A free man, according to Rousseau, is independent, responsible, morally competent and master of his own will. Freedom is man’s essential property. The political community, on the other hand, is to invoke in the citizen a feeling of social affiliation and duty rather than a sense of individuality. Most important, citizenship presupposes the right to subject every member of the society to the law, which is produced by the general will, that is by the permanent aspiration of the common good.
In The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau sets out to reconcile the claims of freedom and the constrains that arise with the necessary establishment of political authority: What humans need is “a form of association which will defend and protect […] the person and goods of each associate and in which each, whilst uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and be as free as before“. In his opinion, the social contract can bring about such a change by means of law, that is by allowing every citizen to vote “on matters of common interest” in an assembly. The regulations thus set up are an expression of every single man’s will and therefore binding for all. Those who do not subject to it voluntarily will be “forced to be free”. Instead of reconciling the competing claims, Rousseau seems to have erected a verbal paradox.
The aim of the following essay is to show to what extent, if at all, the paradox is the solution to the competing claims of the individual and the community. I will begin with a description of the state of nature, the loss of it and the subsequent unsatisfactoryalternative. Those are factors which make another form of political association indispensable. Then, I will introduce Rousseau’s problematic concept of socio-political integration, followed by two major concepts of freedom according to Isaiah Berlin. Finally, I will argue that the solution of the paradox, the unification of liberty and citizenship, hinges primarily on the definition of freedom and in a wider sense on the weighting of obstacles to the practicability of Rousseau’s theory.
In my opinion, a reconciliation of the claims of the individuals and the community is possible only in civil but not in moral and liberal terms.
Table of Contents
Introduction
Competing claims, irreconcilable claims? The individual and the community in Rousseau’s The Social Contract
1 Leaving the state of nature
1.1 Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ state of nature compared
1.2 From the disruption to a state of illegitimate political authority
2 Problems: Rousseau’s concept of a socio-political mode of existence
2.1 Becoming a people
2.1.1 The nature of the general will
2.1.2 The realisation and maintenance of the general will: the legislator
2.1.3 The education of a citizen
2.2 Making and living the social contract
2.2.1 The contracting parties
2.2.2 The making of the law and the city-state
2.2.3 The (un)limited sovereign power
2.2.4 The subjection to the law and “forced to be free”
3 Being an individual and a citizen: concepts of freedom according to Berlin and their application to Rousseau’s thought
3.1 Negative freedom: the liberal view
3.2 Positive freedom: the idealist and the republican view
3.2.1 The idealist view – freedom towards oneself
3.2.2 The republican view – freedom towards one another
Objectives and Topics
This essay examines the extent to which Jean-Jacques Rousseau successfully reconciles the competing claims of the individual and the community within his work, The Social Contract, particularly focusing on the apparent paradox of being "forced to be free."
- Comparison of Rousseauian and Hobbesian states of nature
- Critique of the concept of the "general will" and the role of the legislator
- Analysis of the social contract as a mechanism for political legitimacy
- Application of Isaiah Berlin's concepts of negative and positive freedom to Rousseau's theory
- Evaluation of the compatibility between individual autonomy and citizenship
Excerpt from the Book
1.1 Rousseau’s and Hobbes’ state of nature compared
In A Discourse on the Origins of Equality, Rousseau gives an account of “a speculative history of human psychology and social institutions” (Hampsher-Monk 163). He depicts man’s natural life in the phases which precedes socialisation. Unlike Hobbes, who characterises life in the state of nature with the key words “nasty, brutish and short”, Rousseau sees it as the very form of existence which guaranteed peace and harmony between the individuals. (Levine 24 and 66). In fact, humans hardly ever met since they had no social institutions, no language and no common culture (Levine 61). Their mental capacities were not yet elaborate enough to recognise the scarcity of resources and the dangerous potential of the competition that could arise from it (Levine 62). Hence, there was no reason for any conflict.
This may convey the picture of a primitive being if one compares it with modern man. However, natural men were nevertheless privileged in many ways. They possessed fourfold liberty: metaphysical, anarchic, and personal freedom as well as freedom from want (Cranston 231-32). The first rendered their will free. The second, which Dent calls “discretionary freedom”, signifies the independence from written law, simply because there was none in the state of nature (120). Enslavement was made impossible by the third kind of liberty, freedom from the subjection of one’s will or body to the rule of a master, an employer or any other superior man (Cranston 231). There was freedom from want because men had learned to frame their wishes within the possibilities provided, which avoided the disappointment of wishing things that were not attainable (Plamenatz 326).
Summary of Chapters
1 Leaving the state of nature: Explores the transition from the harmonious natural state to the emergence of property and inequality, necessitating political authority.
2 Problems: Rousseau’s concept of a socio-political mode of existence: Investigates the structural and conceptual challenges in establishing a general will, the role of the legislator, and the dynamics of the social contract.
3 Being an individual and a citizen: concepts of freedom according to Berlin and their application to Rousseau’s thought: Analyzes Rousseau's theory through the lens of Isaiah Berlin's negative and positive liberty, debating the compatibility of individual autonomy with civic requirements.
Keywords
Rousseau, The Social Contract, General Will, Individual, Community, Political Authority, Freedom, Liberty, Isaiah Berlin, Negative Freedom, Positive Freedom, Citizen, State of Nature, Sovereignty, Social Contract
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this essay?
The essay explores the conflict between individual freedom and the demands of the political community in Rousseau's philosophy.
Which central themes are discussed?
Key themes include the state of nature, the nature of the general will, the role of the legislator, and the different philosophical definitions of freedom.
What is the author's primary research question?
The author questions whether Rousseau successfully reconciles individual claims with those of the community or if his theories create an insurmountable paradox.
What scientific or philosophical methods are utilized?
The work employs a critical comparative analysis of Rousseau’s primary texts and secondary interpretations, applying Isaiah Berlin’s categories of liberty to evaluate Rousseau’s arguments.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers the historical loss of the state of nature, the problematic implementation of the social contract, and an analysis of civil versus moral freedom.
Which keywords characterize this work?
Core terms include "General Will," "Social Contract," "Positive/Negative Freedom," and "Rousseau."
How does the author interpret the phrase "forced to be free"?
The author views this as a republican solution where the law acts as a mechanism to secure social order, though noting it remains controversial regarding individual autonomy.
Why does the author critique the "legislator" figure?
The author argues that the legislator’s role in shaping the inner dispositions of citizens contains totalitarian elements that contradict the concept of individual freedom.
- Quote paper
- Anne Thoma (Author), 2004, An examination of the extent to which Rousseau reconciled the claims of the individual and the community, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/29905
