What do you think?
Rate this book
Of the Social Contract and Other Political Writings
A lively new translation of Rousseau's best-known work, accompanied by additional political writings "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" are the famous opening words of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract, a work of political philosophy that has stirred vigorous debate ever since its publication in 1762. Rejecting the view that anyone has a natural right to sovereignty, Rousseau argues instead for a pact—a "social contract"—that should exist among all the citizens of a state and that should be the source of governing power. From this premise, he goes on to consider issues of liberty and justice, arriving at a view of society that has seemed to some a blueprint for totalitarianism, to others a declaration of democratic principles.
356 pages, Paperback
Published December 24, 2012
47 people are currently reading
322 people want to read
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,720 books2,969 followersGenevan philosopher and writer Jean Jacques Rousseau held that society usually corrupts the essentially good individual; his works include
The Social Contract
and
Émile
(both 1762).
This important figure in the history contributed to political and moral psychology and influenced later thinkers. Own firmly negative view saw the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, apologists for various forms of tyranny, as playing a role in the modern alienation from natural impulse of humanity to compassion. The concern to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world of increasingly dependence for the satisfaction of their needs dominates work. This concerns a material dimension and a more important psychological dimensions. Rousseau a fact that in the modern world, humans come to derive their very sense of self from the opinions as corrosive of freedom and destructive of authenticity. In maturity, he principally explores the first political route, aimed at constructing institutions that allow for the co-existence of equal sovereign citizens in a community; the second route to achieving and protecting freedom, a project for child development and education, fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. Rousseau thinks or the possible co-existence of humans in relations of equality and freedom despite his consistent and overwhelming pessimism that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to contributions, Rousseau acted as a composer, a music theorist, the pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Appreciation of the wonders of nature and his stress on the importance of emotion made Rousseau an influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a very large extent, the interests and concerns that mark his work also inform these other activities, and contributions of Rousseau in ostensibly other fields often serve to illuminate his commitments and arguments.
This important figure in the history contributed to political and moral psychology and influenced later thinkers. Own firmly negative view saw the post-hoc rationalizers of self-interest, apologists for various forms of tyranny, as playing a role in the modern alienation from natural impulse of humanity to compassion. The concern to find a way of preserving human freedom in a world of increasingly dependence for the satisfaction of their needs dominates work. This concerns a material dimension and a more important psychological dimensions. Rousseau a fact that in the modern world, humans come to derive their very sense of self from the opinions as corrosive of freedom and destructive of authenticity. In maturity, he principally explores the first political route, aimed at constructing institutions that allow for the co-existence of equal sovereign citizens in a community; the second route to achieving and protecting freedom, a project for child development and education, fosters autonomy and avoids the development of the most destructive forms of self-interest. Rousseau thinks or the possible co-existence of humans in relations of equality and freedom despite his consistent and overwhelming pessimism that humanity will escape from a dystopia of alienation, oppression, and unfreedom. In addition to contributions, Rousseau acted as a composer, a music theorist, the pioneer of modern autobiography, a novelist, and a botanist. Appreciation of the wonders of nature and his stress on the importance of emotion made Rousseau an influence on and anticipator of the romantic movement. To a very large extent, the interests and concerns that mark his work also inform these other activities, and contributions of Rousseau in ostensibly other fields often serve to illuminate his commitments and arguments.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 15, 2020
Certainly a very interesting read. One feeling this book gave me was just how far we've come from the earliest of times. I found myself nodding to some statements (I'd still say a small portion though) mentioned in the book. I think my biggest takeaway is just how influential this work has been. It has influenced so many thinkers from the Enlightenment till modern history. It's such a monumental piece of work considering the ripples it has caused in history; it played a huge role in the French Revolution (and thus by extension other revolutions). I'm just amazed at how mankind has advanced through time and have come to realize that I take some of the things that seem to be so common sense now for granted.
Before I try to review the contents of this book in a slightly more subjective manner, I feel like there is really no point in taking anything personally.It's after all some old white guy thinking he can figure out what liberty is I think the best way to approach this book is just to accept that times are different now and we value drastically different things. If you're looking at this book with a modern lens, you'd be surprised how much Rousseau seems to back Totalitarianism. Rousseau often gives examples, but they all make the societies (e.g. the Roman comitia) seem so ideal. I can't believe that people can just agree to disagree and society would allegedly prosper. Or maybe that's just because how polarized we've actually become nowadays.
P.S. (I should also mention that this contains a very European-centric point of view on everything including governments. I can definitely imagine principles and concepts varying greatly if someone outside Europe wrote about how governments should be. So I suppose just read this objectively and don't take it too personal.)
Before I try to review the contents of this book in a slightly more subjective manner, I feel like there is really no point in taking anything personally.
P.S. (I should also mention that this contains a very European-centric point of view on everything including governments. I can definitely imagine principles and concepts varying greatly if someone outside Europe wrote about how governments should be. So I suppose just read this objectively and don't take it too personal.)
April 14, 2025
(Review 'Other Political Writings')
The following extracts were really helpful, in fleshing out Rousseau's thinking, and the application of his ideology in a real-world setting. By the end, I really felt like I understood his ideas, and how he justified them, to a strong extent.
Geneva MS
Expanding on a section that seemed a little confusing in 'Of the Social Contract', Rousseau explains his ideas on morality, the role of political institutions in regulating it, and theories of justice. Rousseau starts by referring back to his Amour Propre, and how civil society leads to collection of force, and thus a growth in desire. This is Rousseau's essential psychological belief, about how the change that came with civilisation meant rationality, but also Hobbes' 'nightmare'. Simply existing within a society is not enough for equality - quite the opposite, as it exacerbates inequality. In general, this whole chapter is a fundamental rejection of Hobbes, his view on the natural function of society and individuals. Rousseau tempers these explanations of the negatives of civilisation, by pointing out how all in all, it is an improvement: development of rationality, morality, virtue.
Rousseau then sets out the contradiction - people are not fundamentally interested in pursuing the general good - people wish others to observe social laws, but not to be subjected to them. 'Security dilemma' exists in society - how to ensure others will follow the same rules that I do? Rousseau seems tempted to answer with religion, but defers on the ground that false gods are created in order to subvert ethics. Therefore, it lies solely in the physical sphere, to determine how to regulate morality. If everyone acts in their self-interest, how can it be made into their self-interest to act justly? Rousseau's answer lies in political institutions - their influence, will 'correct' the general population into moral behaviour.
Overall, I think that Rousseau sets out the issue in clarity - accepting Hobbes' view of people currently being in conflict due to self-interest, he sets the distinction in not believing it is their nature, as human beings - Amour Propre came with the Social Contract. In trying to solve the dilemma of making people act morally, he emphasises that general will is not enough, and that institutions are necessary to regulate it - like his idea of censors, taken from the Roman civilisation. He is frustrating opaque on exactly how this will work, giving an idealistic description.
Principles of the Right of War
Rousseau begins with a savage critique of civilisation - viewing that its positives have been over-emphasised at the expense of the 'real' situation. He begins at the beginning, first criticising Hobbes' doctrine of the State of War being natural to men - "War was born from peace". Rousseau consistently does this throughout his texts, but I do find it interesting that his depiction of current society holds very little difference to Hobbes', only disagreement on its origins.
Rousseau re-iterates that peace is not a consequence of society - the security dilemma can lead to War, a relationship between two enemies with a will to mutual destruction. As a proper definition, War is also a calculated, continuing decision that the enemy must be destroyed. There is a clear distinction, in Rousseau's eyes, between this State of War (including truces, cease-fires) and a formal peace. I'm a little more unsure of the difference - how can any state have proof that another no longer has plans to threaten its life? This then leads to a rejection of Hobbes' view that all humans are in a state of War - this would lead to absolute destruction, visible at all times in a social society. Rousseau isolates positive feelings - empathy, benevolence, as signs that this is not the case. Furthermore, he argues that there is a vital difference between present and natural man - development of passions has led to greed. Having completely rejected this view of a State of War between men, Rousseau discards the notion of it between individuals in particular cases - it is rare that one has to die for another to live. War is a permanent state between two subjects - relationships between humans are constantly in flux.
