Rousseau's Social Contract Theory

[Music] Hello and welcome to Philosophy Vibe, the channel where we discuss and debate different philosophical ideas. Today, we're going to be looking into some political philosophy with a focus on the works of the 18th-century Geneva philosopher, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and his works around the social contract. Excellent.

Now, a social contract is an agreement made between the people and the sovereign of the state as to how they will be ruled. You may have seen our video on Thomas Hobbes and John Locke's version of the social contract. Hobbes believed the sovereign and the populous agree that the sovereign shall have unlimited control and power over the population, provided they keep the population safe and stable. Whereas John Locke argued that the sovereign and the people agree that the state will have very limited power and shall only be allowed to exercise this power to protect its citizens' natural rights: life, liberty, and justice.

Now, building off the works of Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau developed a new social contract theory that goes even further to balance freedom of the individual with the power of the sovereign. Quite simply, Rousseau's social contract claims that it is, in fact, the people that should become the sovereign. What does that mean, exactly?

Okay, let's start from the beginning. In his book, The Social Contract, Rousseau opens with the following phrase: "Man is born free, and he is everywhere in chains." So, what does Rousseau mean by this? Going back to our early ancestors, the early humans and their primitive lives, humans were, in fact, born completely free. This is known as the state of nature: no societies, no lawgivers, no civilization. Each person with a hundred percent freedom.

Now, those of you who are familiar with Hobbes will recognize this phrase. However, Hobbes saw the state of nature as a horrible time before civilization where humans were savage. Life was cruel, painful, harsh, and violent. Rousseau, however, did not agree with Hobbes on this point, but instead, he saw the state of nature as man's freest, most blissful time. People lived simple lives, they needed very little, and all they needed to live happy lives was given to them by nature in abundance. Man was free and had all he wanted.

I see. This, however, changed over the course of time. The human population increased exponentially. We had to share the world and share nature with a lot more humans, causing scarcity and competition amongst ourselves. As the populations increased, humans had to start living closer together. One, because space was filling up, and two, so we could help and cooperate with each other. Families started to form, then tribes, then communities, then city-states, and eventually large countries. People started to become interdependent. People could no longer meet their needs alone. Each person was given responsibilities to help out to their respective communities, and labor was divided among the population to make life easier for everyone.

However, with this came private property and wealth, rewards for certain labor functions, and status for certain roles in certain people. Because of this, people would start to compare themselves to others. This desire to be better than your fellow man was down to a corrupted self-love Rousseau referred to as "amour-propre." From this amour-propre, we would get greed, envy, shame, and pride. Slowly, slowly, certain people attained more property and wealth than others. Inequality appeared, and eventually, social classes were formed. Interesting.

So, now we have interdependent societies where labor is divided among everyone. In the state, of course, for the society to function, there will need to be a sovereign. There will need to be laws and rules to make sure everything functions. However, in this class-divided state where certain people have a lot of private property, wealth, and power, Rousseau believed it would be in their interest to protect what they have and make sure they never lose their wealth and status. Laws of the land would directly benefit the rich and upper classes more so than the poor. That being the case, laws of the land would be skewed in favor of the rich and powerful to protect their private property. So, governments would be formed, promising to protect all citizens, but really, the laws and rules passed would only ensure that the rich stayed rich, that inequality would continue, and those who do not have would be unable to take from those who do have. And so, man was born free, but because of how human beings have developed, most men are now in chains everywhere, right?

Rousseau did not believe this was fair, but whilst this was undesirable, we are no longer in a position where we can go back to the state of nature. We have progressed too far. The aim then was to balance freedom and equality whilst all living together under the laws of a sovereign. And so, there was only one sovereign that could ensure fair and equal rule over the entire population. There was only one sovereign that would seek to improve the lives of everyone in their respective state, to eliminate the social problems, inequality, and serve all people. The sovereign had to be the people themselves.

I see. Rousseau envisaged all the people getting together and collectively forming a new body. This new body would be the sovereign. It would be its own entity that does what is best for itself, but because itself consists of everyone in the respective state, the actions and laws passed would seek to benefit everyone as a collective, right? So, people would get together and look at what is best for the entire population. This, Rousseau referred to as the general will. People will put their own selfish needs to one side. People will forget about their amour-propre and just look at what is best for the entire state. The general will is what the citizens decide at some form of assembly on how to do what is best for the entire population. Topics are discussed, people vote, and laws are passed. They cannot have any basis in selfish needs. The general will are laws and regulations that allow all to coexist in the best possible way. Yes, this makes sense.

This new sovereign is the entire population, not just the few of the rich and the wealthy, but everyone. All people then surrender all their rights to the sovereign, and all that matters is what is best for the general will. The sovereign is absolute with absolute power, but each individual makes the sovereign. No person or small group of people have this power; it belongs to everyone collectively. The sovereign can distribute land and individual property, it can issue the division of labor, it can levy taxes, it can pass any law that will benefit the general will. A government can be formed, but this government is just to administer the laws and regulations that the sovereign has set. Ultimately, it is all the people that have absolute power. Rousseau completely disagreed with handing over your right to rule to another, let's say to a dictator or a king or even a political party. Everyone should have the right to rule themselves. There should be no other authority.

Interesting. Now, Rousseau has said that the ruling of the sovereign must come from everyone and must apply to everyone. This is the maximum freedom that an individual can possess in a state. They have a hand in creating the laws, and they must then follow them. Sometimes what we want will be passed, sometimes it will not, but whatever is passed for the general will must apply to everyone. Should anyone disobey what is in the general will, Rousseau claims they will be forced to be free; they must conform to this ideal state with maximum freedom for all citizens.

