Jean Jacques Rousseau Essay

The Social Contract was written in 1762 and addresses the legitimacy of political authority. One specific topic that Rousseau writes about to discuss political authority is the power of the sovereign in book II of The Social Contract. Rousseau describes the sovereign as the law or authority. In The Social Contract, Rousseau describes the sovereign as the voice of all the citizens and the sovereign cannot be disobeyed or divided. Rousseau goes on to talk more about the sovereign and how it runs, but the most interesting topic that he discussed is in Chapter 5 entitled “The Right Of Life And Death.”

What entity dictates life on the most fundamental level? Is it the government or the people who permit the government to exist? This is the main point of contention between Baron de Montesquieu 's Spirit of Laws and Jean-Jacques Rousseau 's On the Social Contract. Interestingly, their interpretation of different forms of government converge on the sovereignty of a democracy, but that is where most of their common ground lies. While Rousseau shares similarities on the sovereign authority of a democracy with Montesquieu, he departs by arguing how regardless of government, sovereignty always rests in the hands of the people. He also disagrees on how the populace should participate in the democracy and on their representation in government, making his principles more relevant today.

Rousseau wanted the state to be a legitimate democracy, a society that united together the people in freedom, equality and civic devotion. Rousseau believed that an individual fulfils his moral potential not in isolation but as part of a community where all members are committed to helping each other. This belief led Rousseau to ancient Greek society for which he felt a great admiration. He believed the Greeks lived in 'organic communities', cities where the citizens set aside personal interests in order to attain the common good. Rousseau's ideal state was one of a smaller size but one where the citizens were welded together in the spirit of 'fraternity'. People would therefore have the opportunity to get know each other, resulting in an enthusiastic contribution to all public affairs. Such a political environment produces free and committed citizens. In contrast, the large modern day states are ruled by an absolute monarch, creating 'servile subjects', which Rousseau despised.8

Rousseau describes democracy as a form of government that “has never existed and never will” ; yet twenty-six countries in the world are considered to be full democracies. How can this be possible? Rousseau’s concept of democracy supports the most fundamental and basic premise of democracy – one in which all citizens directly participate. While his idea of democracy cannot be considered an effective indictment of what passes for democracy today, it is not Rousseau’s account which is flawed but that in modern society is would be practically impossible to achieve this idea of democracy.

Government is built on the premises of the established ideas of former politicians and then the new outlooks of recent politicians. All ideas on government are based on the structure and laws of former civilizations. Thus, many politicians can have similar viewpoints on government due to basing their ideas on the same former structures. But, in contrast new government structures include a variety of variations. Therefore, Jean Domat, Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau have major differences in their outlooks on government, but they do share similar aspects.

Rousseau is theorizing from the concept of the general will, which promotes individuals to become conscious citizens who actively participate as a community to form policies for a governing structure. The general will advocates for a commitment to generality, a common interest that will unite all citizens for the benefit of all. Rousseau states, “each one of us puts into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, we incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole” (Rousseau 61). The general will is an expression of the law that is superior to an individual’s

Rousseau establishes the Social Contract (Compact) that will provide the solution for a protective community of free individuals, who submit their freedoms or duties to the betterment of the whole collective body. While the individual is still free to conduct his life in freedom, the same citizen has a requirement to conduct business and make decisions that will be what’s best for the body. If everyone in the body commits to the arrangements of the contract, then the general members will have no problems with compelling to the political structure (Rousseau pg. 11).

Topic #1 Jean-Jacques Rousseau makes the provocative claim that the transfer of sovereignty involves in the election of representatives signifies a loss of freedom: "The instant a people chooses representatives, it is no longer free." (On the Social Contract, p.103) Do you agree with Rousseau?

Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. They both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to fulfill very different purposes. As such, one ought not be surprised that the two theorists do not understand liberty in the same way. Locke discusses liberty on an individual scale, with personal freedom being guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. By comparison, Rousseau’s conception portrays liberty as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-rule. The distinctions, but also the similarities between Locke and Rousseau’s conceptions can be clarified by examining the role of liberty in each theorist’s proposed state of nature and

At some point they cannot survive by themselves and everyone needs to come together for the common good In giving everything to the community the individual receives everything he or she has lost plus "more power to preserve what he has" (189). Lives must be lived in and for the group; the life as an individual must be merged into the life of the state, and the people must be involved in all aspects of government. There can be no clubs, separate churches, power groups, or political parties, because these would create separate rights for individuals, and give some individuals more power than others. By creating this, Rousseau annihilates power struggles between the rights of a group and individual rights. In this system, there is no one ruler of the community. A citizen who puts his or her community first is ruler, and ruled. The political government is one united system, it does what the community wants it to do.

Due to state laws and policies, Marx and Rousseau both agree men are not living in a free society. In western democracies today, both philosophers’ ideas are clear and visible.

Locke indicates that, by giving up some of one's rights, the state gains legislative power and is obliged to use this power to make laws that benefit the people, who hired it. Locke writes that, "This legislative is not only the supreme power of the common-wealth, but sacred and unalterable in the hands where the community have once placed it...over whom no body can have a power to make laws, but by their own consent, and by authority received from them." (XI 134) Rousseau argues that the state should not be able to acquire legislative power, but simply acts as an executive. He claims that the legislative power comes from the people, for the sovereign is simply the general will of everyone, in which the state should obey and enforce. Rousseau states that, "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme control of the general will, and, as a body, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole" ( ), showing that the aggregate mind of the people, the general will, has the legislative power as "all" powers are given to it.

By joining civil society and becoming a part of the general will, man is enriching his actions with a morality and rationality that was previously lacking. As he states in Book I, Chapter VIII, “although in this state he deprives himself of several advantages given to him by nature, he gains such great ones…that changed him from a stupid, limited animal into an intelligent being and a man” (Rousseau 56). What man posses in nature is an unlimited physical freedom to pursue everything that tempts him, although this is viewed by Rousseau as almost an enslavement towards one’s own instincts. In a civil state man is benefited by “substituting justice for instinct in his behaviour and giving his actions the morality they previously lacked” (Rousseau 54). In acting in accordance with the general will man is granted the most important form of all freedoms, civil freedom.

While one might not go as far as to see them as diametrically opposite, they are at the very least distinctively different. Rousseau, Mill, and Constant exhibit a very different view of the modernizing society. This paper seeks to flash out the distinct visions of liberty that Rousseau, Mill, and Constant articulated by unpacking and discerning the central premises of each argument, pitting them against each other through comparing and contrasting.

Over the course of history this idea of freedom has been developed and defined by many famous political and philosophical thinkers. Many of Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s ideas are acknowledged in the “Discourse on the Origin of Inequality” and more notably the “The Social Contract”. John Stuart Mill’s major points originate from a book called “On Liberty”. All of these works are still read today and taught in schools around the world. In particular, their ideas on freedom and liberty have drawn a considerable amount of attention. For instance, Rousseau is well known for his idea of “forcing citizens to be free”, while Mill claims that freedom can be found in “pursing our own good in our own way”. Therefore, it is evident that fundamental differences occur between Rousseau’s and Mill’s ideas on liberty and freedom. Rousseau’s rejects this classical liberal idea of freedom of the individual, and instead argues that the highest quality of freedom is achieved through a social contract where collective decisions represent the law and people have a duty to the state, while Mill sees freedom as not being constrained by the government (freedom from laws) and pursuing one’s own good as long as it does no harm to others.