ABSTRACT
The comparison of power relations in the household and the body politic led Grotius and Pufendorf to emphasize the similarities between the two associations. Both substantively-in the tasks they should perform, and the ends they are expected to attain-and formally-in the procedures through which positions of power are assigned-domestic society and political society are described as fundamentally analogous. Analogy does not mean identity: the family remains distinct from the commonwealth, for its head may not and usually does not exercise the power of life and death.1 As Pufendorf explicitly contends, at the moment when transactions between husband and wife, and master and servant, extend to negotiating the use of force, the family becomes transformed into a little kingdom. In the (historical) state of nature this happens easily, and the transition from domestic to political power may well occur through a tacit convention. Dependent members spontaneously turn to the head as the arbiter of their disputes, and their defender against external aggression. But conceptually, the difference stands, and it cannot be brushed off as marginal. If a specific act were not necessary to justify the attribution of political power to the head of household, then the power of the sovereign could also be acquired without the active consent and participation of future subjects. It is therefore important to establish clear criteria for distinguishing a large association in which the power of life and death is still de jure in the hands of each adult, and a small one in which that power has been assigned to a specific person or group. Growth in size is not sufficient for changing the nature of the society; a specific act is required to effect that change.2
