Transcription
Okay. Hello, I'm Zoe.
>> Hi, this is Mustafa. >> I'm Jackson. Today we're going to be talking about Rousseau's communitarianism and Locke's individualism and discuss which offers a more viable framework for governance in the 21st century. First of all, who wants to start?
>> Yeah, sure. So, um, today we'd like to first go over Locke's, uh, individualism theory. So, it prioritizes individual liberty as the foundation of government and democracy. And it advocates for rights such as life, liberty, and property. Without these rights, um, governments are only legitimate if they protect these rights and operate with the consent of the governed. So Locke also believes in this social contract which justifies the formation of a government by individuals willing to cede some sovereignty in exchange for security. Um, we can see this in modern societies by governments providing public goods and welfare to promote social justice and economic fairness. Uh, yeah, that's that's it for the theory.
Great. So, uh, on the communitarian side, we were, you know, formulating like an introduction of that and we were focusing first on what communitarianism is before Rousseau comes into the picture because he does exist before that term ends up being coined. So the communitarianism that we all know is individuals contributing to a community and putting the community before their own needs. So the idea is if you put the community, uh, first, then the community is going to be able to serve you best. And we see this most often in East Asian countries where it's not "me, me." It's, "Okay, let me put into my society, and then my society will give back into me." But Rousseau presents a twist on this, which maybe is no twist because this is before his time, but he has his own interpretation where it's the individual has to commit themselves absolutely to the society, and that results in a loss of individual rights that you would have in an individualistic society. Like you said, it's more focused on the community's rights over the individual's.
>> Right. Thank you. Thank you for that.
>> So, um, I think we should move on to which theory is more applicable in today's society in the modern world. Um, Jackson, would you like to give us some examples of how this can be applicable?
>> Yeah, so on the Locke and individual, Locke and individualism's core premise is no natural rights, life, liberty, and property, and also consent of the governed. And as we can see in the World Happiness Report from 2024, the countries with the highest civil liberties that really embody these ideals would be like Finland, Denmark, Iceland. They've consistently scored the highest in life satisfaction among its citizens, which really goes to show that Locke's framework does provide stable and legitimate democracies despite political polarization maybe decreasing the, uh, viability of pure individualism as a framework for governance. It, Locke and individualism is definitely the best way to structure government in the modern world.
>> Just based on the 20th century, that's what um I was mostly looking at from just communitarianism and the efforts today that have been done from that, um, perspective. A lot of it is in an effort to like solve problems. Like, for example, after World War II, Japan made a huge effort to rebuild and grow their economy. And that meant that a lot of people, um, sacrificed a lot for their community, and overall, it like really helped everyone. But the ideal ideas of communitarianism kind of only work like in dire situations. I think I think they're only like really helpful when there's um, there's a needed effort. I know I'm not really like making a case here for it, but I think that's where it's like really actually applicable in today's modern world. Um, so, yeah, I don't know. Do you have anything to add to that, Marilyn?
>> Yeah, I think, um, it has to be said that communitarianism, especially Rousseau's specific genre of it, is very idealistic. So, it's really difficult to implement into the real world. So, we can say like, "Oh, look at this example, look at that example." And we aren't talking about Rousseau's straight implementation of it. You know, Locke has been verbatim quoted by a lot of different countries in their constitutions, in their declarations. Um, and his rights, his theories show up time and time again. Rousseau are kind of more on the utopia side. So his ideas, yeah, they are still in society, but they've been definitely shifted and evolved way more than Locke's have been.
>> I definitely agree. And then to build off of your point, Zoe, about Japan, they're definitely very economically successful right now, for sure. Um, but as you did point out, like their, uh, culture isn't as free as other nations, and, you know, their fertility rates not doing great right now, and the work culture there is particularly bad. So while they are succeeding economically based off of Rousseau's communitarianism policy, definitely the people aren't thriving as much as we would like to see in government. Yeah, I think going back to what Marilyn said, I think the idealistic approach to Rousseau's like, I don't know, his ideas, it would only work if the state really had the best interest of the individuals in mind all the time, or that the people who were, um, voting or could vote on decisions being made actually had the people's best interest in mind all the time. But that's what we don't see is that the state typically acts within the state's best interest, and that doesn't always mean that it aligns with, um, what's best for the community as a whole. So.
>> Yeah. So I think [clears throat] in like, in general, I think we we come to the agreement that Locke's individualism is generally more applicable theory in the modern society, especially in terms of governance, law, and economics. Um, while Rousseau's communitarianism, it does provide a good like contemporary template, sort of, but there isn't really a state that has followed it successfully or has proven that it does work.
>> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I would say the only nation that I can think of that tried to follow, um, Rousseau's idea really might have been post-revolutionary France right before Napoleon came in, and we all know how that kind of ended up happening with, you know, the period of, uh, terror and, you know, just chopping off everyone's heads if they don't, you know, agree to this general will that was within the, um, the society during that time. And I think a lot of people look back on that, and it has a negative connotation nowadays, so it doesn't give a positive rep to Rousseau's theory that, you know, if you're looking at law, you think of the United States because of life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, Locke has that right there that may have a more positive connotation.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. But also to point out the more failures of Locke's individualism as we can see right, right [clears throat] sorry, as we can see right now in the United States, you know, we're in a government shutdown. So clearly on the extreme end, there are definitely some failures that need to be addressed before we could fully say that Locke individualism, which is a lot of what the US Constitution and US government is based off of, is a good viable framework. Um, definitely the way that the US government is set up with separation of powers and, uh, different political parties leaves a lot of room for there to be stagnation and development of the country, as there is kind of in Japan, just in a different way because they follow a different form of government.
>> Well, can we argue then almost like an intersection would be most applicable because we're so talks about no political parties, only one body in government. Is there a way to kind of, um, intersect the two? Like when I think of, um, no political parties, I do go to Japan, where they have one party, but the party is so giant that it spans both sides of the aisle. So would it maybe be, um, is there a case where you can say, "Oh, real-world applic-"
>> Application.
>> Application, there you go. Application of it is more just not this or that, but a, you know, a braiding of the term.
>> Well, I, I don't have any like example unfortunately, unless our groupmates. I mean, I think definitely there is no one way to swing this. The extremes of both have proven in the modern world that they don't particularly work. But communitarianism does have the almost hanging promise of conformity, which I think threatens a lot of freedom in the modern day that a lot of countries and a lot of citizens do value. So, I think if we were to go for an intersection, we would lean more towards individualism anyway, just because freedom of expression, freedom of speech, natural rights, those are all things that are highly valued, I think, in the majority of countries today.
>> Yeah. I think that,
>> Sorry, what were you going to say, M?
>> No, no, you go. You go. I was just going to say that I think that there has to be, like you said, the extremes aren't like viable, but as far as the efficiency of decision making and like just progression forward towards whatever the goal is, I think communitarianism like leads better than individualism on that. And especially for decisions like, um, something that came up was like climate change, how, um, it needs to be like a state-led collective effort to change anything with that, um, rather than just like individual effort. And so I think with problems like that, it, it almost requires communitarian efforts to, to like push things forward, but that doesn't mean like a communitarian state necessarily. It's just like the ideals of it. Does that make sense? [laughter]
>> No.
>> Yeah, I was just thinking, but, uh, the, the like, maybe minor issue with that, though, is that if it's this, um, like one, okay, if it's a state-led effort, it's, uh, um, a communitarianism state, then there is no room for debate within leadership of what is the best course of action, which could lead to, you know, somewhat of a wrong path, and there's like almost no room for course correction at that point, which I would argue liberal democracies are also leading in these kind of humanitarian efforts because they prioritize it a little bit more. But maybe we're just looking at these things.
>> No. Yeah, I agree. I think that makes sense. Like, it's not that individualism isn't helping on those fronts either.
>> Okay. So the next question that we want to answer is, should governments prioritize collective stability even at the expense of some personal freedoms, or is individual liberty the essential foundation of a functioning democracy?
>> That is a great question. And actually, I have an example of a state that tried to do this, and in my opinion, I would call it a success. So, um, after Singapore gained independence from Malaysia, they were under authoritarian authoritarian rule by Lee Kuan Yew, and, um, his government was basically like exactly what Rousseau's communitarianism is, you know, and it turned out to be a success because he took, uh, a land that was previously under occupation by Malaysia, and he turned it into one of the most successful countries with the highest GDPs per capita in the world, which is Singapore today. Singapore. However, um, after Lee Kuan Yew's, um, leadership has passed, um, Singapore, I'm not sure exactly what, um, political party they have in government right now, but it's definitely not this, uh, communitarian view that, uh, Rousseau is trying to push. And, yeah.
>> I think right now Singapore has like a one party or like a single party state where they still hold a lot of elections, but one party is like dominant right now. I'm just not sure what they, that party stands for right now. So, yeah.
>> So the point does still stand then.
>> For communitarianism. I know we've been mentioning East Asia a lot, East Asia a lot because they probably do it best in terms of consistently being humanitarian societies, but you can see that really easily with China specifically. You know, China has had a gigantic history, one of the, you know, longest standing histories in the world. But the current regime that's in place, which is communist, has been able to stand even past the Cold War. So, and how they've been managed to do that is the stability that the actual nation has where it's not every person has as much freedoms as an American or a Canadian or a French person or a British person has, but they have enough freedoms where, and benefits, that's the real key here, where the people are satisfied, the people like their government, the people aren't really pushing for a change unless you want to count Hong Kong, which I'm personally not, because I'm talking about mainly in China. But they've done a really, really good job at making sure that stability stays at the utmost, um, priority, and they've been doing that through communitarian ways. And just to sort of gravitate away from East Asia because I don't want to keep like harping on the same thing a million times over, I think it's important to note when, um, nations sort of develop like a hybrid sort of way of governance where individualistic nations can turn into communitarian nations, like what Zoe was saying, in dire needs, where the first thing I think of is wartime. You know, if you have nations where there's an ongoing war, sometimes you'll have martial law being declared, and through that, it's okay, we're prioritizing the community, not the individual. And through that, you're able to see that stability is actually pretty successful there. Even though you are cutting back on individual freedoms that people may be used to because they're used to having a wide variety of freedoms, freedom of speech, freedom of press, assembly, etc. The state is more focused on that general will of, "We're trying to keep ourselves afloat right now. We're trying to keep ourselves alive and working in everything." So, let's cut back on these freedoms. And, you know, there's definitely been cases of that where it hasn't worked in the past. But you could even say for World War II, the United States, Canada, England, France, off the top of my head, all did similar, um, martial law, you know, during wartime, you can restrain your freedom, sort of thing. And it ended up working. So, I think there definitely is some credit and that does fall back to my part of the intersecting of the two. But, um, I do really like, you know, comparing contrasting what Zoro was saying, like what different times call for different forms of governance.
