Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rousseau
Rousseau
Life
born in Geneva, Switzerland
his mother died two days later and father fled when Rousseau was ten
raised by an uncle, he fled Geneva at age 16, living as a vagabond until settling in Paris in 1742
there he became friends with Diderot
his 1749 essay, the Discourse on the Arts and Science,
which contained an attack on the corrupting influence of civilization, won a literary award
he composed music and one of his operettas won acclaim
he made a modest living as a music tutor
Philosophical Overview
Rousseau had an optimistic view of human nature and a pessimistic view of social history
like Voltaire and other French Enlightenment figures
Rousseau rejected much of the teachings of the Church, especially the concept of original sin
but against the Enlightenment optimistic view of the progress of civilization
Rousseau had a pessimistic view of the development of society
which he held to be the cause of the degeneration of mankind
this contrast highlights how Rousseau’s thought conflicted with
both the conservative and radical thinking of his day
this contrast between nature and society shapes Rousseau’s views on education
children have a natural ability to learn and develop
but the system of modern educational institutions thwart these natural tendencies
by imposing adult expectations on children
the contrast between nature and society also shapes Rousseau’s views on religion
natural religion consists in a spontaneous love of the good
in contrast, the revealed religion of Scripture and the Church ends up being
superstitious, dogmatic, and authoritarian
thus leading to the degeneration of man
Rousseau’s political theory as laid out in The Social Contract has three primary assumptions:
1) the original state of nature
2) society as it actually is
3) society as it ought to be according to the social contract
with the beginning of private property the natural innocence of the noble savage comes to an end
and for the sake of self-preservation humans enter into a social contract
but for the contract to be just it must not diminish one’s natural freedom
in contrast to man in the state of nature, and man in an ideal civil society
Rousseau argues that actual society corrupts natural human goodness and destroys freedom
thus the famous opening sentence of The Social Contract:
“Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains”
this defines the problem of politics—how can we have a government that preserves our liberty?
and Rousseau’s conception of the social contract provides the solution
obviously he rejects Hobbes’ view that clearly seems to affirm that might makes right
the purpose of government cannot then primarily be, as it is for Hobbes, peace and security:
W hat do they gain if this peace itself is one of their miseries? One lives peacefully also in
dungeons: is this enough to find them good? (Bk. I, chap. IV)
Rousseau rejects the view that justifies the right of conquerors to subject the vanquished to enslavement
and thus goes a step further than Locke in rejecting any form of slavery
liberty, is for Rousseau, an inalienable human right:
To renounce one’s liberty is to renounce one’s quality as a man, the rights of humanity and even its
duties. For whoever renounces everything there is no possible compensation. Such renunciation is
incompatible with man’s nature; and to deprive his actions of all morality is tantamount to deprive
his will of all freedom. (Bk. I, chap. IV)
and yet, paradoxically, in addition to this influence upon revolutionary developments of 1776 and 1789
both of which were conceived as attempts at liberation from tyranny
Rousseau’s thought has also been criticized for leading to totalitarianism
some would say Rousseau’s thought led not only to the Revolution of 1789
but also the Reign of Terror that began in 1793
and one can trace a certain line of development from Rousseau’s thought to Hegel’s in the 19th century
which led to totalitarian regimes of both the right and the left in the 20th century
this paradox thus presents us the challenge in understanding Rousseau’s notion of the social contract
though his thought has been described as a forerunner of totalitarianism
this was certainly not his intention
if the problem to which The Social Contract is addressed is the problem of freedom
the solution for Rousseau involves a contract that consists in the formation of a collective body
in this contract or social pact individuals are welded together into a community
and this community has a ‘general will’ that everyone then takes as their own will
Social & Political Philosophy Rousseau—4
If, then, everything which is not of the essence of the social pact is set aside, one finds that it
reduces itself to the following terms: Each of us puts in common his person and his whole power
under the supreme direction of the general will; and in return we receive in a body every member
as an indivisible part of the whole. (Bk. I, chap. VI)
