Should The John Locke Institute Change Its Name?

John Locke is often associated with our modern democracy and how our liberties are formed. Given how human rights and popular sovereignty are cherished by most today, it is customary to attribute John Locke's influence over these values and Liberalism itself. However, this is fundamentally a mischaracterisation of John Locke's brand of Liberalism, which falls far short of what the complete protection of individuals' rights should entail, in large part because of his problematic views on slavery. In what follows, I explore how naming an institute after Locke prevents impartial judgement of his complicated legacy because of the effects of glorification, where people cannot understand the actual merits and drawbacks of John Locke and his version of Liberalism. It is thus essential to understand that contesting the name of the John Locke Institute is not about the specific historical legacy of John Locke himself. Instead, it is about a broader movement about questioning the historical figures we glorify and whether they are commensurate with the values we cherish in today's society.

Fundamentally, the debate surrounding the renaming of the John Locke Institute has to do with the issue of permanently glorifying a historical figure's name by naming an institution after him or her. The Institute (John Locke Institute) can be identified with a different name, and its practical functions would remain the same. However, the name John Locke confers meaning beyond the Institute's functions and even beyond Locke himself. The name itself plays a role in glorifying John Locke as a historical figure, for the Institute can be named the 'liberal' Institute, yet John Locke's name seemed to have surpassed the importance of that. For one, we are celebrating not only classical Liberalism but also John Locke as a historical figure. This creates a cognitive connection between John Locke and moral virtue, for it is always assumed that people whose names are institutionalised are 'significant figures of humanity.

This uncritical glorification of historical figures such as John Locke is problematic because they are ultimately humans with their flaws and imperfections. As such, we should constantly evaluate people of the past critically, rather than evaluating based on past moral standards. By identifying inconsistencies in the views of historical figures, we would strengthen our convictions in our moral values. When conversations surrounding the faults of figures like Locke are shut down simply by those who point to their achievements, we suppress new ideas challenging the status quo, which Locke opposes. As per the philosophy of Mill, there are two main reasons why there should always be healthy debate, such that any criticisms of Locke should not be minimised in the name of Liberalism. "If the opinion is right, (we) are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth; if wrong, (we) lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth produced by its collision with error" (MILL, 1859). Moral progress can only be ensured through impartial criticism and evaluation.

This need for objective evaluation is especially vital when we consider that among those widely celebrated today, many have a questionable past and may not deserve the praise they receive. For example, many of the figures celebrated today, from Columbus in the US to Cecil Rhodes in Oxford, have profited from imperialist expansion and the buying and selling of human beings. Just as there were people who profited from genocide and the enslavement of others, there were those who rejected imperial values and resisted imperial subjugation (Riley, 2020). Most historical figures should not be glorified and have their names institutionalised. Glorification entrenches the status quo, making it harder for ideas that challenge the historical figure to become prominent. Even when confronted by evidence of imperfection, this echo chamber effect would result in those who venerate the figure to ignore their flaws. However great the achievement of defeating Nazism in WW2, glorifying figures like Winston Churchill minimises the pain Indians felt as a result of the Bengal famine. Impartiality is essential because it means no flaws are minimised by virtue, and that society's conversation about flaws is no longer trivialised and marginalised; instead, they are normalised. Through studying historical figures impartially, society no longer entrenches the idea that some people are perfect and everyone should aspire towards, and allows students to understand how significant figures of the past were simply people and not perfect beings placed on a pedestal.

Despite John Locke's undoubted contributions to philosophy and Liberalism, we should be no less critical of his legacy because of their problematic views on and involvement in slavery. In his seminal Two Treatises of Government, John Locke made the ground-breaking arguments underpinning natural rights, republicanism and social contract theory. Rather than attributing political legitimacy to religious or feudal figures, Locke attributed political legitimacy to the people. The significance of this shift stems from the difference it made to society, whereby absolute power was no longer centralised in the hands of a monarch. He established that natural rights were inalienable, challenging the status quo of absolutism, allowing for social changes in the future. Nevertheless, many of John Locke's writings and actions contravene the fundamental values that form the backbone of classical Liberalism. In The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina, Locke wrote that “[every] freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his negro slaves” (Locke, 1669). Either that was a genuine expression of Locke's belief, or he was comfortable compromising his values in endorsing slavery for monetary gains. Slavery itself is at odds with Locke and Liberalism, as it contravenes the principle that natural rights that all people enjoy should be protected by the state. Despite his views that "All mankind... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions." (LOCKE, 1689), he still believed that slaves should be bought and sold as property instead of being treated as part of humankind. In this case, Locke either presumed 'negro slaves' were not human or that it was acceptable to exploit power imbalances for monetary gains. However, the latter principle was one he had argued against in the case where private property was constantly threatened by taxation and seizure by the Crown. Moreover, Locke owned stock in the Royal African Company, which ran the slave trade in Africa for the British. This suggests that not only did Locke accommodate slavery, he also profited from the buying and selling of human beings. It is hard for most to conceptualise how the founding pillars of Liberalism were centred solely around white, property-owning men rather than people of all races, contributing to the patriarchal nature of society rather than challenging it. Whilst John Locke had strong convictions in Liberalism, his actions and beliefs regarding slavery contradicted them, suggesting that his legacy is far more problematic than his proponents believe.

