Sparks Commentary: A few problems with Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”

– Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “The Social Contract” (1762), opening lines of Book I, Chapter I

I first read this work in English translation for a history class …

In the spring semester of 2007, my history professor of that time assigned my class to read Jean-Jacques Rousseau's “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique” (“The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”). This assignment was for a Western Civilization class that I was then taking. At that time, I read it in English translation, which would contribute to my later desire to read it in the original French. But it would be several years before I ever got the opportunity to do so. Thus, by the time that I started this later project, more than a decade had passed since my first reading of the book for this history class in 2007.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

… but more than a decade later, I read it in the original French for my own amusement

When I started this project, I had just finished reading another Rousseau work in its original French. This work was Rousseau's “Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes” (“Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men”). I wanted to read this other work first, since it was written some seven or eight years before “Du contrat social, ou principes du droit politique.” The full English title of the work that I'm reviewing here is “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right.” But for simplicity's sake, I will just refer to it here as “The Social Contract.” I started this work in July 2018, and finished it some six months later in December 2018. Thus, I have now read this entire work in its original French. I can thus certify that my criticisms of this work are not based on mistranslation.

Statue of Rousseau, on the Île Rousseau, Geneva

Problems with the opening lines of the very first chapter of the very first book

One of the most misunderstood parts of “The Social Contract” is the famous opening paragraph from the very first chapter of the very first book. People often read the line “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” as a ringing “endorsement” of freedom. But the full passage says that “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.” (Source: Book I, Chapter I) What is the “change” that he speaks of? Apparently, the change from being “born free” to being “everywhere … in chains.” What does Rousseau want to do with this “change”? In his own words, to “make it legitimate.” In other words, he wants to make it “legitimate” that “everywhere [man] is in chains,” and that “One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they” (in some other words from that same paragraph). But how can being “in chains” be considered “legitimate”? How can “remain[ing] a greater slave” than those in chains be considered “legitimate,” either? The answer is that these things are not legitimate. Rather, they are an endorsement of “slave[ry]” and “chains” that is inconsistent with the “pro-freedom” interpretation of Rousseau. They seem to be evidence of a more totalitarian view of Rousseau, which is reinforced by some other passages of “The Social Contract.” (More on that later in this post.)

Title page of the original edition of “The Social Contract” (1762)

Rousseau’s concept of the “general will” …

But first, there are some serious problems with Rousseau’s conception of what he called the “general will.” An examination of some of the particular passages on this subject will help us to elucidate this concept, as he understood it. In “The Social Contract,” Rousseau says that “the general will is always right and tends to the public advantage; but it does not follow that the deliberations of the people are always equally correct. Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see what that is; the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad.” (Source: Book II, Chapter III) He further says that “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” (Source: Book II, Chapter III). What the “general will” may be, if not a composition of particular wills, is difficult to say – until you examine some other passages within “The Social Contract.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, later in life

… and the serious problems with it

The disconnect between Rousseau’s “general will” and the actual will of the majority can be further reinforced by another passage from “The Social Contract.” Rousseau says that “When in the popular assembly a law is proposed, what the people is asked is not exactly whether it approves or rejects the proposal, but whether it is in conformity with the general will, which is their will. Each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes. When therefore the opinion that is contrary to my own prevails, this proves neither more nor less than that I was mistaken, and that what I thought to be the general will was not so. If my particular opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the opposite of what was my will and it is in that case that I should not have been free.” (Source: Book IV, Chapter II) It is difficult, if not impossible, to follow Rousseau’s logic in this last sentence. But more importantly, if the general will is not asked “whether it approves or rejects the proposal,” it is hard to imagine how it may truly represent the will of anyone – let alone an important group like “the people.” Whether it “approves or rejects” something is a pretty important concept, and one that should not be ignored by a theory of government. Curiously, Rousseau also said earlier that “If, when the people, being furnished with adequate information, held its deliberations, the citizens had no communication one with another, the grand total of the small differences would always give the general will, and the decision would always be good.” (Source: Book II, Chapter III) How the people are to know the “general will” in advance of the vote, when they have “no communication one with another,” is difficult to say. Rousseau defends this absence of communication on the grounds that it “makes factions harder to form” (to paraphrase what he said there). But in addition to suppressing freedom of speech, this absence of communication between them would also render the people incapable of knowing what everyone else wanted in advance of the vote, and the people would also be uninformed by any kind of debate. They would thus be forced to vote their own particular will – or, in other words, whether their will “approves or rejects the proposal” – the very view that Rousseau was trying to reject in this chapter.

Title page of a pirated edition of “The Social Contract” (probably published in Germany)

Rousseau argues that there should be a “total alienation” of all our rights …

In another part of “The Social Contract,” Rousseau says that the clauses of the social contract “may be reduced to one—the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community” (Source: Book I, Chapter VI). This is in stark contrast with the social contract theory of John Locke and the Founding Fathers. For them, individuals alienated only a part of their rights to the whole community – such as alienating some of their property in the form of taxes. But for Rousseau, individuals must submit to a “total alienation of … all [their] rights.” If a man alienates “all” his rights, then he has no rights left – suggesting a more totalitarian form of government, than the one usually attributed to Rousseau. I should acknowledge that you can find other quotes in “The Social Contract” that suggest a more “part[ial]” alienation. For example, Rousseau says elsewhere that “Each man alienates, I admit, by the social compact, only such part of his powers, goods and liberty as it is important for the community to control; but it must also be granted that the Sovereign is sole judge of what is important.” (Source: Book II, Chapter IV) But this assertion that man alienates “only … part” of his goods proves only that Rousseau contradicted himself on this point, and does not prove that this is what he really believed. If quotations do indeed prove actual beliefs, then contradictory quotations prove contradictory beliefs that cannot be reconciled with one another. As mentioned earlier, he had said elsewhere that the clauses of the social contract “may be reduced to one—the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community” (Source: Book I, Chapter VI). This is one of many self-contradictions in “The Social Contract,” and in the work of Rousseau more generally.

