into conflict and fragmentation – is a path that humanity can ill afford to take. The goal, remains the sustaining of individual human life and communities, a principle at the heart of Hobbes’ original formulation of the social contract.
