Liberalism and African Culture

possessive individualism led to the development of the idea of a society in which the main concern was personal interest. It might be pointed out in passing that thought always informs the structure of society, or how people are to live. The society that was informed by abstract individualism is capitalist in nature. Horkheimer (1972) stresses the role of abstract individualism in the formation of a capitalist society: Bourgeois thought is so constituted that, in reflecting on the cognitive subject, it discovers with logical consistency the supposedly autonomous "ego." Its approach is essentially abstract and its guiding principle is an individuality which is sealed off from concrete events and which bombastically considers itself the ground of the universe, if not the universe itself ... The thinking subject [ego cognitans] is not the locus where thought and object coincide and which could function as launching pad for acquisition of absolute knowledge. Such an illusion nurtured by idealism since Descartes is ideology in the strict sense; for the limited initiative of the bourgeois individual here takes on the illusory form of absolute freedom and autonomy. However, in a non-transparent and unconscious society, the ego whether thinking or as practical subject cannot have a secure footing. In the [traditional] conception of man, subject and object are surrendered; their identity lies not in the present but the future. (pp. 210-211) Liberal individualism was given a theological interpretation by John Locke. In his second treatise on government, Locke stated that all individuals are "by nature" free and equal to each other. Like Hobbes, Locke (1967) spoke of morality by saying that individuals are free to "order their Actions, and dispose their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit" (section 4). Locke understood the state of nature, "properly," as a condition of people "living together according to reason, without a common superior on Earth, with authority to judge between them" (section 19). This condition is possible because God has given each individual reason in order to know how to live peaceably with others. This reason, unlike that of Hobbes, is not purely subjective; it is the reason of individuals who live socially and can "consult" one another and follow the rules embodied in the nature that God has provided to regulate their interaction with each other. The difference between Locke's posiThis content downloaded from 157.55.39.205 on Sun, 04 Dec 2016 04:52:29 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 204 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / DECEMBER 1990 tion and Hobbes's on the state of nature is that Locke's argument is "grounded on the theological conviction that God cannot have issued rules for men to obey and then have created beings who, in their most natural state, are necessarily unable to follow those rules" (Ashcraft, 1968, pp. 902-903). Locke attempted to move away from Hobbes's abstract individualism by putting reason, capacity to keep faith, and natural law as signposts to the way people should live together. It should be noted that this faith is based on the individual's capacity for reason and choice whether or not to follow the law of