Social Contract Thinkers

8/13/2019 Social Contract Thinkers

1/6

Hobbes, Lock and Rousseau in a Comparative Perspective(ABackgroundMaterialfortheSocialScience2OnlineLectureSeries)

PreparedbyRaymundJoseG.QuilopFortheclassicalGreekphilosophers,particularlyPlatoandAristotle,thestate

hasbeenseenassomethingthatisnaturalandorganic.Thestatecomesaboutbecause

manbynatureisapoliticalanimal.Therefore,withoutanyconsciousactoragreement

amongmen,thestatenaturallycomesintobeing.Conversely,mannaturallybelongsto

astateorsocietybecauseitisonlyinbelongingtosuchasocialorganizationwherehe

couldliveagoodlifeintermsofhavingmaterialwellbeingaswellasfulfillinghisfull

potential.

Inbelongingtosociety,itisbynaturethatmenarenotbornequal,withsome

beingborn

to

rule

and

others

being

born

to

be

ruled.

What

is

interesting

though

is

their

beliefthatwhiletherearefewwhoarebornasrulersandothersnaturallybornas

followers,therelationshipbetweentherulersandtheruledaresupposedtobe

symbiotic,withoneunabletoliveandsurvivewithouttheother.Suchhasbeenthe

dominantthinkingregardingthestatebeforethethreesocialcontractthinkerscameinto

thepicture.

Thesocialcontractthinkers,namelyHobbes,LockeandRousseauhadadifferent

viewofthestate.Whiletheyhavetheirowndifferencesasregardstheirindividual

perspectivesofthestate,theysharedthecommonnotionthatthestateissomethingthat

doesnotnaturallycomeintobeing.Rather,thestateresultsfromaconsciousagreement

amongmentoleavethesocalledstateofnatureandinstitutecivilsocietywhose

maincharacteristicisthepresenceofastatemanifestedthroughthegovernment,

hencetheconceptofasocialcontract.Inaddition,menaresupposedtobebornequal;

butanequalitywhichvanishesassocietyisestablishedbecausethepresenceofastate

orgovernmenteventuallymakessomerulersandtheothersfollowers.

Beyondthesecommonthemesofthestatebeingaproductofasocialcontract

andmenbeingbornequalrunningthroughthewritingsofHobbes,LockeandRousseau

aresomeinterestingdifferences,specificallyinregardtotheirideasofstateofnature,

civilsociety,governmentandsovereignty.

ForHobbes,thestateofnatureisequatedwithastateofwar.Whenmenare

equal,itwouldbenaturalforthemtobeinaconstantstateofconflict.Withoutno

institutiontogovernandarbitrateamongthem,itnaturallyfollowsthatmanbecomes

thejudgeforhisowncaseaswellastheonewhoexecuteshisdecisionsregardingacase

thatinvolveshim.Thisbeingthecasefortheothers,itthereforefollowsthatmenarein


2/6

2

constantwaragainsteachother.Toputitbluntly,ifonepersonhastherighttokill

anotherperson,theotherindividualequallyhasthesameright.

Thus,lifeinthestateofnature,whereonlytherightofnatureexists,isshort,

nastyandbrutish,accordingtoHobbes.Menareunabletopossesspropertiesfor

somethingis

his

for

only

as

long

as

he

can

keep

it.

Ownership

of

something

therefore

becomesdependentononesabilitytoprotectit.Thissituationeventuallyleadsmento

agreeamongthemselvestogiveuptheirabsoluterighttoeverythingandsurrender

theirsovereigntytoagoverninginstitutioninexchangeforasenseofsecurity.

Theestablishmentofagovernmentisthereforethekeyfactorinthe

establishmentofcivilsociety.ForHobbes,civilsocietybecomesafunctionofthe

government.Inmathematicalterms,thismeansy=f(x)whereyissocietyandxis

thegovernment.

Whenmen

surrender

their

sovereignty

to

agovernment,

they

do

so

absolutely.

Theylosealltheirrightsandpowersandsurrenderthemtoanabsoluteauthority,hence

HobbessideaofLeviathanoramortalgod.

Andonceestablished,thegovernmentcouldnolongerbedissolvedforseveral

reasons.First,givenHobbesbeliefthatitisthepresenceofagovernmentthatmakes

civilsociety,dissolvingthegovernment,evenifitnolongerservestheinterestofthe

peoplewhoestablisheditinthefirstplace,wouldmeanthedissolutionofcivilsociety

andthuswouldautomaticallybringmenbacktothestateofnature.Menknowingthe

difficultiesoflifeinthestateofnaturewouldnotwanttodissolvegovernment.

Second,assumingthatmenarewillingtotaketheriskofgoingbacktothestate

ofnaturewiththedissolutionofgovernment,theywouldstillhesitatetodissolveit

becauseitwouldmeanatacitadmissionthattheymadeamistakeinestablishingitin

thefirstplace.Men,accordingtoHobbes,bynaturewouldnotwanttoadmitthatthey

committedamistake.

