The Social Contract (Wordsworth Classics of World Literature) [Paperback]

 

 

Create your own review

It is not difficult to portray Rousseau's ideas as authoritarian or totalitarian. He denied citizenship to women (though this was normal for thinkers of his age). He used language such as" forced to be free" and "trained to bear with docility the yoke of the public happiness". The Censorial Tribunal and the insistence on a civil religion seem illiberal to the modern mind. He argued that monarchy (single ruler) is best in large states, and elsewhere aristocracy (preferably elective) is generally best because democratic governments often suffer internal strife: "If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men." He requires citizens to cede all rights to the community, whereas modern democracies invariably stress rights. Finally, Rousseau condemns representative government and dislikes political parties and pressure groups, for they tend to create mini general wills that make it difficult for the General Will to emerge.

Some of these points can be countered more or less successfully. On the question of language Rousseau is employing rhetorical flourish. On democratic government, Rousseau's preference for aristocracy is not all-important because the democratic elements of his theory concern the sovereignty of the people, not the form of government. On pressure groups and political parties, Rousseau wishes to discourage rather than ban them, and Rousseau has certainly not been the only critic of representative government.

In what ways is Rousseau's thought democratic? The elements are consent, participation and majorities. Locke had postulated consent in the Social Contract and "tacit" consent thereafter, but for Rousseau consent requires all (male) citizens to meet regularly to determine the laws, for only thus could a general will emerge through which men find true freedom. Though this direct democracy is impractical in modern states (too large), the concept of participation won many supporters in the second half of the 20th century who argued that modern representative government provides inadequate opportunities for participation. The claim that people - all the people - must be the author of the laws is Rousseau's greatest claim to be a democrat. Others were later to assert that a "general will" existed in society without reference to a popular assembly, and Rousseau would have had no truck with that.

One idea that makes Rousseau seem very modern is his claim that freedom requires sufficient economic equality for no man to be dependent on another: that freedom and equality are inseparable. Not all modern democrats follow Rousseau in emphasising equality but an important group does.

Of the arguments for seeing Rousseau as authoritarian or totalitarian the most important is the extent to which Rousseau assumes each man's interest are synonymous with the common good. Rousseau says men must vote in the assembly on what they believe to be the general will and if in a minority should tell themselves they were "mistaken" rather than simply on the losing side. It is true that Rousseau constantly reminds us he is writing of small and homogeneous states, but even in the smallest states there are surely greater differences of wants than Rousseau supposes, and greater differences of opinion as to what constitutes justice.

The key feature of an authoritarian state is that decisions are made by a minority without majority participation in the previous discussions. The tools considered necessary by modern liberal democrats for "participation" and "discussion" are missing in Rousseau, for he discourages interest groups and political parties. However, the reason they are missing is because he insists on popular sovereignty, with the participation of all citizens in making the laws to establish a "general will". On the other hand, it is in this concept that elements of totalitarian democracy appear. Pluralist democrats assume men differ and that politics is the resolving of conflict between them. Rousseau assumes that politics is consensual, with a solution (a general will) waiting to be found. The word "authoritarian" is perhaps inappropriate, but his collectivism surely has totalitarian overtones. Yet Rousseau is perhaps more democrat than totalitarian by modern standards, arguing as he does that "each citizen should come to his own opinion." I don't think Stalin, Hitler or Mao ever said that.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been much maligned and branded a totalitarian, dictator-in-waiting etc. Such superficial readings of his work is not surprising as essentially Rousseau argues for a socialist state: one set up and run by the people for the people through a streamlined administration.

Understanding what the 'General Will' is, as opposed to the individual-will or the will-of-all, gives the reader a real insight to what collectivism and self enfranchisement that underpins Rousseau's philosophy is.

The Social Contract has been besmirched as 'unworkable'. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the 'Information Age' of the 21st Century, with secure data transmission and mobile technology, the need for individual decision making and ongoing referendums should be high on our list. What is the other option? To continue with elected governments making decisions (mainly about invading other sovereign nations - on some flimsy pretext masquerading as 'democracy' - when we all know that oil, weapons and capitalism are the only players in the game) based on nothing more than having the executive governmental power to do so?

Rousseau is not only workable, but a threat to the power interests of business and political party hegemony.

Read The Social Contract. It is as refreshing today as the day when it was written.

Rousseau: 'The Social Contract' and Other Later Political Writings: "Social Contract" and Other Later Political Writings v. 2 (Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought)

The Social Contract (Oxford World's Classics)

In The Social Contract Rousseau aims to convey his theories on the way in which society operates through governance. Being the result of many years of work by the author, he abandoned the greater bulk of it after reaching the conclusion that he had `reached his limitations`. In a moment of cynicism, I might venture to surmise that there may have been other more pragmatic considerations surfacing in the publishing industry.

This work resides in the genre of Political Philosophy. It is concerned primarily with the interplay of interests and influence within society which in turn necessitates laws and government. A significant emphasis is placed on the theory of the General Will. Rousseau argues that upon man's emergence from his primitive state, `there was a remarkable change in him` and there was a `substitution of justice for instinct in his conduct, giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked. Then only, when the voice of duty takes the place of physical impulses and the right of appetite, does man, who so far had considered only himself, find that he is forced to act on different principles, and to consult his reason before listening to his inclinations`.

`The first societies governed themselves aristocratically. The heads of families took council together on public affairs. The young bowed without question to the authority of experience. The savages of North America govern themselves in this way even now, and their government is admirable.` (1750s). `When among the happiest people in the world, bands of peasants are seen regulating affairs of State under an oak, and always acting wisely, can we help scorning the ingenious methods of other nations, which make themselves illustrious and wretched with so much art and mystery`.

Rousseau concludes that `There has been at all times much dispute concerning the best form of government, without consideration of the fact that each is in some cases the best, and in others the worst`. He adds, `it follows that, generally, democratic government suits small States, aristocratic government those of middle size, and monarchy great ones. But it is impossible to count the innumerable circumstances which may furnish exceptions`.

We see that today, some 250 years after Rousseau, that the problems of governance and coexistence persist. Judging by the evidence of settlement left in the archaeological record, human civilisation has existed for some 10,000 years. Not long when considered within the history of our species as a whole. The Social Contract is merely experiencing teething problems.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 13 customer reviews on Amazon.co.uk

 

5.0 out of 5 stars the Social Contract
Classic

Rousseau was- a genius in his day and most of what he writes can be applied today - the premise man is born free but everywhere he is in chains - is... Read more

Published 6 months ago by majic

5.0 out of 5 stars Rouseau's Social Contract
One for the bookshelf. Funny how much of this is just accepted nowadays, but how revolutionary these ideas were at the time. Read more

Published 13 months ago by Lucy

4.0 out of 5 stars classic should be read
This is a classic for a reason, because many of todays governments have their origins in it, against it, or simply influenced by it. Because of this it should be read. Read more

Published 20 months ago by Conor Murphy

4.0 out of 5 stars Very good, on the whole.
I actually fell in to a slight, but common, trap when thinking about buying this book (as the Introduction explains). Read more

Published on 21 Oct 2009 by J. Astbury

2.0 out of 5 stars A nasty book by a nasty man
I have a theory that while it's possible to be a bad man but a good engineer or scientist (von Braun, probably Einstein, in his dealings with women, maybe even Newton), you cannot... Read more

Published on 21 July 2009 by Charles Brewer

4.0 out of 5 stars How do I rate this?
On the one hand I want to give it five stars because it is an excellent edition, and it is indispensable for understanding modern history, and the modern world; on the other I... Read more

Published on 20 July 2009 by A. reviewer

5.0 out of 5 stars You'll never learn so much in such a small book
This book is a work of genius for the whole, exquisitely written it offers wisdom on most pages and nonsense on the others. Read more

Published on 28 Jan 2007 by Ibrahim Ali

5.0 out of 5 stars socialist precurser
this book is not, as other readers claim, endorsing dictatorship, but rather is criticising bad democracy. Read more

Published on 22 Mar 2006

4.0 out of 5 stars A Warning From History
This is an important book, perhaps one of the most influential ever written. Unfortunately its influence has been wholly pernicious in the extreme - the blueprint for totalitarian... Read more

Published on 19 May 2004

4.0 out of 5 stars Rousseau, we love ya!
It's coherent. It's valid. It's informed. One must make up one's own mind about the 'general will', however. Buy, read, then dismiss. Or buy, read, then love. Read more

Published on 6 Mar 2001

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 13 customer reviews on Amazon.co.uk

Search Listmania!