The state is practically the manifestation of the Amour Propre , and thus is constantly comparing itself to other powers in order to understand its own significance on a global stage. This then causes the 'State of War', as nations attempt to annihilate others - through war, and through forced peace (financial/government/other change). Rousseau ends by talking about legitimacy - applying the concept to War. There has never been a genuine War between individuals - it doesn't exist by concept of the word. The State of War instead exists through Rousseau's Powers (Sovereigns). Attacking the social contract of a state is the purpose of War.
Overall, I struggled to understand Rousseau's core ideas here. His view of the origins of human nature, and thus his rejection of Hobbes' State of War being natural to men, is very convincing. Instead, it is through his application of this to states, and people that I find confusing. Legitimacy in War is a difficult topic, and evidently very pertinent nowadays. Rousseau doesn't really seem to answer the question he poses.
Letters Written From The Mountains
Historical context is key here - this is a response to 'The Social Contract' being condemned in Geneva, and the tone that Rousseau strikes throughout these essays is more personal, more of a direct appeal than his usual, more abstract writings. The 6th Letter begins by challenging the clarity of the crimes he is alleged to have committed - denounced for "having published Two Works - 'reckless, scandalous, impious, tending to destroy the Christian Religion and all Governments'.". He first attacks the very general nature of these accusations - without knowing what precisely he is being accused of, how can he defend himself? He tries regardless. I noted his depiction of their accusations is quite Orwellian - the truth is malleable in the Genevan government's hands. Rousseau then provides an explanation of his book, The Social Contract, and particularly its reference to Government. When reading these excerpts, considering its purpose is paramount - he proceeds to flatter Geneva's government as being the example for his work, but it is clearly double-edged; Rousseau is hinting at the difference between his ideal government, and the existing one in Geneva.
The 7th Letter provides a more direct attack on the Genevan government - explaining that the lack of clarity between the executive and legislative powers has led to corruption, and then movement from democracy to authoritarianism. The 8th Letter explains Rousseau's belief on Liberty is more clear lights - Rousseau sees liberty as freedom from being subjected from particular wills, instead to a general will. This is a vital foundation of his political thought. Therefore, Laws need to liberty, and liberty needs Laws to be paramount, as representations of General Will. This is highly convincing, especially the follow up that "the worst of Laws is still preferable to the best master; for every master has preferences, and the Law never had such". Absolute equality of treatment is necessary for Rousseau's Social Contract.
Overall, the main purpose of this work for me was how Rousseau expanded on his ideas explained in the Social Contract. A more personal aspect is explored in the 6th Letter, as Rousseau argues against the legitimacy of the condemnation of his books, frustrated. The end is interesting - it's clear to me that he is subtly criticising the Genevan government, followed up in the 7th Letter. The 8th Letter highlights an area that was annoyingly skipped past in the Social Contract - liberty. Like it or not, his view of liberty is highly convincing as an explanation for the foundation of all societies.
Constitutional Proposal For Corsica
This proposal, and the subsequent one for Poland, were the most interesting 'other' political writings contained in this book for me. The most interesting part was to see how Rousseau adapts his particular brand of political ideology to fit the contemporary systems he was trying to improve. Coming away from this, it is hard to view Rousseau as solely an idealist - he is very realistic in his adaption of reforms, willing to compromise in many ways. Traces of idealism do shine through, but I find the core ideas convincing.
Rousseau begins by addressing the Corsican people - I always find this less powerful. It sounds like rhetoric, as he says that the "Corsican people, quite to the contrary, strike me as most fortunately disposed by nature to receive a good administration". This is entirely subjective, and comes off more as flattery than anything else. He then ruminates on the degeneration of political institutions - is there a viable way to prevent this from happening? No. But if the nation is shaped for the government, decline can be slowed due to harmony of the different parts. Rousseau thus begins with the people, and their present situation, when designing the government. He urges them not be influenced by other Powers - first-hand experience is vital in nation-building. Population growth is urged, and therefore growth in the agricultural industry to allow this to happen, boosted by change in moral character. It's clear that Rousseau is influenced by Rome here, by connecting the idea of honour and virtue with agriculture. These ideas have less sway in our present situation.
Addressing government, Rousseau concludes that democracy is most suitable, due to the lack of wealth in Corsica, most favourable to agriculture, and best for smaller States. As Corsica is too big for direct democracy to work effectively, Rousseau advocates a mixed government - people assemble through often-changed 'parties'. This seems contrary to his ideas on representation expressed in The Social Contract - namely, polarisation of society. Rousseau is careful, but firm on Nobility - its destruction by the Genoese is a good thing, to prevent excess inequality at the beginning of the society. Rousseau sounds Communist at points, clear emphasis on agriculture and general belief in collectivism. His hatred of urbanisation is understandable in a pre-industrial society, viewing it as recruiting people from agriculture and leading to more idle occupations. Rousseau is very particular in his plan of government - he even picks out the town where the government will reside - lack of fertility will prevent the town from growing too much, preventing luxury and thus corruption.
Rousseau gives an account of Switzerland, very positive about its independent initial society, but very critical about how the influx of money led to corruption, as 'noble men' became mercenaries for other countries, and the development of Amour Propre amongst them. Through this, he emphasises the need for patriotism - necessary for the continuation of the social contract. He proceeds to alter the social system completely, with a republican slant: the system persuades people to find its happiness within it, self-interest within the system (Citizens, Patriots, Candidates).
Economically, Rousseau is very radical in his suggestions. Or perhaps, very traditional. He detests money - raises taxes, only useful as a sign of inequality, and thus for Amour Propre . Instead, Rousseau advocates against trade with other nations, and to return to barter. Here, Rousseau's thought is similar to Marxist - surplus consumed and necessities provided for, without money. This is also used to prevent excessive wealth or poverty - "to the general need of the province and to the individual need of the farmer". He also discourages 'idle arts' like sculptors/goldsmiths, on the grounds that it isn't necessary in poor countries. Increasing citizen dependence on a strong state is key. Some idealism comes through at the end, as Rousseau urges that citizens and patriots set an example for honouring the public good. Not enough attention seems to have been paid for inevitable corruption.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading Rousseau think through how he would apply his ideas to a contemporary state. His suggestions are very realistic, evident highly adapted to the political situation than the Corsican people were in. The economic advice was of its time - its hard to imagine a money-less, trade-less society in our globalised world. I do agree that it has massively increased Amour Propre , though. His ideas surrounding the organisation of society are liberal, egalitarian, but seemingly naive. They would require major moral and behavioural change within a short period for the society, something he admits is very difficult to do due to mores.
Considerations On The Government Of Poland
These are two entirely different proposals. Rousseau clearly considers the difference between the two situations when conducting his analysis, and then his suggestions for the state. Here, Rousseau tends to emphasise social customs, and makes compromise on his idea of sovereignty, through accepting limited federalism. Similarities between Poland and Corsica - new revolutions left the social and political system untethered, powerful neighbours looking to subjugate it, were outweighed by the vast geographical and political differences. Vitally, the existence in Poland of the liberum vito, a vote of unanimity which could be declared of any member in the legislative assembly at any time.
Rousseau again begins with characteristic flattery - emphasising Poland's difference from the other decaying states of Europe, its urge for freedom and liberty. He emphasises that liberty needs active protection. His main point, is the idea of mores. Particularly, that Poland will never be able to fully protect itself against dominant military neighbours. Instead, by growing mores and a unique national identity, it can prevent destruction of its Social Contract, even if the state is invaded. Exemplified by the quote: "If you can make sure that a Pole can never become a Russian, I answer for it that Russia will not subjugate Poland". This is an interesting point - globalisation has led to a homogenisation of values and desires, loss of national identity. I guess Rousseau would've abhorred it. This growth is done by national initiatives - creation of specific ceremonies and games - taking inspiration from Sparta.