Third,evenassumingthatmenarewillingtoadmitthattheycommitteda

mistakeinputtingupthegovernmentandarereadytoapproveofitsdissolution,they

wouldstillbeunabletodoso.Whentheyestablishedit,theyhavealreadysurrendered

everythingtothegovernmentmakingthemselvespowerlessandthegovernment

absolutelypowerful.

Giventhese,onceestablished,thegovernmentcouldnolongerbedoneawayit.

Menarestuckwithit.Theysimplyhavetolivewithit.Afterall,itmaybecomeevilbut

anecessaryevilnonetheless,soHobbesargued.


3/6

3

WhileLockesharedHobbesviewthatmenarebornequalwitheachother,he

didnotthinkthatsuchequalityautomaticallytranslatesandequatestobeinginastate

ofwar.Lockebelievedthatmanisbornequallywithreason.Andbeingbornwith

reason,itfollowsthatheoughttofollowthesocalledlawofnature,whichinLockes

termsmeantthatbeingallequalandindependentofeachother,theyoughtnottoharm

oneanother.

Nonetheless,menarestillinducedtoenterintoasocialagreementamong

themselvestoleavethestateofnatureandmoveintothestateofcivilsocietyforthree

mainreasons.First,evenifmanisbornwithreason,itdoesnotautomaticallyfollow

thatheuseshisreasonallthetime.Hisinabilitytousehisreasonthereforemeansthat

hedoesnotabidebythesocalledlawofnature.

Second,evenassumingthatmanisabletousehisreasonandthereforefollows

thelawofnature,conflictofinterestwithhisfellowmenissomethingthatcouldnotbe

avoided.And

when

aperson

comes

into

conflict

with

another

individual,

the

absence

of

agoverninginstitutionpromptshimtobethejudgeforhisowncase.Inbeingajudgein

acaseinvolvingonesself,thereisalwaysatendencyforapersontobebiasedinhis

favor.

Now,evenassumingthataperson,inspiteofbeingajudgeforhisowncase,

remainsunbiasedandisabletoexamineaparticularissuebasedsimplyonthemeritsof

thecase,hemaybeunabletoexecutetheappropriateunbiasedandappropriate

judgment.Thisisparticularlytrueiftheotherpartyisstrongerthanhimself.Thisisthe

thirdreasonwhymeneventuallycometorealizetheneedtohaveaninstitutionthatis

abletoimplementdecisions.

ButLockepointedoutthatevenwhilemenmayopttoestablishagovernment,

whichservesasanunbiasedarbiterofconflictamongpeople,theirsurrenderingof

sovereigntyisnotabsolute.Rather,itislimitedinthesensethattheystillretaintheir

righttodissolvethegovernmentandestablishanewoneifitfailstoservetheirinterest.

Menthereforemerelylendtheirsovereigntytothegovernmentanditstayswiththe

governmentforaslongasitactsintheinterestofthepeople.Otherwise,itcouldbe

takenawayfromthegovernmentandrevertedbacktothepeople.

Thisismadepossiblebecause,asLockeargued,theestablishmentandexistence

ofthe

government

operates

not

through

the

social

contract

but

through

afiduciary

trustsystem.Themechanicsofathrustsystemmeansthattherearethreeactors

involved:thebenefactor,thetrustee,andthebeneficiary.Whenthetrusteefailstoservethe

interestofthebeneficiary,thebenefactorhastherighttotakeawayfromthetrustee

whateverhehasentrustedtohim.


4/6

4

Inthecaseofthepeopleandgovernment,thepeopleareboththebenefactorand

thebeneficiary.Thus,ifthegovernmentbeingthetrusteefailstoservetheinterestofthe

beneficiary,thepeoplebeingthebenefactorthemselveshavetherighttotakeawayfrom

thegovernment,whatevertheyhaveinitiallyentrustedtothegovernment.This

principleisactuallythebedrockofmoderndemocracy.

Lockearguedthatitispossibleforthegovernmenttobetemporarilydissolved

withoutmenautomaticallybeingrevertedbacktothestateofnature.Thisissobecause

societyisnotsimplyafunctionofagovernmentbutofsomeotherfactorssuchas

culture,history,amongothers.Yisnotsimplyafunctionofxbutofw,zand

othervariablesaswell.

WhileRousseausharedwithHobbesandLocketheviewthatmenareborn

equal,hehadamoreoptimisticperspectiveofwhatmanandhislifeisinthestateof

natureandamorecriticalviewofsociety,atleastinhisearlierpoliticalwritings.Iffor

Hobbes,man

in

the

state

of

nature

is

automatically

in

astate

of

war

and

for

Locke,

man

inthestateofnaturewouldnotbeinconflictifheuseshisreason,forRousseau,manin

thestateofnatureisbasicallycharacterizedbyafeelingofcompassion.Hepointedout

thatwhatHobbesandLockeactuallydescribeintheirdiscussionofthestateofnatureis

actuallyadescriptionofcivilsociety.

Infact,Rousseauinhisearlypoliticalwritingsarguedthatmanisbetteroffin

thestateofnaturethanincivilsociety.Society,accordingtoRousseau,resultswhena

fewindividualsareabletoencloseapieceoflandandconvinceothersthattheyindeed

ownthatland.Thus,theequalityandcompassionthatcharacterizedmaninthestateof

nature,iseventuallylostassocietyisestablished.Thispromptedhimtothinkthatman

isindeedbetteroffinthestateofnature.

