The question of why citizens should obey the laws of their state—the problem of political obligation—remains a cornerstone of political philosophy. While historical figures like Socrates argued that obeying the law is a duty rooted in implicit agreements and loyalty, modern scholars like Margaret Gilbert offer a fresh perspective through the plural subject theory.
Table of contents
The Plural Subject Theory
In her seminal work, A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society, Gilbert argues that our duties to the state are not merely derived from universal moral principles. Instead, she posits that political obligation arises from joint commitments. When we view our country as a specific type of social group, participation in that group creates unique bonds.
Key facets of this theory include:
- Membership: Being a citizen is akin to being a member of a group where one is party to a shared, joint commitment.
- Commitment: These obligations are not imposed from above by abstract morality but are generated by the participants themselves through their ongoing social engagement.
- Plural Subjects: Those who share in these commitments form a “plural subject,” acting as a collective body rather than merely a collection of individuals.
Historical Context and Philosophical Roots
The debate is as old as democracy itself. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates famously refused to flee Athens despite his impending execution. He argued that his long-term residency and participation in Athenian society constituted a tacit agreement. By enjoying the benefits of the city, he had entered into a binding relationship with its laws.
While Socrates focused on agreements and the fear of “mistreating” the state, modern theories shift the focus toward the nature of social groups. Gilbert’s approach allows us to see how political societies function as distinct entities that demand loyalty not because of external moral mandates, but because of the internal structure of our collective commitments.
Whether rooted in ancient social contracts or modern joint commitments, the theory of political obligation forces us to examine our role as members of a state. It suggests that our duty to obey is fundamentally social, reflecting the complex, often unspoken, promises we make to one another by choosing to belong to a political community.
