write a brief essay on rousseau's ideas on general will

Press ESC to close

Or check our popular categories....

Home » Philosophy » Classical Political Philosophy » Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Theory Of General Will

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Theory Of General Will

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Theory of General Will is a central concept in his political philosophy and has had a significant influence on modern democratic thought. In this article, we will define the General Will and explain its role in Rousseau’s social contract theory . We will also discuss the criticisms of the Theory and the relevance of the General Will in today’s world. By the end of this article, you will have a deeper understanding of Rousseau’s important contribution to political philosophy.

Definition of General Will

The General Will, as conceived by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in his political philosophy, is the collective will of a society as a whole. It represents the common good and the collective interests of all members of the society.

Rousseau believed that the General Will was the basis for a legitimate and just society. In his view, the only way for a society to be truly free and just was for its members to be guided by the General Will.

According to Rousseau, the General Will is not the same as the will of the majority or the sum of individual wills. Instead, it is a distinct entity that emerges from the collective deliberation of the people. It is the result of a process of reasoning and discussion in which individuals set aside their own selfish interests and consider what is best for the community as a whole.

Rousseau argued that the General Will is the ultimate source of sovereignty in a society. It is the foundation upon which laws and policies are based and should always be followed. In this sense, the General Will represents the common good and the common interest of all members of the society.

However, Rousseau recognized that it is not always easy to determine the General Will. He argued that it is the role of the government to represent the General Will and to ensure that it is followed. In his view, the government should be a servant of the people and not a ruler over them.

Critics of the Rousseau Theory of General Will have raised several objections. One common criticism is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the true General Will of a society. Some have argued that it is likely to be influenced by the interests and biases of those who hold power and that it may not accurately reflect the will of the majority.

Others have argued that the concept of the General Will is overly idealistic and does not take into account the complexity of human nature and the inevitable conflict of interests that exists within any society.

Despite these criticisms, the Rousseau Theory of General Will remains an important and influential concept in political philosophy. It has had a lasting impact on democratic thought and has influenced the development of modern democratic systems.

The Social Contract of Rousseau

The social contract is a central concept in J ean-Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophy and is closely related to his theory of the General Will. The social contract refers to the agreement between the individuals in a society to give up some of their freedom in exchange for the protection and security provided by the state.

According to Rousseau, the social contract is the foundation of a legitimate and just society. It is a voluntary agreement between the individuals in a society to come together and form a political community. In this sense, the social contract represents a voluntary surrender of some individual freedom for the greater good of the community.

Rousseau believed that the social contract is the source of sovereignty in a society and that it is the basis for the creation of laws and policies. He argued that the social contract gives the government the authority to act on behalf of the people and to ensure that the General Will is followed.

However, Rousseau also recognized that the social contract can be broken if the government fails to act in the best interests of the people or if it violates the principles of the General Will. In this case, he argued that the people have the right to revolt and to create a new social contract.

The concept of the social contract has had a significant influence on political thought and has been influential in the development of modern democratic systems. It has also been the subject of much debate and criticism, with some arguing that it is overly idealistic and does not accurately reflect the complexity of human nature and the inevitably conflicting interests that exist within any society.

Criticisms of the Theory

The Rousseau Theory of General Will has been the subject of much debate and criticism since it was first proposed. Here are some of the main criticisms that have been leveled against the theory:

Difficulty in determining the General Will: One common criticism is that it is difficult, if not impossible, to determine the true General Will of a society. Some have argued that it is likely to be influenced by the interests and biases of those who hold power and that it may not accurately reflect the will of the majority.
Overly Idealistic: Some have argued that the concept of the General Will is overly idealistic and does not take into account the complexity of human nature and the inevitable conflict of interests that exists within any society.
Limited Applicability: Some have argued that the Rousseau Theory of General Will is only applicable to small, homogeneous societies and is not suitable for large, diverse societies.
Potential for Abuse of Power: Critics have also argued that the concept of the General Will could be used to justify the abuse of power by those in positions of authority.

In conclusion, the Rousseau Theory of General Will is a central concept in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s political philosophy and has had a significant influence on modern democratic thought. The General Will is the collective will of a society as a whole and represents the common good and the collective interests of all members of the society. It is the foundation of a legitimate and just society and is used to determine the common good in a society.

The social contract is closely related to the theory of the General Will and is the agreement between the individuals in a society to give up some of their freedom in exchange for the protection and security provided by the state. It is the source of sovereignty in a society and is the basis for the creation of laws and policies.

Despite its influence, the Rousseau Theory of General Will has been the subject of much debate and criticism. Some have argued that it is difficult to determine the true General Will of a society, that it is overly idealistic, and that it has limited applicability. Others have raised concerns about the potential for abuse of power under the theory.

Despite these criticisms, the Rousseau Theory of General Will remains an important and influential concept in political philosophy. Its ideas have had a lasting impact on democratic thought and have influenced the development of modern democratic systems. Overall, the Rousseau Theory of General Will continues to be a relevant and important topic in the field of political philosophy.

Categorized in:

Write a short note on Rousseau’s theory of General Will

February 16, 2024 entranciology IGNOU Assignments Questions and Answers , IGNOU Questions and Answers , M.A. (Political Science) Assignment Questions and Answers , M.A. (Political Science) Questions and Answers 0

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a prominent figure of the Enlightenment era, is renowned for his contributions to political philosophy, particularly his theory of the General Will. Rousseau’s concept of the General Will is central to his political thought and serves as a foundational principle in his exploration of the nature of sovereignty, democracy, and the relationship between the individual and the state.

Rousseau’s theory of the General Will is articulated in his seminal work “The Social Contract,” where he examines the basis of political legitimacy and the principles of collective decision-making. According to Rousseau, the General Will represents the collective and common good of society, reflecting the shared interests and aspirations of the citizenry as a whole.

Key features of Rousseau’s theory of the General Will include:-

Distinct from the Will of All: Rousseau distinguishes the General Will from the mere aggregation of individual wills, which he refers to as the Will of All. While the Will of All represents the sum total of individual desires and preferences, the General Will transcends individual interests and reflects what is best for the community as a whole.

Based on Rational Consensus: Rousseau argues that the General Will is not simply a numerical majority or the preference of the majority, but rather arises from a process of rational deliberation and consensus-building among citizens. The General Will is informed by reason and guided by considerations of the common good, as opposed to individual passions or self-interest.

Expression of Sovereignty: Rousseau contends that the General Will is the expression of popular sovereignty, representing the collective sovereignty of the people as a whole. In a legitimate political order, the General Will serves as the ultimate source of authority and legitimacy, guiding the actions of the government and ensuring that political decisions are in line with the interests of the citizenry.

Infallible and Immutable: Rousseau posits that the General Will is infallible and immutable, meaning that it always aims at the common good and cannot err. While individual wills may be influenced by passions or self-interest, the General Will, when properly discerned, reflects the true interests of society and guides legitimate political action.

Requires Active Citizenship: Rousseau emphasizes the importance of active citizenship and civic participation in discerning and expressing the General Will. Citizens must engage in rational deliberation and participate in the democratic process to ensure that the General Will is accurately represented and that political decisions align with the common good.

Rousseau’s theory of the General Will has had a profound impact on political thought and has influenced debates about democracy, sovereignty, and the role of the state in modern society. While Rousseau’s concept has been subject to various interpretations and critiques, it remains a central and enduring aspect of political theory, highlighting the importance of collective deliberation and the pursuit of the common good in democratic governance.

What is social equality? Explain. Political Theory Questions and Answers
Write a short note on needs, rights and deserts? Political Theory Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Types of duties? Political Theory Questions and Answers
Write a Short Note on Legitimation – Political Theory Questions and Answers
Write a Short Note on Civil Disobedience – Political Theory Questions and Answers
Write a Short Note on Political Violence – Political Theory Questions and Answers
Explain India’s geography, history and tradition as determinants of its foreign policy ?
Examine the problems involved in securing self –determination in Europe in the 20th century. Political Science Questions and Answers
Bring out the essence of the key concepts frequently used in the Realist framework. What purpose do they serve? Political Science Questions and Answers
What are the different theoretical approaches to Regionalism? Explain – Political Science Questions and Answers
Discuss the evolution of non –proliferation of nuclear weapons in the post –cold war era. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Impact of Science and technology on military affairs. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Uneven International Economic System. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Inter-state displacement. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Causes of Identity wars. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Nasser’s Three Circles. Political Science Questions and Answers
Elaborate upon the Communist Party of India’s perspective on Independence. Political Science Questions and Answers
Assess the potential for transformative change inherent in the Directive Principles of State Policy within the Indian Constitution. Political Science Questions and Answers
“The judiciary is the most significant institution for protecting the rights and interests of citizens.” Comment. Political Science Questions and Answers
Analyse the economic consequences of liberalisation in India. Political Science Questions and Answers
Elaborate on the regionalisation of Indian politics. Political Science Questions and Answers
Discuss the key indicators to measure and assess sustainable development. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Gender Equity. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Planned Economy. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Gramsci on Civil Society. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Pluralist liberal theory of the state. Political Science Questions and Answers
What do you understand by ethnic identity? Why do ethnic groups get politically activated? Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Characteristics of military regimes. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Maurice Duverger’s classification of Party Systems. Political Science Questions and Answers
Describe and evaluate the position of developing countries on key issues in the environment debate. Political Science Questions and Answers
Discuss the legacy of the institution of slavery in Latin America. Political Science Questions and Answers
Explain the main characteristics of political traditions of Latin America and their relevance to the contemporary political process. Political Science Questions and Answers
Briefly describe the significant features of populist movement in Latin America. Political Science Questions and Answers
Write a short note on Neo-liberal economic policies of Latin American countries. Political Science Questions and Answers
Describe the nature of new social movements in Latin America and bring out their role in democratic ‘transition’
Examine the nature and context of western political thought
Discuss the philosophical foundations of Plato’s political theory
Write a note on Aristotle’s theory of revolution
What is the ‘Grand Synthesis’ St. Thomas Aquinas talked about? Elaborate
Elaborate upon Machiavelli’s concept of Universal Egoism

Open Yale Courses

You are here, socy 151: foundations of modern social theory, - rousseau: popular sovereignty and general will.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a colorful early life. Orphaned at ten, he moved in with a woman ten years his senior at sixteen. Their probable love affair is the subject of Stendhal’s book Le Rouge et la Noir . Rousseau was friends and sometimes enemies with many major figures in the French Enlightenment. Although he did not live to see the French Revolution, many of Rousseau’s path-breaking and controversial ideas about universal suffrage, the general will, consent of the governed, and the need for a popularly elected legislature unquestionably shaped the Revolution. The general will, the idea that the interest of the collective must sometimes have precedence over individual will, is a complex idea in social and political thought; it has proven both fruitful and dangerous. Rousseau’s ideas have been respected and used by both liberals and repressive Communist and totalitarian leaders.