Furthermore, glorifying John Locke by institutionalising his name would also contradict the spirit of Locke's philosophy. For Locke, "new opinions are always suspected, and usually opposed, without any other reason but because they are not already common". Those who questioned, critiqued and challenged the systems of their times are rarely celebrated, for they did not rise to prominence and great wealth, leaving behind a 'legacy' of 'greatness' that is 'worthy' of admiration. Although they were shunned in the past and unpopular, these are the views we should commend today. By renaming the John Locke Institute, we firmly reject the commendation of those who have profited from the buying and selling of human beings and partly pay tribute to those who had bravely resisted subjugation and imperialism during times of popular faults in morality. By renaming the John Locke Institute, we reject the widespread practice of celebrating questionable figures simply because it fits into the national narrative. In Locke's case, he is venerated as the great British philosopher who pioneered Liberalism, which emancipated people from absolute monarchy and the divine right of kings, when Lockean Liberalism was far from that. Locke once said that "the only fence against the world is a thorough knowledge of it" (Locke, 1693). How are we capable of attaining thorough knowledge of Locke when the institutionalisation and glorification of Locke obscure our judgement? Critically evaluating the legacy of John Locke and deciding to change the name of the Institute would be fully in line with the spirit of his philosophy.

Some might argue that removing John Locke's name from the Institute is an erasure of history. Obstacles to social progression posing as history and heritage are nothing new (Cook, 2020). We should never let sentimental nostalgia get in the way of genuine moral progress. Furthermore, rather than erasing history, renaming the Institute would spark greater awareness of Locke's legacy among the general public. Currently, Locke is not a topic of conversation for most in society and is instead primarily celebrated by political philosophers. By evaluating the Institute's name, or even renaming, Locke once again becomes a topic of conversation, sparking interest in many about why the philosopher celebrated as the father of Liberalism is contested. This would highlight the problematic legacy implicated in slavery that stains many figures of the past. As former Nazis were prosecuted and still being brought to justice, the West has conveniently decided to turn a blind eye to the transatlantic slave trade, another deplorable episode in human history. Such is an example of the power of manipulation, ruthlessly redefining morals to shape a narrative best fit for the times, a problem we still face in modern-day society. Hence, we need to understand how democracies and Liberalism, at their inception, also acted as tools of oppression towards ethnic minorities, slaves, women, and 'social outcasts'. It is only through these conversations about historical figures like Locke's involvement in slavery that we can genuinely appreciate the rights we enjoy today and continue battling against injustice. We would prevent ourselves from falling foul to the romanticism of the past whenever challenges present themselves in modern society.

The mission of the John Locke Institute is to 'inspire students to aim high.' We are all students in life, and we all deserve to 'aim high' and pursue our dreams. When John Locke denied the same rights to slaves and people of colour by profiting off the trade of humans, he is fundamentally at odds with the mission of this Institute to promote learning to all, and allowing all to ‘aim high’. Despite Locke's significant contributions to the protection of rights and liberties, we should not minimise or turn a blind eye to his involvement in slavery and its hypocrisy in limiting those rights to the privileged few. Our convictions in modern morals need to be strong. That can only be achieved by consistently evaluating historical figures such as Locke impartially, which is only possible when we stop glorifying figures by institutionalising their name. This would ensure that we can make consistent moral progress. However, this does not mean that we should erase him from history. Instead, the Institute should continue writing articles and sparking debate about him to keep his legacy alive. Though John Locke would no longer be the name of this Institute, he would forever be the father of Liberalism, from which the concept of natural rights stem. The critical evaluation of his merits and faults would ensure that his legacy lives on in an impartial way that allows judgements to be made without being marginalised, which Locke himself would not want to see happen.

References

• Cook, R., 2020. Should we judge historical figures by the morals of today?. [online] HistoryExtra. Available at: <https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/historical-figures-statues-judge-morals-today>.

• Locke, J., 1669. The Philosophical Works and Selected Correspondence of John Locke. The Works of John Locke, 12th edition. Volume 10. The Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina. Article 110.

• Locke, J., 1693. Some thoughts concerning education. § 94.

• LOCKE, J., 1689. TWO TREATISES OF GOVERNMENT. Chapter II, Sec. 6.

• MILL, J., 1859. ON LIBERTY. Chapter II: OF THE LIBERTY OF THOUGHT AND DISCUSSION.

• Riley, C., 2020. Should we judge historical figures by the morals of today?. [online] HistoryExtra. Available at: <https://www.historyextra.com/period/modern/historical-figures-statues-judge-morals-today/>.