The focus of this volume is to address a fundamental concept in political thought-the state of nature-through a comparative and cross-cultural approach. Western social contract thinking usually falls along lines identified with scholars like Hobbes or Rousseau, with accordant debate over whether humans are good, bad, or just selfish, conflict prone or cooperative, egocentric or altruistic, with subordinate discussions about the proper limits of sovereign authority. Depending on how one views the natural condition of human beings and the communities which they build, various questions arise. What constitutes a good or natural political order and why? What is the best basis for understanding the nature of sovereignty or political legitimacy, and what is its future? In an age of increased global interaction and potential cultural, civilization-based, misunderstanding, this volume takes the Hobbesian rhetorical device of a pre-social contract state of nature and seeks to address this concept-and thereby, many of the aforementioned questions-in light of contributions from non-Western thinkers.In our globalizing age when cultures and peoples increasingly talk and interact, it is not viable to use only Western political thinkers to address allegedly universal concepts. So we overtly seek to break open the frame of reference for any future discussion of the state of nature. This volume will add to the emerging body of work grouped under the heading of Comparative Political Thought, and serves as a model for how key political concepts may be addressed in a comparative and cross-civilizational manner. This has the potential of contributing to a richer and multifaceted mode of political theorizing. Chapters in the book engage Chinese, Indic, Polynesian, Jewish, Babylonian, and Islamic interpretations of this fundamental question of politics. From this, one may better see how competing normative frameworks are then reflected in the practice of worldly politics. In addressing competing interpretations of the state of nature, the exclusionary hegemonic aspects of the Western canon may be both exposed and potentially reconciled with alternative visions of political behavior, legitimacy, justice, rights, and appropriate social and political behavior.