Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Strength and weakness of j. j. Rousseau social contract theory
Strength and weakness of j. j. Rousseau social contract theory
Jean-Jacques Rousseau essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
“The problem is to find a norm of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.” Rousseau (1762)a, ll. 5–7b Thus Jean-Jacques Rousseau sets out his aim, and quite a formidable aim it is. He hopes to establish an appropriate “norm of association” (i.e. relationship between individual and state) in which all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible, by the state (or body politic); each individual gives himself wholly to the general cause of the state; and all individuals act freely and of their own volition. It should be noted here that the state, in Rousseau's picture of things, is constituted wholly and exclusively of the individuals subject to these criteria. There is no separate institutional government whose members have a materially different relationship to the whole, and so the people are simultaneously the holders of power and the legal subjects in the body politic. In the former capacity they are referred to by Rousseau as citizens, and the active group made up by them is called the sovereign, a “public person, [formed] by the union of all other persons” (l. 41). Rousseau sums up the terms of his solution succinctly thus: “the total alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community” (ll. 17–18). This is not intended to be as unilateral as it may sound. The key concept that brings together Rousseau's social contract theory is the bifurcation of each state member's resolve into the general will and the individual will; the distinction being most importantly that the g... ... middle of paper ... ...es with Rousseauist hallmarks have historically existed does not swing the debate, since these societies generally confirm rather than alleviate my doubts. Those groups that existed before Rousseau's time were invariably small to very small, this being the only environment in which I find his propositions at all practicable. In those larger scale political systems influenced by Rousseau, such as Marxist communismf and the totalitarianism of Adolf Hitler's Nazi partyg, there is evidence of some of the flaws mentioned above coming to the fore — the propagandist Nuremberg Rallies, for example, could be seen as broad manipulation of the general will — and little vindication of the claim that each member of such societies “[obeys] himself alone, and [remains] as free as before.” At least, not free in the way that we would understand the term in the twentyfirst century.
Rousseau believes its possible to have both complete freedom and yet also legitimate authority. The essential outline Rousseau paints an equal relation between freedom and the authority of state. He argues that we as naturally free people, if it doesn't detract from our freedom. `If one must obey because of force, one need not do so out of duty; and if one is no longer forced to obey one is no longer obliged' (Rousseau: Cress (ed.), 1987, bk1, ch.3, p.143). Therefore Rousseau has shown that superior power, naked force or power through tradition is not the source of any legitimate authority the state has over us. Rousseau's fundamental problem is to find a solution of structuring the state so that we can live in a state and yet remain as free as possible. Hence, by sacrificing our particular will on major social or national matters in favour of the general will we are ennobled and freed .
Imagine a time were humans lived in a primitive state were they were free and independent. A time before humans became civilized and everything was peaceful. Would we be able to revert back to a time were we wouldn’t be highly dependent on electricity, industrialization, infrastructure, the food industry, and most importantly the dependency on other people? Would we be able to survive and thrive? In this paper, I will be writing about Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s work Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, where he extensively wrote about the State of Nature.
Rousseau, however, believed, “the general will by definition is always right and always works to the community’s advantage. True freedom consists of obedience to laws that coincide with the general will.”(72) So in this aspect Rousseau almost goes to the far extreme dictatorship as the way to make a happy society which he shows in saying he, “..rejects entirely the Lockean principle that citizens possess rights independently of and against the state.”(72)
...eing mandated for protection. Rousseau’s conception of liberty is more dynamic. Starting from all humans being free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the thorough enslavement of humans, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau’s strong and independent natural man. Subsequently, Rousseau tries to reacquaint the individual with its lost freedom. The trajectory of Rousseau’s freedom is more compelling in that it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. It perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to largely unnoticeably deprived, and as something that changes and requires active attention to preserve. In this, Rousseau’s conception of liberty emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke’s despite the Lockean interpretation dominating contemporary civil society.
...ion with the general will. This may sound like a contradiction but, to Rousseau, the only way the body politic can function is by pursuing maximum cohesion of peoples while seeking maximum individuation. For Rousseau, like Marx, the solution to servitude is, in essence, the community itself.
In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the idea of forced freedom. “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the entire body; which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free” (Rousseau, SC, Bk 1. Ch. 7). This forced freedom is necessary for a government that is run by the people and not a small group of few to one sovereign(s). For forced freedom allows a difference of opinions but the outcome is the idea with the greatest acceptance. Because political rule requires the consent of the ruled, the citizens of the state are required to take action within their community.
Firstly, each individual should give themselves up unconditionally to the general cause of the state. Secondly, by doing so, all individuals and their possessions are protected, to the greatest extent possible by the republic or body politic. Lastly, all individuals should then act freely and of their own free will. Rousseau thinks th...
...ons on what kind of government should prevail within a society in order for it to function properly. Each dismissed the divine right theory and needed to start from a clean slate. The two authors agree that before men came to govern themselves, they all existed in a state of nature, which lacked society and structure. In addition, the two political philosophers developed differing versions of the social contract. In Hobbes’ system, the people did little more than choose who would have absolute rule over them. This is a system that can only be derived from a place where no system exists at all. It is the lesser of two evils. People under this state have no participation in the decision making process, only to obey what is decided. While not perfect, the Rousseau state allows for the people under the state to participate in the decision making process. Rousseau’s idea of government is more of a utopian idea and not really executable in the real world. Neither state, however, describes what a government or sovereign should expect from its citizens or members, but both agree on the notion that certain freedoms must be surrendered in order to improve the way of life for all humankind.
To understand the Rousseau stance on claims to why the free republic is doomed we must understand the fundamentals of Rousseau and the Social Contract. Like Locke and Hobbes, the first order of Rousseau’s principles is for the right to an individual’s owns preservation. He does however believe that some are born into slavery. His most famous quote of the book is “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau pg 5). Some men are born as slaves, and others will be put into chains because of the political structures they will establish. He will later develop a method of individuals living free, while giving up some of their rights to...
Rousseau believes the solution to having the obedience of men and their loyalty to the
This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they are subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another. Bibliography:.. Works Cited Cress, Donald A. Jean-Jacques Rousseau “The Basic Political Writing”.
Omid, A. "Modern Theorist of Tyranny? Lessons from Rousseau's System of Checks and Balances*." Polity 37.4 (2005): 443-65. Web.
Rousseau contemplates many of the problems in society. He draws reflection to the past of humans and tries to find an understanding of how the time of savages was much more tranquil. He reminisces to the time where there was acute awareness of, and regard for, oneself in relation to others, being before humanity. He compares savages to the present human society. Using contrasting ideas about the methods of survival, in the past, to human’s desires of the present, he emphasizes how life was much more simple and peaceful during the time of the savage. Rousseau focusses his views on reason, enlightenment, and natural laws in order to show how hostility has grown since the growth of civilization. He uses these views to provide an explanation of how he feels why we must revert back to nature to solve current problems of our existence.
Once having discovered a new planet of Vespuccia, humanity encountered the old problem of colonization and coping with the local population. In such a situation even the ages of adherence to progressive philosophy and democratic principles cannot help colonizers avoid a certain level of violence. People have obviously caused much injustice to Vespuccians, which entailed the hatred and distrust of local tribes. The old wounds lead to new conflicts, but the vicious circle should be broken. In this regard, scholars believe that the Rousseau's theory of Social Contract can be helpful. Rousseau's model of society, applied on Vespuccia, guarantees a peaceful coexistence of the two races, high rates of economic development, and loyalty of all the citizens to the state and Sovereign.
Rousseau’s version of the social contract depends on his characteristics of “the state of nature”. Rousseau once said “Man is born