>> Yeah. And I think all that to say too, like there are so many, that's not to excuse like the personal freedoms that are being limited today that, like in totalitarian states such as China, like there's a lot of stability there, but I also,
>> I mean, we,
>> I'm trying to focus on the positive. [laughter]
>> Should be fighting for humanitarianism.
>> Yes. I, I agree 100%. You know, you have to look at both sides of the, yeah, the situation. So.
>> Yeah, I agree. I'll let someone else talk now.
>> Yeah. To to your point, Zoe, and to counter you, Marilyn, just a little bit, that we were, the question does explicitly state functioning democracy, which I think we would all agree that China is not. So it is definitely very stable, definitely economically prosperous, uh, at the moment, but I don't think their, uh, regime type and the way that they're structuring their government does lead itself to a functioning democracy. And definitely they're, they've cut back on so many individual liberties that I don't think it would be possible to make it a functioning democracy unless they start allowing more freedoms, um, and modeling themselves after less of a communist communitarian government style.
>> Yeah, I agree that the question, you know, was focusing on democracy, but, um, and China obviously isn't. I'm not trying to claim whatsoever. you know, I, we all know what China is at the end of the day, but I just sort of referencing it as a, you know, a prime example of how you can have stability, um, from communitarianism. So, democracy just doesn't really do that as often because in democracy, you'll usually see a focus on individualistic, um, policies and such. So, it's a little harder, but that's why I also gave the example of nations during wartime because Zoe reminded me about that, and I just like, "Oh, let me talk about that with-"
>> Yeah. I did like your example of the United States because definitely as we see during wartime, uh, specifically, they'll cut back on freedom of speech and freedom of expression when it comes to things like, like protesting a draft, which we saw in, I believe this was the Vietnam War. But, yeah, for sure. Even the US, which is a ve, a relatively well-functioning democracy, maybe not exactly at this moment, but, uh, has prioritized stability over individual, over individual freedoms, and it has worked out for them, and probably because of the wartime need for it. So, yeah. Yeah, I think overall, it's the individual liberty and personal freedoms that are essential for a functioning democracy, but there's definitely times for, you know, different measures to be taken depending on what is needed to like stay afloat, like you said, Marilyn.
>> All right. So, um, uh, I think to answer both questions, um, we believe that there should be a mix of both, um, theories, like Marilyn said, an intersection where they meet, where we can get the good of both sides. However, it's, it's clear that the extreme of each side does not result in a, in a stable democracy or, um, a healthy community. So that's, yeah, we definitely think that a mixture of both would, would be sufficient. And just to go a little bit more in depth, we do think that Rousseau's general will highlights that, um, you know, societies function the best when citizens have, uh, a sense of purpose and like collective responsibility being in that kind of a society. Um, even though Rousseau's, uh, ideas in general will are criticized for kind of enabling majority oppression, but as we see with Japan, South Korea, and China, um, the successes of their state developments prior, and prioritizing communal welfare and like coordinated planning, does elevate living standards and reduce inequality regardless of, um, unregulated individualism, kind of, um, but also Locke's individualism is still incredibly vital for a healthy society because the protection of natural rights, life, liberty, property, does form the moral foundation of most dem, most, if not all democratic societies today. So without these individual freedoms, um, Rousseau's notions kind of risk becoming a, or enforcing a very conformist society or authoritarian society. Um, we do also kind of see this in Japan and China. Um, so in today's world, I think protecting personal autonomy and privacy, especially in mass media now, is more important than ever. So Locke's ideas are still incredibly, uh, important to be held by governments regardless of their predetermined, um, communitarianism models. Um, so as we've discussed, we do believe that the most sustainable model is just fully, just a hybrid between, um, Rousseau's communitarianism and Locke's individualism. Um, and more specifically, we think that governments should really work towards, uh, civic education, social safety, and, um, like participatory democracies that encourage, um, people to speak out on their individual freedoms and, but also maintain a sense of responsibility towards their communities. So, uh, we do see that the two models are not opposites, but also like, uh, reinforcing pillars of democracy. So liberty gives, uh, individuals their own agency and their own freedoms. Um, but community does ensure that that freedom serves more than just the individual. So this would become the most resilient framework for government, for governance today because it prioritizes both the individual and the community rather than just, uh, building up one and completely neglecting the other.
>> Awesome.
>> Awesome. Blossom.
>> Thanks. Bye. Bye. I have enough.