Lecture Chapters

Rousseau in a Historical Context
Major Works and Lasting Legacy
The Social Contract: Major Themes
Book I: Legitimate Rule, Diluted Justice, Popular Sovereignty
Book II: General Will, Law and the Lawgivers

Transcript	Audio	Low Bandwidth Video	High Bandwidth Video
So today is Jean Jacques Rousseau–I mean, one of the most fascinating people in terms of his life and his ideas and the way how he reasons. He is a provocative, a provocateur, and an extraordinary genius, in more than one ways. There are few people whom I disagree so strongly than in many propositions of Jean Jacques Rousseau. But there are few people who turn my mind on so much than Jean Jacques. So who was this character? Let me just give you a very brief overview. He was born in Geneva, which was a city-state at that time–ruled by Calvin for awhile, a Calvinist stronghold. We will talk about this when it comes to Max Weber and . Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron hand. That’s where he was born. His father was Isaac Rousseau. He was a watchmaker and a Calvinist. Well he did run into some trouble. I don’t know exactly what the trouble was. I think he was in debt, so he jumped the boat and went to Istanbul, disappeared; we don’t know much about him beyond that. So at a very early age of ten he was a kind of orphan. Then in 1728 he moved to France. And there was a wonderful lady, about ten years his senior, Mrs. Warens, who was running a home. Anyway, so he met Mrs. Warens, who was a Roman Catholic, and her mission was to convert these Calvinists to their proper faith, Roman Catholicism– and took young boys into her home. But who knows, it looks like she had more interests in people, rather than religion. So he arrived ‘28 to Annency. Right? Age of 16, a good-looking, nice guy. Madame Warens is still a younger lady. Here you can see, you know, Madame Warens and Jean Jacques, meeting in 1728. Very romantic stuff, right? Well and here well another picture. You know? Well I don’t blame Jean Jacques, at the age of 16, to convert to Roman Catholicism from the cold Calvinist religion, and meanwhile being a bit romantic. Right? Well Jean Jacques is one of those few people who wrote a –a very funny book. He has a sense of self-irony and self-criticism. Whether this is genuine, or he thought this will be the way how to sell the book–hard to tell. But it’s worth reading. It actually was published posthumously. And he said Madame de Warens shaped his character; undoubtedly she did. And this affair–affair, who knows, but it looks like it was an affair–fascinated people later on. I think I already cracked this joke in the introductory lecture. A wonderful French writer, Stendhal, in his superb novel, , was inspired by this interesting affair–a sixteen -year -old boy and a twenty-eight-year-old woman. And, in fact, the story of Julien Sorel–it means Jean Jacques Rousseau–and Madame de Renal–de Warens–is really the core of the story. So if you have not read , this is a must for an Ivy League graduate. You don’t want to get a degree from Yale not having read Stendhal, . It’s, of course, in English. But, you know, enough is enough. In ‘42, several years later, Rousseau has now bigger aims and he moves to Paris. And he becomes the secretary of Comte de Montaigue who is a French ambassador to Venice. And there are a lot of nice things–interesting things–about Rousseau, but he was not an easy guy, and somehow he always ran into trouble. So he ran into trouble in Venice, and in order to avoid arrest and trouble–I don’t know exactly what he did, probably something financially not quite correct–he had to jump and leave Venice and Comte de Montaigue. He moves to Paris, and he knows how to find good friends. He also will know how to make great enemies from his good friends. So he meets Diderot. And we already know Diderot, and we know already and the French Enlightenment. And he was asked to write an article on music for the . And this is Diderot. Okay, and then he meets Thérèse Lavasseur. He was staying in a hotel, and Thérèse Lavasseur was a maid in this hotel, and a long-lasting relationship develops between the two which–well I already told you, don’t worry if you don’t marry instantly. He was not married instantly either. It took him some time to decide that this date should actually culminate in a legal marriage. She became a companion for all of his life. Well I would not bet my life that she was, for the rest of life, the only woman in his life, but certainly she was his companion. I don’t know about her. They married in ‘68. So you can see it took some time for Rousseau to say, “Well this is something which should end up in a marriage.” And here is–okay, here you can see that, right?–Thérèse and Jean Jacques. Well I hope you don’t mind I show you these pictures; they don’t tell all that much. Well Jean Jacques, as I said, was an extraordinary genius. He is not only a philosopher, not only a social scientist, not only a scientist–he was writing on science as well–he was an artist. And well, you know, anybody can write a novel, right? I am sure half of this class considered at one point in your life that you will write poetry or you will write a novel. Right? It’s easy; you sit down and you write a novel. My life is a novel, right? Most people say that. But Jean Jacques wrote an opera. Probably few of you considered to write an opera. Right? That needs skills. Right? And he did one, . I own a CD. It’s a wonderful opera. He’s a great composer. Right? Well that’s quite unusual. And, to make it even more interesting, he was in an intense debate–he was always in an intense debate with everybody–but he was in an intense debate with Rameau. And those of you who are a little familiar with music, you know Rameau. Rameau was the greatest French composer of the eighteenth century, and they had a big debate because Rousseau believed in the Italian opera. Right? He believed that the melody should have precedence over harmony, and Rameau wanted to create a French opera in which, you know, melody is not so important, and in fact the harmony is more important. It was a revolutionary break. Rameau paves, you know–creates a new space for the new music. In some ways he’s beginning to pave the way, what we eventually will know as modern music–an extraordinary composer. Well and Rousseau believed in , Pavarotti. I know, of course there was no Pavarotti at that time. But you know what is–Ave Maria. Right? You create a cry, you can sing it. Right? That’s what he really believed in, unlike Rameau who was much more analytical and emphasized harmony. Interestingly, the person whom I think is the greatest composer of all history, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, loved Rousseau, and he wrote an opera what can be very rarely seen–occasionally you can catch it in the Metropolitan Opera of Arts, once in a decade– , which was actually inspired by . Go on amazon.com, you can buy Rameau, you can buy , and you can buy , and you can see the differences. And he, of course, publishes a novel, or , which at that time was an influential novel. I don’t think too many people read it today. Well this is Rameau, and Rameau shadowed [correction: foreshadowed] modern music. Gluck, in particular, follows from Rameau. In fact, you know, Mozart will be changing in his lifetime. We will talk–well I thought–if there is a musician you can read a little Rameau here. Interestingly, you know, Mozart did not stick quite to the Italian opera over his life. You’ve probably heard ; is the first German opera. The earlier Mozart is very much Italian opera. Later in life, Mozart tried to create German opera, which has some similarities with the French music–not quite, because it’s more romantic. Okay, he is also a philosopher, scientist, political theorist–I also would say sociologist and political scientist. The first piece of work is actually science, art, and study of society. Then in 1755, he writes a very interesting book–if you have spare time, read it– –Again, a very provocative book. In some ways there is some sort of Hobbesian idea behind that. He said, well it starts with love, but if you are really in love, well you tend to be jealous. Right? If you are deeply in love, passionately in love, then you don’t like that the person who is the object of your love may have a love in somebody else; then you are jealous. And the idea is–this is the origins of inequality; we are jealous, right? There is one precious good–to put it with Hobbes–we all desire, and if somebody else desires it as well, and has a shot at it, to get it, then we become jealous, right? We want to grab it, we want to monopolize it. So this is a source of inequality, right? Well an interesting idea, right? Have you ever experienced that? Did you have occasionally a little sense of jealousy in you, and thinking no, this other one should not have the one I do have? I think you probably did. I did. Okay. And then comes the big year: ‘62. He publishes two major books in one year, two big scandals: and . And I will talk to today, and . is really a culmination of the contractarian argument. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau did some extraordinary important new innovations. Right? As we have seen, in the first contractarian, Hobbes had a somewhat limited idea of social contract; probably realistic but not what you necessarily like. He said a social contract is not something what you concluded with the authority, right? Social contract, what you entered by fear, and social contract which was done previously because you wanted to have a new contract is binding on you. Right? Locke tended to see a social contract as sort of between the individual and the commonwealth. This is a nice idea, that you are bound by a contract you signed. But, you know, those of you at least who were born in these United States, never signed a contract to accept the Constitution. I am a naturalized citizen. You can say I signed a contract. Right? I had to swear allegiance to the United States. At that time I was supposed to read the Constitution. I have not read it from cover to cover. But anyway, I signed a contract somewhat unseen–you know?–suspecting what the contract is I’m signing. But most of you, born in the States, never signed a contract. Right? It’s still binding on you. Right? Unless you decide to abandon the U.S. citizenship and become a citizen of North Korea. Right? Then you are bound by this social contract. So that is, you know, the difference between Hobbes and Locke, as we discussed. Now Rousseau, as we will see, adds a new, interesting element. He said, well, it’s not quite the individuals, and he introduces the notion of general will. There is a general will which is well above the individuals–extremely important idea, has a degree of insights and realism. It’s also a very dangerous idea. Totalitarian regimes very often advocate it. General will that you–and I will quote Jean Jacques for you when he said, “the individuals will have to be forced to be free”; that follows from the idea of general will. Well he’s a complex thinker– liberal on one hand, a contractarian on the other hand, and paves the road to totalitarianism. He was loved by many liberals, and he was loved by many totalitarians–like Karl Marx loved him, like Vladimir Ilyich Lenin loved him, because of the general will. But Durkheim loved him too, and he was a liberal. So there he is. –I will talk about this. I already mentioned, any one of you, and there are probably a few people who will end up in education, you have to read this book cover to cover. This is no modern major education theory without the book . This is the foundation of modern educational theory. Okay, he had a big impact: a big impact on the American Constitution, and the French Revolution. He’s one of the path-breakers on the French Revolution. He was also the first who advocated popular sovereignty, the abolishment of the Third Estate, and creating one popularly elected body. Right? Strong conflict with Montesquieu who wanted to have two chambers, one for the aristocracy and one for the people; Rousseau wanted to have one. Universal suffrage, except for women; well he was a male chauvinist pig in one way. Well, and as we will see, the idea of general will were picked up by the radicals of the French Revolution, the Jacobins, and was picked up by later Communists of various types, be it Leninists or Maoists. Well the general will and French radicalism led to bloodshed. Robespierre, the major disciple and believer of general will, his head was also chopped off. Well, so much about it. Now Rousseau did not live the French Revolution; his ideas did, and informed it. He had to move in ‘62 in exile because both books created an outrage, particularly by the church. First he went back to Geneva, but figured out he doesn’t like Geneva any longer. So David Hume, the conservative philosopher who admired his work, invited him to come to England. And like with everybody else who was his friend, he had a fall-out with David Hume. He was really a difficult guy, right? This is David Hume. And therefore he left England and he returned to France–lived for a long time under an assumed name to make sure he doesn’t get into trouble. Finally, ‘68, he married Thérèse. I will talk about this, . They had several children, and the greatest educational theorist who tells you how to raise children, he put all of his children in an orphanage. He was a real bastard, to put it another way. And then he was writing his , which was published posthumously, and he died in ‘78, July 2nd. So this is the author we will be discussing today, and we will also be also discussing Tuesday. And I hope I will have enough time between I get home and before the limo comes, so I can put this on the internet, so you can read this on the internet. This is, if right, the . Yes. : Major Themes [00:26:06] , 1782 [correction: 1762] . And I don’t know why, but I like to show you the first editions– doesn’t take me too much time to find it on the internet, but occasionally it does. Okay, so what the is all about? Book I is a description how you move from natural right–from the state of nature–to political right. The second book is the sovereign and how the sovereign should be constructed, created. This is an issue which Locke did not pay much attention to. Right? We will see, you know, Rousseau himself likes elected, selected aristocracy, but he’s beginning to think about universal suffrage and a proper constitution of the sovereign. Then he has a big section on government, a section on ancient Rome and civil religion. I will talk–well I don’t have much time–I will try to talk about civil religion as well. So what are the major themes? One question is what is legitimate rule? And he said rule is only legitimate when it is arrived at consent. But, he said, justice has to be diluted because general will has to prevail. I will have to talk a little about justice being diluted. The problem is there is no universal justice–what you can arrive at from the individual will. There is a general will, and a conception of the common good, and the individual– whether the individual is done justice to,–it has to be diluted, it has to be restricted by the demands of the collective will, of the collective good. Now this is a provocative statement. It certainly has a kernel of truth. It’s also a very dangerous argument because it opens up the rule for a totalitarian state, which will tell you, “Oh, you think this is your interest? What you think is your interest is not really your interest. Me, the sovereign, knows what is in your interest, and I will force you to be free. I will force you to understand what is in your interest.” That is a bit of a tricky argument which has been abused in history. That’s what the notion diluted refers to. Now he advocates for popular sovereignty and the need for convention. Well the argument is the individual express only individual interests, and therefore the general will is not the will of–not simply the sum total of individual wills. He is a methodological collectivist, as I already pointed out. And then it comes to the lawgiver. Well it is the lawgiver who actually can inspire what he calls . You need a lawgiver–he sees himself as a lawgiver–who actually will be able to tell you why your selfishness is no good–why the love of your country and the community is the right thing to go. Okay. And a good government means a popularly elected legislature. And the executive is still by an aristocracy, by the wise man–that’s what he really means by aristocracy, an intellectual aristocracy who is elected. Well we have somewhat this notion, that people in government should be smart, right? And we have a bit of concern with–you know, in the past there were some presidents in the United States, some people in the United States thought they are not all that smart. Right? I don’t want to name names, but you can think probably of some–why some people thought they are a little on the dumb side. And they did not earn very much respect by those who think they are not smart. Anyway, that’s it. So legitimate rule. Well legitimate rule cannot be based on natural title, not aristocracy. It has to be authorized by consent. Well I’ll leave the family issue, that’s–family, he said, is the only natural society. But he said even the family does not come simply from nature. There is a social contract in the family, and in fact when you grow up–when you are not a small child anymore–then you will realize how much of a contract it is. Eventually–I hope there is nobody in this room, but I suspect there are probably a very few who at one point thought enough was enough; you know, my mother and father is really a pain, and therefore I don’t want to do much with them–will break the contract, right? It does happen to some people in their life. As a father, I hope it would never happen, but unfortunately it occasionally does. When people are teenagers, that’s when you’re beginning to think about the natural right of the family as a contract, and you’re beginning to enter–or some people begin to enter–some kind of a new relationship in the parents and try to convert the natural dependence on parents on a contractual relationship saying, “Well how come? What do you mean I have to be back home by eleven p.m.?” Right? You remember that? Anybody ever questioned that? Right? Tried to negotiate it out. “Oh not eleven.” You want it to be one a.m. Right? “I am already sixteen or seventeen.” You know? That’s when you are converting natural right. Okay, now there is a transition from state of nature to the nature of civil society. Right? Well there is the transition from the state of nature to civil society is necessary–this is a remarkable change, right?–where you substitute justice for instinct of contact–with morality which was lacking previously in the state of nature. And in civil society, you know, we deprive ourselves from some of the advantages, what we enjoyed in the state of nature. Nevertheless, this is a great progress, what has to be taken on. We will see this also in . Well, the second theme is about the question of diluted justice. And he said, you know, the order to admit justice among us has to be diluted. And diluted means, you know, our individual sense of justice has to be overruled by the general will. And a sovereign needs no guarantor, and the individuals will have to be constrained; otherwise we are in trouble. And here is the argument why the individual will have to be constrained. Individuals cannot just follow their self-interests, because the general will have to prevail. The common good has to overrule the selfish individual interests–a very different type of argument from the British liberals. Then he argues for popular sovereignty, and he prefers to do so. And this is his single most important contribution. This has to be based on a convention, and a convention has to be arrived at by the rule of the majority. There must be an assembly of people and–this is also a very radical, controversial argument–that they must pool the resources. It is almost a Communist idea of having common property of major resources–a very problematic argument. And he also makes this interesting claim that in the state of nature we are not equal–that’s a very different view from Hobbes–but we are being made equal by convention, what we do with each other. And the problem is this is really–does it lead to totalitarianism? He’s also advocating for public possessions as a superior form of possession–state possession over resources. A very problematic argument–again paves the foundation towards Marxism and Communist ideologies. And well many of the–you know, all the citations will be on the internet. So you can read it much more carefully than you can do it now. Well then we arrive at the idea of the general will. Individual–if this is something, you believe in Adam Smith or you believe in Locke, you will be very disturbed–individuals express only private interest. So there must be a public interest. And the general will is sort of–it’s unclear where it is coming from, but it is certainly coming over and above the individuals. And this is the general will, which is represented in what we call the commonwealth. The federal authority, the federal interest expresses the general will. It is not the will of all. It is the will which serves the interests of everybody, rather than the view of everybody. Well, as I said, you know, there is an element of truth to it. In discussion sections we can talk about this. The class will be divided whether this is acceptable or not. But those of you who believe in methodological collectivism will have to take very seriously the idea of general will. And now comes the question of the lawgivers, and this is a very important argument. Well we are only free when we obey the law. Right? That freedom is under self-imposed law. Hegel said that freedom is–you are free when you recognize necessity, and therefore you will have to go by the law. And this will inspire , the love of the country, rather than , which is self-love. He makes this distinction where–I’m afraid I will have to come back to this Tuesday; I will have to leave it now–the distinction between and is a very important distinction, and I’ll have to elaborate on this Tuesday. So I will come back to , before we go on to . [end of transcript]

