Rousseau Social Contract

“This fame study of original man, of his real wants, and of the fundamental principle of his duties, is likewise the only good method we can take, to surmount an infinite number of difficulties concerning the Origins of Inequality, the true foundations of political bodies, the reciprocal rights of their members, and a thousand other familiar questions that are as important as they are ill understood.” (Rousseau, Preface lviii)

In Jean Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract,” the idea that had the greatest impact is The Social Compact. Here, Rousseau discusses the importance of unity and individuality. To the colonies, alliance and unity was how they had a chance to overcome the oppression in England. Understanding they cannot work as individuals, the colonies decide to work with one other to defeat England. Therefore, because of the colonies’ unity, they were able to gain their independence and win the American Revolutionary War; thus, this shows the great impact of the Social Compact, for if the colonies did not join forces, they might be too weak and outnumbered to fight the English.

Most importantly for Rousseau, however, is not necessarily how history lets him see how men might have been or how history lets him strike a balance between grasping the intricacy of human history and succeeding fluidly from one thought to another; it is how framing his work in such a way lets him give the greatest demonstrative proof of the point he makes. The first part of the work consists in a history of mankind until the institution of the social contract, and it reads easily and freely, just as man in Rousseau’s conception was in those days. The second part of the Second Discourse, which deals with the critique of the social contract itself, however, reads much more heavily, as if Rousseau were attempting to give the reader a taste of the gravity the social contract itself imposes upon man. The opening lines of the second half already launch his scathing attack on civil society by associating this notion with a man who takes advantage of his fellow men:

In the late eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a prominent leader of the intellectual movement known as the Enlightenment. In the writing, The Social Contract, Rousseau states that the early man was free, in the sense that they could do whatever they chose to do. However, they were at the mercy of other people who, also, were doing whatever they chose to do. When creating a society, Rousseau says, each person enters into an implicit contract. A social contract exists between each person and a group of the people as a whole, in which the individual gives up some of his or her freedom in exchange for the protection and benefits offered by the group. Rousseau says, “the State is no more bound to leave civil authority in the hands of its rulers than military authority in the hands of its generals. . .” (Rousseau). This is paralleled in the founding father’s Declaration of Independence, where in the preamble it states “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” America’s founding fathers weren’t so ignorant to think that if they gave a government all the power over a people that they wouldn’t abuse it. After all, they were in the middle of fighting a war with England, who at the time was also struggling with balancing power. Rousseau’s’ The Social Contract, was a big influence on the founding father’s belief that the

When it comes to property (or capital), Rousseau concludes that the citizen has the right to take everything that is needed. He also has the right to work his labor and cultivate enough for a profit. He calls the State as the “in relation to its members, is master of all their goods by the social contract, which, within the State, is the basis of all rights; but, in relation to other powers, it is so only by the right of the first occupier, which it holds from its members” (Rousseau pg 13). He warns against not occupying land that is claimed by the citizen. This a basic call that entering into the social contract is giving up the right to personal possessions. It is a general will for the common good. You give up everything to get back what you require from the state. The state makes decisions for its members. It

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

He considered the human as a free being who is not intrinsically mischief or corrupted but he is one who bind himself to the society by overlooking his mere freedom and ceding some of his authorities to the society and government. Then, Rousseau tried to harmonize between the individual and social liberty, as he argued that forgoing of the individual liberty is forgoing of the humanity and human rights. The human’s liberty is based on the obeying the superior moral norms and laws alongside with respecting his own and the others’ rights. Consequently, the morality is necessary for the society in which the members respect to each other. Yet, there is no freedom without equality. Thus, the government ought to be egalitarian and, also, provide the most commonweal and liberty for its

All men must consent to this “two-way commitment between the public and the individuals belonging to it” (8). This social compact between the subjects of a state creates the states “unity, its common identity, its life and its will” (7). Rousseau then laid out the two crucial parts of a state and their crucial separation: the sovereign, or the people, and the government. At the end of Book I, Rousseau summarized his proposed social contract by stating that it “replaces…physical inequalities as nature may have set up between men by an equality that is moral and legitimate, so that men who may be unequal in strength or intelligence become equal by agreement and legal right” (11). Rousseau’s social contract in theory would give each individual, regardless of physical strength or education, guaranteed freedom from the chains of the state.

Social Contract The Social Contract by Jean Jacques Rousseau clearly has had an impact on many governments including but not limited to the United States of America. The legacy of this book has carried on in many ways for example, how governments are set up but also how citizens of that specific country view their specific government. Furthermore, he truly revolutionized how governments work, which one can see this greatly in the United States of America. Some of the lasting legacy’s in the United States of America that are seen through Jean Jacques Rousseau writing are the following, legitimacy of government, We the People, all men are created equal, checks and balances , and lastly Education in our government. In other countries throughout

Rousseau sees the first step of exiting the state of nature and getting closer to origin of tyranny is when man decides to leave the lifestyle of being alone and always wandering to settling down and making a house and trying to provide for his basic needs and the ones that are not as necessary as: nourishment, rest, shelter and self-preservation. This is the stage where you see the element playing a part in man’s life and in the way civil society came to be. Man is no longer just worried about himself he has to provide not only for himself but for his entire family which he is searching for. Natural man or savage man lives within himself whereas Rousseau argues that civil man lives in the judgement of others. This is one of the big reasons has to how inequality fomed. All the inequalities Rousseau does take about or basically economic things that happen in nature. This type of economic ineuality is among the many other inequalities but is one of many that inequality originated from. If man had stayed restricted to working by themselves they would have remained free, healthy, good and happy as

For Rousseau, liberty holds an essential place in human life; it is the main aim of existence. He believes that, man in state of nature were truly free since there was no restriction on their liberty. For Rousseau, nature, as everything

The purpose which Rousseau ostensibly gives his social contract is to free man from the illegitimate chains to which existing governments have shackled him. If this is his aim, then it follows that he should be most concerned with the preservation of freedom in political society, initially so that savage man might be lured out of nature and into society in the first place, and afterwards so that Rousseau’s framework for this society will prevent the present tyranny from reasserting itself. Indeed, in his definition of purpose for man’s initial union into society, he claims that, despite his membership in an association to which he must necessarily have some sort of obligation if the

Book I Chapter 7, titled "The Sovereign" encourages a more controlling government and society. In the last paragraph (Social, p.64) he shows the reader a necessity for force among those who disagree with the general will. Rousseau thinks that anyone who refuses to obey the general will should be forced to be free. Freedom exists only by living under the general will. He is claiming that the general will is always correct and should not tolerate anyone who disagrees. This is the perfect way to ensure a totalitarianistic society.

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

When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote his Social Contract, the idea of liberty and freedom were not new theories. Many political thinkers such as John Locke and Thomas Hobbes had already evolved with their own clarification of liberty and freedom of mankind, and in fact John Locke had already publicized his views and ideas on the social contract as well. In Rousseau’s case, what he did was to transform the ideas incorporated by such substantial words, and present us to another method to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state of nature, and enter into a structured civil society? Liberals believes that this was the assurance of protection - liberty to them implied being free from destruction and harm towards one’s property. Rousseau’s concept of freedom was entirely different from that of traditional liberals. According to Rousseau, liberty is meant to voice out your opinion, and participation as human being. “To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man” (Wootton, 454).