French Revolution, Rosseau, Democracy, Social Contract Theory

To what extent does Rousseau’s Social Contract offer a model for human freedom?

The basic argument that will be outlined is that whilst Rousseau’s Social Contract offered a plausible alternative political model at the time of his writing, his Social Contract would not work if implemented today and furthermore, would have a detrimental impact on human freedom. Nevertheless, the extent of influence that Rousseau had in both shaping and influencing Western philosophical tradition and intellect cannot be overestimated. In order for this argument to be coherent, one must look at the Social Contract Theory in itself. Moreover, given the historicalness of this topic, one must examine the context in which Rousseau produced his political philosophy in order to contemplate his rational. Taking this descriptive and analytical scope to this question ensures that the argument outlined is supported with both historical evidence and analysis.

Rousseau was born and raised in Geneva in the early eighteenth century.[1] Rousseau idealised the political values of his homeland.[2] As Lane highlights, that whilst democracy was somewhat limited in Geneva, Rousseau idealised the republican values of which Geneva possessed.[3] For Rousseau, a republican state advocated human freedom more than a monarchical system ever could. Therefore, there is certainly an indisputable link between Rousseau’s upbringing and his ideals. Rousseau’s political thought and Social Contract helped inspire the French Revolution - an event which fundamentally changed Western political and philosophical intellect. Some philosophers and historians even consider the French Revolution as the outgrowth of the spirit of rationalism in Europe.[4] Economically, the Bourbon Dynasty was on its knees - the economic plight further enhanced by corruption, leading to the Bourbon’s subjects beginning to demand for more equality and fairness.[5] Purely because French citizens in their lifetime had never experienced anything other than the Bourbon Dynasty, the political model of absolute governance relatively speaking had always been accepted, prior to the revolution.[6] Rousseau’s influence and worldview helped change this acceptance and thus caused the revolution. This revolution seeked a radical change and therefore a complete overthrow of the perceived unjust and corrupt Bourbon Dynasty. This in itself shows the extent and influence of Rousseau’s political philosophy, but he also profoundly impacted Karl Marx as well as the late eighteenth century Romantic Naturalism movement across the European continent.[7] Furthermore, Rousseau is also widely considered to have released the most influential autobiography of all time, Confessions.[8]

In order to understand and analyse Rousseau’s Social Contract, one must look at what a Social Contract is in itself. The notion of ‘Social Contract’ has faced both historical and contemporary widespread criticism, often from established philosophers such as David Hume.[9] Nevertheless, the notion of Social Contract continued to gain wide support “as a way of explaining the moral basis of our relationship to the state”.[10] However, for the purpose of clarity, a Social Contract can be defined as “an unwritten agreement between the members of a society to behave with reciprocal responsibility in their relationships under the governance of the ‘state’ which, in social theory, is presupposed by the existence of that society”.[11]

Rousseau’s Social Contract illustrated a design for a new kind of politics and it helped shape political reforms and revolutions across the European continent. Rousseau’s Social Contract was based on his belief that societal development had corrupted each individuals’ morals and psychology.[12] “The progression of the sciences and the arts has caused the corruption of virtue and morality.”[13] This discourse won Rousseau widespread fame and recognition.[14] Societal development for Rousseau has resulted in a culture of dependency of opinion from others based on necessity.[15] Modern society is therefore about the need for pride and esteem that can now only come from the other.[16] Rousseau argues that this is unnatural and therefore unhealthy as it has resulted in humans being estranged from our true self.[17] This is why Rousseau used the term “I’homme est né libre, et partout il est dans les fers” (man is born free and everywhere he is in chains).[18] Therefore, for Rousseau, one is innately free and benevolent, but society removes our natural freedom. Therefore, implying that our natural freedom is lost in society.

This is why Rousseau’s Social Contract removes any notion of monarchy or dynasty. Rousseau’s Social Contract was based on the core principle of ‘popular sovereignty’.[19] This term crucially abandons the notion of divine right and established custom.[20] This resulted in Rousseau introducing a principle into his Social Contract which is still relevant today as ever. That is the principle that governments derive all their power from the consent of those governed.[21] This is the intrinsic feature of democracy and is a principle that we live with in twenty-first century Britain – achieved through the use of general elections and referendums. Therefore, in the context of pre-revolution France, Rousseau’s fundamental beliefs offered more freedom and fairness then the Bourbon Dynasty could ever give, in its current form. Rousseau’s ideals were therefore certainly deemed democratic at the time as they were perceived to be based on logic and freedom. As Lincoln states, “it was to furnish a logical foundation on which such a society could be erected, that Rousseau developed his theory of the Social Contract, a union between the individuals living in a given territory”.[22]

Rousseau’s belief that man is born free is why he concludes that no-one has the natural right to command another. “No man has the natural authority over his fellow men”. The only time that Rousseau approves of the commanding of another through necessity, is the relationship between father and son. Even then, Rousseau argues that the necessity of commanding the son ceases to exist when the child is no longer a child. If the relationship continues in its same form its voluntary, not because of necessity. Apart from this example, no-one has a duty to submit to the commands of another.

