The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

First published:Du contrat social: Ou, Principes du droit politique, 1762 (English translation, 1764)

Type of work: Philosophy

The Work:

The Social Contract stands as one of the great classics of political philosophy. In three earlier works, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s basic theme had gradually emerged. Rousseau attacked the basic principles of Enlightenment thought, a philosophy that was dominant in eighteenth century Europe. Enlightenment thinkers sought to free philosophy and religion from the superstitions of the past. They supported the use of reason and science as the foundation for all belief and conduct. In contrast, Rousseau maintained that human understanding is not the sole domain of reason, but is, as he stated, “greatly indebted to passions.” Therefore, to understand one’s relationship to society, it is necessary to return to a state of nature to search for a better political order.

Political philosophers before Rousseau, most notably the English philosopher Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), believed that before people formed society, life was a perpetual state of war—“every man against every man.” The only way for people to live together in peace, then, was to form a social contract in which the citizens establish a mutually agreed-upon form of social organization.

Rousseau’s thinking about the social contract was the exact opposite of what was commonly accepted at the time. He argued that people are not evil and selfish in the state of nature as Hobbes claimed. In Rousseau’s view, society breeds inequality and selfishness because society involves the acquisition of power and private property. Thus was born his famous concept of the noble savage, who existed in a time in which all people lived together in peace and harmony, free from the constraints of society.

The Social Contract revolves around the issue of political obligation. The issue is to find a form of association that will defend and protect a person with the united force of society but will allow each person the greatest possible measure of individual freedom. Unlike Rousseau’s earlier works, The Social Contract recognizes the need for civil society, despite its depriving citizens of some of their freedoms. In the state of nature, people pursue their self-interest until they discover that the power to preserve themselves against the threats of others is not strong enough. In justifying the transition from the state of nature to civil society, Rousseau argues for a system of government that retains the best “instincts” that people had in the state of nature while incorporating the added values, such as stability and security, that a political organization can give. This is a radical departure from Rousseau’s earlier writings, in which he was extremely suspicious of all forms of central authority. The task of The Social Contract is to find the basis for a legitimate compact between people and authority and then describe a legitimate form of government that will represent all people.

To begin, Rousseau first discounts some traditional forms of government that, he argues, can never be the basis of a just political order: the rule of the strongest, any government allowing slavery, and monarchy that claims the sanction of divine right. As for the first, the idea that might makes right has no place in Rousseau’s political system. People yield to force out of necessity and fear not because they want to; there is no contract worthy of the name in such a society. Those who rule by force are not bound by any sense of morality, so Rousseau concludes that force does not create right. As for slavery, Rousseau acknowledges that the Greeks and Romans had slaves, and they believed that slavery was natural for some people, but he argues that for people to surrender their rights to a master is incompatible with human nature, because people do not voluntarily enter into a condition of servitude. As for rule by divine right, Rousseau cannot see how one person could possibly preserve the rights of all of his (or her) subjects and at the same time protect his private interests. When the ruler dies, what most often happens is that his empire collapses as a result of the sudden lack of central authority and power. Such a collapse creates disorder and insecurity; the terms of the social contract are not, therefore, honored.

After rejecting each of these illegitimate forms of government, Rousseau turns to the idea of the social contract, and he uses it in a very different way than other seventeenth and eighteenth century political thinkers. Hobbes believed that after the contract is established, the people must surrender all of their authority to a sovereign, who alone would have the power to enforce it. The English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704) rejected Hobbes’s conception and argued instead for a limited government in which the contract is formed to establish a market economy, set up a monetary system, and protect property rights. In Locke’s government, power is exercised only to ensure safety and settle disputes. Rousseau takes the thinking of Hobbes and Locke a step further. Hobbes argued for a sovereign power, and Locke believed that the people should transfer their collective power to the agencies of government. Rousseau believed that sovereignty must always reside in the people. He states that a government needs executive and judicial functions but argues that their power must be completely subordinated to the power of the people.

The general will is the key concept in Rousseau’s political philosophy. It sets him apart from Hobbes and Locke, who believed that the state was an artificial creation, made necessary by the fear and inequality present in the state of nature. In contrast, in book 2 Rousseau argues that government, established upon the idea of the general will, is a natural occurrence, and the state of nature teaches that the legitimacy of government must always rest on the consent of the governed. He further defines the general will by stating that it is determined by two elements: First, it always aims at the general good, and second, it applies to all. In saying this, Rousseau recognizes that unanimous consent in any government is impossible—the vote of the majority also binds the minority, but he does not see majority rule becoming a “tyranny of the majority.” Those in the minority, he asserts, do not lose their freedom because they are bound to go along with the majority against their will. Instead, he claims that the minority merely does not recognize the general will; once the minority sees what their interests are, they will readily assent.