Okay, so there we have it. The social contract is that all people get together and create a new sovereign. This sovereign functions as its own entity, and we collectively work together to do what is best for the sovereign as a whole. We all contribute, we all have a say in how the state is to be governed, and we all put aside our selfish desires and motivations to look at what is best for the whole. This general will allows us to be rulers and subjects, to be completely free but bound to the laws of the land. It is the perfect compromise between living free in a state with other people, to live free in an interdependent world. We all get together, and we all do what is best for everyone.

Very interesting theory, and yes, at first, this seems like a very desirable state to live in. It is basically direct democracy where the people as a whole decide what is best for their nation. We do not have to worry about corrupt politicians; we do not have to fear despotic kings or dictators. Collectively, we can become the masters of our own destiny. Each man is just as important as the last; each vote counts as much as anyone else's. We are all equally free and equally responsible.

Exactly. But of course, there are huge problems with Rousseau's social contract as a political philosophy. Like what?

Okay, firstly, we all know the issues with direct democracy. The average person does not have adequate knowledge around politics, economics, cultural, or social issues to be in a position to legislate on them. It may be a pessimistic attitude; you may disagree, but I think the vast majority of people will not have an interest in contributing to the laws of the land or just do not have the mental capacity to understand and give any sort of informed, valid opinion or vote on the matter. So, what are we then left with? There will be vast amounts of legislation passed at assemblies where the wider population have not voted on, either through sheer laziness or ignorance. Nonetheless, they will be living under laws they had no part in forming. Effectively, the majority could very well be ruled by the more astute and informed minority.

I would say that although everyone may not have the political, economic, or social knowledge and understanding to participate in legislation, the option is always there for them. They are not being disallowed from participation but rather choosing not to participate because they feel they don't know enough. Should they become educated on the matter at hand and desire to be involved, they have a seat at the table. But does this not then run the risk of allowing people to legislate over areas they have no knowledge in, even if they think they do? Trust me, most stupid people I have met believe they know everything. We then have a very real threat that the laws of our land are being created by ignorant people.

Well, I think the idea of the general will can escape this problem. If people believe they do not have adequate knowledge to legislate, then it will be in the interest of the sovereign that they do not participate. In addition, even if the astute minority find themselves at the assembly more than others, they must still vote and legislate based on what is best for the entire population. They must pass laws for the general will, not their personal will. So, this is not really a very big problem.

Again, call me pessimistic, but I do not think people vote in accordance with the general will. Human beings are selfish creatures; it is part of our nature. We will only vote for things that are in our self-interest and maybe our family's self-interest. I think the idea of the general will is a myth. All we have is the personal will, and legislation will completely depend upon the majority who share the same personal will.

Okay, Rousseau does introduce the idea of what he refers to as the legislator. This would be a wise, intelligent, virtuous person who can explain and teach the average man about the situations at hand and inspire people to vote in accordance with the general will. You can look at this as a state figure that promotes collective identity. It advises the population on what is best for the general will and what will strengthen the sovereign and the good of everyone. Rousseau refers to this as changing each individual who is by himself a complete and solitary whole into part of a greater whole.

What you are describing sounds like state propaganda. It sounds like trying to manipulate and engineer the masses to vote in a certain way. This is basically brainwashing. And how do these legislators decide on what is best for the state? I would strongly believe that the legislators would have a selfish interest too. We will effectively create a ruling class that attempts to manipulate the majority to vote in a specific way. This does not sound healthy at all. There is also a threat of creating homogeneous thoughts where any diversity or dissent from the legislators' beliefs could be suppressed and silenced. This is starting to sound tyrannical.

Hmm. Furthermore, Rousseau mentions that the sovereign would have absolute power and absolute control, and all people would give up all rights to the sovereign. This puts in place a great system for tyranny of the majority. In a diverse area with different thoughts, customs, traditions, and beliefs, majority rule would impact different people in different ways. Should the majority decide that a certain person or that a certain group of people are to be persecuted, this would be completely legitimate under this social contract system.

I see. And finally, this form of direct democracy has a huge practical flaw. Whilst direct democracy can take place in small city-states, it becomes highly unlikely in countries that cover large landmass as well as huge populations. In a state that covers thousands and thousands of miles of land with millions and millions of people, how could they physically attend an assembly and vote on legislation? It would not be possible.

Well, you could break down a large country into smaller regions. You can break it down into towns, boroughs, or cities, and have those citizens vote for their respective areas. So, then you'll be left with one country that could have hundreds of different laws in different areas. You are in one city with one set of laws, and you drive 10 miles out, and you are met with a new set of laws. This is wildly impractical and, in fact, does not inspire unity or collectivity. For me, Rousseau's social contract has a lot of philosophical problems, but most of all, it is wildly impractical and basically impossible in today's world.

I would have to disagree. Personally, I think in today's world, with the internet and the possibility of blockchain-based voting systems, we have never been in a better position to start introducing direct democracy.

[Music] If you would like the script to this video, it is part of the Philosophy Vibe Political Philosophy ebook, available on Amazon. Also, please check out the Philosophy Vibe merchandise store on Teespring. Some really cool merch for sale there, perfect for any passionate philosopher. Links are in the description, and every sale of our ebooks on merch really helps out this channel, and thank you so much to everyone who has supported us so far. But that's all the time we have for now. Thank you for watching. We hope you enjoyed the vibe. And what does everyone else think? Who here agrees with Rousseau's social contract theory? Let us know in the comments below. Don't forget to like and share, and for more philosophical debates, please subscribe to the channel. Take care, and we will see you all soon. Bye.