It is because of Rousseau’s view of State of Nature that the essentially rejects all forms of government on the basis that there is no naturalistic necessity for government. Government therefore arises from convention as opposed to Hobbes’ view that government arises from necessity. Therefore, Rousseau’s Social Contract proposes that humans remain free, even though they have to oblige to the Social Contract. This ideology is founded on the idea that the only person that one must obey is themselves. This ensures equality, freedom and harmony. This is achieved and maintained by reference to the two wills that all possess. The ‘general will’ is selfless and for everyone, the ‘particular will’ is selfish and for the individual. Rousseau certainly adapted a very optimistic view of human behaviour. He postulates that all will want the Social Contract to work, which is why Rousseau advocates everyone using their general will not their particular will - “each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody”.[23] This for Rousseau would ensure the wellbeing and freedom of all, something we have not yet achieved in society. As Deneys-Tunney stated, “through the concept of the general will, Rousseau believed that the alienation of man could transform itself into freedom”.[24]

Rousseau believed his Social Contract to be practical, because the general will is attuned to the common good. The general will was referred to as the “absent embodiment of the sovereign power of the state”.[25] This state would therefore be moral, as it is based on the general will which avoids self-interest and greed being at the heart of society, consequently ensuring one receives the morality which they previously lacked.[26] In this context, obeying state law is obligatory for Rousseau as the law is an appropriate expression of the people’s will, justifying the popular sovereignty of both law and state.[27]

A substantial amount of Rousseau’s intellect is logical and coherent. None more so than his critique of societal development. This particular critique to a large extent really does reflect the issues which modern society are facing today. His belief that we are contingent on others for our own esteem and wellbeing is entirely plausible. We only have to look at the nature of social media to see this. Whether it is Facebook or Instagram, many of us upload photos in order to see how many ‘likes’ we can get for that photo. Furthermore, reality TV often harms our self-esteem and further enhances that societal need for approval from others. For example, shows such as Love Island reflect what society seems to approve of as “the perfect body”, consequently resulting in people feeling insecure in their own bodies. Therefore, Rousseau was entirely accurate when he said that the contingency of approval from others is entirely detrimental to one’s true self. Cases of mental health are increasing at an alarming rate, thus reflecting the accurateness of Rousseau’s critique. Of course, this was not the context in which Rousseau was critiquing societal development, but his critique is so relevant to life today. His model therefore illustrates the issues of other political models for one’s self-esteem and therefore he tries to offer a better model which offers more human freedom.

In addition, it can be argued that Rosseau’s Social Contract promotes more human freedom than other famous Social Contracts, such as that of Hobbes and Locke.[28] Rousseau was the only philosopher at the time to advocate people forming and maintaining government, unlike Locke and Hobbes who did not give full power of control to the people in their personal philosophy.[29]

In addition, Rousseau’s model is based on the notion of the collective not the individual. Rousseau emphasises the importance of civil duty and responsibility - for the welfare of the collective and not just the individual. He is therefore, advocating human freedom through the scope of communitarianism. Despite the limitations of this Social Contract, to a large extent, Rousseau’s intentions are benevolent. He does not seek a society rife with greed, self-interest, corruption and oppression. The majority of his flaws cannot be found in his intentions, but more in the reality of his political philosophy.

Rousseau was highly influenced by Kant.[30] Despite fundamental philosophical differences, Rousseau was shaped by Kant’s view that morality is separate from individual happiness.[31] However, Rousseau should have taken Kant’s ‘the rights approach’, which would emphasis individual choice for the Social Contract as it is their fundamental right to do so. Rousseau fails to acknowledge this and therefore his model presents compatibility with totalitarianism. Therefore, logically, this model cannot advocate any level of human freedom, because there is no choice other than to obey the Social Contract. As Delaney states, the tension in Rousseau’s work between individual liberty and totalitarianism is still controversial today.[32] In this model of Social Contract, there are no rights for the individual and it therefore cannot be considered to advocate any human freedom.[33] This means that the Social Contract is a complete juxtaposition. In rhetoric, he is promoting human freedom yet in reality he is forbidding it.

