In his 1986 book Morals by Agreement, David Gauthier sought to renew Hobbes` moral and political philosophy. In this book, he asserts forcefully that Hobbes was right: we can understand both politics and morality as if e.A. were based on an agreement between exclusively selfish but rational people. But it improves Hobbes` reasoning by showing that we can establish morality without the sovereign`s external enforcement mechanism. Hobbes argued that men`s passions were so strong that collaboration between them was always in danger of collapsing and that a sovereign was therefore necessary to force respect. Gauthier believes, however, that rationality is not only enough to help people work together, but also to stick to their agreements. Carole Pateman`s 1988 book, The Sexual Contract, argues that extending under the myth of the idealized contract described by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau is a more fundamental contract on the relationship between men and women. Contract theory presents itself as an adversary of patriarchy and patriarchal law. (Locke`s social contract, for example, is put by him in opposition to the work of Robert Filmer, who argued for patriarchal power.) But the “pact of origin” (2), which precedes the social contract on an equal footing, is the agreement of men to dominate and control women. This “pact of origin” is concluded by brothers, literally or metaphorically, who, after the fall of the Father`s reign, agree to share their domination over women who were previously under the exclusive control of a man, the Father. The transition from “classical patriarchy” (24) to modern patriarchy is therefore a change that has power over women.
However, the question of whether women are dominated by men is not a fundamental change. Men`s power relations with each other change, but the relationship between women and the power of men does not change. Modern patriarchy is characterized by a contractual relationship between men, and part of this treaty involves power over women. This fact that one form of patriarchy was not completely reversed, but was replaced by another form in which male power was distributed among more men instead of being held by a man, is illustrated by Freud`s story about the birth of civilization. After this story, a gang of brothers, run by a father who kept exclusive sexual access to the women of the tribe, kill the father, and then form a contract between them to be equal and share the women. This is the story, whether we understand Freud`s history as historically correct or not, of modern patriarchy and its deep dependence on the treaty as the means by which men control and dominate women. These opinions in the Crito and in the Republic may seem at first glance incoherent: in the previous dialogue, Socrates shows, with a contractual argument of society, why he remains in prison for him, while in the latter treaty he refuses as a source of justice.