The problem of political representation lies at the heart of Rousseau’s political philosophy, because if true sovereignty depends upon the power of the general will, then no elected legislative body could possibly serve the interests of every individual citizen. Thus, it becomes impossible to achieve a balance of liberty and authority. Rousseau believes that representative democracy is not truly democratic, because unless voters always have a direct voice in the laws enacted by the legislature, democracy is an illusion. However, Rousseau does not adequately solve the practical problem of ruling a large state. His idea of direct democracy may be workable in a small town, but it would not be practical in a country with millions of people. Some states may be too large for Rousseau’s ideal government to be possible.

The second problem addressed in book 2 concerns itself with the role of law in a society. For Rousseau, the making of laws is simply another manifestation of the general will. Laws should be made for the benefit of all and not merely to protect private interests. Laws should never interfere with the individual liberty of citizens, because the laws reflect the citizens’ wills.

In book 3, Rousseau gives the reader an idea of what his ideal government might look like. He understands that government is a balance between the general will of the people and sovereignty or power. In his system, government is merely the agent of the people and possesses no real power. The government administers and enforces the law, but it always remains accountable to the general will. This idea is radically different from the writings of previous political theorists. Classical political thinkers such as Plato and Aristotle believed that self-government must surrender itself to good government. Rousseau was the first political writer to attempt to combine good government and self-government through the concept of the general will. Many critics of Rousseau have argued that he does not clearly show how this is possible. For example, Rousseau would claim that the separation of powers found in both the American and British political systems is a denial of democracy and the will of the people. He might, in what for him would be an extreme conciliation to practical reality, place all political power in a supreme legislature that had little or no executive power. In addition, he believes that an ideal state should consist of no more than ten thousand citizens; anything larger would be too difficult to govern.

In surveying the various forms of government that have existed throughout history, Rousseau concludes that no one form of government is best. In looking at each form of government in turn, he sees strengths and weaknesses in each. To the practical question of what constitutes good government, Rousseau answers that the preservation and prosperity of the citizens is the ultimate aim, and any form of government that keeps this goal will, in general, be a good government.

In the fourth and final book, Rousseau talks about how a system of voting and elections should be established. He endorses the principle of majority rule, and argues, oddly enough, that in the small state mentioned earlier as his ideal, most votes would be close to unanimous. Critics have pointed out, however, that Rousseau does not consider that a majority could consist of as little as 51 percent, whose will would then prevail over the other 49 percent. In a time of extreme crisis, Rousseau says, a dictatorship and temporary suspension of civil liberties may even be necessary to ensure the survival of the general will. Rousseau does not say precisely how the likelihood for the invocation of the general will to become the basis for a totalitarian state can be avoided.

Rousseau also discusses the role of religion in society. Some religion, he thought, is indispensable to morality. He severely attacks Christianity, believing the Roman Catholic Church to be a disruptive force because it claimed to be above the political authority of the state. Thus, in times of war, Christians may find their loyalty divided between defending the state and defending their religious convictions. With this discussion Rousseau concludes The Social Contract.

Rousseau realized that within his discussion about the ideal political system he had omitted many important topics, such as foreign relations, treaties, and laws between nations. He hoped to return to such topics in the future, but did not. Still, the impact of Rousseau’s thinking upon the French and American revolutions was enormous.

Bibliography

Cullen, Daniel E. Freedom in Rousseau’s Political Philosophy. DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1993. An assessment of Rousseau’s philosophy of freedom and its impact on his broader moral and political views.

Damrosch, Leo. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Restless Genius. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 2005. This one-volume biography is a useful addition to Rousseau scholarship, providing an incisive, accessible account of Rousseau’s life and contributions to philosophy and literature. Includes illustrations, a time line, a bibliography, and an index.

Delaney, James. Starting with Rousseau. New York: Continuum, 2009. A comprehensive introduction to Rousseau’s ideas, including his political philosophy as expounded in The Social Contract, his theories of human nature, his philosophy of education, and his social theory. Ideal for beginning students in philosophy, government, and other subjects.

Dent, N. J. H. Rousseau. New York: Routledge, 2005. An overview of the entire range of Rousseau’s philosophy, paying particular attention to the theories of democracy and freedom outlined in The Social Contract. Explains Rousseau’s concept of the general will.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗. Rousseau: An Introduction to His Psychological, Social, and Political Theory. New York: Blackwell, 1988. A helpful analysis of Rousseau’s views about education, human rights, community, and other social and political issues.

Grant, Ruth H. Hypocrisy and Integrity: Machiavelli, Rousseau, and the Ethics of Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1997. An instructive comparative analysis of two important figures—Rousseau and Niccolò Machiavelli—in political philosophy.

Havens, George R. Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Boston: Twayne, 1978. A concise introductory account of Rousseau’s life and career with analyses of his major works.

Hulliung, Mark. The Autocritique of Enlightenment: Rousseau and the Philosophes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994. Shows how Rousseau both reflected and departed from main currents in Enlightenment philosophy.

Morgenstern, Mira. Rousseau and the Politics of Ambiguity: Self, Culture, and Society. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1996. Analyzes Rousseau’s political theory and its historical context, showing how his thought introduced notes of ambiguity that remain in contemporary political life.

Wokler, Robert. Rousseau. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995. A concise and lucid introduction to Rousseau’s life and thought.