Moreover, some may argue that his view on natural human behaviour is problematic. Rousseau’s State of Nature is very optimistic, some would argue that Hobbes’ State of Nature is more accurate - even if it is entirely pessimistic. Infinity cannot be linked to physical entities, such as food and shelter etc, so the idea that if there were no laws or structures in place, humans would flourish is mistaken. As Hobbes stated, there would to an extent be anarchy. Therefore, laws need to be in place to ensure the safety and security of the state. The idea that no-one has a duty to obey a command from another, is entirely illogical. Apart from extreme examples, such as defiance of Nazi law or resistance to apartheid in South Africa, on a day-to-day basis, laws are there to protect humans and promote freedom, not hinder and Rousseau fails to realise this. Therefore, regardless of the advocation of human freedom, many would discredit Rousseau’s Social Contract from the beginning due to its fundamental philosophical flaws.

Some of Rousseau’s work is entirely plausible. His critique of societal development is coherent. Society cannot itself give us our true happiness, especially with the externalisation and commercialisation of costs which has caused a profound ecological crisis.[34] Furthermore, the idea that government should not control the people but the people control the government is the foundation of our democracy. However, there are fundamental issues with the Social Contract which means we should not advocate it as it unintentionally hinders human freedom. Whilst this would not have been the conclusion at the time of Rousseau’s existence, his Social Contract simply cannot give us freedom today. Rousseau himself quoted something which can be used to perfectly describe the inadequacies of his Social Contract in relation to human freedom. “The world of reality has its limits; the world of imagination is boundless”. Perhaps his social contract would advocate and ensure human freedom in the world of imagination, but it cannot in the world of reality. If anything, the Social Contract hinders human freedom due to its contingency on totalitarianism. Rousseau describes himself perfectly which can inadvertently summarise his Social Contract “I may be no better, but at least I am different”. To no extent can this Social Contract advocate human freedom, but we must remember and apply his critique of societal development to be truer to our-self and thus experience a higher level of human freedom.

Word count: 2199

[1] Melissa Lane, Philosophy Bites Back, ed. by David Edwards and Nigel Warburton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 116. [2] Ibid. [3] Ibid. [4] C. H. Lincoln, ''Rousseau and the French Revolution'', The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 10.1, (1897), 54-73 (p. 54). [5] Ibid. [6] Ibid. p. 55. [7] James Delaney, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778) (2020) <https://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/#H7> [accessed 4 January 2020]. [8] Melissa Lane, Philosophy Bites Back, ed. by David Edwards and Nigel Warburton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 115. [9] John Cottingham, Western Philosophy: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008), p. 498. [10] Ibid. [11] The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought, ed. by Allan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, 3rd edn (London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999), p. 799. [12] Melissa Lane, Philosophy Bites Back, ed. by David Edwards and Nigel Warburton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 117-118. [13] James Delaney, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778) (2020) <https://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/#H7> [accessed 4 January 2020]. [14] Ibid. [15] Melissa Lane, Philosophy Bites Back, ed. by David Edwards and Nigel Warburton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), p. 117-118. [16] Ibid. [17] Ibid. [18] John Cottingham, Western Philosophy: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008), p. 498. [19] C. H. Lincoln, ''Rousseau and the French Revolution'', The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 10.1, (1897), 54-73 (p. 57). [20] Ibid. [21] Ibid. [22] Ibid. p. 57-58. [23] John Cottingham, Western Philosophy: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008), p. 498. [24] Anne Deneys-Tunney, Rousseau shows us that there is a way to break the chains – from within (2012) < https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/15/rousseau-shows-us-way-break-chains> [accessed 18 January 2020]. [25] John Cottingham, Western Philosophy: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008), p. 498. [26] Ibid. p. 500. [27] Dave Robinson and Judy Groves, Introducing Political Philosophy (London: Icon Books Ltd, 2012), p. 82. [28] C. H. Lincoln, ''Rousseau and the French Revolution'', The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 10.1, (1897), 54-73 (p. 58). [29] Ibid. [30] James Delaney, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712—1778) (2020) <https://www.iep.utm.edu/rousseau/#H7> [accessed 4 January 2020]. [31] Ibid. [32] Ibid. [33] Dave Robinson and Judy Groves, Introducing Political Philosophy (London: Icon Books Ltd, 2012), p. 83. [34] Ibid.