Further reform to social values is suggested through change in what the public view as objects of luxury - difference between noble luxury (military) and excessive finery. I find it interesting that Rousseau seems to dislike luxury in the Arts, at all times. This is done through education - Rousseau advocates for, positively speaking, childhood education to be in patriotism, absolute nationalism. This would undoubtedly improve the vigour of the state. It is also essentially brainwashing, for our current societies. Rousseau has a fairly egalitarian view of education, arguing that people are all Citizens, and that the ideal is a wholly free public education, accessible to all.
Moving on to reform of legislation (and government), Rousseau starts by suggesting federalism, due to the size of the state. I wonder what he would think of our present states, in that case. He then critiques the 'confused' nature of the current government - lack of executive power, shared legislative and executive power, lack of enforcement, makes the state hard to govern. This leads to his reforms: more frequent elections, therefore preventing corruption, and removal of the liberum veto . The power of the King is also removed - their power is too easy to corrupt the legislative branch, and must be held in check. Complete rejection of hereditary monarchy, as taking away the freedom of the body politic.
Rousseau expressed radical military and social views, to round up his proposal. He advocates against the creation of troops - it is not enough to safeguard the state, and is too big a financial cost. Instead, through promotion of mores, a formal army is not necessary and less effective to the alternative. "Whoever seeks to be free must not seek to be a conquerer", and "Every citizen must be a solider out of duty, none must be a soldier by profession" give a good sum-up on his views on the military system. I think there is something to be said about the symbolic imagery of a national army that Rousseau is missing - but perhaps that's his point, to rid the false sense of confidence and encourage patriotism through self-interest. Socially, Rousseau is radical - three classes of active members of the Republic - first class is in posts like lawyers, judges - important, but people are assessed on how well they perform the job.This ensures integrity, and prevents corruption of these key posts. It also must limit effectiveness in these posts. Second class comes after more experience, and can lead to the Government, leading to the Third being high political officials. A very meritocratic system.
Rousseau spares a few pages to talk about Kings - namely, how they should be elected and judged. From a highly selective pool of high-ranking officials, Rousseau suggests a lottery amongst them to prevent corruption by other Powers. To restrain the power of the King, Rousseau amazingly thinks back to Ancient Egypt - namely, judgement after Death. Good kings will have good burials. Genius, but also crazy.
I really like Rousseau. He himself admits his ideas may be idealistic - "Perhaps it is all merely a collection of pipe-dreams, but there you have my ideas" - but his ideas are very original. There are evident problems - appeal to old tradition fails to solve new problems, causing an evident contradiction since he urges states to focus on their own identity to build a state, and a tendency to idealism. However, in general, his proposals are based firmly in reality, and are economically and socially radical because there is no other reasonable way to build a new Nation.
The following extracts were really helpful, in fleshing out Rousseau's thinking, and the application of his ideology in a real-world setting. By the end, I really felt like I understood his ideas, and how he justified them, to a strong extent.
Geneva MS
Expanding on a section that seemed a little confusing in 'Of the Social Contract', Rousseau explains his ideas on morality, the role of political institutions in regulating it, and theories of justice. Rousseau starts by referring back to his Amour Propre, and how civil society leads to collection of force, and thus a growth in desire. This is Rousseau's essential psychological belief, about how the change that came with civilisation meant rationality, but also Hobbes' 'nightmare'. Simply existing within a society is not enough for equality - quite the opposite, as it exacerbates inequality. In general, this whole chapter is a fundamental rejection of Hobbes, his view on the natural function of society and individuals. Rousseau tempers these explanations of the negatives of civilisation, by pointing out how all in all, it is an improvement: development of rationality, morality, virtue.
Rousseau then sets out the contradiction - people are not fundamentally interested in pursuing the general good - people wish others to observe social laws, but not to be subjected to them. 'Security dilemma' exists in society - how to ensure others will follow the same rules that I do? Rousseau seems tempted to answer with religion, but defers on the ground that false gods are created in order to subvert ethics. Therefore, it lies solely in the physical sphere, to determine how to regulate morality. If everyone acts in their self-interest, how can it be made into their self-interest to act justly? Rousseau's answer lies in political institutions - their influence, will 'correct' the general population into moral behaviour.
Overall, I think that Rousseau sets out the issue in clarity - accepting Hobbes' view of people currently being in conflict due to self-interest, he sets the distinction in not believing it is their nature, as human beings - Amour Propre came with the Social Contract. In trying to solve the dilemma of making people act morally, he emphasises that general will is not enough, and that institutions are necessary to regulate it - like his idea of censors, taken from the Roman civilisation. He is frustrating opaque on exactly how this will work, giving an idealistic description.
Principles of the Right of War
Rousseau begins with a savage critique of civilisation - viewing that its positives have been over-emphasised at the expense of the 'real' situation. He begins at the beginning, first criticising Hobbes' doctrine of the State of War being natural to men - "War was born from peace". Rousseau consistently does this throughout his texts, but I do find it interesting that his depiction of current society holds very little difference to Hobbes', only disagreement on its origins.
Rousseau re-iterates that peace is not a consequence of society - the security dilemma can lead to War, a relationship between two enemies with a will to mutual destruction. As a proper definition, War is also a calculated, continuing decision that the enemy must be destroyed. There is a clear distinction, in Rousseau's eyes, between this State of War (including truces, cease-fires) and a formal peace. I'm a little more unsure of the difference - how can any state have proof that another no longer has plans to threaten its life? This then leads to a rejection of Hobbes' view that all humans are in a state of War - this would lead to absolute destruction, visible at all times in a social society. Rousseau isolates positive feelings - empathy, benevolence, as signs that this is not the case. Furthermore, he argues that there is a vital difference between present and natural man - development of passions has led to greed. Having completely rejected this view of a State of War between men, Rousseau discards the notion of it between individuals in particular cases - it is rare that one has to die for another to live. War is a permanent state between two subjects - relationships between humans are constantly in flux.
The state is practically the manifestation of the Amour Propre , and thus is constantly comparing itself to other powers in order to understand its own significance on a global stage. This then causes the 'State of War', as nations attempt to annihilate others - through war, and through forced peace (financial/government/other change). Rousseau ends by talking about legitimacy - applying the concept to War. There has never been a genuine War between individuals - it doesn't exist by concept of the word. The State of War instead exists through Rousseau's Powers (Sovereigns). Attacking the social contract of a state is the purpose of War.
Overall, I struggled to understand Rousseau's core ideas here. His view of the origins of human nature, and thus his rejection of Hobbes' State of War being natural to men, is very convincing. Instead, it is through his application of this to states, and people that I find confusing. Legitimacy in War is a difficult topic, and evidently very pertinent nowadays. Rousseau doesn't really seem to answer the question he poses.
Letters Written From The Mountains
Historical context is key here - this is a response to 'The Social Contract' being condemned in Geneva, and the tone that Rousseau strikes throughout these essays is more personal, more of a direct appeal than his usual, more abstract writings. The 6th Letter begins by challenging the clarity of the crimes he is alleged to have committed - denounced for "having published Two Works - 'reckless, scandalous, impious, tending to destroy the Christian Religion and all Governments'.". He first attacks the very general nature of these accusations - without knowing what precisely he is being accused of, how can he defend himself? He tries regardless. I noted his depiction of their accusations is quite Orwellian - the truth is malleable in the Genevan government's hands. Rousseau then provides an explanation of his book, The Social Contract, and particularly its reference to Government. When reading these excerpts, considering its purpose is paramount - he proceeds to flatter Geneva's government as being the example for his work, but it is clearly double-edged; Rousseau is hinting at the difference between his ideal government, and the existing one in Geneva.