Nonetheless,Rousseauinhislatterpoliticalwritings,particularlyinhisfamous

pieceTheSocialContracteventuallycametoshareHobbesviewsregardingthe

difficultiesoflivinginthestateofnatureandthereforetheneedtoestablishcivilsociety.

AndwhatmakesRousseauscontributioninterestingisthefactthatinspiteofhis

criticismsofcivilsociety,heneverarguedforitsabolition.Rather,hesuggestedthrough

hisnowfamousTheSocialContracthowsocietycouldinsteadbereconstructedsothat

mancouldbothenjoythefreedomthatheenjoyedinthestateofnatureandthesecurity

thatcomeswiththeestablishmentofcivilsociety.

Howisthispossible?Thisisbyensuringthatthepeopleconstitutedasapolitical

communityremaintobeultimatedecisionmakersonfundamentalissues.Bymaking

thepeopledecideonsubstantiveissuesaffectingthem,theywillremaintobesovereign

andfreewhileatthesametimeenjoyingthesecuritythatresultsfrombelongingtoa

community.Inhisview,whenpeoplemaketherules,thentheywillmorenaturally

obeytheseruleswhichtheythemselveshavemade.Whenthishappens,theywillenjoy


5/6

5

whathecallsmorallibertybeyondthecivilliberty,whichcomesfromobeyingrules

madeforthembyauthoritiesentrustedwithmakingrules.

ForRousseau,sovereigntythereforeremainswiththepeopleatalltimes.Itis

somethingthatisinalienableandindivisible,incontrasttoLockesviewthatthepeople

couldlend

their

sovereignty

to

the

government

where

it

is

eventually

divided

among

thelegislative,executiveandjudicialbranches.GovernmentforRousseauisnothingbut

amanagerofthedailyaffairsofthepoliticalcommunitywhilesubstantivedecision

makingpowersremainwiththepeople.

Andinorderforpoliciestobenefitthesocietyasawholeandnotthe

particularisticinterestsofcertainmembersofsociety,lawsandrulesoughttobebased

onwhatRousseaucallsasthegeneralwill.Thegeneralwill,accordingtoRousseau,is

thewillofthepeopleconstitutedasapoliticalcommunity.Whileitmustcomefromall

andmustapplytoall,itisnotsimplyasummationoftheindividualwillsofthe

membersof

the

community.

Asananalogy,theintelligenceofagroupmaybetheresultofsummingupthe

intelligenceofeachindividualmembertoarriveattheaverageintellectualcapacityof

thegroup.Inthecaseofintelligence,thegroupsintelligenceisdirectlyaresultofthe

individualintelligenceofthemembers.Thegeneralwillismorecomparabletoa

characteristicofagroupthatissolelythatofthegroupandsomethingwhichcouldnot

bereducedtoindividualcharacteristics,sayforexample,cohesion.Cohesionis

somethingthatissolelyofthegroupandnotofindividualmembersbecausethereisno

suchthingasacohesiveindividual.

Thegeneralwill,therefore,isthewillofthecommunityasacommunity.Each

memberofacommunitymayhavehisownpersonalinterest.Buthealsohasaninterest

whichheshareswiththerestofthecommunitybyvirtueofhisbeingamemberofthe

community.Itisthisinterestthatconstitutesthegeneralwill.Unfortunately,Rousseau

neverleftaspecificformulaforarrivingatwhatexactlyisthegeneralwill.Infact,in

somepartsofTheSocialContract,hegivestheimpressionthegeneralwillcouldbe

arrivedatthroughasystemofvoting.Yet,amorecarefulreadingofRousseauwould

revealthatthegeneralwillcouldnotbedeterminedsimplybyaskingindividual

membersofwhattheypreferandlettingthemvoteonsuchpreferences.Inhis

Rousseauswords,thegeneralwillcouldnotsimplybearrivedatthroughvoting.


6/6

6

ForFurtherReading:Ebenstein,WilliamandEbenstein,Alan.GreatPoliticalThinkers:FromPlatotoPresent.

Singapore:ThomsonLearningAsia,2000.Pages355379(Hobbes),380407(Locke),and

442472(Rousseau).

Sabine,George.AHistoryofPoliticalTheory.Dryden Press; 4th edition (October 1993).

Strauss,LeoandCropsey,Joseph(editors).HistoryofPhilosophy.Chicago,Illinois:

ChicagoUniversityPress,1987.Pages396420(Hobbes),476512(Locke),and559580

(Rousseau).

Stumpf,SamuelEnoch.SocratestoSartre:AHistoryofPhilosophy.Boston,Massachusetts:

McGrawHill,1999.Pages210219(Hobbes),247256(Locke),and271278(Rousseau).

TheConfessions

of

Jean

Jacques

Rousseau.

Translated

by

J.M.

Cohen.

England:

Clays

Limited,1953.

Documents

Social Contract Thinkers