John Locke, whose competing version of “social contract theory” influenced our Founding Fathers

… which would mean that there are no rights left

Rousseau defends this total alienation by saying that “as each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and, this being so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.” (Source: Book I, Chapter VI) But how this might cause these antisocial interests to suddenly “disappear” is somewhat difficult to say. Rousseau also argues that “each man, in giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody; and as there is no associate over whom he does not acquire the same right as he yields others over himself, he gains an equivalent for everything he loses, and an increase of force for the preservation of what he has.” (Source: Book I, Chapter VI) But how minority rights are to be protected in this situation is unclear. Minorities may acquire some rights over others – at least, if Rousseau is indeed correct – but it would seem that the majorities would gain far more rights over them, if the “general will” does indeed truly represent the will of the majority – and as I have shown earlier, it would seem that the “general will” doesn’t even really do this. It would seem that the “general will” is not really a “will” at all, at least not in any ordinarily understood sense of that term.

Storming of the Bastille, 1789 – the event that began the French Revolution

Conclusion: Rousseau’s ideas lead to oppressive dictatorship, and are inconsistent with true freedom

Many defenders of Rousseau would argue that Rousseau influenced the Founding Fathers of the United States, with some arguing that he influenced the United States Constitution in particular. But to date, I have found no evidence that he ever did any of this – and I have looked for this evidence diligently, in many seemingly promising places. The Constitution’s version of the social contract owes far more to John Locke than to any other prior philosopher (as I argue here). It is wholly inconsistent with the “social contract” as proposed by Rousseau, which points in a more totalitarian direction. Rousseau believed that one could “reason” their way to any kind of truth, in the tradition of “Continental Rationalists” like René Descartes. But Rousseau’s reasoning is plagued with logical errors, in the ways noted earlier. Even if one accepts his premises (and many of them are somewhat dubious), his conclusions would not necessarily follow from these premises. Moreover, Rousseau is wrongly remembered as a “defender of freedom,” but many passages in “The Social Contract” contradict this interpretation, and suggest a philosophy that is wholly inconsistent with true freedom and democracy. Rousseau’s ideas lead to oppressive dictatorship, and all the good intentions in the world can’t save us from their tragic consequences.

The execution of Maximilien Robespierre by guillotine

Footnote: Rousseau’s influence on the French Revolution

Rousseau was a great influence on the French Revolution. Many of its different factions claimed to be “disciples” of Rousseau, and could point to particular passages within “The Social Contract” that supported their interpretation – even when there were other passages within “The Social Contract” that contradicted their interpretation, and contradicted other parts of the work itself.

Some have questioned whether he influenced the mass executions by the guillotine, during the “Reign of Terror” portion of the French Revolution. Thus, I will cite a chilling passage within “The Social Contract” that shows his influence on these executions, which appeared to justify these kinds of killings in Rousseau's mind. Rousseau said there that “There is therefore a purely civil profession of faith of which the Sovereign should fix the articles, not exactly as religious dogmas, but as social sentiments without which a man cannot be a good citizen or a faithful subject.[footnote] While it can compel no one to believe them, it can banish from the State whoever does not believe them - it can banish him, not for impiety, but as an anti-social being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and of sacrificing, at need, his life to his duty. If any one, after publicly recognising these dogmas, behaves as if he does not believe them, let him be punished by death: he has committed the worst of all crimes, that of lying before the law.” (Source: Book IV, Chapter VIII)

To me, this passage seems to leave no doubt that Rousseau did indeed influence the mass executions during the French Revolution, including those by the guillotine. At the very least, people seem to have done these things in his name, by appealing to pro-violence passages like this one.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

A few problems with Plato’s “Republic” (and his ideal state)

The Founding Fathers strongly criticized Plato’s “Republic” (and for good reason)

A review of “Voltaire and Rousseau” (audiobook)

A review of Rousseau’s “The Social Contract” (audiobook)

Rousseau's “Discourse on Inequality” is long on detail, but short on evidence …

Actually, Rousseau did NOT influence our Founding Fathers (sorry Wikipedia)

A few problems with Rousseau's praise of the Spartans

Actually, Machiavelli WAS pro-dictatorship (and Rousseau was wrong about him)

A review of “The French Revolution” (History Channel)

A few problems with Karl Marx's “The Communist Manifesto”

Part of a series about

Political philosophy

Plato’s “Republic”

Niccolò Machiavelli’s “The Prince”

Thomas Hobbes’ “Leviathan”

Baron de Montesquieu’s “The Spirit of Laws”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Discourse on Inequality”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “The Social Contract”

Adam Smith’s “The Wealth of Nations”

The United States Declaration of Independence

The Constitutional Convention

The Ratification Debates