JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU

BY

Siddhidatri Kashi (057)

Monica Butola (032)
Bibi Sabiha (080)

1
OBJECTIVES:
1. To bring out Rousseau’ theory of social contract and compare them with Hobbes and
Locke.
2. To examine the nature and characteristics of Rousseau’s General Will.

INTRODUCTION

Jean Jaques Rousseau was born in Geneva in 1712 to family of middle-class connection. His
father had married a woman of higher social status, but his pretensions to social grandeur soon
evaporated as his liking for hunting, dancing, and dueling took priority over his watchmaking.
Although Isaac Rousseau’s circumstances rapidly changed, from residing in the sought- after
region of Geneva to living in the working-class area of St Gervais, he thought of himself as
naturally aristocratic, and cheated of his rights. Isaac Rousseau, whose wife died shortly after
giving birth to Jean-Jacques, was exiled from Geneva when his son was 10-year-old for
challenging a gentleman above his rank to a duel on a personal level Rousseau often appears
unattractive. He thought himself like no other person, and exhibited tendencies towards
hypochondria and paranoia, compounded by the fact that he was often ill and had many
enemies. Rousseau’s was a demonic mind. David Hume at first quite liked him and did much
to help him, but soon became distraught after becoming the victim of one of Rousseau’s
character assassinations. In exile in England, accompanied by his beloved dog Sultan,
Rousseau felt dependent on Hume, and extremely vulnerable. Dependence was the one thing
that Rousseau hated above all else. Hume described him as a ‘pernicious and Dangerous’ man
who ‘lies like the devil’.
Rousseau was a true Renaissance man in that he put his talent to a variety of quite different
activities. He was a novelist whose Emile, a treatise on the education of a child, and Nouvelle
Heloise complement and cast light on his political writings. He was also a composer of some
note. Although Rousseau is most famous for his political philosophy, he was also a well-
respected composer of operas, and compiled a scholarly and authoritative dictionary of music,
something that occupied him more than anything else Ambassador in Venice, he developed a
passion for Italian music, which he publicly defended against the claims to superiority of
French music. Rousseau saw human world as a product of human intelligence- were all of
human creation and far from being structurally inherent and deterministic, could be overcome
by human will. Thus, far from being the extreme pessimist that he is often portrayed to be,
Rousseau had faith in the human capacity of self-redemption, starting with the reconstitution
of the state on ethical principles. It is the details of his argument that have given rise to a
considerable diversity of interpretation. Despite the diversity of the subject on which he wrote,
he claimed always to employ the same principles, beliefs, and maxims. He almost invited
wildly divergent interpretations because of his alacrity of style and talent for coining epigram
so staking that they have been abstracted from their contexts and used against him. He did not

2
attempt to be systematic philosopher, and largely reacted against the formalized rule of clear,
witty exposition practiced by the enlightenment Philosophes
The distinction between state and government was consistently pointed out by Rousseau. The
state was the entire body politic, manifesting itself in the supreme and sovereign general will,
the government comprised he individual chosen by the community to apply the general will,
the government was created, not by contract, as Hobbes thought, but by the act of the sovereign
people. It might be changed at their pleasure, and was merely their agent. So confident was
Rousseau in the indefeasible rights of the sovereign people that he was willing to delegate
powers which Locke and Montesquieu thought dangerous. Rousseau even spoke calmly of a
dictatorship. Later, when the committee of public safety ruled France, this idea was acted upon.

3
ROUSSEAU AND DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONS

The idea and spirit of Rousseau were reflected in the governmental changes of the period
following his death. His doctrines of human equality, of popular sovereignty, and of the
desirability of a return to nature were especially popular. Many of his principles were applied
in the political experiments of the French Revolution and were expressed in the declaration of
the right of man of 1789. However, the idea of a bill of individual rights was derived from
America, rather than from Rousseau. His doctrine that the individual surrendered all his natural
rights to the general will established a popular sovereign as absolute as the Leviathan of
Hobbes. Against the sovereign people, the individual possessed no rights. His emphasis on
liberty, equality, and popular sovereign, nevertheless, was largely responsible for the
enthusiasm with which the French people hailed the American idea of a declaration of rights.
There is much in Rousseau to indicate that he advocated a pure democracy. Force is not able
to give rise to morality. All that can result is at most an act of prudence.

GENERAL WILL
In Rousseau’s state of nature, all men were equal and living peacefully and having joint
ownership over all property. People were living a very simple and natural life. Rationality,
morality and artificiality had not yet creeped in their life. The lofe was not, as yet, organized.
The important feature of his state of nature is that it is not historical, but a hypothetical one, a
way of illustrating his view of human nature and diagnosis of society’s ills.
According to Rousseau, in a hypothetical state of nature, men only were possessed with
gregarious instinct and the capacity for learning by experience. Hunting, fishing and
subsequently agriculture became the chief source of subsistence. Everybody co-operated in the
food gathering occupations. There was absolutely no social bickering and disorder, as a private
property was not yet born, and there was ample produce for all to consume. The man in the
state of nature was leading a happy, care-free life of the brute, without fixed abode, roaming
about, with his herd, like a nomad. No social evils had yet crept in the natural savage. It is that
of a noble savage. a man in this state was without any knowledge, dress or speech. It was a
state of peace and not a war. Natural man was leading a solitary, happy, free, and independent
life. His life was self-sufficient. In this state of nature there was no law, no morality, no family.
These institutions, according to Rousseau, are based on a reason , which is artificial and was
conspicuous by its absence in the natural state. Noble savage was basing his behavior, purely
on instincts. Casually the men in the state of nature , would come together, compelled by the
instincts for the perpetuations of race and other such instincts, after the satisfaction of those
instincts, they would depart the primitive man was in paradise. He was leading a very happy
life. He was constantly in the state of bliss.

