Scan barcode
sidharthvardhan's review against another edition
5.0
Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains
History
- Voltaire (after reading Social Contact)
Voltaire ridiculed Rousseau, but let us face it. philosophers rarely make friends – less so among themselves. Moreover, Voltaire had given him shelter when later was running for and had also criticized Swiss authorities’ decisions to burn the copies of this book, with his principle; “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Social contact has formed one of guiding principles for some of biggest democracies including U.S. A., India etc. However, Rousseau has a well-deserved reputation as the bad boy of eighteenth century French philosophy. it is also disputed to have given birth to totalitarian regimes like that of Nazi Germany – even by people like Bertrand Russel ( "At the present time, Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, that of Locke.")
What I like about him, he is that he is a positive philosopher. He gives ideas about what must be done - rather than merely making observations and ridiculing the existing traditions. If not all, a lot of those ideas are observable in politics of the world.
Sovereign
Social contact despite its heavy criticisms and at times vagueness in its short span (it feels nice when philosophers try to keep it short) makes a nice read – specially the II part. In first part Rousseau begins by rejecting the tradition of slavery and he will do so, not by calling the spade a spade but by giving all kind of arguments against the very logic of slavery.
He then settles into defining a relationship between nations, governments and people. When the people stand to gain more by acting together than alone, then they shall come together to work collectively for their common interest – which is called general will (as against personal interests which is called called particular will). Their group as a whole is now what is called sovereign (=nation):
If some person having agreed to this social contact, then tries to cheat it – taking benefits from sovereign without paying (=taxes among other things) for them; he (she) is liable to punishment or forced to obey, i.e., forced to be free. This commitment is not slavery, since a person is free to leave any time except at face of crisis (because that would be fleeing).
Social contact
The relationship between sovereign and people is that of a contact called social contact (=constitution) – under which humans submit themselves to sovereign (which represents their general will) as number one priority and their own personal interests are only secondary. At least the social contact itself must be accepted by everyone in sovereign (and not just some kind of majority but everyone) – those don’t do so are in principle slaves to rest, for being bound by a contact they didn't agreed. Later on, however decisions may take by majorities or even without elections –as decided in social contact.
Rousseau calls such a sovereign ‘Republic’ – if it is based on such a social contact (and it is a very definite definition). The word republic has nothing to do with form of government (democracy, aristocracy, dictatorship, autocratic etc.) as far as Rousseau is concerned.
Republics are not for everyone?
Rousseau accepts the fact that not all nations will succeed in creating a social contact. Social contact is something of a marriage (and worse still an arranged one.) Only once in several blue moons shall it be successful. It has to happen at right age and spirit of people involved should be perfect. The population should be of right size in relation to real estate available (okay now my metaphor is lost) and above everything, we need those wise old men we call founding fathers.
Once founding fathers are able to develop a constitution, it must still be accepted by population at large. Even if we get all this, the best of sovereigns shall be corrupted - although it shall last longer. This is what we should be trying to do. Those who do make there rules should never be the ones that shall actually rule over the people. On way it is done is by dividing government into executives, legislative and judiciary.
Government
The government must find its validity from social contact and must act according to rules specified in there. The legislation and execution should be kept in separate hands. The executives, if the founding fathers have done a good job, shall be only parts of machine.
Rousseau studies nature of magistrates (= any type of government officials) and is sure that as soon governance is left to them, the nation should be taken for lost. Instead everyone's involvement is must.
As to how it shall be done, he has this stupid theory which involves continuously moving state capitals. Let us not get into that.
Forms of government
His deliberations on forms of government aren't as appealing either. He knows democracy is best form but a perfect democracy is impossible - and that democracy worsens as size of population increases.
There is a lot of talking in rounds in there including a lot of mathematics. The only worthy observation being
Religion
Rousseau lets full freedom of religion except principles of exclusiveness or religious intolerance. The tilt is towards secularism. If a particular religion was favored then authority of that religion develops power parallel to that of sovereign.
The controversy
Still nowhere, as far as I can see, he made a point in favor of totalitarianism (= exclusive control of government over everything). Instead he understands that, except at times of crises; the lesser the control of government the more powerful the sovereign is (U.S.A. is more powerful if its government is less powerful and so on.)
There is a controversial remark that in time of need, a nation (he uses word ‘prince’, but means the same thing) can ask for its people’s lives – having been authorized by people to do so. For example in times of war. Japan is known to have forced his youth to join army including suicide missions during second world was – based on similar argument. It seems unfair to accuse Rousseau for that, who despite the stupid remark (philosophers should never try to be practical), has established at very beginning of book people have no reason for war except in defense of their liberties.
History
"You see now that Jean Jacques resembles a philosopher as much a monkey resembles a man."
- Voltaire (after reading Social Contact)
Voltaire ridiculed Rousseau, but let us face it. philosophers rarely make friends – less so among themselves. Moreover, Voltaire had given him shelter when later was running for and had also criticized Swiss authorities’ decisions to burn the copies of this book, with his principle; “I do not agree with a word you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Social contact has formed one of guiding principles for some of biggest democracies including U.S. A., India etc. However, Rousseau has a well-deserved reputation as the bad boy of eighteenth century French philosophy. it is also disputed to have given birth to totalitarian regimes like that of Nazi Germany – even by people like Bertrand Russel ( "At the present time, Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau; Roosevelt and Churchill, that of Locke.")
