The Social Contract

The Social Contract is a political treatise published in 1762 by the Genevan philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argues about the best ways to establish and maintain political authority without unduly sacrificing personal liberty. He builds off 17th-century philosopher Thomas Hobbes’s idea of the “social contract” between the people and sovereign authority, departing from Hobbes in his views on monarchy and the natural state of humankind. The Social Contract was enormously influential on political thought before and during the French Revolution; notorious Jacobin statesman and Reign of Terror leader Maximilien Robespierre was one of the treatise’s fiercest adherents. The book’s controversial views on Christianity also led it to be banned in Geneva and Paris.

This study guide refers to The Social Contract and Discourses published in 1968 by Devoted Publishing.

Summary

In the first of four books, Rousseau poses the fundamental problem he hopes to address with his treatise: how to build a durable and effective political state without excessively curtailing the natural liberties of humankind. He rejects earlier models espoused by philosophers like Niccolò Machiavelli, who believed authority is rooted in strength, in other words “might makes right.” Rousseau also refutes Thomas Hobbes, who believed that the most effective form of authority is a strong, central monarch. Rousseau is deeply critical of the Hobbesian social contract, in which the people give up all their natural rights to a sovereign ruler or rulers in return for domestic tranquility and protection from foreign invaders. In addition to characterizing this contract as a form of “slavery,” Rousseau rejects it on practical terms, as the actions of monarchs often tend toward costly, self-aggrandizing wars and predatory domestic policies.

Instead, under Rousseau’s social contract, the people surrender some of their rights to the “general will,” which is the only truly legitimate form of authority. Because each individual gives up the same rights and takes on the same responsibilities, the people remain as free as they could possibly be while living in an ordered society. Essentially, the people trade “natural liberty”—meaning the freedom to take whatever one can at all times—for “civil liberty,” which is much more valuable for contemporary, collaborative humankind. According to Rousseau, the social contract also replaces “natural inequality”—meaning, natural disparities in physical and mental capabilities—with “civil equality,” in which all individuals are treated the same under the law.

In Book 2, Rousseau explains his concept of the general will. In his view, the general will is indestructible, indivisible, and infallible. Although the people may disagree on what they think it is, the general will remains unchanged. The general will is expressed through laws that apply generally and do not mention specific individuals or groups. The person or persons who write these laws should ideally be outsiders, and the laws should consider the geography of the territory and the temperament of the people.

In Book 3, Rousseau makes an important distinction between sovereign authority, or the general will, and the government, which executes and administers the laws of sovereignty. There is no contract between the people and the government; rather, the government and its magistrates are merely commissioned by the people to execute the general will. As such, the government may be disbanded and replaced at any time without the need to eliminate or alter the social contract.

Rousseau lists three types of government: monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. None of these forms is inherently better than the other; circumstances will dictate which form is best for a community. For example, though generally hostile to monarchy, in which a single individual exercises supreme authority, Rousseau believes that extremely large and populous states can only be governed by a monarch, who possesses the force and energy to do so effectively. In turn, democracies, in which every citizen is an active participant in the administration of government, are only suited for very small political communities. Rousseau even wonders if such widespread political participation is possible in a state that does not rely on enslaved people to do its non-political labor. Ultimately, Rousseau favors aristocracy, specifically elective aristocracy, in which a select group of capable individuals are chosen by the people to administer the government.

Finally, in Book 4, Rousseau touches on miscellaneous topics like voting, the judiciary, temporary dictators, and religion. In a long chapter called “Civil Religion,” he calls into question whether “true” Christians are capable of self-government, or if the service-oriented nature of the Christian faith makes them destined to be enslaved by tyrants. That said, Rousseau recommends that each state adopt a civil religion, Christian or otherwise, made up of simple positive dogmas, like a belief in God, the afterlife, and divine justice.