Transcript

Audio

Low Bandwidth Video

High Bandwidth Video

So today is Jean Jacques Rousseau–I mean, one of the most fascinating people in terms of his life and his ideas and the way how he reasons. He is a provocative, a provocateur, and an extraordinary genius, in more than one ways. There are few people whom I disagree so strongly than in many propositions of Jean Jacques Rousseau. But there are few people who turn my mind on so much than Jean Jacques.

So who was this character? Let me just give you a very brief overview. He was born in Geneva, which was a city-state at that time–ruled by Calvin for awhile, a Calvinist stronghold. We will talk about this when it comes to Max Weber and . Calvin ruled Geneva with an iron hand. That’s where he was born. His father was Isaac Rousseau. He was a watchmaker and a Calvinist. Well he did run into some trouble. I don’t know exactly what the trouble was. I think he was in debt, so he jumped the boat and went to Istanbul, disappeared; we don’t know much about him beyond that. So at a very early age of ten he was a kind of orphan.

Then in 1728 he moved to France. And there was a wonderful lady, about ten years his senior, Mrs. Warens, who was running a home. Anyway, so he met Mrs. Warens, who was a Roman Catholic, and her mission was to convert these Calvinists to their proper faith, Roman Catholicism– and took young boys into her home. But who knows, it looks like she had more interests in people, rather than religion. So he arrived ‘28 to Annency. Right? Age of 16, a good-looking, nice guy. Madame Warens is still a younger lady. Here you can see, you know, Madame Warens and Jean Jacques, meeting in 1728. Very romantic stuff, right? Well and here well another picture. You know?

Well I don’t blame Jean Jacques, at the age of 16, to convert to Roman Catholicism from the cold Calvinist religion, and meanwhile being a bit romantic. Right? Well Jean Jacques is one of those few people who wrote a –a very funny book. He has a sense of self-irony and self-criticism. Whether this is genuine, or he thought this will be the way how to sell the book–hard to tell. But it’s worth reading. It actually was published posthumously. And he said Madame de Warens shaped his character; undoubtedly she did. And this affair–affair, who knows, but it looks like it was an affair–fascinated people later on.

I think I already cracked this joke in the introductory lecture. A wonderful French writer, Stendhal, in his superb novel, , was inspired by this interesting affair–a sixteen -year -old boy and a twenty-eight-year-old woman. And, in fact, the story of Julien Sorel–it means Jean Jacques Rousseau–and Madame de Renal–de Warens–is really the core of the story. So if you have not read , this is a must for an Ivy League graduate. You don’t want to get a degree from Yale not having read Stendhal, . It’s, of course, in English.

But, you know, enough is enough. In ‘42, several years later, Rousseau has now bigger aims and he moves to Paris. And he becomes the secretary of Comte de Montaigue who is a French ambassador to Venice. And there are a lot of nice things–interesting things–about Rousseau, but he was not an easy guy, and somehow he always ran into trouble. So he ran into trouble in Venice, and in order to avoid arrest and trouble–I don’t know exactly what he did, probably something financially not quite correct–he had to jump and leave Venice and Comte de Montaigue.

He moves to Paris, and he knows how to find good friends. He also will know how to make great enemies from his good friends. So he meets Diderot. And we already know Diderot, and we know already and the French Enlightenment. And he was asked to write an article on music for the . And this is Diderot.

Okay, and then he meets Thérèse Lavasseur. He was staying in a hotel, and Thérèse Lavasseur was a maid in this hotel, and a long-lasting relationship develops between the two which–well I already told you, don’t worry if you don’t marry instantly. He was not married instantly either. It took him some time to decide that this date should actually culminate in a legal marriage. She became a companion for all of his life. Well I would not bet my life that she was, for the rest of life, the only woman in his life, but certainly she was his companion. I don’t know about her. They married in ‘68. So you can see it took some time for Rousseau to say, “Well this is something which should end up in a marriage.” And here is–okay, here you can see that, right?–Thérèse and Jean Jacques. Well I hope you don’t mind I show you these pictures; they don’t tell all that much.

Well Jean Jacques, as I said, was an extraordinary genius. He is not only a philosopher, not only a social scientist, not only a scientist–he was writing on science as well–he was an artist. And well, you know, anybody can write a novel, right? I am sure half of this class considered at one point in your life that you will write poetry or you will write a novel. Right? It’s easy; you sit down and you write a novel. My life is a novel, right? Most people say that. But Jean Jacques wrote an opera. Probably few of you considered to write an opera. Right? That needs skills. Right? And he did one, . I own a CD. It’s a wonderful opera. He’s a great composer. Right? Well that’s quite unusual. And, to make it even more interesting, he was in an intense debate–he was always in an intense debate with everybody–but he was in an intense debate with Rameau. And those of you who are a little familiar with music, you know Rameau. Rameau was the greatest French composer of the eighteenth century, and they had a big debate because Rousseau believed in the Italian opera. Right? He believed that the melody should have precedence over harmony, and Rameau wanted to create a French opera in which, you know, melody is not so important, and in fact the harmony is more important. It was a revolutionary break. Rameau paves, you know–creates a new space for the new music. In some ways he’s beginning to pave the way, what we eventually will know as modern music–an extraordinary composer. Well and Rousseau believed in , Pavarotti. I know, of course there was no Pavarotti at that time. But you know what is–Ave Maria. Right? You create a cry, you can sing it. Right? That’s what he really believed in, unlike Rameau who was much more analytical and emphasized harmony.

