Fahlman

Claire Fahlman
Kirstine Taylor
Political Science 201
May 4, 2016
Locke, Mills and the Question of Political Domination
Few would argue that the nation would be better served without any form of government.
The political contract agreed to by most civilians protects them, serving as a system of
governance as well as a social safety net. In the United States, the system of government is based
on the political contract outlined by John Locke in the Second Treatise of Government,
elaborating upon both the personal rights of the individual and he form of government he sees as
best protecting those rights. However, in American society, it is clear that the political contract
has not equally supported all individuals. Mills argues in The Racial Contract that political
contracts are inherently racist and support only some individuals. Drawing on Mills theory of
the Racial contract, this paper will show that Lockes theory of civil government does not protect
the individual from domination. First, it will be proved that Lockes theory of property allows
white people to subjugate nonwhite people. Then, it will be shown that Lockes theory of
government does not allow subjugated nonwhite people to better their standing in society via
rebellion. Finally, it will be demonstrated that Lockes defense of slavery is incongruous with the
supposed protection of the individual from domination.
Lockes theory of property applies only to white people, thus allowing white people to
subjugate nonwhite people and failing to protect the individual from domination. Locke
describes property as anything one puts physical effort into: Whatsoever then he [man] removes
out of the state that nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined

Fahlman

to it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his property. (Locke, 19) Locke extends
this definition to include land, food, and anything else physical power is put into. Indeed, for
Locke physical effort is the transformative rule by which an unclaimed object can become
property. One can trade something he or she worked for in exchange for something an other
worked for, but cannot take another persons property without a fair trade. In Lockes own
words, death is an appropriate punishment for thievery: This makes it lawful for a man to kill a
thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by
the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what pleases him
(Locke, 15) However, despite his strong opinions against thievery, he argues that if one can make
better use of a neighbors property than they are, it is just to take the property. In this section of
the Second Treatise on Government, it becomes clear that Locke prizes efficiency as a
determinant for property above all else: Nor was this appropriation of any parcel of land, by
improving it, any prejudice to any other man, since there was still enough, and as good left; and
more than the yet unprovided could use. (Locke, 21) Locke believes that whatever land one can
make efficient use of is theirs, regardless of whether or not it was originally someone elses
property. Mills argues that white people saw this as justification for the conquest of the
Americas. He draws attention to Lockes argument that while Englishmen in Cornwall were
toiling away and making appropriate use of their property, Native Americans were leaving vast
stretches of land empty and unused, tantamount to breaking the natural laws in Lockes eyes.
Here Mills explains how Lockes argument about taking misused land became justification for
the annexation of the Americas by European nations: So the mode of appropriation of Native
Americans is no real mode of appropriation at all, yielding property rights that can be readily
overwritten (if they exist at all), and thereby rendering their territories normatively open for

Fahlman

seizure once those that have long since left the state of nature (Europeans) encounter them.
(Mills, 67) Lockes theory, in effect, sets up a social contract which allowed Europeans to deem
the use Native Americans were making of their lands inadequate, and seize their property as if
they had never existed, thus dominating Native Americans.
Lockes theory of government does not allow for subjugated nonwhite people to rebel
against the political system and gain power, keeping them in a dominated state. Lockes theory of
government permits revolution whenever a government is violating the rights of individuals and
committing tyranny. This includes the monarchy introducing arbitrary laws or preventing the
legislature from meeting, among others. However, Locke argues that revolution is very unlikely
because it is difficult to motivate the people to change course after an amount of time: This
slowness and aversion in the people to quit their old constitutions, has still kept us to, or still
brought us back again to our old legislative of king, lords and commons (Locke, 113)
Changing the minds of the people is more difficult than one would otherwise think, argues
Locke. Once a system has been established, it is near impossible to overthrow it. This is how the
monarchy had at that time been retained in England despite many revolutions. Mills theory on
the racial contract expands upon this point by arguing that white supremacy underwrites the
political contract. The government has the power to keep nonwhite people oppressed via law
enforcement: The coercive arms of the state, then the police, the penal system, the army need
to be seen as in part the enforcers of the Racial Contract, working both to keep the peace and
prevent crime among the white citizens, and to maintain the racial order and to detect and
destroy challenges to it (Mills, 84) The army, the police and the penal system are all parts of
the government and are thus privileged under both the political and racial contracts. These forces
are able to retain the power of the white population while depriving nonwhite people of the same

Fahlman

power, all the while continuing to brainwash nonwhite people into believing that they are not
worthy of power in the tradition of the slave seasoners of old. Not only are nonwhite
individuals not protected from domination by civil government, but instead are further
subjugated by it.
Lockes defense of slavery is incompatible with the protection of individuals from
domination. Although he may have spoken out against hereditary slavery, Locke owned stock in
a slave trading company and even helped write a pro-slavery constitution in the Carolinas. Locke
does, however, defend slavery as a result of war. He argues that when one loses a war, they lose
their property, including that of their own body: This is the perfect condition of slavery, which
is nothing else, but the state of war continued, between a lawful conqueror and a captive: for, if
once compact enter between them, and make an agreement for a limited power on the one side,
and obedience on the other, the state of war and slavery eases, as long as the compact
endures (Locke, 17) As stated by Locke, slavery is the cessation of the state of war after a
compact is entered into giving the victor ownership of the defeated. Indeed, Locke sees war as a
perfectly acceptable way to gain a slave. Mills suggests that Locke may have thrown Africans in
the same category as Native Americans: Or perhaps the same Lockean moral logic that covered
Native Americans can be extended to blacks also. They werent appropriating their home
continent of Africa; theyre not rational; they can be enslaved. (Mills, 68) By way of Lockes
logic, Africans who werent making efficient, industriously European use of their land didnt
deserve ownership of it as property, or for that matter ownership of any property, including their
own bodies. Interestingly, this logic would only apply to first-generation slaves, as their children
would not have either lost a war or misused the continent of Africa. Although he may have
stated differently, this didnt stop Locke from helping to write slavery into the constitution of the

Fahlman

Carolinas, thus creating a racist system that would racially and politically dominate nonwhites
for centuries to come.
By examining Mills theory of the Racial Contract, it becomes clear that Lockes theory
of civil government fails to protect the individual from domination. Lockes theory of property
gave white Europeans the justification for their invasion of the Americas and their genocidal
campaign against Native Americans. Rebellion became an impossibility under Lockes civil
government because of the power it gave to the coercive branches of the government, effectively
preventing oppressed minorities from freeing themselves of domination. Locke himself spoke
out against slavery while supporting the domination of nonwhite people by writing a pro-slavery
constitution in the Carolinas. Lockes theory has had a lasting impact on the American political
system, both in positive and negative ways. The system functions in its intended manner for
white Americans, but utterly fails for nonwhite people. Particularly troubling is the problem of
the coercive branches of government and their interest as tools of a white supremacist system to
continue the subjugation of nonwhite Americans. Although many police departments across the
nation are attempting to enforce the law in less racially-motivated ways, as Locke himself has
argued, it is incredibly difficult to change a system after it has been put in place. This inability to
disrupt the current American white supremacist structure provides room for the domination of
nonwhites for years to come.

Fahlman

Works Cited
Locke, John. Hackett Publishing Company. Print.
Mills, Charles W. The Racial Contract. Print.