this concept of the ‘general will’ allows individual citizens, in Rousseau’s view, to share power
through this contract a social morality of justice, rights and duties replaces
actions freely motivated by instinct
the transition from the state of nature to that of civil society thus involves, for Rousseau
a transformation in the nature of man, and in the nature of freedom
the natural freedom enjoyed by man in the state of nature
differs in several important respects from the civic freedom attained in civil society
In a crucial chapter Rousseau marks this transition:
This passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces in man a very remarkable change,
by substituting in his conduct injustice for instinct, and by giving his actions the morality that they
previously lacked. It is only when the voice of duty succeeds physical impulsion, and right
succeeds appetite, that man, who till then had only looked after himself, sees that he is forced to
act on other principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations. Although, in
this state, he is deprived of many advantages he holds from nature, he gains such greater ones in
return, that his faculties are exercised and developed; his ideas are expanded; his feelings are
ennobled; his whole soul is exalted to such a degree that, if the abuses of this new condition did not
often degrade him below that from which he has emerged, he should ceaselessly bless the happy
moment that removed from it forever, and transformed him from a stupid and ignorant animal into
an intelligent being and a man. (Bk. I, chap. VIII)
we can see in the rest of this chapter Rousseau distinguishes three kinds of liberty
1) natural liberty is our ability to satisfy our appetites (for Rousseau it is really a form of slavery which
is surrendered and given up when we enter the social contract
2) civic liberty is what we gain by entering the contract
3) moral liberty is what makes a man master of himself
in entering into the contract, one not only gains civil liberty, but moral liberty as well:
Besides the preceding, one can add to the acquisitions of the civil state the moral freedom which
alone renders man truly master of himself; for the impulsion of mere appetite is slavery, and
obedience to the law one prescribes to oneself is freedom. (Bk. I, chap. VIII)
Rousseau’s key assumption here is that freedom consists in obeying a law we give to ourselves
while acting on mere impulse is not to be free
(this notion was to influence Kant very much)
what seems to be implied here is that the law that is capable of giving us freedom
is not just any law but moral law
Social & Political Philosophy Rousseau—5
for Rousseau the only form of association that is consistent with our freedom
is one that consists in our transforming ourselves into a collective person
which he refers to as the ‘general will’
once separate individuals have been welded into this ‘general will’
we then give ourselves a law and act accordingly
in the social contract, according to Rousseau, individuals are bound to follow the ‘general will’
for Rousseau this need not diminish our freedom
because, for Rousseau, it is the capacity to obey laws that makes a person master of his appetites
and thus freedom finds full expression in a civil society governed by the social contract
in Rousseau’s notion the state does not have just an instrumental value
in serving the interests of individuals
the state has value in itself, and it is through the state that individuals realize their identity
in Rousseau’s view there is no community whatsoever without the social pact
it is the contract which transforms us into moral beings capable of existing in society
Locke assumes that individuals are capable of forming communities without the aid of the state
perhaps the principal difficulty with Rousseau’s conception of the social contract
is just what is meant by the ‘general will’
it is a notion that is not altogether clear
the idea seems to be that everyone in society shares interests
and these shared interests can be regarded as the common good
The first and most important consequence of the principles established above is that the general
will can only direct the forces of the State in keeping with the end for which it was instituted,
which is the common good, for if the opposition of private interests has made the establishment of
societies necessary, the harmony of these same interests has made it possible. That which is
common to these different interests forms the social bond; and if there were not some point in
Social & Political Philosophy Rousseau—6
which all interests agree, no society could exist. Now it is only on this common interest that the
society should be governed. (Bk. II, chap. I)
the ‘general will’ is not the same thing as the will of all
There is often a great difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter regards only
the common interest, the other regards private interests and is only the sum of particular wills: but
remove from these will the pluses and minuses which cancel each other out and the general will
