The Politics of Obedience: the Discourse of Voluntary Servitude.

From RhetorClick

why in the world do people consent to their own enslavement? --Rothbard (13)

Étienne de La Boétie's Discourse on Voluntary Servitude argues that “every tyranny must necessarily be grounded upon general popular acceptance” (12). His argument plays out in three parts. In the first section he explains his thesis that tyranny is powered by the consent of the people. In the second section he explores the conditions of voluntary servitude, and in the final section he both explains how tyranny works and then charts a course through the destruction of that tyranny.

“who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them of their liberty?” (46).

In the first section, La Boétie wonders why people obey the commands of the government, “a small minority of the society” (13). This minority, La Boétie argues, oppresses the people not through fear, force, or coercion, but through express consent. Because of this consent, toppling tyranny does not require force or violence against the tyrant as much as it requires ceasing violence against oneself: “it is not necessary to deprive [the tyrant] of anything, but simply to give him nothing; there is no need that the country make an effort to do anything for itself provided it does nothing against itself. It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude” (46).

In his second section, La Boétie explores how voluntary servitude comes about. Initially, “tyranny can only be initially imposed by conquest or by deception” (21). As soon as the people have lost their liberty they soon forget its value: “this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement.” (55). This voluntary subordination is supported by ideological (or physical) propaganda: “Specious ideology, mystery, circuses; in addition to these purely propagandistic devices, another device is used by rulers to gain the consent of their subjects: purchase by material benefits, bread as well as circuses” (25). In addition to propaganda, custom and force of habit become the driving force for voluntary servitude (60).

La Boétie makes an important point in this section, suggesting that his definition of “tyranny” doesn't just mean a despot who wrests control through violence: “There are three kinds of tyrants; some receive their proud position through elections by the people, others by force of arms, others by inheritance” (53). This point underscores the flexibility of La Boétie's definition of tyrant, which possibly stretches all the way from conquering despot to elected charisma.

In this section La Boétie explains the workings of tyranny, based first and foremost upon “[a] hierarchy of patronage” (27). The tyrant delegates the difficult work of oppression down to subordinates, who then oppress even as they are oppressed—it's tyrannies all the way down (see 28). This hierarchy operates only if the people are not educated to the ruse, meaning that “the primary task of opponents of modem tyranny is an educational one: to awaken the public to this process, to demystify and desanctify the State apparatus” (35). While La Boétie seems to argue for some sort of vanguard to educate the populace (or, as Rothgard puts it, to “debamboozle” the public), the only way any efforts against the tyrant would ever be successful is if they came from the ground up rather than from the top down.

Implications:

While focused on the nature of oppression and authority, La Boétie demonstrates that “democracy” is more than mere “government by the consent of the people.” La Boétie argues that tyranny itself is based on the consent of the people. While La Boétie “never extended his analysis from tyrannical government to government per se” (18), modern economist Ludwig von Mises did, “stress[ing] the fact that all governments must rest on majority consent” (35).

As mentioned in the forward, David Hume adds an important insight to the discussion: “When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as Force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular” (13).

La Boétie's theory of tyranny moves such despotism from the realm of force into the realm of rhetoric. This form of government isn't inevitable, nor is it rigid in its hierarch-ized power, but instead is constructed and maintained through force of rhetoric.