General Will And Rousseau

’s Social Contract Essay, Research Paper

When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the Social Contract, the concepts of liberty

and freedom were not new ideas. Many political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and

John Locke had already developed their own interpretations of liberty, and in fact Locke

had already published his views on the social contract. What Rousseau did was to

revolutionize the concepts encompassed by such weighty words, and introduce us to

another approach to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state

of nature, and enter into an organized society. Liberals believed it was the guarantee of

protection – liberty to them signified being free from harm towards one’s property.

Rousseau’s notion of freedom was completely different than that of traditional liberals. To

him, liberty meant a voice, and participation. It wasn’t enough to be simply protected

under the shield of a sovereign, Rousseau believed that to elevate ourselves out of the

state of nature, man must participate in the process of being the sovereign that provided

the protection.

The differences between Rousseau’s theories and those of the liberals of his time,

begin with different interpretations of the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes described the

state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to one’s property was always

present. He felt that man could have no liberty in such a setting, as fear of persecution and

enslavement would control his every action. From this dismal setting, Hobbes proposed

that man would necessarily rise and enter into a social contract. By submitting himself to

the power of a sovereign, man would be protected by that same power, thereby gaining his

liberty. Rousseau’s version of the state of nature differs greatly. He makes no mention of

the constant fear which Hobbes believed would control man’s life in the state of nature,

rather he describes the setting as pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this

primitive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid,

and would always avoid conflict, rather than seek it out.

Building from this favorable description of the state of nature, why would man

want to enter into a social contract of any kind. If Rousseau was so fond of the state of

nature, why would he be advocating any form of social organization. The answer is two

fold. Firstly, Rousseau recognized that 18th century Europe was indeed very civilized, and

that it would be impossible for man to shake off these chains and return to a state of

nature. Secondly, Rousseau felt man in a state of nature was really quite ignorant and

undeveloped. He says in the Social Contract that they were rather simple, shy, and

innocent in the state of nature. Therefore for personal growth and self-actualization, man

must enter into a society with his fellow man. “We begin properly to become men,”

Rousseau said, “only after we have become citizens.” From here, Rousseau embarks on

his mission, envisioning a society which would embody all of the freedoms man had in the

state of nature yet one which would allow him to grow intellectually.

In setting out his Social Contract, Rousseau’s purpose is clear: “Find a form of

association that defends and protects the person and goods of each associate with all the

common force, and by means of which each one, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only

himself and remains as free as before.” Rousseau wanted the best of both worlds, a

combination of the freedoms evident in the state of nature, and the intellectual

surroundings of civilized society. Utilizing the principle that the whole would be stronger

then the sum of the collective parts, Rousseau laid out a society in which all the individuals

would give up their individual powers in return for a new kind of equality and a new kind

of power. By this theory, if all members gave up their powers equally and wholly, they

would in effect reduce themselves to being equals amongst each other. He states this by

saying “Since each one gives up his entire self, the condition is equal for everyone, and

since the condition is equal for everyone, no one has an interest in making it burdensome

for the others.” This brought man one step closer to Rousseau’s Utopian view of the state

of nature where “Living in this happy savagery men enjoyed substantial equality; there

were few relations to beget inequality.” It was inequality which would bring about the

opportunity for oppression, which it turn took away a man’s liberty. For Rousseau this

solved the problem of inequality in conventional societies, because “The social contract

established an equality between citizens such they all engage themselves under the same

conditions and should all benefit from the same rights.”

Thus, by giving up his individual powers, man would enter equally into a society in which

a full, moral life was possible. R

Внимание, отключите Adblock

Вы посетили наш сайт со включенным блокировщиком рекламы!
Ссылка для скачивания станет доступной сразу после отключения Adblock!

Скачать