Interestingly, the person whom I think is the greatest composer of all history, Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, loved Rousseau, and he wrote an opera what can be very rarely seen–occasionally you can catch it in the Metropolitan Opera of Arts, once in a decade– , which was actually inspired by . Go on amazon.com, you can buy Rameau, you can buy , and you can buy , and you can see the differences. And he, of course, publishes a novel, or , which at that time was an influential novel. I don’t think too many people read it today.

Well this is Rameau, and Rameau shadowed [correction: foreshadowed] modern music. Gluck, in particular, follows from Rameau. In fact, you know, Mozart will be changing in his lifetime. We will talk–well I thought–if there is a musician you can read a little Rameau here. Interestingly, you know, Mozart did not stick quite to the Italian opera over his life. You’ve probably heard ; is the first German opera. The earlier Mozart is very much Italian opera. Later in life, Mozart tried to create German opera, which has some similarities with the French music–not quite, because it’s more romantic.

Okay, he is also a philosopher, scientist, political theorist–I also would say sociologist and political scientist. The first piece of work is actually science, art, and study of society. Then in 1755, he writes a very interesting book–if you have spare time, read it– –Again, a very provocative book. In some ways there is some sort of Hobbesian idea behind that. He said, well it starts with love, but if you are really in love, well you tend to be jealous. Right? If you are deeply in love, passionately in love, then you don’t like that the person who is the object of your love may have a love in somebody else; then you are jealous. And the idea is–this is the origins of inequality; we are jealous, right? There is one precious good–to put it with Hobbes–we all desire, and if somebody else desires it as well, and has a shot at it, to get it, then we become jealous, right? We want to grab it, we want to monopolize it. So this is a source of inequality, right? Well an interesting idea, right? Have you ever experienced that? Did you have occasionally a little sense of jealousy in you, and thinking no, this other one should not have the one I do have? I think you probably did. I did. Okay.

And then comes the big year: ‘62. He publishes two major books in one year, two big scandals: and . And I will talk to today, and . is really a culmination of the contractarian argument. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau did some extraordinary important new innovations. Right? As we have seen, in the first contractarian, Hobbes had a somewhat limited idea of social contract; probably realistic but not what you necessarily like. He said a social contract is not something what you concluded with the authority, right? Social contract, what you entered by fear, and social contract which was done previously because you wanted to have a new contract is binding on you. Right? Locke tended to see a social contract as sort of between the individual and the commonwealth. This is a nice idea, that you are bound by a contract you signed. But, you know, those of you at least who were born in these United States, never signed a contract to accept the Constitution. I am a naturalized citizen. You can say I signed a contract. Right? I had to swear allegiance to the United States. At that time I was supposed to read the Constitution. I have not read it from cover to cover. But anyway, I signed a contract somewhat unseen–you know?–suspecting what the contract is I’m signing. But most of you, born in the States, never signed a contract. Right? It’s still binding on you. Right? Unless you decide to abandon the U.S. citizenship and become a citizen of North Korea. Right? Then you are bound by this social contract. So that is, you know, the difference between Hobbes and Locke, as we discussed.

Now Rousseau, as we will see, adds a new, interesting element. He said, well, it’s not quite the individuals, and he introduces the notion of general will. There is a general will which is well above the individuals–extremely important idea, has a degree of insights and realism. It’s also a very dangerous idea. Totalitarian regimes very often advocate it. General will that you–and I will quote Jean Jacques for you when he said, “the individuals will have to be forced to be free”; that follows from the idea of general will. Well he’s a complex thinker– liberal on one hand, a contractarian on the other hand, and paves the road to totalitarianism. He was loved by many liberals, and he was loved by many totalitarians–like Karl Marx loved him, like Vladimir Ilyich Lenin loved him, because of the general will. But Durkheim loved him too, and he was a liberal.

So there he is. –I will talk about this. I already mentioned, any one of you, and there are probably a few people who will end up in education, you have to read this book cover to cover. This is no modern major education theory without the book . This is the foundation of modern educational theory.

Okay, he had a big impact: a big impact on the American Constitution, and the French Revolution. He’s one of the path-breakers on the French Revolution. He was also the first who advocated popular sovereignty, the abolishment of the Third Estate, and creating one popularly elected body. Right? Strong conflict with Montesquieu who wanted to have two chambers, one for the aristocracy and one for the people; Rousseau wanted to have one. Universal suffrage, except for women; well he was a male chauvinist pig in one way.

Well, and as we will see, the idea of general will were picked up by the radicals of the French Revolution, the Jacobins, and was picked up by later Communists of various types, be it Leninists or Maoists. Well the general will and French radicalism led to bloodshed. Robespierre, the major disciple and believer of general will, his head was also chopped off. Well, so much about it. Now Rousseau did not live the French Revolution; his ideas did, and informed it.

He had to move in ‘62 in exile because both books created an outrage, particularly by the church. First he went back to Geneva, but figured out he doesn’t like Geneva any longer. So David Hume, the conservative philosopher who admired his work, invited him to come to England. And like with everybody else who was his friend, he had a fall-out with David Hume. He was really a difficult guy, right? This is David Hume. And therefore he left England and he returned to France–lived for a long time under an assumed name to make sure he doesn’t get into trouble. Finally, ‘68, he married Thérèse. I will talk about this, . They had several children, and the greatest educational theorist who tells you how to raise children, he put all of his children in an orphanage. He was a real bastard, to put it another way. And then he was writing his , which was published posthumously, and he died in ‘78, July 2nd. So this is the author we will be discussing today, and we will also be also discussing Tuesday. And I hope I will have enough time between I get home and before the limo comes, so I can put this on the internet, so you can read this on the internet.

This is, if right, the . Yes.

: Major Themes [00:26:06]

, 1782 [correction: 1762] . And I don’t know why, but I like to show you the first editions– doesn’t take me too much time to find it on the internet, but occasionally it does. Okay, so what the is all about? Book I is a description how you move from natural right–from the state of nature–to political right. The second book is the sovereign and how the sovereign should be constructed, created. This is an issue which Locke did not pay much attention to. Right? We will see, you know, Rousseau himself likes elected, selected aristocracy, but he’s beginning to think about universal suffrage and a proper constitution of the sovereign. Then he has a big section on government, a section on ancient Rome and civil religion. I will talk–well I don’t have much time–I will try to talk about civil religion as well.

So what are the major themes? One question is what is legitimate rule? And he said rule is only legitimate when it is arrived at consent. But, he said, justice has to be diluted because general will has to prevail. I will have to talk a little about justice being diluted. The problem is there is no universal justice–what you can arrive at from the individual will. There is a general will, and a conception of the common good, and the individual– whether the individual is done justice to,–it has to be diluted, it has to be restricted by the demands of the collective will, of the collective good. Now this is a provocative statement. It certainly has a kernel of truth. It’s also a very dangerous argument because it opens up the rule for a totalitarian state, which will tell you, “Oh, you think this is your interest? What you think is your interest is not really your interest. Me, the sovereign, knows what is in your interest, and I will force you to be free. I will force you to understand what is in your interest.” That is a bit of a tricky argument which has been abused in history. That’s what the notion diluted refers to.

Now he advocates for popular sovereignty and the need for convention. Well the argument is the individual express only individual interests, and therefore the general will is not the will of–not simply the sum total of individual wills. He is a methodological collectivist, as I already pointed out. And then it comes to the lawgiver. Well it is the lawgiver who actually can inspire what he calls . You need a lawgiver–he sees himself as a lawgiver–who actually will be able to tell you why your selfishness is no good–why the love of your country and the community is the right thing to go. Okay.

And a good government means a popularly elected legislature. And the executive is still by an aristocracy, by the wise man–that’s what he really means by aristocracy, an intellectual aristocracy who is elected. Well we have somewhat this notion, that people in government should be smart, right? And we have a bit of concern with–you know, in the past there were some presidents in the United States, some people in the United States thought they are not all that smart. Right? I don’t want to name names, but you can think probably of some–why some people thought they are a little on the dumb side. And they did not earn very much respect by those who think they are not smart. Anyway, that’s it.

So legitimate rule. Well legitimate rule cannot be based on natural title, not aristocracy. It has to be authorized by consent. Well I’ll leave the family issue, that’s–family, he said, is the only natural society. But he said even the family does not come simply from nature. There is a social contract in the family, and in fact when you grow up–when you are not a small child anymore–then you will realize how much of a contract it is. Eventually–I hope there is nobody in this room, but I suspect there are probably a very few who at one point thought enough was enough; you know, my mother and father is really a pain, and therefore I don’t want to do much with them–will break the contract, right? It does happen to some people in their life. As a father, I hope it would never happen, but unfortunately it occasionally does.

When people are teenagers, that’s when you’re beginning to think about the natural right of the family as a contract, and you’re beginning to enter–or some people begin to enter–some kind of a new relationship in the parents and try to convert the natural dependence on parents on a contractual relationship saying, “Well how come? What do you mean I have to be back home by eleven p.m.?” Right? You remember that? Anybody ever questioned that? Right? Tried to negotiate it out. “Oh not eleven.” You want it to be one a.m. Right? “I am already sixteen or seventeen.” You know? That’s when you are converting natural right.

Okay, now there is a transition from state of nature to the nature of civil society. Right? Well there is the transition from the state of nature to civil society is necessary–this is a remarkable change, right?–where you substitute justice for instinct of contact–with morality which was lacking previously in the state of nature. And in civil society, you know, we deprive ourselves from some of the advantages, what we enjoyed in the state of nature. Nevertheless, this is a great progress, what has to be taken on. We will see this also in .

Well, the second theme is about the question of diluted justice. And he said, you know, the order to admit justice among us has to be diluted. And diluted means, you know, our individual sense of justice has to be overruled by the general will. And a sovereign needs no guarantor, and the individuals will have to be constrained; otherwise we are in trouble.

And here is the argument why the individual will have to be constrained. Individuals cannot just follow their self-interests, because the general will have to prevail. The common good has to overrule the selfish individual interests–a very different type of argument from the British liberals. Then he argues for popular sovereignty, and he prefers to do so. And this is his single most important contribution. This has to be based on a convention, and a convention has to be arrived at by the rule of the majority.

There must be an assembly of people and–this is also a very radical, controversial argument–that they must pool the resources. It is almost a Communist idea of having common property of major resources–a very problematic argument. And he also makes this interesting claim that in the state of nature we are not equal–that’s a very different view from Hobbes–but we are being made equal by convention, what we do with each other. And the problem is this is really–does it lead to totalitarianism? He’s also advocating for public possessions as a superior form of possession–state possession over resources. A very problematic argument–again paves the foundation towards Marxism and Communist ideologies. And well many of the–you know, all the citations will be on the internet. So you can read it much more carefully than you can do it now.