What I like about him, he is that he is a positive philosopher. He gives ideas about what must be done - rather than merely making observations and ridiculing the existing traditions. If not all, a lot of those ideas are observable in politics of the world.
Sovereign
Social contact despite its heavy criticisms and at times vagueness in its short span (it feels nice when philosophers try to keep it short) makes a nice read – specially the II part. In first part Rousseau begins by rejecting the tradition of slavery and he will do so, not by calling the spade a spade but by giving all kind of arguments against the very logic of slavery.
He then settles into defining a relationship between nations, governments and people. When the people stand to gain more by acting together than alone, then they shall come together to work collectively for their common interest – which is called general will (as against personal interests which is called called particular will). Their group as a whole is now what is called sovereign (=nation):
"because the sovereign is made out of nothing but its constituent individuals, it doesn't and can’t have any interest contrary to theirs; so there’s no need for it to provide its subjects with guarantee of treating them well, because the body can’t possibly wish to hurt all its members, and—as we’ll see later on—it can’t hurt any individual one of them either. The sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, is always what it ought to be."
If some person having agreed to this social contact, then tries to cheat it – taking benefits from sovereign without paying (=taxes among other things) for them; he (she) is liable to punishment or forced to obey, i.e., forced to be free. This commitment is not slavery, since a person is free to leave any time except at face of crisis (because that would be fleeing).
Social contact
The relationship between sovereign and people is that of a contact called social contact (=constitution) – under which humans submit themselves to sovereign (which represents their general will) as number one priority and their own personal interests are only secondary. At least the social contact itself must be accepted by everyone in sovereign (and not just some kind of majority but everyone) – those don’t do so are in principle slaves to rest, for being bound by a contact they didn't agreed. Later on, however decisions may take by majorities or even without elections –as decided in social contact.
"The law of majority voting is itself something established by agreement, and it presupposes that on at least one occasion there was a unanimous vote."
Rousseau calls such a sovereign ‘Republic’ – if it is based on such a social contact (and it is a very definite definition). The word republic has nothing to do with form of government (democracy, aristocracy, dictatorship, autocratic etc.) as far as Rousseau is concerned.
Republics are not for everyone?
Rousseau accepts the fact that not all nations will succeed in creating a social contact. Social contact is something of a marriage (and worse still an arranged one.) Only once in several blue moons shall it be successful. It has to happen at right age and spirit of people involved should be perfect. The population should be of right size in relation to real estate available (okay now my metaphor is lost) and above everything, we need those wise old men we call founding fathers.
"What would be needed to discover the best rules of society....is a superior intelligence that could see all men’s passions without having any of them."
Once founding fathers are able to develop a constitution, it must still be accepted by population at large. Even if we get all this, the best of sovereigns shall be corrupted - although it shall last longer. This is what we should be trying to do. Those who do make there rules should never be the ones that shall actually rule over the people. On way it is done is by dividing government into executives, legislative and judiciary.
Government
The government must find its validity from social contact and must act according to rules specified in there. The legislation and execution should be kept in separate hands. The executives, if the founding fathers have done a good job, shall be only parts of machine.
Rousseau studies nature of magistrates (= any type of government officials) and is sure that as soon governance is left to them, the nation should be taken for lost. Instead everyone's involvement is must.
"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.”
As to how it shall be done, he has this stupid theory which involves continuously moving state capitals. Let us not get into that.
Forms of government
His deliberations on forms of government aren't as appealing either. He knows democracy is best form but a perfect democracy is impossible - and that democracy worsens as size of population increases.
"If there were a nation of Gods, it would govern itself democratically. A government so perfect is not suited to men.”
There is a lot of talking in rounds in there including a lot of mathematics. The only worthy observation being
"The larger the state, the less the liberty...."
Religion
Rousseau lets full freedom of religion except principles of exclusiveness or religious intolerance. The tilt is towards secularism. If a particular religion was favored then authority of that religion develops power parallel to that of sovereign.
The controversy
Still nowhere, as far as I can see, he made a point in favor of totalitarianism (= exclusive control of government over everything). Instead he understands that, except at times of crises; the lesser the control of government the more powerful the sovereign is (U.S.A. is more powerful if its government is less powerful and so on.)
There is a controversial remark that in time of need, a nation (he uses word ‘prince’, but means the same thing) can ask for its people’s lives – having been authorized by people to do so. For example in times of war. Japan is known to have forced his youth to join army including suicide missions during second world was – based on similar argument. It seems unfair to accuse Rousseau for that, who despite the stupid remark (philosophers should never try to be practical), has established at very beginning of book people have no reason for war except in defense of their liberties.
livastra's review against another edition
3.0
Rousseau sent Voltaire a copy of "The Social Contract" and Voltaire wrote him back the following:
"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it. Nor can I embark in search of the savages of Canada, because the maladies to which I am condemned render a European surgeon necessary to me; because war is going on in those regions; and because the example of our actions has made the savages nearly as bad as ourselves."
"I have received your new book against the human race, and thank you for it. Never was such a cleverness used in the design of making us all stupid. One longs, in reading your book, to walk on all fours. But as I have lost that habit for more than sixty years, I feel unhappily the impossibility of resuming it. Nor can I embark in search of the savages of Canada, because the maladies to which I am condemned render a European surgeon necessary to me; because war is going on in those regions; and because the example of our actions has made the savages nearly as bad as ourselves."