4
PRIVATE PROPERTY
According to him, the origin of civil society lies in the institution of private property. It came
as a fatal chance or coincidence. Like Adam, one cursed man tasted the forbidden fruit of
private property. the latter became the root of all troubles. One man thought of owning some
property of his own, prior to that there was no question of ‘thine and mine’. Everything was
owned in common by all. Previously everybody used to do their best and enjoy the fruit of
common effort. The land was tilled in common and the grain was distributed according to their
needs. Then came the sudden fall. In the inimitable words of Rousseau ‘the first man who, after
enclosing a piece of ground bethought himself to say ‘this is mine’ and found people simple
enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society. ‘the scramble for land and other
private property resulted in was, murder, wretchedness and horror. The capacity of individuals
to own and produce being different, there came into existence inequality in every sphere of life.
There raged a fierce was between the rich and the poor. There came every possible vice. Liberty
and equality disappeared. The people started leading a miserable life. They were still in the
state of nature .

NATURE OF GENERAL WILL

The general will concept is at the core philosophy of Rousseau. The general will is not the
majority's will. Instead, he considers the political organism's will as an entity with its own
existence. The general will is an extra will, somehow different from any individual will or
group of individual wills. By some means, the general will is endowed with goodness and
wisdom surpassing the beneficence and wisdom of any person or collection of persons.
Society is coordinated and unified by the general will. Rousseau thought that this general
would truly exist and that it would require every individual's unqualified obedience. He
claimed that there was only one general will and, consequently, only one supreme good and
one overriding objective that a society had to strive for. The general will is always a nice
force and just . It is autonomous, completely sovereign, infallible and inviolable
The outcome is that the entire community is under the control and direction of all powers,
individuals, and their rights. This implies that without everyone's permission, no one can do
anything. For all aspects of their life, everyone is completely dependent on everyone. Such
universal dependence eliminates the chance of self-realization.
All power is transmitted to a central or sovereign authority which is the entire community.
Major choices are produced through a vote by all in what Rousseau calls a plebiscite that is
like a city meeting without the advantage of discussion. A lawmaker puts forward legislation
but does not decide on them, The legislator is a person or an intellectual elite body that works
out carefully worded alternatives, brings people together, and has people vote with the results
binding on all. The legislator's power stems from his superior understanding, charisma,
virtue, and mysticism. The legislator is saying the plebiscite's proposals to result in the
"correct" decision. The correct choices are those that alter the nature of man. The state's
unlimited power is created to appear legitimate by the majority's obvious approval.
The state (i.e., the bureaucracy) rules by decree between plebiscites. The state interprets the
legislation and settles every case on the basis of perceived merits. The state is a bureaucracy
with enormous discretionary powers, both executive and judicial. The lawmaker is beyond

5
this bureaucracy. The true government in a complete democracy is the bureaucracy that
applies the law to the day. Rousseau was a proponent of the lawgiver's ancient concept of
omnipotence. Rulers are somehow attuned to the public will's dictates and are able to
integrate these dictates into particular legislation. No one can contest these legislation
because the wise and beneficial public will is their origin. Rousseau does not allow the
general's disobedience once his choices have been made. Man's will must be subordinated,
and even though he believes he disagrees with it, he must abide by the general will. It is
necessary to mistake the individual who "disagrees" with the general will. Everyone expects
to be good, according to Rousseau, and therefore would like to follow the general will.
Consequently, if a individual disagrees with the general will, he would effectively act
contrary to his own fundamental wishes and it would be appropriate to use force to achieve
his contract with the general will. The general will reflect every member of society's true will.
The general will is always correct by definition. The general will is the overriding good to
which each individual is prepared to sacrifice all other products, including all private wills.
The "good citizen" gives a goodness and wisdom beyond his own goodness and wisdom to
the legislation of society. Therefore, a conflict between what a individual believes he wants
and what he really wants is quite feasible. The good citizen can identify with the general will
his own will.If the general will is supreme, people will only be free to work in equal
servitude. People who refuse to comply can be compelled to comply with the general will.
The leaders can create them good if individuals want to be good. Rousseau thus saw the
political community as the right means to liberate people from their mistaken opinions and
from society's disputes and corruptions. The idea of the public will by Rousseau is linked to
the organic notion of the state as not simply true, but more real than the people living within
its boundaries. What matters is that the person is a component of it. Nothing is meant by the
individual and his own thoughts, values and objectives. In view of human beings as a means
to greater ends, rather than an end in itself, Rousseau contributed significantly to the
intellectual collectivization of man. It was a tiny leap to Hegel's claim that the common will
is the state's will and that the state is the Absolute's earthly manifestation.
In addition, the shift from Hegel's political philosophy to Marx and Hitler's totalitarian
schemes was simple Rulers who followed the philosophy of Rousseau were able to show a
vibrant but disappointing humanitarianism. They expressed love for mankind while crushing
those who disagreed with the will of the general. For example, people like Robespierre were
given enormous power to express the general will during the French Revolution. Dictators
like Robespierre, of course, have made the public will an expression of their own will.
Likewise, when leaders today refer to society's good or purpose, they almost always refer to
the good or purpose of a person or collection of people who want to impose their own vision
on others.