Well then we arrive at the idea of the general will. Individual–if this is something, you believe in Adam Smith or you believe in Locke, you will be very disturbed–individuals express only private interest. So there must be a public interest. And the general will is sort of–it’s unclear where it is coming from, but it is certainly coming over and above the individuals. And this is the general will, which is represented in what we call the commonwealth. The federal authority, the federal interest expresses the general will. It is not the will of all. It is the will which serves the interests of everybody, rather than the view of everybody. Well, as I said, you know, there is an element of truth to it. In discussion sections we can talk about this. The class will be divided whether this is acceptable or not. But those of you who believe in methodological collectivism will have to take very seriously the idea of general will.

And now comes the question of the lawgivers, and this is a very important argument. Well we are only free when we obey the law. Right? That freedom is under self-imposed law. Hegel said that freedom is–you are free when you recognize necessity, and therefore you will have to go by the law. And this will inspire , the love of the country, rather than , which is self-love. He makes this distinction where–I’m afraid I will have to come back to this Tuesday; I will have to leave it now–the distinction between and is a very important distinction, and I’ll have to elaborate on this Tuesday. So I will come back to , before we go on to .

[end of transcript]

Games & Quizzes
History & Society
Science & Tech
Biographies
Animals & Nature
Geography & Travel
Arts & Culture
On This Day
One Good Fact
New Articles
Lifestyles & Social Issues
Philosophy & Religion
Politics, Law & Government
World History
Health & Medicine
Browse Biographies
Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
Environment
Fossils & Geologic Time
Entertainment & Pop Culture
Sports & Recreation
Visual Arts
Demystified
Image Galleries
Infographics
Top Questions
Britannica Kids
Saving Earth
Space Next 50
Student Center
Introduction
Influence of the church
Hobbes on sovereignty

Rousseau and the general will

Procedural stability, accountability, representation.

Division of power
Openness and disclosure
Constitutionality
Constitutional change
Constitutional stability
Great Britain
United States
Latin America, Africa, and Asia

What is Pierre Trudeau known for?
How did Pierre Trudeau lose office in 1979?
Where did Benito Juárez get his education?
What did Benito Juárez believe in?
Why was Benito Juárez significant?

Detail of a concept image of the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. We the People

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

The White House - The Constitution
ConstitutionNet - What Is a Constitution? Principles and Concepts
Social Science LibreTexts - Constitutions
constitution - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
constitution - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
Table Of Contents

Whereas Hobbes created his unitary sovereign through the mechanism of individual and unilateral promises and whereas Locke prevented excessive concentration of power by requiring the cooperation of different organs of government for the accomplishment of different purposes, Rousseau merged all individual citizens into an all-powerful sovereign whose main purpose was the expression of the general will. By definition, the general will can never be wrong; for when something contrary to the general interest is expressed, it is defined as the mere “will of all” and cannot have emanated from the sovereign. In order to guarantee the legitimacy of government and laws, Rousseau would have enforced universal participation in order to “force men to be free,” as he paradoxically phrased it. In common with Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau required the assent of all to the original social contract. He required smaller majorities for the adoption of laws of lesser importance than the constitution itself. His main concern was to provide for legitimacy through universal participation in legislation, whereas Locke and Hobbes were more concerned to provide constitutional stability through consent. As a result, Rousseau’s thought appears to be more democratic than that of his English predecessors. He has even been accused of laying the philosophical foundations of “totalitarian democracy,” for the state he describes in The Social Contract would be subject, at the dictates of its universal and unanimous sovereign, to sudden changes, or even transformations, of its constitution.

Recent News

In the political thought of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau may be found theoretical consideration of the practical issues that were to confront the authors of the American and French constitutions. The influence of theories of the social contract, especially as they relate to the issues of natural rights and the proper functions of government, pervades the constitution making of the revolutionary era that began with the American Revolution and is indeed enshrined in the great political manifestos of the time, the American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights , and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen .

The constitutional experience of these two countries, and, of course, of England , had great influence on liberal thought in Europe and other parts of the world during the 19th century and found expression in the constitutions that were demanded of the European monarchies. The extent to which the ideal of constitutional democracy has become entwined with the practice of constitutional government will be apparent from the examination in the following section of the main features of constitutional government.

Features of constitutional government

Virtually all contemporary governments have constitutions, but possession and publication of a constitution does not make a government constitutional. Constitutional government in fact comprises the following elements.

Certain fundamental procedures must not be subject to frequent or arbitrary change. Citizens must know the basic rules according to which politics are conducted. Stable procedures of government provide citizens with adequate knowledge of the probable consequences of their actions. By contrast, under many nonconstitutional regimes , such as Hitler ’s in Germany and Stalin ’s in the Soviet Union , individuals, including high government officials, never knew from one day to the next whether the whim of the dictator ’s will would not turn today’s hero into tomorrow’s public enemy .

Under constitutional government, those who govern are regularly accountable to at least a portion of the governed. In a constitutional democracy , this accountability is owed to the electorate by all persons in government. Accountability can be enforced through a great variety of regular procedures, including elections, systems of promotion and discipline , fiscal accounting, recall, and referendum. In constitutional democracies , the accountability of government officials to the citizenry makes possible the citizens’ responsibility for the acts of government. The most obvious example of this two-directional flow of responsibility and accountability is the electoral process . A member of the legislature or the head of government is elected by adult citizens and is thereby invested with authority and power in order that he may try to achieve those goals to which he committed himself in his program. At the end of his term of office, the electorate has the opportunity to judge his performance and to reelect him or dismiss him from office. The official has thus rendered his account and has been held accountable.

Those in office must conduct themselves as the representatives of their constituents . To represent means to be present on behalf of someone else who is absent. Elections, of course, are not the only means of securing representation or of ensuring the representativeness of a government. Hereditary medieval kings considered themselves, and were generally considered by their subjects, to be representatives of their societies. Of the social contract theorists only Rousseau denied the feasibility of representation for purposes of legislation. The elected status of officeholders is sometimes considered no guarantee that they will be “existentially representative” of their constituents, unless they share with the latter certain other vital characteristics such as race, religion, sex, or age. The problems of representation are in fact more closely related to democratic than to constitutionalist criteria of government: a regime that would be considered quite unrepresentative by modern standards could still be regarded as constitutional so long as it provided procedural stability and the accountability of officeholders to some but not all of the governed and so long as the governors were representative of the best or the most important elements in the body politic .

GREAT THINKERS Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Freedom, dependence, and the general will.

Frederick Neuhouser, Freedom, Dependence, and the General Will The Philosophical Review, Vol. 102, No. 3 (Jul., 1993), pp. 363-395.

In his Lectures on the History of Philosophy Hegel credits Rousseau with an epoch-making innovation in the realm of practical philosophy, an innovation said to consist in the fact that Rousseau is the first thinker to recognize “the free will” as the fundamental principle of political philosophy.’ Since Hegel’s own practical philosophy is explicitly grounded in an account of the will and its freedom, Hegel’s assertion is clearly intended as an acknowledgment of his deep indebtedness to Rousseau’s social and political thought. What is not so clear, however, is how this indebtedness is to be understood: What precisely does it mean to say that the political theories of Hegel and Rousseau share the same first principle? In this paper I intend to follow up on this interpretive suggestion of Hegel’s by elaborating, much more explicitly than he himself does, the sense in which Rousseau’s political thought is founded on the principle of the “free will.” While accomplishing this task will put us in a better position to clarify the obscure philosophical strategy behind Hegel’s own social theory, my primary interest here is to illuminate the foundations of Rousseau’s political thought, especially its account of the connection between freedom and the general will. I argue that it is necessary to distinguish two ways in which Rousseau takes the general will to secure, or realize, the freedom of individual citizens, namely, by functioning as an embodiment as well as a precondition of such freedom. Under- standing both of these points will lead us to see that Rousseau’s thought rests on two distinct, though not incompatible, accounts of how citizens whose actions are constrained by the general will are in fact subject only to their own wills and therefore free in their obedience to the general will. As we shall see, these two accounts are implicitly based upon distinct conceptions of political freedom, which, for reasons I discuss below, can be characterized respectively as “subjective” and “objective” conceptions of freedom. My claim is that to ignore either of these conceptions is to leave out an essential element of Rousseau’s understanding of how citizens achieve their freedom within the rational state.

Online: JSTOR

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

IWP scholar-practitioners teach all the arts of statecraft in a setting that encourages discussion and debate and thoroughly prepares students for career success.

Plan Your Visit
Financial Aid
The Value of an IWP Master’s Degree
Apply Online
Frequently Asked Questions
The IWP Scholarship Program for Navy Special Warfare Active-duty and Veteran Service Members
International Applicants
Living & Resources
Contact an Admissions Officer

IWP offers seven master’s degrees with a curriculum that includes statecraft, history, American political philosophy, the Western moral tradition, economics, and moral leadership.

Master of Arts in Statecraft and National Security Affairs
Master of Arts in Statecraft and International Affairs
Master of Arts in Strategic Intelligence Studies
Executive Master of Arts in National Security Affairs
Master of Arts in Strategic and International Studies (Professional)
Master of Arts in Statecraft and Strategy (Online)
Executive Master of Arts in Statecraft and Strategy (Online)
Professional Master of Arts in Statecraft and Strategy (Online)
Doctor of Statecraft and National Security (Professional)
Graduate Certificates
Online Learning
Cyber Intelligence Initiative
Strategic Leadership Seminar
Foreign Language Study
Internships
American Statecraft Fellowship
In-Person Courses
Online Courses

The faculty are experts from the national security and international relations fields, scholar-practitioners with both academic credentials and high-level experience.

In Memoriam
Endowed Chairs
Research Fellows
Centers of Study

The student body includes recent graduates and a mix of mid-career professionals whose various perspectives enrich the classroom experience.

Student Services & Resources
Life at IWP
Registrar’s Office
Student Leadership

News & Events

Stay current with campus news, faculty publications, and special events. Track fellow students and alumni and see the impact of an IWP education.

Kosciuszko Chair & Center for Intermarium Studies
Press Releases
Students & Alumni
IWP Students Blog
Student Journals
Upcoming Events
Events for Students
Special Events
Event Policy
Past Events
The Institute of World Politics 2024 Gala

National security is the highest public policy priority and is achieved by teaching future leaders all the instruments of power. Supporting IWP makes this possible.

Special Initiatives
Chancellor’s Council
The 1947 Club
The John Jay Legacy Society
Alumni Giving
Our Supporters

IWP students become leaders in the national security and foreign policy fields through the study of all the instruments of power, and 97% earn jobs in their field.