The 7th Letter provides a more direct attack on the Genevan government - explaining that the lack of clarity between the executive and legislative powers has led to corruption, and then movement from democracy to authoritarianism. The 8th Letter explains Rousseau's belief on Liberty is more clear lights - Rousseau sees liberty as freedom from being subjected from particular wills, instead to a general will. This is a vital foundation of his political thought. Therefore, Laws need to liberty, and liberty needs Laws to be paramount, as representations of General Will. This is highly convincing, especially the follow up that "the worst of Laws is still preferable to the best master; for every master has preferences, and the Law never had such". Absolute equality of treatment is necessary for Rousseau's Social Contract.
Overall, the main purpose of this work for me was how Rousseau expanded on his ideas explained in the Social Contract. A more personal aspect is explored in the 6th Letter, as Rousseau argues against the legitimacy of the condemnation of his books, frustrated. The end is interesting - it's clear to me that he is subtly criticising the Genevan government, followed up in the 7th Letter. The 8th Letter highlights an area that was annoyingly skipped past in the Social Contract - liberty. Like it or not, his view of liberty is highly convincing as an explanation for the foundation of all societies.
Constitutional Proposal For Corsica
This proposal, and the subsequent one for Poland, were the most interesting 'other' political writings contained in this book for me. The most interesting part was to see how Rousseau adapts his particular brand of political ideology to fit the contemporary systems he was trying to improve. Coming away from this, it is hard to view Rousseau as solely an idealist - he is very realistic in his adaption of reforms, willing to compromise in many ways. Traces of idealism do shine through, but I find the core ideas convincing.
Rousseau begins by addressing the Corsican people - I always find this less powerful. It sounds like rhetoric, as he says that the "Corsican people, quite to the contrary, strike me as most fortunately disposed by nature to receive a good administration". This is entirely subjective, and comes off more as flattery than anything else. He then ruminates on the degeneration of political institutions - is there a viable way to prevent this from happening? No. But if the nation is shaped for the government, decline can be slowed due to harmony of the different parts. Rousseau thus begins with the people, and their present situation, when designing the government. He urges them not be influenced by other Powers - first-hand experience is vital in nation-building. Population growth is urged, and therefore growth in the agricultural industry to allow this to happen, boosted by change in moral character. It's clear that Rousseau is influenced by Rome here, by connecting the idea of honour and virtue with agriculture. These ideas have less sway in our present situation.
Addressing government, Rousseau concludes that democracy is most suitable, due to the lack of wealth in Corsica, most favourable to agriculture, and best for smaller States. As Corsica is too big for direct democracy to work effectively, Rousseau advocates a mixed government - people assemble through often-changed 'parties'. This seems contrary to his ideas on representation expressed in The Social Contract - namely, polarisation of society. Rousseau is careful, but firm on Nobility - its destruction by the Genoese is a good thing, to prevent excess inequality at the beginning of the society. Rousseau sounds Communist at points, clear emphasis on agriculture and general belief in collectivism. His hatred of urbanisation is understandable in a pre-industrial society, viewing it as recruiting people from agriculture and leading to more idle occupations. Rousseau is very particular in his plan of government - he even picks out the town where the government will reside - lack of fertility will prevent the town from growing too much, preventing luxury and thus corruption.
Rousseau gives an account of Switzerland, very positive about its independent initial society, but very critical about how the influx of money led to corruption, as 'noble men' became mercenaries for other countries, and the development of Amour Propre amongst them. Through this, he emphasises the need for patriotism - necessary for the continuation of the social contract. He proceeds to alter the social system completely, with a republican slant: the system persuades people to find its happiness within it, self-interest within the system (Citizens, Patriots, Candidates).
Economically, Rousseau is very radical in his suggestions. Or perhaps, very traditional. He detests money - raises taxes, only useful as a sign of inequality, and thus for Amour Propre . Instead, Rousseau advocates against trade with other nations, and to return to barter. Here, Rousseau's thought is similar to Marxist - surplus consumed and necessities provided for, without money. This is also used to prevent excessive wealth or poverty - "to the general need of the province and to the individual need of the farmer". He also discourages 'idle arts' like sculptors/goldsmiths, on the grounds that it isn't necessary in poor countries. Increasing citizen dependence on a strong state is key. Some idealism comes through at the end, as Rousseau urges that citizens and patriots set an example for honouring the public good. Not enough attention seems to have been paid for inevitable corruption.
Overall, I really enjoyed reading Rousseau think through how he would apply his ideas to a contemporary state. His suggestions are very realistic, evident highly adapted to the political situation than the Corsican people were in. The economic advice was of its time - its hard to imagine a money-less, trade-less society in our globalised world. I do agree that it has massively increased Amour Propre , though. His ideas surrounding the organisation of society are liberal, egalitarian, but seemingly naive. They would require major moral and behavioural change within a short period for the society, something he admits is very difficult to do due to mores.
Considerations On The Government Of Poland
These are two entirely different proposals. Rousseau clearly considers the difference between the two situations when conducting his analysis, and then his suggestions for the state. Here, Rousseau tends to emphasise social customs, and makes compromise on his idea of sovereignty, through accepting limited federalism. Similarities between Poland and Corsica - new revolutions left the social and political system untethered, powerful neighbours looking to subjugate it, were outweighed by the vast geographical and political differences. Vitally, the existence in Poland of the liberum vito, a vote of unanimity which could be declared of any member in the legislative assembly at any time.
Rousseau again begins with characteristic flattery - emphasising Poland's difference from the other decaying states of Europe, its urge for freedom and liberty. He emphasises that liberty needs active protection. His main point, is the idea of mores. Particularly, that Poland will never be able to fully protect itself against dominant military neighbours. Instead, by growing mores and a unique national identity, it can prevent destruction of its Social Contract, even if the state is invaded. Exemplified by the quote: "If you can make sure that a Pole can never become a Russian, I answer for it that Russia will not subjugate Poland". This is an interesting point - globalisation has led to a homogenisation of values and desires, loss of national identity. I guess Rousseau would've abhorred it. This growth is done by national initiatives - creation of specific ceremonies and games - taking inspiration from Sparta.
Further reform to social values is suggested through change in what the public view as objects of luxury - difference between noble luxury (military) and excessive finery. I find it interesting that Rousseau seems to dislike luxury in the Arts, at all times. This is done through education - Rousseau advocates for, positively speaking, childhood education to be in patriotism, absolute nationalism. This would undoubtedly improve the vigour of the state. It is also essentially brainwashing, for our current societies. Rousseau has a fairly egalitarian view of education, arguing that people are all Citizens, and that the ideal is a wholly free public education, accessible to all.
Moving on to reform of legislation (and government), Rousseau starts by suggesting federalism, due to the size of the state. I wonder what he would think of our present states, in that case. He then critiques the 'confused' nature of the current government - lack of executive power, shared legislative and executive power, lack of enforcement, makes the state hard to govern. This leads to his reforms: more frequent elections, therefore preventing corruption, and removal of the liberum veto . The power of the King is also removed - their power is too easy to corrupt the legislative branch, and must be held in check. Complete rejection of hereditary monarchy, as taking away the freedom of the body politic.
Rousseau expressed radical military and social views, to round up his proposal. He advocates against the creation of troops - it is not enough to safeguard the state, and is too big a financial cost. Instead, through promotion of mores, a formal army is not necessary and less effective to the alternative. "Whoever seeks to be free must not seek to be a conquerer", and "Every citizen must be a solider out of duty, none must be a soldier by profession" give a good sum-up on his views on the military system. I think there is something to be said about the symbolic imagery of a national army that Rousseau is missing - but perhaps that's his point, to rid the false sense of confidence and encourage patriotism through self-interest. Socially, Rousseau is radical - three classes of active members of the Republic - first class is in posts like lawyers, judges - important, but people are assessed on how well they perform the job.This ensures integrity, and prevents corruption of these key posts. It also must limit effectiveness in these posts. Second class comes after more experience, and can lead to the Government, leading to the Third being high political officials. A very meritocratic system.