6
CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERAL WILL
1. It is indivisible- The General Will cannot be divided. Division of General Will means
its death. Just as personality or an individual cannot be divided, General Will cannot be
divided.

2. General will is unrepresentable- Rousseau’s General Will cannot be represented by

anybody else. Just as human Will cannot be represented, similarly the General Will
cannot be properly represented by anybody else. In fact, Rousseau’s General Will was
meant only for those countries where there was direct democracy.

3. It is unlimited, absolute and supreme- Rousseau’s General Will is as supreme or

absolute as Hobbes’s. it has complete control over the regulation of the state. General
will is not synonymous with the government. The government is only an agency or tool
in the hand of Great Will to implement its policies. General Will reigns supreme in its
jurisdiction. Nobody can dare disobey it, as it is the sovereign will of all for the welfare
of all.

4. It is inalienable- General Will cannot be separated or delegated. It is single whole and

must remain as such. Any attempt to separated it from the body-politics will mean its
end.

5. It is infallible- Rousseau says that General Will cannot be is always right, because it
tends good to all. People are always right, but their will is not sometimes known.

CRITICISIM
1. It leads to totalitarianism- As Jones points out, it leads to totalitarianism, pure and
simple. All the powers attributed to the General Will by Rousseau will be enough
to turn anybody’s head. It may because dictatorship of one person or of a few,
serving the interest of a clique though it may have the guise of morally justifiable
appearance of a popular government.
2. It is paradoxical- according to Sabine, the development of the theory of the
General Will in the Social Contract was involved in Paradoxes, partly because of
the cloudiness of Rousseau’s ideal and partly, it seems, because he had a
rhetorician’s liking for paradoxes. Wayper has expressed the same opinion in
rather more appropriate words when he says that “For if the general will is
supreme, the social contract is unnecessary and meaningless, and if the social
contract is necessary and significant, the General Will cannot be supreme.”
3. Not a very clear concept- Rousseau has no clear conception of General Will. It is
clear from the fact that he uses the term General Will in different senses in
different parts of his works. Sometimes he identifies General Will with that will
which wills the good of all. Sometimes he suggests that General Will may be
discovered through the will of wise legislature.
4. The distinction between general will and will of all is not very clear- In practice,
it is difficult to distinguish the General Will from the Will from the will of all.
Rousseau provides us with no standard judgement whether a decision taken by the

7
 people represents the General Will or merely the Will of All. But who is to decide
as to what is right and what is wrong.
5. Division of individual will is un-understandable- Rousseau divided the Will of an
individual into two integral parts namely essential and non-essential Wills but we
cannot divide an individual Will into an essential Will and a non-essential Will,
because an individual Will is a corporate thing, one complete whole.
6. Paradox of freedom- Rousseau’s theory of General Will gives rise to what Sabine
calls, “the paradox of freedom.” By signing the Social Contract, the individual
gives his natural, simple liberty and in return gets the very liberty of obeying the
General Will. if he does not obey the General Will he should be rebelling against
the right and be actually the slave of his selfish Will. So Rousseau advocates
compulsions on one who refuses to obey the General Will on the plea that the
force used is for his own good. Freedom and force cannot go together
7. Interests of the state and the individual are identical – The Theory of General Will
emphasizes the notion of general good rather than the good of the individual. This
leads to a conception of the state as a super-entity, distinct from its organic
elements, the Individual from that of the state. Interest of the state and of the
individual are identical.
8. Too demanding on the individual- Rousseau’s theory of general will demands too
much sacrifices from the individual as Rousseau depicts in ‘Emile’ by giving the
story of a Spartan mother who on rushing to the runner to ask news of the battle
and being told of the death of the five sons answered, “Vile Slave, was it this I
asked thee. ?” Demanding how the battle had gone and learning of the victory, she
ran to the temple to give thanks to god.
9. General will can be represented- Moreover, it is wrong to say that general will
cannot be represented. It can be represented if the representatives are enlightened
persons belonging to an enlightened community. It is possible to conceive such a
society.
10. Impractical in nature- Rousseau does not tell us how to put the general will in
practice.

CONCLUSION-
Thus, we find that Rousseau’s concept of general will is inadequately describe and is
surrounded by paradoxes. In spite of this, the conception of general will, is described by
Hearnshaw, as the single and simple volition of the body-politic regraded as a living entity. It
is Rousseau’s most profound contribution to political theory.

8
9