Global Partnerships
Our Mission
Our Heritage
Alumni Success
Graduate Employment Facts
Stay Connected
Get Involved
Accountability and Transparency
Visit and Contact

The Legacy of the French Revolution: Rousseau’s General Will and the Reign of Terror

By: Alberto M. Piedra
December 11, 2017

The Legacy of the French Revolution: Rousseau’s General Will and the Reign of Terror

by Alberto M. Piedra Ph.D. Professor Emeritus The Institute of World Politics

Now, at the initial stages of the 21 st century, it seems appropriate to consider without passion and with greater objectivity the revolutionary phenomenon that shook Europe in the 18 th century. Under the banner of “Liberté, égalité, and fraternité,” traditional systems of government and social institutions were challenged and threatened with extinction. The first and foremost example is the case of France and the violent overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty. It is time for a reassessment of such events as the takeover of the Bastille and the Declaration of the Rights of Man of August 1789. They have been glorified to such an extent that they are now part of France’s national treasury. Something similar can be said of men like Robespierre, Diderot, Danton, Saint-Just, the Baron d’Holbach and Marat, leader of the Montagnard faction, not to mention the so called “heroes” known as the “sans culottes.” Hatred of religion was already manifested by these gentlemen at the early stages of the Revolution. 1

In 1789, a disguised form of anti-clericalism began took place (laïcité). As a result, the Constituent Assembly at Versailles enacted the Constitution of the Clergy, which deprived the Church of all its property and decreed that all salaries of the clergy would be paid by the State, but also forced the clergy under the pain of death to take the oath of allegiance to the Constitution. 2 Approximately fifty percent of priests took the oath. Religion was de facto abolished and replaced with the cult of the Supreme Being, a deist state religion.

The revolutionary Marianne, wearing a Phrygian bonnet, would appear as an anarchist avenger. 3 The revolutionary songs “La Carmagnole” and “Ça Ira” were sung all over France. The use of French revolutionary culture, including music, became an important means for propaganda purposes. 4 Many a famous painter felt the euphoria of the revolution in their artistic work. Perhaps, Delacroix is the best example of a firm supporter of the French Revolution. He was a close friend of Robespierre. His work of art, La Liberté guidant le people ( Liberty Leading the People) is his masterpiece in which he commemorates the July Revolution of 1830 which brought down the crown under King Charles X. 5 In Delacroix’s famous painting, Liberty and Reason appear as a female accompanied by various attributes including the tricolor, the cockade and the Phrygian bonnet, symbols of the French Revolution. Under the then prevailing circumstances in battered France the famous calls to liberté, égalité, and fraternité should have been renamed the Dogmatism of Reason and the Despotism of Liberty or, what is even a better term, the mythical Kingdom of the Social Contract created by the prolific mind of Rousseau.

Rousseau was not only a key figure in the Enlightenment, but probably the most popular and widely read intellectual revolutionary in France. Nevertheless, “La Volonté Générale” (the “ General Will”), which appears in his influential book Du contrat social ou principes du droit politique , ( Social Contract ) is nothing more than a utopian dream. 6 He wants to create the creature that is in tune with the needs of modern society and follows the political path outlined in the General Will and established in the Social Contract. However, it must be stressed that the General Will does not represent the majority of the people but only that of the privileged few who supposedly know what is best for the welfare of the nation. Man voluntarily hands over his individual will to the General Will, which knows best what man’s priorities are.

The irony of the theory is that the General Will does not represent the majority of the people, but only of the enlightened few. The Social Contract is entirely premised and patterned on the belief in man’s natural goodness and that he has only been perverted by corrupt social institutions. According to Rousseau, everything is good as it leaves the hands of the author of things; everything degenerates in the hands of man, including man himself. Once these institutions are eliminated, man will return to his natural state of goodness. This is simply a utopian dream which, in the long run, can only lead to all sorts of oppression by the all-powerful, freely created General Will; the perfect excuse for the establishment of a totalitarian regime under the guise of “democratic” means.

The French historian Pierre Gaxotte goes as far as writing: “that never has so frightening a power fallen into the hands of a more revolutionary despicable people craving for power.” 7 Rousseau is also the author of the controversial book Émile ou De l’ Éducation, a treatise on the nature of education which became a new method of teaching. In it, he tells man that only reason teaches him how to differentiate good from evil. 8

Paul Hazard, the French scholar, professor, and historian of ideas, examines in his book La Crise de la conscience Européenne (1680-1715) the existing conflict between 17 th century Neo-Classicism and the ideas of the Enlightenment. He offers an account of the birth and development of the European mind and the revolutionary expectation of a future uncertain glory. The utopian expectations of glory believed by the revolutionaries soon turned into the Reign of Terror and the dictatorship of Napoleon Bonaparte.

The French critic and national historian Hyppolite Michelet, author of the Histoire de France, holds a very positive view of the French Revolution. He considers it as a climax, as the triumph of Justice over Grace, by which he means Christian dogma and the arbitrary power of the monarchy. The famous historian was one of the most appreciated exponents of 19 th century French positivism.

Thomas Paine was an English born American activist, philosopher, and political theorist. He was one of the Founding Fathers of the United States. He became deeply involved in the French Revolution, defending it from its critics and published the derogatory pamphlet on Marie Antoinette, in which it was alleged that she had said: “S’ils n’ont pas de pain, Qu’ils mangent de la brioche.” 9 Among Paine’s writings, the following can be mentioned: The Age of Reason (1794) regarding the place of religion in society where he challenged institutionalized religion and the legitimacy of the Bible. He followed the common deistic arguments of the times, advocating that reason should replace revelation. In the Rights of Man (1791), he defends the French Revolution. Very much in favor of the thirteen colonies in America, he published the pamphlet Common Sense (1776) setting forth arguments in favor of their independence from the British crown.

The highly respected British statesmen Edmund Burke in his book Reflections on the Revolution in France not only condemned the French Revolution, but called it “a digest of anarchy.” He valued tradition rather than the shattering of state culture and religion that had taken place in France. Many attempts have been made to refute the ideas of Burke and his criticism of the French Revolution, but none as well known as the one by Thomas Paine. 10

Today, it is possible to celebrate the French Revolution as a historic moment in the history of France, but, at the same time, there is nothing wrong or anti-patriotic in analyzing new documentation that has appeared related to the reality of the events of 1789.

Therefore, no objective student of the French Revolution should avoid reading the Memoires Pour Servir A L’Histoire du Jacobinisme . 11 Its author was the Abbe Augustin Barruel (1741-1820), a Jesuit priest mostly known for his theory involving the Bavarian Illuminati and the Jacobins in the overthrow of the French monarchy. He took a very anti-revolutionary position, strongly criticizing the anti-religious views of the “philosophes” and their revolutionary followers. He blamed the bloody upheaval of the revolution on four major factors: 1) the unbelievers who wanted to destroy religion, 2) the republicans, 3) the franc-macons (freemasonry), the traditional enemies of the throne, and 4) the illuminati who, supported by the first two, wanted to overthrow the throne and foster godlessness and anarchy in order to overthrow religion and all authority.

For many years and only during the regime of the Third Republic in France, some writers began to admit the reality and correctness of Barruel’s analysis of the factors contributing to the French Revolution. The role played by the Francs-Macons, the Illumilati, 12 and their allies finally came to light. This served to alert counter-revolutionary sectors of society of the threat they posed to the prevailing traditional political systems. It was no longer a question of “salon gossip” among the French elites, a phenomenon that tends to characterize the privileged upper classes in all countries who refuse to see the danger that faces them. The reality was that France’s entire social and political structure was on the verge of collapse. Barriel’s warning was not only left unheeded, but he was accused by future generations of open falsehoods. Nevertheless, he is a must-read by all those who want to have a better grasp of the causes and consequences of the French Revolution. It provides a scholarly work which is essential for understanding the origins of the events that led to the death of Louis XVI and the political ideas of the 19th century. 13

The French historian René Sédillot in his book Le coût de la Révolution française (The Cost of the French Revolution) claims that if it remains plausible to celebrate the ideals of the revolution, it is also appropriate to remember the high price that the French nation had to pay in order to reach the misunderstood and badly interpreted Christian principles of liberty, equality and fraternity. 14

To compare the so-called American Revolution with the French Revolution is not only ludicrous but false. The Founding Fathers of the United States were not avengers seeking revenge and the destruction of all past institutions, including religion. Men like Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Adams were men of honour void of any feeling of hatred, who did not want a total break with the mother country but only respect for the basic English principles of the Common Law and the Magna Carta; principles which were ignored by the Parliamentary dictatorship prevailing in London and rejected in the British colonies.

Let me conclude this short essay by stressing Rousseau’s misleading conclusions in his Contrat Social and his erroneous revolutionary belief in the attainment of a perfect “democratic” society. The greatly praised Contrat Social was the product of the fruitful and imaginative mind of the 18th century “philosophe,” the popular author of Emile and the epistolary novel La Nouvelle Héloïse . His ideas of liberté, égalité, and fraternité, void of any objective moral foundation except the natural goodness of man, quickly turned into the Despotism of Liberty, the Dogmatism of Reason, and the much feared egotism of Adam Smith. 15 These ideas of Rousseau not only influenced the revolutionaries of 1789, but also the development of socialist theory in general. 16 Contrary to Rousseau’s expectations, the end result of his most praised Social Contract was the Reign of Terror and the dictatorship of Bonaparte. Glory was replaced by the infamous guillotine. Rousseau’s Social Contract, together with his General Will, will go down in history as another utopian dream.

1. Voltaire, another hero of the French Revolution, claimed that: “Every sensible man, every honorable man, must hold the Christian sect in horror.”

2. The Constitution on the Clergy passed on July 12, 1790 had a clause stipulating that the clergy had to take an oath of allegiance to the Constitution.

3. Marianne is a national symbol of the French Republic and personifies liberty and reason. It portrays the Goddess of Reason and is displayed in many places in France, holding a place of honour in law courts.

4. See: C. McKinley, Journal for the Study of Radicalism , Volume IV ,Number 2, 2008. Pp. 1-33.

5. The painting is proudly exhibited today in the Louvre Museum in Paris. Many other of his excellent paintings and frescoes can be admired in the Church of St. Sulpice at the capital’s Rive Gauche.

6. See: Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Major Political Writings, The Two Discourses and the Social Conract. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2012.

7. Pierre Gaxotte, La Revolution Francaise , Paris, Librairie Artheme Fayard, 1970. Pp. 367-368. Among other books written by the French historian, the following can be mentioned: Le Siecle de Louis XV and Frederic II of Prussi.

8. “La raison seule nous apprend a connaitre le bien et le mal.” See: Rousseau, E mile ou de l’education , Paris: GF Flammarion, 1966, p.77. Rousseau’s ideas have had a tremendous influence on the philosophical and educational views of the American philosopher and social reformer John Dewey. The well known social reformer was the founder of the philosophical movement known as pragmatism and a leader of the progressive movement.

9. It is estimated that the first person who put this phrase into print was Jean Jacque Rousseau (Book IV of his Confessions).

10. See: Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke and The Rights of Man by Thomas Paine, New York, Dolphin Books, 1981. See also: Christopher Dawson, The Gods of Revolution , New York: Minerva Press, 1975.