Rousseau spares a few pages to talk about Kings - namely, how they should be elected and judged. From a highly selective pool of high-ranking officials, Rousseau suggests a lottery amongst them to prevent corruption by other Powers. To restrain the power of the King, Rousseau amazingly thinks back to Ancient Egypt - namely, judgement after Death. Good kings will have good burials. Genius, but also crazy.
I really like Rousseau. He himself admits his ideas may be idealistic - "Perhaps it is all merely a collection of pipe-dreams, but there you have my ideas" - but his ideas are very original. There are evident problems - appeal to old tradition fails to solve new problems, causing an evident contradiction since he urges states to focus on their own identity to build a state, and a tendency to idealism. However, in general, his proposals are based firmly in reality, and are economically and socially radical because there is no other reasonable way to build a new Nation.
April 30, 2020
Quite a lot to take in, and several times within a section I found myself hard-pressed to see who would ever want to be ruled by such a strict and 'manly' society that did not allow the arts to flourish. The only reason we know so much about Ancient Greece, Rome and powerful states is through the arts filtered through philosophy and politics. Nevertheless, impressive to see Rousseau sticking to his ideal government guns, even at the expense of his own citizenship in Geneva. He later attempts to influence state affairs in Corsica and Poland, but it wouldn't be until the French Revolution where his ideas got tested out. The United States in its infancy really took to his ideas and look where they are now 😬 But seriously, despite the many times I found myself getting lost in his method of persuasion, it wasn't until halfway through the supplemental chapters that the penny dropped for me that what some bright young mind needs to write now is a Social Media Contract to avoid so, so many issues in the twittering, facebooking and, yes, goodreading world we currently inhabit.
June 12, 2020
An interesting read!
Rousseau's words are fairly endearing, as a champion of the people and the truth he believes that government should serve to make the people stronger, and any abuse against this is against the country in general; and of course for all good philosophical works, he goes into detail into describing convincing relationships and certain attributes of individuals and their position in the whole.
The 'Social Contract' on it's own describes the system and the 'Corsica(...)' text and 'Polish Government (…)' text stand as examples. I felt the 'Polish Government' text stands out as being a lot more mature.
Unfortunately, Rousseau is guilty of not varying his examples enough and certainly losing his way in arguments, some which certainly sound like a 'slippery slope 'by the time he is done.
His description of the Christian nation in the Social Contract is a fine example of him rambling on , eventually seeming to create a slippery slope :
He describes how the Christian nation would be inept at competing with other nations, given they value the after-life so much, or (maybe more adequately explained) because they are too moral – although this may return us to his 'the right of the Strongest' statement, which I believed was very plain and shallow -Although, an indicator of the hardness of his views.
Often times, the Romans and the Spartans are used a bit too often as examples, which could do with varying a lot more and steals credibility from his assertions.
It is interesting to read about his support for capital punishment, especially since he believes it should be used sparingly and in the correct case in “ The Right of Life and Death” – Though at times he does sound quite hard or autocratic – for example, completely missing the point when explaining how the peasants or serfs can live their lives – apparently always happy that they did a good job for the 'fatherland'. Against this - this is an author from the 1700's and it would certainly fit well as (perhaps)being quite liberal and progressive for the time(?).
In saying this, his definition of different liberties defines how a people must behave. Supposedly along the way, everyone will get on and those with better 'virtues' i.e. the finer liberty users, will be rewarded all the more – which does almost sound like a spiritual journey with morals, rather than a political one with liberties. Also being a bit too vague, with constraints on 'being as part of the whole' – and certainly no thoughts given to how to make it accessible to the few and to reduce rejection(by the people themselves).
It is interesting as a framework at least -and a complicated one it turns out to be.
I think its important, to point out that Rousseau is very derogative against luxury, which he extends to wealth and everything relating to money. I cant really disagree, though it puts in perspective how complicated a landscape it is to consider how to motivate the people. Any wonder, his conclusions are more in relation to brain washing than paying...
Relating to this, he admits a state's use of forced labour was 'acceptable', he certainly points out how its not the best way – it is refreshing how he will step in sometimes and point out flaws, using Switzerland as an example in this case.
Given he begins to use Collectivism in his examples(because I would have thought this collectivism would be mildly accepting of their subjects) it is then interesting to see how hard he decides to treat those who are minorities; those who are obviously worth nothing;
Such as in the 'Polish Government(...)' text in particular, where he mentions that those who don't fit in and are not married should not be given a place in society and lose their chance to earn it after the age of 40– which seems quite cruel.
(Though being a citizen I think may not be to have no rights, but instead is an indication of a voice and power – this stemmed from his reference to the Roman's 'Counted by head' people - their 'lower class').
This does fit with his assertions in the Social contract, where he considers it prerequisite for a man to integrate with society 100%. It seems to me, that he has performed that mathematician's error in removing half the equation for an easy fix - which, when playing with people's lives is quite cruel - but lets be honest, that is what Politics is about; not that I argue that changes anything... Taking this into account certainly gives you an idea of who he is. However he does suggest (in the Polish Government text) a government department and festival that rewards the people and ensures the poor and frail are looked after.
Additionally views on Slavery quite refreshing - again maybe a sign for the times - where he proclaims slavery as savage and naturally wrong, arguing that even a man who agreed to be a slave may as well be dead, meaning he has forfeit his life for nothing; amusingly comparing it to being set aside for the Greek Cyclop's consumption, forever waiting for a bad end.
Rousseau's words are fairly endearing, as a champion of the people and the truth he believes that government should serve to make the people stronger, and any abuse against this is against the country in general; and of course for all good philosophical works, he goes into detail into describing convincing relationships and certain attributes of individuals and their position in the whole.
The 'Social Contract' on it's own describes the system and the 'Corsica(...)' text and 'Polish Government (…)' text stand as examples. I felt the 'Polish Government' text stands out as being a lot more mature.
Unfortunately, Rousseau is guilty of not varying his examples enough and certainly losing his way in arguments, some which certainly sound like a 'slippery slope 'by the time he is done.
His description of the Christian nation in the Social Contract is a fine example of him rambling on , eventually seeming to create a slippery slope :
He describes how the Christian nation would be inept at competing with other nations, given they value the after-life so much, or (maybe more adequately explained) because they are too moral – although this may return us to his 'the right of the Strongest' statement, which I believed was very plain and shallow -Although, an indicator of the hardness of his views.
Often times, the Romans and the Spartans are used a bit too often as examples, which could do with varying a lot more and steals credibility from his assertions.
It is interesting to read about his support for capital punishment, especially since he believes it should be used sparingly and in the correct case in “ The Right of Life and Death” – Though at times he does sound quite hard or autocratic – for example, completely missing the point when explaining how the peasants or serfs can live their lives – apparently always happy that they did a good job for the 'fatherland'. Against this - this is an author from the 1700's and it would certainly fit well as (perhaps)being quite liberal and progressive for the time(?).
In saying this, his definition of different liberties defines how a people must behave. Supposedly along the way, everyone will get on and those with better 'virtues' i.e. the finer liberty users, will be rewarded all the more – which does almost sound like a spiritual journey with morals, rather than a political one with liberties. Also being a bit too vague, with constraints on 'being as part of the whole' – and certainly no thoughts given to how to make it accessible to the few and to reduce rejection(by the people themselves).
It is interesting as a framework at least -and a complicated one it turns out to be.
I think its important, to point out that Rousseau is very derogative against luxury, which he extends to wealth and everything relating to money. I cant really disagree, though it puts in perspective how complicated a landscape it is to consider how to motivate the people. Any wonder, his conclusions are more in relation to brain washing than paying...
Relating to this, he admits a state's use of forced labour was 'acceptable', he certainly points out how its not the best way – it is refreshing how he will step in sometimes and point out flaws, using Switzerland as an example in this case.
Given he begins to use Collectivism in his examples(because I would have thought this collectivism would be mildly accepting of their subjects) it is then interesting to see how hard he decides to treat those who are minorities; those who are obviously worth nothing;
Such as in the 'Polish Government(...)' text in particular, where he mentions that those who don't fit in and are not married should not be given a place in society and lose their chance to earn it after the age of 40– which seems quite cruel.
(Though being a citizen I think may not be to have no rights, but instead is an indication of a voice and power – this stemmed from his reference to the Roman's 'Counted by head' people - their 'lower class').
This does fit with his assertions in the Social contract, where he considers it prerequisite for a man to integrate with society 100%. It seems to me, that he has performed that mathematician's error in removing half the equation for an easy fix - which, when playing with people's lives is quite cruel - but lets be honest, that is what Politics is about; not that I argue that changes anything... Taking this into account certainly gives you an idea of who he is. However he does suggest (in the Polish Government text) a government department and festival that rewards the people and ensures the poor and frail are looked after.
Additionally views on Slavery quite refreshing - again maybe a sign for the times - where he proclaims slavery as savage and naturally wrong, arguing that even a man who agreed to be a slave may as well be dead, meaning he has forfeit his life for nothing; amusingly comparing it to being set aside for the Greek Cyclop's consumption, forever waiting for a bad end.
October 7, 2019
I picked this up again recently in an effort to ground my thinking about the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that America is heir to. The line on America is that we're a country of laws, that we're a people bound not by the caprice of a sovereign but by a constitution, that we're endowed with inalienable rights, that we're free. Without even touching on America's history of genocide, slavery, internment, classicism, and prejudice, by looking (as) objectively (as possible) at the country today one beholds a nation with a lot of problems. Our representatives serve special interests, corporations have more agency than citizens, gun violence is habitual. Living in America today means reflecting a lot on the social contract - the principle of social organization that stipulates that escaping the state of nature and entering into civil society necessarily demands the concession of certain rights afforded by nature - and considering what it means. Maybe it was the NPR spot I heard recently about the last mass shooting that sparked all this. I heard a commentator arguing that the second amendment is a right that all are endowed with by virtue of our humanity and so can't be infringed upon by the government, that the second amendment is only the formal recognition of an inherent right. And right now I don't care about any of the arguments that could be employed to sink this fakakta claim (e.g., the second amendment was inspired by white fears about black reprisals against enslavement; that amendments are, by their very nature, meant to be altered in the course of time should the need arise; that the possession of a commodity is not an inherent right) outside of what Rousseau offers in his text. Freedom in a society is not the same thing as freedom in nature; it's not the case that we get to do whatever we want. And, more than that, in Rousseau's words, being free means choosing to be enslaved (anyone who remembers the Marathe-Steeply convo. from Infinite Jest knows this already) because one volunteers to be hindered by the strictures demanded by civil society in order to gain security. Of course knowing this doesn't end the gun crisis, since the order won by any social contract is only as lasting as the general will allows (so if no one, or not enough someones, wants to end the problem then it won't end). It's here, in Rousseau's elaboration on how governments are rightly organized and governed, that he preemptively (this was written in 1762) and retrospectively (I'm rereading this in 2019) explains all of contemporary America's problems. The sovereign should only register the general will, the introduction of representatives is the harbinger of democracy's death, large states can only function under monarchical rule, and then finally "When at last the State, close to ruin, subsists only in a vain and illusory form, when the social bond is broken in every heart, when the basest interest shamelessly flaunts the sacred name of the public weal, then the general will falls silent. Prompted by secret motives, all no more speak as Citizens than as if the State had never existed; and iniquitous decrees directed only to particular interest are falsely passed in the guise of Laws." I don't think I even have a point here - it's dumb to review a book like this on its literary merits - it's just that the freedom of nature is constantly and even willfully conflated with the freedom of society, and recognizing this might mean gaining valuable perspective.
June 6, 2021
(I'm cheating a bit, since I could muster up enough interest to tackle the two more particular texts about Corsica and Poland. I'm sure both provide a fascinating opportunity to see how Rousseau applied his views to real-life situations, but I feel like I don't have enough historical purchase to really get much out of those texts just yet.)
Rousseau's social philosophy is straight-forward and sensible, and I love how he crushes Hobbes's fearful cynicism by pointing out that Hobbes was most likely too absorbed in his own particular context to see the forest from the trees.
Rousseau's own views on the nature of Man is more complex than that of Hobbes's: he recognises morality as something of an institution that does not exist (perhaps per se) in the state of nature as such, and while people wouldn't necessarily war away in the wild, the wild is not a nice state to be in. This easily refutes the silly idea of Rousseau hankering back to the virginal nature and regarding our ancestors as children haloed with innocence.
Rousseau's ideas about the State were also rather compelling: the power belongs to the people, and the people should be of a convenient size, so it would not have to resort to legislative proxies, ultimately causing the downfall of the State and Sovereign as more power is being delegated to fewer people. But before such inevitability transpires, the people would preferably choose Aristocracy as their Prince/Government, all in perfect proportion to the Sovereign and the individual, and be involved enough to see whether the Prince is leading them astray. Rousseau also recognised the need for spiritual unity among the people, and hence underscored the role of patriotism, religion and even censorship—yet amazingly enough, his propositions were very level-headed. (I'm not going to go into the degrees of utility and harm these approaches have, since I'm not fully convinced of them yet, even if I'm not as blue-eyed as my review might let on.)
Of course, from today's perspective, it seems a bit of a pipe dream, since populations have got so large (indeed, so large that their largeness is no longer the indicator of success it was to Rousseau himself). Furthermore, what adds more chandoo into the fistula is the ominous role of the Legislator: the person who sets the laws in their proper direction and thus potentially overriding the general will with his particular (and "divinely ordained") wish.
The texts contained herein are ground-breaking and ingenious, though empiricism can most likely prove that the great ideas might not turn out so great in practice. I am somewhat abashed of leaving my review so incomplete and full of generalities, but I somehow feel like these ideas are something I'd like to use as tools for further exploration instead of really delving into them in their original context or even in historical particulars.
Rousseau's social philosophy is straight-forward and sensible, and I love how he crushes Hobbes's fearful cynicism by pointing out that Hobbes was most likely too absorbed in his own particular context to see the forest from the trees.
Rousseau's own views on the nature of Man is more complex than that of Hobbes's: he recognises morality as something of an institution that does not exist (perhaps per se) in the state of nature as such, and while people wouldn't necessarily war away in the wild, the wild is not a nice state to be in. This easily refutes the silly idea of Rousseau hankering back to the virginal nature and regarding our ancestors as children haloed with innocence.
Rousseau's ideas about the State were also rather compelling: the power belongs to the people, and the people should be of a convenient size, so it would not have to resort to legislative proxies, ultimately causing the downfall of the State and Sovereign as more power is being delegated to fewer people. But before such inevitability transpires, the people would preferably choose Aristocracy as their Prince/Government, all in perfect proportion to the Sovereign and the individual, and be involved enough to see whether the Prince is leading them astray. Rousseau also recognised the need for spiritual unity among the people, and hence underscored the role of patriotism, religion and even censorship—yet amazingly enough, his propositions were very level-headed. (I'm not going to go into the degrees of utility and harm these approaches have, since I'm not fully convinced of them yet, even if I'm not as blue-eyed as my review might let on.)
Of course, from today's perspective, it seems a bit of a pipe dream, since populations have got so large (indeed, so large that their largeness is no longer the indicator of success it was to Rousseau himself). Furthermore, what adds more chandoo into the fistula is the ominous role of the Legislator: the person who sets the laws in their proper direction and thus potentially overriding the general will with his particular (and "divinely ordained") wish.
