Customer Reviews

The Social Contract (Penguin Great Ideas)

5 star:		(14)
4 star:		(8)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(4)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Inspired by the unfair treatment of France by their king, J.J. Rousseau wrote this book and ideology based on the equality of men. In this book, Rousseau gives the reader detailed information on his view of the model society. The reader is consumed by the principle stating that no man has any authority over the other, and the balance of man's losses and gains gives the reader a sense of hope in this form of community. This is a must-read for any lover of deep thought and classic literature.

This is a valuable historical document, because it shows us the thinking that led up to the French Revolution. Rousseau wrote: "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains." What Rousseau means by this is that Man is born free in the State of Nature - it is society, government, and urban life that are the corruptive forces. Without those things, Rousseau argues, man would exist in peaceful co-habitation. What is striking to the modern reader about this claim is how blatantly wrong it is. Rousseau was trying to refute Thomas Hobbes who wrote that the State of Nature is the same as the State of War. Apparently Hobbes got the better of the argument because, as soon as the French Revolution took effect, peaceful liberty went out the window in favor of the Reign of Terror.

But, back to Rousseau. He claims that, even though men in nature peacefully co-exist, it is more beneficial for them to come together to form a society. Thus they SHOULD come together and form a Social Contract. The ideal contract for Rousseau would entail the individual GIVING UP ALL HIS RIGHTS on entering the contract with the understanding that he will get them all back from the Sovereign. Who is the Sovereign? Well, for Rousseau, the Sovereign is the People. If Rousseau's Ideal State were an organism, it would be a large one-celled organism with no differentiation. This is very much unlike Hobbes' Leviathan, with the Sovereign at the head and each part assigned its individual task. For Rousseau, only the SOCIETY AS A WHOLE has the right to govern.

Of course, this system is incredibly unwieldy, that is why - in Rousseau's world - there are a whole bunch of little city-states, like ancient Athens. HERE COMES THE SCARY PART. Once the whole population gets together and makes a decision, that decision is infallible. "THE GENERAL WILL CANNOT BE WRONG." Those minorities who are disaffected by this general rule shall be "FORCED TO BE FREE." In the case of the French Revolution, that was the freedom of one's head from one's shoulders.

According to Simon Schama in his wonderful book, Citizens, the importance of the Social Contract has been overestimated. Rousseau's love of the State of Nature (which was the spirit of the French Revolution) had more of an effect on the public through his novels Emile and La Nouvelle Heloise.

The Social Contract must be viewed in its historical context as a piece of history in itself. If one reads it for philosophic reasons only, it will come of sounding either frightening or painfully naïve. One sentence caught my imagination however - Rousseau saw the island of Corsica as the perfect candidate for his ideal state. "I have a presentiment that this little island will one day astonish Europe." It did. It produced the greatest warlord the world had ever seen - Napoleon.

Jean Jacques Rousseau is truly a great intellectual.His Discourses and The Social Contract are some of the best in Enlightenment thinking. In the Discourses Rousseau exalts the "noble" savage free from the corrupting influence of modern civilization. He believes that civilization has corrupted man from his original, yet ignorant state. I found the Discourses to be a little flighty and unrealistic. The Social Contract was a different story altogether. This is a monumental work. In it Rousseau shows his vast knowledge of the Roman Republic and Empire and the reasons for it's rise and collapse. Rousseau also denounces monarchy and aristocracy as forms of government and exalts republicanism. He also decries the power of organized religion in the oppression of mankind. With his "General Will" theory of the social contract he shows true brilliance. A great buy.

Deeply influential book, "The Social Contract" is a "must read" for anybody interested in the history of political ideas, or even in history. It had a big influence on the French Revolution, and in many movements after it that considered that the individual owes everything to the state.

After reading this book you will be astounded by the insight that Rousseau (1712-1778) showed. He explains us, among other things, the reason for the formation of political society, and the origin of the social contract.

I believe this is a good book to start a study on political ideas. It is simple and well written, it has had an important political impact and can make you curious enough to know more. If you are interested, read also a book about the history of political ideas (for example the one written by George Sabine), because it can guide you to other interesting books, and can give you a deeper insight into the ideas, circumstances and life of Rousseau.

Rousseau is one of the most influential of all social thinkers. He is generally considered to be a major influence in creating the climate of opinion that brought about the French Revolution.

The myth of a primal virtous state of human nature which is increasingly corrupted by human civilization is presented in his work on "Second Discourse in Equality". Here he develops the mythic idea of a human social contract in which individuals sacrifice certain liberties to come together and form one unified General Will.

A scatching critique of his ideas is presented in an article from "The Catholic Encyclopedia".

"It is quite intelligible that the Contrat Social should have come to be considered by some as the gospel of freedom and democracy, by others as the code of revolution and anarchy. That it contains serious contradictions is undeniable. For instance, Rousseau assigns as the essential basis of the general will the unanimous consent of the people, yet he assumes that this general will is expressed in the plurality of suffrages; he affirms that parents have no right to engage their children by a contract, and yet children from their birth will be subject to the primitive contract; he affirms that a man has no right to alienate himself, yet he bases the social contract essentially on the total alienation of personal rights and personality in favour of the community. If there are some true considerations and reflections in this book--as, for instance, on slavery and the dignity of man, on the adaptation of the divers forms of government to the character of the people, etc.--its fundamental principles--the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all--are false and unnatural."

