Educating the Body Politic: How Hobbes’s Civil Science Strengthens and Constrains the Sovereign
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article argues that the teaching of Leviathan’s doctrine in the universities is meant to contribute to a language of politics within which the sovereign will be pressured to operate by procedural considerations. The sovereign’s reach over citizens is attenuated by the apparatus of government, as Hobbes’s first description of the Leviathan makes clear, and Hobbes expected the sovereign’s ministers, suitably trained in his doctrine, to have a mediating effect on the sovereign’s power. The sovereign’s laws are to be enacted and enforced by ministers who have been educated in Hobbesian civil science and therefore expect that the sovereign will rule in accordance with that science. Even ordinary citizens will be familiar with the broad outlines of Hobbesian civil science and will notice when laws and policies fail to perform the business of the state. When Leviathan’s doctrines are publicly taught, sovereignty is strengthened by a teaching so favorable to sovereign power, but it is also constrained insofar as those doctrines set expectations for how the ruler will exercise their power. It is not in acts of individual or collective resistance that the sovereign’s commands are to be moderated in the direction of the common good, but through the expectations of subjects, and especially of those subjects who serve as ministers, set by sovereigns themselves through the public promulgation of Leviathan’s doctrine.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".