The texts contained herein are ground-breaking and ingenious, though empiricism can most likely prove that the great ideas might not turn out so great in practice. I am somewhat abashed of leaving my review so incomplete and full of generalities, but I somehow feel like these ideas are something I'd like to use as tools for further exploration instead of really delving into them in their original context or even in historical particulars.
December 1, 2021
Rousseau is one of those thinkers who you have to be careful with, in order to avoid throwing away the baby with the bathwater. While it is true that the irony was lost on the guy when he wrote a book about how to raise children, even though he abandoned all of his children, and that he declared that music and the arts are corrupting humanity, while making a living by composing music and writing literature. In short, Rousseau is probably the most easiest philosopher to use an ad-hominem against. But still, his ideas on political philosophy are, in my opinion, the best out of the three big social contractarian philosophers( Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau).
Firstly, the idea of the general will is brilliant. The general will can be broadly described as the collective abstraction of the wills of all the individuals in a society, aimed towards the common goal of self-preservation, and general well-being. For instance, imagine yourself stranded in an island, and you find other individuals in that island who're also stranded. All of you cooperate and work together to survive, for the common goal of self-preservation. Now, that social pact you form with the other individuals, for obtaining the common goal of survival, is the general will. Rousseau also makes an important distinction between the government and the general will. The government is bestowed the task of actualizing the general will, but it isn't the general will, in fact it has its own seperate particular will, which if given the chance will disregard the general will( something that happens most of the time).
Another point that Rousseau makes which isn't a big theme in this particular book is that property and wealth are only acquired after the social pact is made. This obvious observation disproves Locke's theory for a social contract, according to which we form societies to protect property. Now, I'm not going to discuss Locke in detail here, for obvious reasons, but will just add a remark that Locke was aware of Native Americans, who didn't have the concept of private property at all. Yet, he proposed that societies began to protect properties. It quite obvious to me that his work was just him trying to justify his political ambitions, and similarly the people who still take that main premise seriously are doing the exact same thing.
The last point I want to write about is that Rousseau was really fixated on his view that the governing bodies should not have legislative power. In fact, he even proposes that an outsider ought to write the constitution, so that no one might form the constitution in such a way that it overtly benefits their particular will.
Firstly, the idea of the general will is brilliant. The general will can be broadly described as the collective abstraction of the wills of all the individuals in a society, aimed towards the common goal of self-preservation, and general well-being. For instance, imagine yourself stranded in an island, and you find other individuals in that island who're also stranded. All of you cooperate and work together to survive, for the common goal of self-preservation. Now, that social pact you form with the other individuals, for obtaining the common goal of survival, is the general will. Rousseau also makes an important distinction between the government and the general will. The government is bestowed the task of actualizing the general will, but it isn't the general will, in fact it has its own seperate particular will, which if given the chance will disregard the general will( something that happens most of the time).
Another point that Rousseau makes which isn't a big theme in this particular book is that property and wealth are only acquired after the social pact is made. This obvious observation disproves Locke's theory for a social contract, according to which we form societies to protect property. Now, I'm not going to discuss Locke in detail here, for obvious reasons, but will just add a remark that Locke was aware of Native Americans, who didn't have the concept of private property at all. Yet, he proposed that societies began to protect properties. It quite obvious to me that his work was just him trying to justify his political ambitions, and similarly the people who still take that main premise seriously are doing the exact same thing.
The last point I want to write about is that Rousseau was really fixated on his view that the governing bodies should not have legislative power. In fact, he even proposes that an outsider ought to write the constitution, so that no one might form the constitution in such a way that it overtly benefits their particular will.
March 16, 2021
Okay so, regardless of some very good points and this book being ahead of it's time (As instead of discussing about specific political identifies and whatnot - the point that democracy has value only if it's from the people as this can relate to the modern day of big corporations ruling the USA. And that not just voting for new members but more easily being able to also to vote on improving the institutions over time so it can be more fitted to the times and to the people of that particular generation) And I really did think that this book did a good job in being very practical and describing concrete steps in how we being equal is important. I might not have agreed with everything that was said, but I think that the message here is important and I think even better explained than the communist manifest. Now I've never read that, but he brought up many things that I do know about it which was interesting to see and how it was described in a different perspective which I haven't seen before. And again, even if I don't agree with everything, it was still nevertheless refreshing to see it the way it was here without cynicism that I feel often comes from it, directly or indirectly.
So why did I give this 2 stars? Omg because it was very painful to get through. I absolutely hated the writing in this book with a passion. I understand it's an older book, but the reading experience was one of the worst I've ever read. At least there wasn't anything problematic about it, but omg my eyes were rejecting the pages even though I was happy with the content? I dunno, if the book was more direct in what it was trying to convey without all of it's completely unnecessary flowery language the experience would be so much different. And even in spite of the good things I have to say about it, I don't recommend this book to anything. And if anyone is interested in the subject material, I would try reading another account that can better describe what this book was trying to convey so you can save yourself from the pain I went though as I was reading this.
So why did I give this 2 stars? Omg because it was very painful to get through. I absolutely hated the writing in this book with a passion. I understand it's an older book, but the reading experience was one of the worst I've ever read. At least there wasn't anything problematic about it, but omg my eyes were rejecting the pages even though I was happy with the content? I dunno, if the book was more direct in what it was trying to convey without all of it's completely unnecessary flowery language the experience would be so much different. And even in spite of the good things I have to say about it, I don't recommend this book to anything. And if anyone is interested in the subject material, I would try reading another account that can better describe what this book was trying to convey so you can save yourself from the pain I went though as I was reading this.
September 8, 2020
The Social Contract in of itself is tricky to pick apart from the position of a person living in a democratic society. Concepts like the Sovereign (commonly rendered as a Prime Minister or other leader of the legislature) and the Prince (who for all intents and purposes leads the executive branch), and all the justification for monarchy in the context of a larger nation seemed odd to me.
The letters helped clarify the sketch of the powers laid out in the Social Contract a bit but I didn’t get that much else out of them.
However, the previously neutral Rousseau comes off as a democratic firebrand in his Proposal for the Constitution of Corsica, which was really pleasant to read. In it he imagines a nation of simple democratic farmers, miners and other workers, with a barter economy free from corrupting influence of money. This particular work gives me the impression that had Rousseau been born a century later, he could have been an anti-Capitalist intellectual equivalent to Karl Marx or one of the early anarchists. But there’s still a bit of ground left to cover in this review...
Considerations on the Government of Poland is the final work contained within this volume, and it’s once again somewhat moderate in a sense-while he echoes the anti-opulence sentiment he had in the Proposal for the Constitution of Corsica, he also supports the notion of the nation of Poland having a King-albeit an elected one. He also imagines a Poland with some social mobility, in which serfs can become free men and the mercantile class can aspire to become nobles.
The sad thing about Rousseau’s works is that the nations he wrote for never had a chance to act of these ideas before they were swallowed up by other powers. However, these works are fascinating insights into the political world of the 1700s, and a portal into what might’ve been.
The letters helped clarify the sketch of the powers laid out in the Social Contract a bit but I didn’t get that much else out of them.
However, the previously neutral Rousseau comes off as a democratic firebrand in his Proposal for the Constitution of Corsica, which was really pleasant to read. In it he imagines a nation of simple democratic farmers, miners and other workers, with a barter economy free from corrupting influence of money. This particular work gives me the impression that had Rousseau been born a century later, he could have been an anti-Capitalist intellectual equivalent to Karl Marx or one of the early anarchists. But there’s still a bit of ground left to cover in this review...
Considerations on the Government of Poland is the final work contained within this volume, and it’s once again somewhat moderate in a sense-while he echoes the anti-opulence sentiment he had in the Proposal for the Constitution of Corsica, he also supports the notion of the nation of Poland having a King-albeit an elected one. He also imagines a Poland with some social mobility, in which serfs can become free men and the mercantile class can aspire to become nobles.
