Forced to be Free Anyone? (The Social Contract - Jean-Jacques Rousseau)

Member Name: a-true-ben

Product:	The Social Contract - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Date:	20/10/02 (281 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Very interesting, Democratic?

Disadvantages: Totalitarian?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-78) was a man of contradictions. He condemned the theatre as a sign of moral decadence, yet wrote plays for the Parisian theatre and one of the best selling novels of his time (Julie). He wrote another book (Emile) describing the ideal education and upbringing of a child, and yet gave his own five children up for adoption. It?s little surprise his seminal work, the Social Contract (1762), which was censored in its own time, has been seen as one of the original statements of democracy, and a dangerous advocate of totalitarianism!

Rousseau was something of a luddite. He had a romantic notion of a past when men were free and innocent, in a state of nature almost the opposite of Hobbes? (Hobbes envisaged men without government would be in a constant state of war). Modern society, Rousseau feared, had corrupted people ? giving them desires they didn?t really want and couldn?t possibly fulfil. What?s more, there could be no return to the state of nature ? the damage caused by society was permanent ? and so Rousseau?s aim was to find the best form of civil society, one in which men could be governed and yet free.

The solution he saw was a form of self-rule. To be free (at least, in society), for Rousseau, was not to be lawless, but to be governed by one?s own laws. His answer therefore was that everyone should have a part in determining these laws ? that is, laws should be dictated by the ?general will?.

At first sight, this seems a noble idea, but it runs into problems. The general will is supposedly infallible and always focused on the common good. If laws do follow the general will, then they will always be for the good of the community ? which is fair enough, but the general will still has to be identified. It?s not clear whether Rousseau believed the general will was something objective to be identified, or simply the result of what people thought. At best, however, such a scheme results in a dictatorship of the m
ajority ? with dissenters being told not just that they?re outvoted but they?re wrong. Everyone has agreed to follow the general will, so if (for example) I was in favour of a certain law, such as legalisation of cannabis but the majority were against it, Rousseau would say the general will had in fact been against it and because I wanted the general will to prevail my own judgement (that cannabis should be legalised) was erroneous, not what I really wanted! The dangerous consequence of this, however, is that if people can be wrong about what they want, others might know better ? thus people can be ?forced to be free? (as Rousseau puts it). Indeed, it is theoretically possible they could be better ruled by an enlightened and benevolent elite (such as Plato?s Guardians); although Rousseau maintains popular involvement is necessary, or else the people won?t be free, it isn?t clear whether it?s more valuable to be free or right?

As you can see, the Social Contract isn?t perhaps as simple as it appears on first sight. Personally I find Rousseau a fascinating character having read a bit more of his work ? I?d recommend Emile, or Rousseau?s ?Confessions? or ?Reveries of a Solitary Walker? to get more idea about the man himself. The Social Contract is, along with Hobbes? Leviathan and Plato?s Republic, one of my favourite books from my course though. Its contradictoriness is fascinating, and yet it never seems as confused as (and certainly not as dry as), say, Aristotle. Not only that, it was another of those fairly influential books (probably why it?s still studied today) ? something the Jacobins seized on, then corrupted, in the French Revolution, and arguably at the break between classical and modern thought.

The cheapo edition of Social Contract is the Wordsworth Classic, translated by Derek Matravers (and pictured on Dooyoo) at £2.99. My copy?s the Oxford University Press one, which includes Rousseau?s Discourse on Political Economy, as well as helpf
ul notes with the text (£5.99). You might, however, want to look for the Everyman edition (also £5.99), which I believe also includes the Discourse on Inequality ? Rousseau?s other major political work.

Useful books/websites:
Robert Wokler ? A Very Short Introduction to Rousseau
Alfred Cobban ? Rousseau and the Modern State
http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/rousseau.htm (encyclopaedia entry)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/rousseau-co ntract2.html (excerpts)
http://192.211.16.13/curricular/PE/lecrous.htm (on Emile)

Summary: