WI: A more Hobbesian Enlightenment?

What would the world be like if Hobbesian political theories had been more influential during the 17th and 18th centuries? Not necessarily so influential that everywhere in Europe became an absolute monarchy (though who knows, that might happen), but at least enough to squelch Rousseau-style theories of the inherent goodness of mankind, and to make the idea that man is naturally evil and needs restraining more or less taken for granted in political philosophy.
 
What would the world be like if Hobbesian political theories had been more influential during the 17th and 18th centuries? Not necessarily so influential that everywhere in Europe became an absolute monarchy (though who knows, that might happen), but at least enough to squelch Rousseau-style theories of the inherent goodness of mankind, and to make the idea that man is naturally evil and needs restraining more or less taken for granted in political philosophy.

Sounds like it would match well with Calvinism. Actually, I wanted to make a Calvin and Hobbes joke, but then I realized it might work seriously.
 
I wonder if a more positive experience witrh government, or a more negative with the people, might go some way there. Hobbes was not read very much, or appreciated (that's how we get the idea he proposed absolute monarchy). But his argument looks pretty compelling from the vantage point of the 1640s, at least if you're a part of the ruling classes. However, by the 1690s, let alone the 1750s, most philosophes can look back at decades of relative calm in which you could easily conclude that people, left to their own devices, are reasonably nice while government, always coming up with ways of bothering them, is not.

Of course, "government" (i.e. central government) in eighteenth century Europe was pretty shambolic, as a rule. Local government, by contrast, usually worked reasonably effectively, but by the lights of most thinkers, that was more 'self-organisation'. I think if more poeople at the time had had first-hand experience of situations where either the absence of central authority led to local authorities collapsing, or where the presence of strong central authority saved the day, they might be more willing to take a second look at that particular tenet of Hobbes, and discover he had other interesting things to say. It's telling, though probably not decisive, to note that very few Prussian intellectuals ever embraced Rousseau's view of government, and that is not because Prussia had no enlightened thinkers.
 
If the memory of the 30 year's war was a little fresher in the minds of both nobles and middle classes I can see them agreeing that men are brutish if allowed to be free of laws. Also I'm thinking right now, how much support did it get from the church because that would couple well with the doctrine of Original sin. Finally, If we distinguish Hobbes wanted an absolute government, even if it was an absolute parliament, and keep that line of thought more prominent I can see it gaining some traction with liberals.
 
Hobbes didn't much care for the church and may well have been an atheist, so church support is very unlikely. But the sanction of the Holy Mother is the last thing an Enlightenment philosopher needs, anyway.

How many people actually read Hobbes at the time, though? I get the sense he got used much like Proudhon is often used by Marxists today, as a foil to imagine everything orthodox folk are not. Hobbes is pretty complex.
 

So maybe a judiciously-timed civil war or two in one of Europe's major countries? (Probably France or Austria.)

Alternatively, I wonder how much difference it would make if the monarchs of Europe managed to find a better outlet for the political ambitions of the literati and rising middle classes. IIRC one of the factors in the French Revolution was the virtual monopolisation of real political power by the hereditary aristocracy, leaving the bourgeoisie feeling shut out and disaffected. If they were involved more in government, we'd probably see a rather different outcome -- after all, very few people would advocate overthrowing a political system that they themselves are a part of...

Hobbes didn't much care for the church and may well have been an atheist, so church support is very unlikely. But the sanction of the Holy Mother is the last thing an Enlightenment philosopher needs, anyway.

Hobbes himself was at the very least religiously unorthodox, although it's not too difficult to fit his political views into a mainstream understanding of original sin.

Agree about the philosophers not needing or wanting Church support, at least IOTL. Then again, if Hobbes were more influential, this might not have been the case. For example, even if prominent philosophers had doubts about Christian doctrine, they might well choose to keep them private (to a greater degree than IOTL), lest by undermining the established religion they encourage social anarchy.
 
Top