The sad thing about Rousseau’s works is that the nations he wrote for never had a chance to act of these ideas before they were swallowed up by other powers. However, these works are fascinating insights into the political world of the 1700s, and a portal into what might’ve been.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
May 22, 2022
For clarification, I only read Of the Social Contract, so my comments are just about that.
Rousseau is a social contract theorist, so his main argument is really focused on the idea that society coalesces around all of its members (or at least men, preferably property-owners, though Rousseau isn't as insistent on this as Locke) agree to form a body politic by giving up some of their individual liberties from the state of nature in exchange for a collective society that will preserve their goods and lives. It took me a long while to really get to grips with Rousseau's argument because he centers his entire view on the idea of the "general will," which is essentially the belief that there is some kind of intrinsic collective wisdom held by the citizens as a body apart from any actual expression of political will, personal will, or factional will. Rousseau never really explains this clearly--perhaps the closest he comes is when he says that the winning side of a vote always represents the general will, but this seems like a pretty thin metric, since he also argues that it is basically infallible and not easily open to persuasion or manipulation by rhetoric.
What finally allowed me to come to grips with Rousseau's philosophy was the realization that he takes the completely opposite view of Marxist social conflict theory--the idea that society is fundamentally riven by competing interests that contest with one another for power. Rousseau assumes the opposite. That is, Rousseau assumes that everyone within a society fundamentally has the same interest, and it is only when they deviate from that "true" interest and seek something like personal gain at the expense of others that society begins to fracture. There is definitely a logic to this view, but I have trouble seeing it as an accurate expression of how societies actually function. To me, the idea of the "general will" doesn't really make much sense, because it assumes a largely conflictless society wherein everyone (or almost everyone) is driven primarily by some kind of dispassionate assessment of how helping the society as a whole would be the best way to gain advantages and protection for them individually. Maybe it's because I live in a deeply divided society and know about the horrors of eugenics, racism, social Darwinism, etc., but I just don't find that model very realistic.
https://youtu.be/STVQU2voJf0
Rousseau is a social contract theorist, so his main argument is really focused on the idea that society coalesces around all of its members (or at least men, preferably property-owners, though Rousseau isn't as insistent on this as Locke) agree to form a body politic by giving up some of their individual liberties from the state of nature in exchange for a collective society that will preserve their goods and lives. It took me a long while to really get to grips with Rousseau's argument because he centers his entire view on the idea of the "general will," which is essentially the belief that there is some kind of intrinsic collective wisdom held by the citizens as a body apart from any actual expression of political will, personal will, or factional will. Rousseau never really explains this clearly--perhaps the closest he comes is when he says that the winning side of a vote always represents the general will, but this seems like a pretty thin metric, since he also argues that it is basically infallible and not easily open to persuasion or manipulation by rhetoric.
What finally allowed me to come to grips with Rousseau's philosophy was the realization that he takes the completely opposite view of Marxist social conflict theory--the idea that society is fundamentally riven by competing interests that contest with one another for power. Rousseau assumes the opposite. That is, Rousseau assumes that everyone within a society fundamentally has the same interest, and it is only when they deviate from that "true" interest and seek something like personal gain at the expense of others that society begins to fracture. There is definitely a logic to this view, but I have trouble seeing it as an accurate expression of how societies actually function. To me, the idea of the "general will" doesn't really make much sense, because it assumes a largely conflictless society wherein everyone (or almost everyone) is driven primarily by some kind of dispassionate assessment of how helping the society as a whole would be the best way to gain advantages and protection for them individually. Maybe it's because I live in a deeply divided society and know about the horrors of eugenics, racism, social Darwinism, etc., but I just don't find that model very realistic.
https://youtu.be/STVQU2voJf0
April 14, 2022
It makes sense to me that incels and young republicans love to read all this stuff: society is conceived of as a sand castle that can be reformed, destroyed, and re-constructed all according to what is rationally optimal. In Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau there are no dizzying complexities or vast bureaucracies; there are no racial disparities because race does not exist. My sense is that in Rousseau’s eyes these would all be unnecessary complications that highlight how democracy becomes burdensome and ineffective at large scale.
Similar to Locke, Rousseau’s conjecture on the history of society and various forms of government sounds like the rambling of an over-confident dorm-room philosopher. But he’s pretty funny, and his underlying thesis seems right to me: we are forever in chains, and our relationship with government and society is necessarily one of conflict over power. It’s striking to me that it’s more politically motivating today to allege a vast, devil-worshipping, child-grooming conspiracy than to simply frame a citizen’s relationship with their representatives as a lifelong fight, but it’s wild that JJ was writing this 250 years ago.
Similar to Locke, Rousseau’s conjecture on the history of society and various forms of government sounds like the rambling of an over-confident dorm-room philosopher. But he’s pretty funny, and his underlying thesis seems right to me: we are forever in chains, and our relationship with government and society is necessarily one of conflict over power. It’s striking to me that it’s more politically motivating today to allege a vast, devil-worshipping, child-grooming conspiracy than to simply frame a citizen’s relationship with their representatives as a lifelong fight, but it’s wild that JJ was writing this 250 years ago.
January 6, 2025
The original writing on the social contract, an interesting philosophical consideration of government. Included in this edition are Rousseau's treatment of Corsica and Poland, as imagined scenarios implementing the abstract principles from the opening. The Corsica chapter is interesting, but the Poland chapter is incredibly long and arduous. Although I like the social contract idea, I don't find either particularly good illustrations of the social contact theory, as he gets quickly bogged down in particulars of government that are far removed from the grand, philosophical ideas.
August 31, 2019
I am going back and re-reading Enlightenment Thinks as I am now teaching government at my school. I really want the students to discover just how much of an influence they had on our Founding Fathers.
I enjoyed this work but I can't say it was the most thrilling thing I have ever read. The Social Contract is an extremely important work that will live on as long as Western Civilization exists. It really should be read by everyone.
I enjoyed this work but I can't say it was the most thrilling thing I have ever read. The Social Contract is an extremely important work that will live on as long as Western Civilization exists. It really should be read by everyone.
April 12, 2020
Citizens must choose freedom over comfort, engaging in public assembly. If this is true, what has become of most modern states? Interesting look at the justification of a social state through social contract. We are forced to be free in more ways than one. Not a fan of is advocacy of aristocracy, temporary dictatorships to save a state, totalitarian civil worship of state and role in it, and general religious aim. Overall, worth the read.
February 25, 2023
The first part is a brilliant study of real democracy and what it consists of. Unlike Locke who can be used to defend nearly anything, Rousseau is clear on how absolute democracy is. As someone says, Locke is liberalism (which in my book is conservatism with a guilty consience) and Rousseau is democracy. The second part of this work is more practical, perhaps, and analyses actual forms of government. It is somewhat less engaging.
May 31, 2024
I personally found the political writings (Considerations on Poland/Proposals for Corsica) more interesting and readable than the philosophy on first read (obviously though, I’m a nerd for that kind of thing). Can almost appreciate his philosophy more after reading those plus other political philosophy that puts its arguments into context
March 3, 2025
It seems to me Rousseau and I share a great admiration for the Romans and their laws.
In Rousseau’s words: “The Romans are the people who least often infringed their laws, and they are the only people to have had such fine ones.”
In Rousseau’s words: “The Romans are the people who least often infringed their laws, and they are the only people to have had such fine ones.”
January 28, 2019
Both exhaustive in content and exhausting in reading.
August 23, 2016
Is there really such a thing as "general will", that is always correct?
February 5, 2017
I was so curious to read this book, after having heard so many people mentioning Rousseau and so far the book has not disappointed. Enlightening and enjoyable
March 4, 2025
After having read Of the Social Contract in French, I would like to add that I don't quite like this translation
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews