Book Review: On the Social Contract

Title
On the Social Contract (Du Contrat Social)

Author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Publication Date
1762

Publication Information
Dover (Dover Thrift Edition); 97 pages

Reason for Reading
In keeping with my goal of learning more of the American Revolution and the era in which it took place while simultaneously focusing on political theory to better understand the political system installed at that time, I picked this book by Rousseau discussing social contract theory. Given the time of publication, I would hazard a guess that many of the founding fathers of America (at least those involved in drawing up the new Constitution) would have read this. Whether or not it had any direct influence on either the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution I’m not certain. The little I’ve looked up online seems to indicate its effects on America’s founding were negligible, but it may have been more influential in the French Revolution. Regardless of this, the text remains noteworthy in the field.

Synopsis
Rousseau essentially uses this book as an opportunity to elucidate his thoughts on the social contract. For those unfamiliar, social contract theory (at least my understanding of it) dates back to at least the mid-1600’s and Hobbes’ Leviathan. It articulates the idea that people concede individual liberties to form a consensual government in return for other benefits. Rousseau delves into how social contracts may specifically apply to different aspects of government, whether it be in their formation, the relation between the subjects and the state, the duties of the subject, etc.

Review
For a book on political theory, the text is easy to understand and quite readable to the novice. This is not to say that it is light material nor that it will be a fast read. A better description would be that it is written in a manner that most people could understand (or at least translated that way), but information is highly condensed, and he rarely diverges from the essential. Similarly, Rousseau places a high value on exact definitions for key terms, which he provides in the appropriate spots. However, repeated usage of these terms may necessitate frequent doubling back to be clear on later topics.

In my opinion, the text is definitely worthwhile to read. From what I’ve read elsewhere, the text was polarizing at the time of its publication, even amongst Rousseau’s friends, and it continues to draw highly contrasting opinions today. Due to the sheer volume of densely packed information, it’s difficult to deconstruct his entire philosophy of government in a book review. There were numerous sections with which I agreed, a few with which I disagreed, and a lot which I was being exposed to for the first time and have yet to fully form an opinion.

Quotes
Opening Line of the first book:
"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. One man 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." (1)

“The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty.” (3)

“If we then discard from the social compact what is not of its essence, we shall find that it reduces itself to the following terms:
‘Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme
direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.’” (9)

“What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses.” (12)

“I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right.” (14)

“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.” (17)

“But when factions arise, and partial associations are formed at the expense of the great association, the will of each of these associations becomes general in relation to its members, while it remains particular in relation to the State: it may then be said that there are no longer as many votes as there are men, but only as many as there are associations. The differences become less numerous and give a less general result. Lastly, when one of these associations is so great as to prevail over all the rest, the result is no longer the sum of small differences, but a single difference; in this case there is no longer a general will, and the opinion which prevails is purely particular. … But if there are partial societies, it is best to have as many as possible and to prevent them from being unequal, as was done by Solon, Numa and Servius. These precautions are the only ones that can guarantee that the general will shall be always enlightened, and that the people shall in no way deceive itself.” (18)

“Usurpers always bring about or select troublous times to get passed, under the cover of the public terror, destructive laws, which the people would never adopt in cold blood. The moment chosen is one of the surest means of distinguishing the work of the legislator from that of the tyrant.” (33)

“Nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests in public affairs, and the abuse of the laws by the government is a less evil than the corruption of the legislator, which is the inevitable sequel to a particular standpoint. In such a case, the State being altered in substance, all reformation becomes impossible. A people that would never misuse governmental powers would never misuse independence; a people that would always govern well would not need to be governed.” (44-5)

“In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies: under a bad government no one cares to stir a step to get to them, because no one is interested in what happens there, because it is foreseen that the general will will not prevail, and lastly because domestic cares are all-absorbing. Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse. As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State What does it matter to me? The State may be given up for lost.” (64)

Further Reading
The Republic
Plato
380 BC

Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes
1651

Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men
(Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
1754

Émile: or, on Education
(Émile ou de l'éducation)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
1762