remains the same as the sum of the differences. (Bk. II, chap. III)
the difference here is that the ‘general will’ considers only common interests
the ‘will of all’ considers private interest, and is nothing more than the sum of particular wills
By itself the people always wants the good, but by itself does not always discern it. The general
will is always upright, but the judgment that guides it is not always enlightened. (Bk. II, chap. VI)
the sovereign is always the general will, that is, “the people”
the legislator acts on behalf of the sovereign
and has the task of figuring out what the general will is
and then expressing that in the form of law
the prince, or “government” is the agent who executes laws under the direction of the general will
W hat then is the Government? An intermediate body established between the subjects and the
Sovereign for their mutual correspondence, charged with the execution of the laws, and to the
maintenance of liberty, both civil and political. (Bk. III, chap.I)
the main problem with Rousseau’s notion of the general will is the practical problem of finding out what
the general will is
as Rousseau held that the general will is always right
if any person wants something other than the general will,
in other words, other than what the people ‘really’ want
such persons do not really know what is in their own best interests or what they really want
it is not really a matter of compelling everyone to submit to the general will
Social & Political Philosophy Rousseau—7
in a small, local community it may be easier to determine through direct democracy a general will
in some ways Rousseau’s theory really worked for the small city-state like his native Geneva
for the large nation state the lack of an adequate theory to practically determine the general will
has led critics of Rousseau to find in his social contract a forerunner to totalitarianism
the division of society into rich and poor leads to another state of war:
Thus, as the most powerful or the most miserable considered their might or misery as a kind of
right to the possession of others, equivalent, in their opinion, to that of property, the destruction of
equality was attended by the most terrible disorders. Usurpations by the rich, robbery by the poor,
and the unbridled passions of both, suppressed the cries of natural compassion and the still feeble
voice of justice, and filled men with avarice, ambition, and vice. Between the tide of the strongest
and that of the first occupier, there arose perpetual conflicts, which never ended but in battles and
bloodshed. The new-born state of society thus gave rise to a horrible state of war. . . . (DOI, 291)
this leads to a situation in which the rich are insecure and the poor feel cheated
and this leads to the Lockeian contract
which, for Rousseau, is something of a great swindle pulled off by the rich and powerful
who obviously have the most to gain from a civil contract
“. . . the rich man, thus urged by necessity, conceived at length the profoundest plan that ever entered the
mind of man. . .”
promising to benefit all through an act of common benevolence the rich man’s plan unfolds:
‘Let us join,’ said he, ‘to guard the weak from oppression, to restrain the ambitious, and secure to
every man the possession of what belongs to him: let us institute rules of justice and peace, to
which all without exception may be obliged to conform. . . . (DOI, 291)
thus the inequalities between rich and poor already established by hook or crook
become, by social contract, entitlements protected by law—and thus:
“All ran headlong to their chains, in hopes of securing their liberty” (DOI, 292)
Social & Political Philosophy Rousseau—8
Influence
the popularity of Rousseau’s political philosophy
first expressed itself in the French support of the American Revolution
Thomas Jefferson was very much influenced by Rousseau’s thought
Rousseau’s thought also had a profound influence shaping the French Revolution
his doctrine of the sovereignty of the people became very popular in the years leading up to 1789
parts of The Social Contract were read aloud in the streets of Paris and met with enthusiastic applause
according to the conservative English political thinker Edmund Burke
the French Revolutionary Constituent Assembly (1789-1791) almost worshiped Rousseau’s thought
Rousseau’s thought would have a decided influence on shaping the French
Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen
when the revolution began it was decidedly atheistic because of the influence of Voltaire
and other antireligious Enlightenment thinkers
Robespierre, however, was convinced by Rousseau’s writings to support religious belief
and he persuaded the National Convention in 1793 to adopt an article of faith based on Rousseau
Napoleon also agreed with Rousseau on the importance of religion
and thus, ironically, the survival of the Church in France depended largely on Rousseau
who was banished for heresy in his lifetime