11. The Jacobins were the most radical and ruthless of the political groups formed in the wake of the French Revolution. Together with Robespierre, they constituted the terror of 1793. See: Abbe Augustin Barruel, Memoires Pour Servir A L’Histoire Du Jacobinisme, Diffusion de la Pensee Francaise , 1973.

12. The Illuminati was the name given to several groups, both real and fictitious. The name usually refers to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment era secret society founded in 1776.

13. The French Revolution claims Gaxote: “Les doctrinaires de 1789 avaient voulu regenerer l’humanite et reconstruir le monde. Pour echapper aux Bourbons, les doctrinares de 1799, en etaient reduits a se donner a un sabre.” See: Pierre Gazxotte. La Revolution Francaise , op.cit., p.503.

14. See: Rene Sedillot, Le Cout de la Revolution framcaise, Paris: Librairie Academique Perrin, 1987.

15. See Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments , London: 1790 or any later edition.

16. The unrealistic social pact that Rousseau wrote, far from destroying natural inequality, substituted a “moral and lawful equality” for whatever physical inequality nature may have imposed on mankind. Consequently, unequal in strength and intelligence, men would become equal by covenant and by right.

The Institute of World Politics is a graduate school of national security, intelligence, and international affairs , dedicated to developing leaders with a sound understanding of international realities and the ethical conduct of statecraft, based on knowledge and appreciation of the founding principles of the American political economy and the Western moral tradition.

Never Miss the Latest News

The Institute of World Politics 1521 16th Street, NW Washington, DC 20036-1464

IWP Reston Campus 1761 Business Center Dr. Reston, VA 20190-5307

202-462-2101 888-KNOW-IWP [email protected]

General Will and Rousseau’s Social Contract

Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher who is credited with helping to shape modern political thought. One of his most influential works is “The Social Contract.” In this book, Rousseau argues that society should be based on a contract between the people and the government. This contract should ensure that the government protects the natural rights of the people.

Rousseau’s ideas were influenced by those of Thomas Hobbes. Hobbes believed that humans are naturally selfish and will only cooperate if there is a strong central authority to keep them in check. However, Rousseau believed that humans are basically good and can live harmoniously if they have a shared sense of justice and equality.

The concept of the “general will” is central to Rousseau’s political thought. The general will is the will of the people as a whole, rather than the will of any individual. It is based on the idea that humans are social beings who need to work together for the good of society.

Rousseau believed that the general will should be the driving force behind government policy. He thought that laws should be made in order to reflect the will of the people, and not just the interests of those in power.

The concepts of liberty and freedom have been around for a long time. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, among other political theorists, had previously developed their own interpretations of liberty, and in fact Locke published his ideas on the social contract years before Rousseau wrote The Social Contract. Rousseau revolutionized the notions covered by such lofty words, and he introduced us to a new way of looking at the problem of the social contract.

Rousseau’s social contract differs from Hobbes’ in several key ways. First, Rousseau believes that man is born free, and only enters into society when he agrees to do so. This is in contrast to Hobbes’ view that man is born into a state of nature where there is no freedom, and liberty can only be found within the confines of society.

Second, for Rousseau, the general will is what gives legitimacy to the state and its laws. The general will represents the common good of all citizens, and it is this that should guide the state’s actions. In contrast, Hobbes believed that the sovereign was the source of all legitimacy, and that the state exists to serve the interests of the sovereign.

Finally, Rousseau believed that citizens have a duty to obey the laws of the state, even if they do not agree with them, because they have consented to be governed by those laws. In contrast, Hobbes believed that citizens only had a duty to obey the laws if they had agreed to them beforehand.

Rousseau’s social contract is significant because it provides us with a different perspective on liberty and freedom. His view of the general will allows us to see that the state exists for the benefit of all citizens, and not just for the benefit of the sovereign.

His belief that citizens have a duty to obey the laws, even if they do not agree with them, is also significant because it reminds us that we have a responsibility to the state and to our fellow citizens. Rousseau’s social contract is an important contribution to political thought, and it provides us with a different way of thinking about the relationship between the individual and the state.

The definition of freedom in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s thinking was significantly different from that of traditional liberals. To him, freedom meant having a voice and taking part in things. It wasn’t enough for Rousseau to merely be shielded by a sovereign; he thought that man needed to participate in the process of becoming the ruler who provided the security so as to rise above the state of nature. The disparities between Rousseau’s ideas and those held by previous liberals are borne out of different interpretations of the natural condition.

For Hobbes, the state of nature was a war of all against all, and the only way to escape it was to submit to an absolute sovereign. Rousseau argued that while man in the state of nature may not be living in a utopia, they were not at war with each other. He saw the state of nature as a time when humans were free and had equality. It wasn’t until humans began living in societies that inequality arose.

The way out of the state of nature for Rousseau was not submission to an absolutist monarch, but rather a social contract where everyone participated in their own governance. This is where Rousseau’s ideas begin to take on a more democratic bent. In his view, the general will is what allows for a just society. The general will is the good of the community as a whole, rather than the good of any one individual. It’s what allows for laws that are in the best interest of everyone, rather than just those in power.

The problem with democracies, according to Rousseau, is that they often devolve into tyranny of the majority. In order to avoid this, he proposed a system of direct democracy, where all citizens would participate directly in the lawmaking process. This would ensure that the laws passed were truly in line with the general will, and not just the wishes of those in power.

While Rousseau’s ideas may seem idealistic, his notion of the general will has had a significant impact on political thought. His ideas were taken up by the founders of the United States, and his notion of direct democracy has influenced movements for social change around the world. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment, and his ideas are still relevant today.

Rousseau’s philosophy is significant in that it provides a way to have equality and liberty while also having order and submission in society. Unlike Hobbes, who saw submission as the only way to avoid anarchy, Rousseau believed that man could be free if they participated in their own governance. This is what separates Rousseau from traditional liberals like Hobbes. It is also what makes his ideas still relevant today.

More Essays

John Locke Social Contract Analysis Essay
Locke, Mill, and Rousseau
John Locke And Hobbes
Moral Theory In Ethics: The Social Contract Theory Essay
Hobbes Vs Aristotle Essay
Compare And Contrast The Optimism Of The Enlightenment Essay
Compare And Contrast Montesquieu And Rousseau Essay
Essay on General Duty In English Criminal Law
Humanity In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan
The Arguments Of Thomas Hobbes Leviathan Essay

Brief essay on ‘General Will’ as expounded by Rousseau

write a brief essay on rousseau's ideas on general will

The concept of ‘General Will’ is the crux of Rousseau’s political philosophy and his most important contribution to political thought.

Sabine says, “The general will and the criticism of natural rights comprised everything of importance that he had to say”. According to Matey, it is ‘his most distinctive contribution to political thought’.

The theory of ‘General Will’ is a plea for popular sovereignty, individual freedom and consent as basis of political authority and sovereignty of state; it was a refutation of the theory of natural rights.

Rousseau accepts the theory of social contract as Hobbes and Locke had done earlier but obtains conclusions altogether different from them. He tried to conciliate between individual freedom and state authority- Individual was free in state of nature and could not divest himself of his liberty.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Here Rousseau introduces social contract through which individuals enter into the Commonwealth and merge their will into the ‘General Will’ which is the concrete manifestation of sovereignty. By doing so he enters the Commonwealth and yet remains free.

Common, wealth is a collectivity of the individuals and General Will is the will of the Commonwealth, of which individual is a part and in the making of which individual will has participated. Thus while subject to the General Will individual remains free since he obeys none else but himself.

To Rousseau the Commonwealth is an “association” not an “agnation” of individuals, a moral and collective personality. He goes further to say, “Each of us puts his person and all his powers in common under the specific direction of the general will, and in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as the individual part of the whole”.

Thus Rousseau argues that in this corporate capacity, the individual still obeys himself alone and remains as free as before. The freedom of the; individual could not be impaired by joining the Commonwealth or by obeying the General Will, the will of the Commonwealth, because the Commonwealth could have no will or interest against the common interests of the individuals.

He further argues that since the General Will is the will of the community and wills always common good, it is moral and absolute. To him, ‘the General Will is always right and tends to the public advantage’.

The individual, thus, should be compelled to obey it, if he has an interest’ different from the common interest as expressed in the General Will. The individual, in being forced to obey the General Will, is being made free.His immediate will may be selfish while the General Will is moral and wills good of all which includes individual’s good as well.

If individual was free, he would never will against common good and hence when he is forced to follow common good as manifested in the General Will, he is being forced to be free.

Thus Rousseau confers absolute powers on the state which embodies the General Will and makes sovereignty, as Hobbes had done earlier, absolute, omnipotent, indivisible and inalienable. He says that the community is the sole judge of what is good for the community and individual has no rights against the community.

There could be no individual rights in defiance of general good. There could be no ‘natural rights’ against the society or the commonwealth. He says, “the social contract gives the body politic absolute powers over all its members” and that ‘community is the sole judge of what is important’.

Hence the General Will (1) is will of the Commonwealth; (2) desires common good; (3) is moral; (4) is real will of the individual; (5) is never in conflict with individual’s interests; (6) is absolute because individual has no rights against it; (7) is inalienable because it is the will of the collectivity and cannot be expressed by anyone else; (8) and is infallible because it is never against common good.

Thus Rousseau conciliates between liberty and sovereignty and subordinates the individual completely to the state and General Will. Sovereignty is made absolute, inviolate, inalienable and sacred.

How to find the General Will:

The real paradox of General Will is that of eliciting it. How to find General Will? To Rousseau General Will is not the totality of individual wills because individual’s will has both common and selfish interests. It is not the will of the majority because majority is a part of the whole and not the whole.

It is the will which “must both come from all and apply to all” and what makes it General is “less the number of voters than the common interest uniting them”. It may be registered by making difference of individual wills cancelling each other.

The residue is the General Will because only common element in the individual wills would be left after the selfish clement in each will conflict with and cancel the similar element in other individual wills. It is thus the will of the people functioning as a corporate body.

Wayper says, “So much vagueness about something as important as finding of General Will is to be regretted. Rousseau, who has told us so much about the General Will, has not told us enough; indeed, he has left us in such a position that nobody can be sure what the General Will is on any particular question”.

The theory of General Will has been subject to various criticisms some of which are stated below:

(1) This theory is based on the presumption of Social Contract. Society and state are not made by contract but arc an evolution. Thus the very premises on which the theory of General Will is constructed are faulty

(2) It is paradoxical to find out the General Will. Rousseau conceived a small city-state where all the adults could participate in making the General Will.

Today it is not possible to have such city-states or village communities; in fact, it was not possible even during his own time.

Rousseau is against representative form of government. Genera] Will, he says, is inalienable and cannot be represented except by the whole body politic. In modern states, representation is the only possible method of government. In such states, majority represents the community. But Rousseau rejects the majority’s will as General Will and there could be no other method to discover it.

(3) It is held by Rousseau that ‘General Will’ always wills common good and is therefore moral and absolute. This is a fallacious presumption.

No will can be made on a priori ground a moral will. The will of the Slate has to justify itself by its performance and achievement. It is only an individual that can accord it morality if he adjudges its achievement as moral.

