Rousseauean Theory - Excerpts from "The Social Contract" - Book I by Jean Jacques Rousseau

By Stephen Alexander Beach 

(1363 Words)

Beginning of Book I

This post assumes that you are familiar with some of the basic concepts from Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality which I have posted about here.

Freedom and Consent

Rousseau begins by asking, in so many words, if there can be a secular foundation to a governed society. Rousseau is part of that tradition of the time of moving beyond religious states and a push towards the secular. This brings with it an obvious problem, though. On what foundation is society and the coming together of men to live based? "With men as they are and with laws as they could be, can there be in the civil order any sure and legitimate rule of administration?" 

Then we encounter one of the most famous phrases ever written. "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." These are the chains of being dominated by force. Human society, though, for Rousseau strongly believes that force cannot be the basis of a society. It provides no justification for itself to survive, but only to continue to overthrow. Rather, society must be based on the agreement of the people in a social contract with one another. Only then does something last and continue in time. "But the social order isn't to be understood in terms of force; it is a sacred right on which all other rights are based. But it doesn't come from nature, so it must be based on agreements." 

Even in the "society" of persons that is the family unit, Rousseau talks about a certain natural agreement which honors man's freedom, and thus he calls the family "the prime model of political societies." In a family, he says, the children show obedience to the father out of need due to their dependence, but when the children are capable of being on their own they obtain a self-governing freedom. The parent, likewise, is free to do what he wants at that point as well. If they continue to stay together after that point, it is because they both agree to do so. During the time of giving up of one's freedom, both get something in return. The father is loved by the children, and the children receive their necessarily stability. 

The Concept of Might Makes Right

Rousseau recognizes that while the right to rule may have rested with the strongest in the past, that this cannot be the basis of society in which its citizens participate as members. A “‘right of the strongest’” in which those who are subject to this person are compelled in any civilized sense to obey in duty is a contradiction, according to Rousseau. This is because if one is forced, there is not duty or choice, and if one is not forced then there is no need to obey. Likewise, what is right simply falls to whoever is in power, and when they are overtaken by a stronger ruler then what is right changes again. The only goal people would then have in society would be to become the strongest, not to function together as a body politic.“If force makes right, then if you change the force you change the right … so that when one force overcomes another, there’s a corresponding change in what is right. The moment it becomes possible to disobey with impunity it becomes possible to disobey legitimately. And because the strongest are always in the right, the only thing that matters is to work to become the strongest.” He concludes this idea by saying, “Then let us agree that force doesn’t create right, and that legitimate powers are the only ones we are obliged to obey.” 

Birth of the Social Contract 

[Traditionally, the fundamental question in political philosophy is regarding the nature of the “common good” for that particular society. In other words, what is the fundamental purpose or reason for men to interact and come together to live? For Plato it was division of labor and justice, for Aquinas it was the communion personarum imaging the Trinity, for Hobbes it was for safety, and here too Rousseau will talk about his own view. All of these thinkers saw a correlation between ethics and the individuals seeking their own good and politics in which the group seeks its good as a whole, as a unified body, or “body politic”. This is sometimes expressed as the individual and the collective.] 

Rousseau here points out that a society, properly speaking, is only one where the members of that society have a free association or agreement with one another about the nature of the society. This is the common good, or public sphere. A master with a million slaves is not a society, as there is no participation of the many in the agreement. “Ruling a society will always be a quite different thing form subduing a multitude. If any numbers of scattered individuals were successively enslaved by one man, all I can see there is a master and his slaves, and certainly not a people and its ruler. It’s a cluster, if you will, but not an association; there’s no public good there, and no body politic.” Rousseau goes on to say that before laws and such can be made, there must be one unanimous agreement of the people which forms the basis of the contract and allows it to start functioning. 

Like Plato, Rousseau claims that the impetus for leaving the state of nature and entering into the social contract is due to the necessities of life which are too overwhelming for one person to handle. Together, though, we can overcome these obstacles to our survival. The problem becomes, if man’s state of nature is a fundamental freedom which is key to his happiness and integrity, how do people enter into a social contract without losing the very core of who they are in their freedoms. “Find a form of association that will bring the whole common force to bear on defending and protecting each associate’s person and goods, doing this in such a way that each of them, while uniting himself with all, still objects only himself and remains as free as before.” 

Tenets of the Social Contract

First it must be said that when man enters into the social contract it should remain as was agreed upon. If changes are made without agreement then the contract is now null and void and man’s original freedom is restored. “The clauses of the contract are so settled but he nature of the act that the slightest change would make them null and void.” Then Rousseau goes into the fundamental agreement of the social contract, and it is something which may seem contradictory at first to Rousseau’s notion of freedom, but it does make sense in a way. The basic agreement to the social contract is to “…the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community.” 

He gives three reasons why this is not contradictory. First, because it creates an equality between the members in which all are equally subject to the government. Thus, I want the best for myself and in pursuing the best situation for myself I also at the same time make things best for you as well. Second, because all people surrender all their rights to the contract, there is no one who is above the law and exercising a freedom which others do not have. Third, if everyone gives of themself totally, then no one can be taken advantage of by any individual. Rather, all are subject and begin to form a “general will” of the unified body politic. “This act of association instantly replaces the individual person status of each contracting party by a moral and collective body, composed of as many members as the assembly has voices; and receiving from this act its unity, its common identity, its life and its will. This public person that is formed by the union of all the other persons used to be called a ‘city’, and these days is called a ‘republic’ or a ‘body politic’.” 1

-------------------------

1 - Rousseau, Jean Jacques. The Social Contract. Book I