Rousseau's treatise on the nature of people and their government has left a lasting imprint on political discourse. Though at times passionate and persuasive, most of the short book was simply too vague for Rousseau's semantic games to be indisputable, and sometimes even comprehensible. Some of his ideas are simply wrong, such as the "noble savage", while others quite clearly debatable, such as the social contract itself. I, for one, would fear to live in Rousseau's ideal world, where every right I have is only mine so long as the majority (who never can be wrong) wills it.

Whether you agree with him or not, plowing through Rousseau's 150 pages is a necessity for anyone who wants to carry on high-level political discourse.

When the Social Contract was published in 1762, Rousseau became a wanted man in France and Switzerland, but in 1794 after the French revolution, his remains were buried in Paris as an international hero.
In 1814, religious fundamentalists stole the remains of Voltaire and Jean-Jacques Rousseau and dumped them in a pit full of quicklime, a cruel burial reserved for individuals condemned by the church.

In the Social Contract, Rousseau postulates that a legitimate political authority in a civil society comes only from a social contract intended for their mutual preservation and agreed upon by all citizens (the sovereign). The sovereign that expresses the general will that aims at the common good has absolute authority over public matters. The state that is protecting citizens should follow laws of equality and liberty that are interestingly created by non-citizen lawgiver, and the state should also have a government to exercise executive power and daily business.

The social contract might sound very basic, utopia like and naive to many readers but considering the political nature of that time and the topics debated such as liberty, free will, and the state of nature, this work is absolutely a rebellious scream, which was much needed at the time.

Rousseau dreamed of a civil society, but given alone the way his remains were treated in 1814, it seems unlikely a civil society will ever exist. However, if we are not free in any way (or as Rousseau puts it: Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains), we are still free to dream. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a free spirit who dared to dream, though imperfectly, had the courage to speak up; and for that alone his dream should be praised.

The issues of liberty and democracy, monarchy and legitimacy, are never better explained that in The Social Contract by Rousseau. Rousseau explains every thought on to the page, from the most abstract thoughts of the ideal society to every day issues of Lobbying (which he finds a major detriment to society) and Suffrage (which Rousseau demands of society). The book is wonderfully written, every word is deliberate (I must pay my respect for the translator on such a splendid job) and shows how important understanding language is in order to understand the great ideas that are discussed by language. Liberals will see this book as a beautiful light of democracy, conservatives might see this book as proof of authoritarian beliefs. The truth is that both can be read in the book. Because the book not only conveys to the reader what Rousseau thinks, it inspires the reader to think for him or her self.

This is such an interesting read and the relevance and deep wisdom is evident on every page. Although it was written hundreds of years ago, there is so much to learn about human nature, politics and life and the author is relatively clear in his thoughts. I'm not sure what type of reader would find this book interesting but it's historical importance and general political nature makes it relevant to any study of mankind.

"The Social Contract" is an important read that marks a crossroads in Enlightenment thought. This crossroads has made significant differences in the past 300 years in political history.

The crossroads specifically begins, to me, with philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. I, for one, am a Lockean. The influence of Locke is best observed in the USA's Constitution and emphasis on the "Rule of Law" (though this has waned over time due to the popularity of Rousseau-like ideologies). Locke, considering his reasoning was perhaps not sexy or exciting enough, was the philosophy road less traveled. His view was summarily that man was an individual who had rights to liberty and property. Governments were formed among men to protect individual liberty and property through means of negative rights.

Rousseau, to me, is Locke's polar opposite. His view is "Rule of the People." The descendants of his philosophy can be seen as early as the French Revolution that led to the Reign of Terror. Robespierre was an avid follower of Rousseau. Rousseau's ideas can be greatly seen in Socialist and Communist philosophy as well.

One should definitely find the time to read Locke. In regards to "The Social Contract", Rousseau has moments of contradiction and obscurity. He writes that "man must be forced to be free." A paradox that sums up Rousseau.

Rousseau believed that man is selfish without the State. With the State, man goes from being an animal to truly being a man. Through the State, man acquires moral liberty. The State is master of all goods. Every man has a right to everything he needs. A man must occupy only the amount he needs for subsistence. A man's estate is always subordinate to the community. These are the only ways to make man equal.

The State is progressed by the General Will. The General Will tends to equality and public advantage. The General Will is always right. The People can never be corrupted. The State must have a Universal and Compelling force. The Social Compact gives absolute power over all of its members. Every citizen should render his services to the State when those services are demanded. Life is to be devoted to the State.

If a Prince of the State says, "It is expedient for the State that you should die", he ought to die, since the State has provided security up to this point. The people will always do good, but at times should be enlightened. Each citizen should resort to nothingness so that he cannot do without the rest. There will be equality in morals and talents. In times of attack upon the State, a dictatorship will be instituted silencing all laws for a moment.

There are brief moments of Lockean ideas in "The Social Contract", but are so flittering that there is no point in elaborating upon them. Rousseau contradicts himself within the next paragraph which renders those Lockean ideas moot.

The most dangerous and most significant of Rousseau's ideas is found in the last chapter, "Civil Religion." It is here that one can trace the Salvation of Mankind theories seen in Communism, Socialism, Black Liberation Theology, etc. There is to be a civil profession of faith established. Man can be banished from society as an anti-social being, through death if needed, if he behaves as if he does not believe the profession of faith. It is impossible to live at peace with these who are regarded as damned and they must be reclaimed or tormented. The Church can only offer Salvation if the Church is the State.

We can see where Civil Religion has led to the massacres of millions in the 20th Century. I won't lay blame completely upon Rousseau for these tragedies, but for one to speak of murder and torment of his fellow man so easily, he indeed has blood on his hands.