(4) It is again a fallacious assumption that there is no conflict between common good and the good of the individual. To subordinate the individual on a priori assumption to the society and the state is to divest him of his personality; it is to install naked absolutism and decay all individual liberties and freedoms. It denies fundamental rights, which are the crux of democratic theory of state.

(5) Sovereignty is neither absolute nor sacred as Rousseau defines it on the basis of his theory of General Will. Sovereignty is limited by the purpose that it has to serve. Sovereignty exists because it is needed for performance of the end of the state. Sovereignty is not an end but a means to that end.

(6) General Will or the will of corporate body politic is a myth. It does not exist. It is fictitious to accord a personality or will to state, independent of that of the individual.

(7) To say that when individual is forced to obey the laws of the state he is being forced to be free and to obey his own real will is extremely a paradoxical argument. A thief is punished by law but to say that he willed his own punishment can only be a flight of imagination.

(8) Maclver says Rousseau equated ‘will for the general good’ with the ‘will of the generality’. General will could be a will for the common good but to say that it is will of the Commonwealth is beyond facts of state life.

Value of the Theory:

However, the theory of General Will has served a useful purpose, in spite of all its illogicalities and contradictions:

(1) It refuted the theory of absolute and inalienable natural rights.

(2) It put the authority of the state on consent of the people.

(3) It provided the theory of popular sovereignty. Commonwealth is made sovereign.

(4) Sovereignty is provided an ethical basis in so far as it is based on ‘General Will’ which is moral and wills common good.

(5) It failed to guarantee individual freedom yet Rousseau based it on individual freedom. Rousseau gives the theory of ‘General Will’ to conciliate individual liberty and state sovereignty.

That is why Lord Morley said. “Would it not have been better for the world if Rousseau had never been born?” He feels if Rousseau had not lived the awful insanities of French Revolution might have been averted. Rousseau’s phrases, Liberty, Equality and Fraternity became the guiding spirit of French revolution and have been influencing political philosophy and political movements since then. G.D.H. Cole has described the “Social Contract” as “by far the best of all text-books of political philosophy” and says that “Rousseau’s influence, so far from being dead, is everyday increasing…”.

Points to Remember

1. (i) The concept of General Will is the crux of Rousseau’s philosophy.

(ii) It conciliates liberty and authority.

(iii) It is a refutation of theory of natural rights.

(iv) It is a plea for popular sovereignty.

(v) Commonwealth is an “association” and a corporate personality, not an “aggregation”.

(vi) General Will is the will of the Commonwealth.

(vii) It wills common good and is moral and absolute.

(viii) Individual has no right against it, when he is forced to obey the General Will he is forced to be free.

(ix) State sovereignty is thus made absolute inviolate, indivisible and inalienable, even sacred.

(x) It is a will neither of the majority nor a sum total of individual wills; but will of the people functioning as body politic.

2. Criticism:

(i) The assumption of Social Contract on which the concept of General Will is based is wrong.

(ii) It is not practicable to ascertain the General Will.

(iii) General Will cannot be made on a priori ground moral will

(iv) It is wrong to assume that there is never conflict between individual good and social will.

(v) Sovereignty is neither absolute nor omnipotent.

(vi) General Will is myth.

(vii) To say that when individual is forced to obey the will of the state he is being forced to be wrong. Will for general good cannot be equated with ‘will of the generality’.

(i) It refuted the theory of natural rights.

(ii)It is a plea for popular sovereignty and consent as the basis of state.

(iii) It is a plea for individual liberty.

(iv) Sovereignty is provided on ethical basis.

Notes on the theory of Social Contract with special reference to Rousseau
Examine critically the theory of Social Contract with special reference to Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
Short notes on Rousseau’s ‘Paradox of Freedom’
Short essay on ‘General will’

Fromemuseum.org

Free Essays

Rousseau’s Argument on General Will

Jean-Jacques Rousseau is one of the most influential thinkers during the Enlightenment in eighteenth century Europe. He was born on June 28, 1712 in Geneva, Switzerland. Rousseau won recognition as a writer, although the authorities make every effort to suppress Rousseau’s writings.

There's a specialist from your university waiting to help you with that essay. Tell us what you need to have done now!

His notion of individual liberty and his convictions about political unity helped to fuel the romantic spirit of the French Revolution.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau authored a series of philosophical essays between 1754 and his death in 1778 that had a decisive impact on political events in Europe and the world at large. A political and moral philosopher during the Enlightenment, Jean-Jacques Rousseau developed provocative ideas about human nature, education, and the desired relationship between individuals and the ideal society.

Like Locke and Hobbes, Rousseau is a “state of nature” theorist. This means he starts his argument with individuals wandering about in a state of nature and then brings them together to show how society is created through their “social contract”.

Rousseau published Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality in 1754, arguing that the natural, moral state of man had been corrupted by society.

Rousseau saw a fundamental divide between society and human nature. Rousseau contended that man was good by nature, a “noble savage” when in the state of nature ,

History,for Russeau,is the story of corruption,wherebya healthy innocence gives away to a corrupt sophistication with the onset of farming and techonology . (Lecture notes)

In Rousseau’s philosophy, Men and woman in the state of nature are seen as simple free creatures at ease with themselves .To make this more clear men and woman in the state of nature are self -regarding, they feel a compassion for the suffering of others. Human beings in the state of nature experience a relatively healthy form of Self-love, amour de soi. This benign self -regard, though, is turned into more sinister form of self-love, amour proper in the development of more sophisticated societies. (Lecture notes)

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s most important work is The Social Contract ,which coined the basis for a legitimate political order based on the social contract that is formed by the society from state of nature to civil society and state. The book was published in 1762, where it became one of the most influential works of political philosophy in the social contract theory. The book begins with the dramatic opening lines, “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One man thinks he the master of others, but remains more of a slave than they.” Rousseau claimed that the state of nature was a primitive condition without law or morality.

This is the basic principle that he tried to put forward in his writing. In the state of nature that describe by Rousseau is where men are possess with their personal liberty. In the state of nature there are no legitimate and political authorities.

As society developed, division of labour and private property required the human to adopt institutions of law. Men lives in isolation and fear of conflict, but due to the motivation of self improvement, development of society to govern their rights that they possess men gave up the rights and liberty in order to form government.

Rousseau thinks that the fear and the pressure made the people abandoning their natural rights to came and joins through the social contract into civil society. The problem Rousseau poses in the beginning of The Social Contract is how to reconcile individual liberty with civil society. His solution is to offer two conceptions of liberty, ‘natural liberty’ and ‘civil liberty’, which is the superior of the two. The forming of societies involves a social contract in which individuals sacrifice freedom in the name of self preservation

What a man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and the absolute right to anything that tempts him and that he can take; what he gains by the social contract is civil liberty … we must clearly distinguish between natural liberty, which has no limit but the physical power of the individual concerned, and civil liberty, which is limited by the general will … man acquires with civil society, moral freedom, which alone makes man the master of himself … obedience to a law one prescribes to oneself is freedom. (Rousseau, 1968:p 65)

According to Rousseau, no one will give up his liberty without getting something in return. We all agree that people are born free, but for Rousseau they need to enter into social contract to achieve the natural freedom .

Men by nature are possessed with individual liberty, but men gave up this liberty in order to enter into Social Contract .They giving up the liberty in order to receive social freedom , In giving up the liberty in order to form state with legitimate authority it is must the based on the condition of general will..

In other words Rousseau thinks that the natural independence of man in state of nature is exchanged for the public freedom of citizenship. General will is introduced by Rousseau as a foundation of a transition from state of nature towards civil state, Rousseau claims in The Social Contract to have solved a ‘fundamental problem’ (Book 1, iv)

“Find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole of it’s joint strength the person and property of each associate and under which each of them, uniting himself to all, will obey himself alone and remain free as before.” (Rousseau the Social Contract p 54)

the concept of general will used by Rousseau means the will by which a group of people enter into social contract ,it refers to the will of the citizen the state

“It tends toward the public utility” (Rousseau, 1996: 477)

The general will is always right and promote public interest. The general will can be seen as distinct from a sum of coinciding private interests. This does not however mean that the general will is not in the interest of each individual. It is, in so far as “It is not the interests of others that we are to follow but rather the interests of all, all includes us.”(Hall an introduction to Rousseau p.73)

For Rousseau’ living according to the general will instead of individual will are namely that it is noble and good to do so, but also because a person achieves ‘civil liberty’ by doing so. “Obedience to the law one has prescribed for oneself is liberty”. (Rousseau, Block 3, p.111)

Rousseau believes that only general will can direct the society towards common good. The idea of the general will is at the heart of Rousseau’s philosophy. When individuals have been transformed into a state by enter into social contract ,they are united by common goods .The general will is the will of a state as a whole .

The concept of the general will is probably easier to understand as the will of all.

Rousseau specifically makes distinguish between the two concepts about common will, the will of all and the general will:

There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and the general will; the latter considers only the common interest, while the former takes private interest into account, and is no more than a sum of particular wills: but take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel one another, and the general will remains as the sum of the differences Social Contract, (Vol. IV, p. 146).

The general will is not the will of the majority. The general will is not the sum of all the separate wills of individuals who enter the social contract. It is not majority decision .It is the general will only when it aims at the common good and when it is supported by all citizens of good will. It is a moral, qualitative idea .The “general will” in action is sovereign.

He therefore insisted on the sovereignty of the people, who are united individuals in the general will, because their common interest let them seek for the most suitable form of government and society to fulfil this basic need.

Rousseau also argues that sovereignty should be in the hands of the people, he also makes a sharp distinction between sovereignty and government. The government is charged with implementing and enforcing the general will and is composed of a smaller group of citizens

Rousseau theory of sovereignty differs obviously from those other political philosophers including Hobbes, Rousseau asserts that the people should exercise sovereignty rather than bend to the whims of an absolute monarch. Common interest of the public could not be preserve and protected of there is no medium of separation of power and check and balance in governing the state.

The ideas of Rousseau that he coined in his book of Social Contract would gives an impact on modern form of democratic society based on his understanding of general will and theory of sovereignty would bring us the understanding of the power of people in modern society. His ideas are near to what we have today in understand the good government and democratic society.

The importance of the will for Rousseau was not merely social, but also psychological. He knew that men behaved differently in groups than in isolation, but “without a perfect knowledge of the inclinations of individuals” one could not understand society (ibid.,p. 202).

For Rousseau the object of General Will is the common good not what individuals want for themselves. The common good is taken to be the aim of moral choices. The General Will is the will each person has as a citizen of moral agents. It is not that the common good is what we morally ought to aim at, but that this is what we really want.

A person may want something that is not good for him or her. What is good for someone is what he would want if he had complete wisdom. For the General will theory a man’s real good is what he really wants although he does not know it.

Since the state aims at securing the common good the state or the law is the concrete expression of General Will. We ought ,therefore ,to obey the state, and if we do we are following our real will: the will that is the general or common to all members of the state If an individual does not realise what he really wants and is unwilling to fall into lines ,the state is justified in forcing him to conform .