The terms “physis” and “nomos” or “nature” and “law” or “custom” respectively, have had a very significant history when applied to ways of thinking about the foundations of society and its development. In classical societies such as ancient Israel, laws were often thought to have a divine origin. In ancient Greece, where the origin of the law became a subject of debate, the laws were held to have an important regulatory role on human behavior, not only to ensure social cohesion and harmony, but also to teach virtue. The concept of “nature,” on the other hand, was extended to the idea of a human nature and to the notion of a natural law that social critics such as Antiphon the sophist argued should have a higher status than the laws of the state. As such, the concept of a natural law for human beings was used to oppose laws that were more and more seen as artificial creations and not necessarily beneficial to everyone equally or in tune with cultural norms underlying a common conception of the good.
Nomos
Guthrie, in volume III of his A History of Greek Philosophy provides an account of how classical nomothetic societies arose.1 Interestingly, he notes that the standard mythological recounting of a “degeneration from primeval perfection,” such as can be found in Hesiod’s account of a descent from a golden age to an age of tin, were replaced by accounts of human progress in the fifth century, from a savage state to a civilized one. The earliest example of this reversal may be found in Democritus and significant other accounts may be found in Aeschylus, Euripides, Protagoras, and Critias.2 Much like the account of the origin of civilization given later by Thomas Hobbes, Guthrie writes that these accounts picture early humans as living
…like animals, without clothes or houses, in caves and holes….with no idea of combining together, but scattered over the countryside feeding on whatever offered itself. Even cannibalism was resorted to. they died in great numbers, from cold, from diseases caused by the crudity of their diet, and from attacks by wild beasts.3
Gradually, their hardships necessitated their joining together in communities and the growth of civilization. It is from this development that nomoi, “laws,” begin to become part of the social fabric. Guthrie classifies those authors who began with this kind of developmental theory as “upholders” of nomoi since they recognized the indispensably important influence of law upon the development of civilization.
Physis
It is with the question of what physis, or nature, means when applied to humans that a legalistic conception of the social good begins to meet its critics, who argue in favor of freedom from laws that are out of tune with human nature. The sophist Antiphon, for example, argued as follows: “We have heard of, we have met, the victims of laws that are oppressive, brutal and degrading. We believe that…Human Rights may stand above positive law.”4 This concept of humanity is based upon a more positive view of human nature, that sociation is natural to human beings and that it is the arbitrary laws of the state that introduce a corrupting influence, sometimes perniciously serving the interest of some parties, but not all, with important social consequences. As Guthrie notes, this kind of oppositionality gave birth to revolutionary ideas about equality, the abolition of slavery, and social distinctions based upon wealth, race, or noble birth. When the existing laws or the kind of social order they support came to be seen as unjust, an appeal was made to a higher kind of law than one based merely upon custom, a natural law or one with a higher, divine sanction. Sophocles’ Antigone is an example of this kind of appeal. When King Creon proclaims that her brother is not to be buried, Antigone refuses to allow his body to lie out in the open and appeals to a higher, divine law to sanction her opposition to the state in the person of the king.
Commentary (Nixon, Obama)
A historical pattern may be glimpsed behind the opposition between physis and nomos that could be said to correspond to social trends in general. Where civilization building becomes more urgent, or more commonly, the need for the development of an ordered society that can support economic prosperity, safety, and the aspirations of individuals within a society, nomos typically comes to the forefront as the leading concept. To some extent, this might be seen as lying behind the politics of the U.S. 1968 election between Nixon and Hubert Humphrey. Nixon’s “Law and Order” campaign and his talk of a “silent majority” helped win him the Presidency after perhaps the most tumultuous year in U.S. history.7
On the other hand, when economic prosperity is high, issues such as social and economic inequality become the focus of concern. Although the Obama presidency began at a time of severe economic turmoil and stress, it came at the end of many years of prosperity that many felt advantaged the rich and powerful over the middle and lower classes. Obama’s successful election was due in great part to his responsiveness to social issues and to his tactic of merging social with economic issues. In a Brookings Institution article on the Obama presidency, Darrell M. West discussed how the rhetoric of fairness helped Obama make a comeback in approval ratings after a difficult first year:
The crucial turning point came in December, 2011 when the president realized he needed a clearer message and had to identify a way to distinguish his vision from that of the GOP. In a speech to voters in Osawatomie, Kansas, Obama spoke of the importance of fairness and fighting for the middle class. The problem with the economy, he said, was that voters felt the system was rigged against them and too many of the fiscal benefits were going to those at the very top.8
As Anne Wortham has noticed, Obama was long influenced by John Rawls’ conception of justice as fairness:
In 1998, as a first-term Illinois state senator, he argued that in order to ensure that “nobody is left behind,” government systems must be more efficiently structured to “pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution.”9
Rawls is known for providing the philosophical foundation for modern liberal social thinking and for the concept of income redistribution in particular.
Conclusion
At diffferent times in history, each type of rhetoric has come to the fore to serve different social trends and as the rhetoric develops to fit the times, it serves social needs in different forms, helping society to develop in different ways. As the examples above illustrate, the oppositionality between physis and nomos is still very much alive and with us.
References
- See W.K.C. Guthrie, The Sophists (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 60-68 (The Sophists is a separately published text of volume III of his history).
- See Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 61.
- Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 61.
- Quoted from Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 117.
- Frankfurt Institute, Aspects of Sociology, translated by John Viertel (Boston: Beacon Press 1972), 20.
- Guthrie, A History of Greek Philosophy, 118.
- See Terence McArdle, “The ‘law and order’ campaign that won Richard Nixon the White House 50 years ago,” The Washington Post, November 5, 2018. https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2018/11/05/law-order-campaign-that-won-richard-nixon-white-house-years-ago/
- Darrell M. West, “Fairness: How President Obama Found His Voice,” Brookings Institute, February 13, 2013. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2013/02/13/fairness-how-president-obama-found-his-voice/
- Anne Wortham, “Obama’s World of Social Justice,” Mises Insitute, December 6, 2012. https://mises.org/library/obamas-world-social-justice