What do you think?
Rate this book
The Major Political Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: The Two Discourses and the Social Contract
Individualist and communitarian. Anarchist and totalitarian. Classicist and romanticist. Progressive and reactionary. Since the eighteenth century, Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been said to be all of these things. Few philosophers have been the subject of as much or as intense debate, yet almost everyone agrees that Rousseau is among the most important and influential thinkers in the history of political philosophy. This new edition of his major political writings, published in the year of the three-hundredth anniversary of his birth, renews attention to the perennial importance of Rousseau’s work. The book brings together superb new translations by renowned Rousseau scholar John T. Scott of three of Rousseau’s works: the Discourse on the Sciences and Arts, the Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Among Men, and On the Social Contract. The two Discourses show Rousseau developing his well-known conception of the natural goodness of man and the problems posed by life in society. With the Social Contract, Rousseau became the first major thinker to argue that democracy is the only legitimate form of political organization. Scott’s extensive introduction enhances our understanding of these foundational writings, providing background information, social and historical context, and guidance for interpreting the works. Throughout, translation and editorial notes clarify ideas and terms that might not be immediately familiar to most readers. The three works collected in The Major Political Writings of Jean-Jacques Rousseau represent an important contribution to eighteenth-century political theory that has exerted an extensive influence on generations of thinkers, beginning with the leaders of the French Revolution and continuing to the present day. The new translations on offer here will be welcomed by a wide readership of both Rousseau scholars and readers with a general interest in political thought.
345 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1762
About the author
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
4,864 books3,075 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 - 30 of 115 reviews
March 1, 2024
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains"
"To renounce your liberty is to renounce your status as a man, your rights as a human being, and even your duties as a human being"
"Liberty isn’t a fruit of every climate, so it isn’t within the reach of every people."
"As long as a number of men gathered together regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will, which is concerned with the survival and well-being of all of them"
“Liberty is not inherent in any form of government, it is in the heart of the free man.”
Jean Jacques Rousseau
Since this is Inauguration Day I feel that I´ll be back on this book in the near future; lots of times.
20th January 2017
As I’m reading the book at least 3 great questions formed in my mind:
(1) How legitimate is Trump's electoral victory? His authority emanates from what/who?
(2) How his nationalism (“Americanism”; “America first”) won’t morph into fascism? What are the real risks?
(3) How civil liberties will be guaranteed in the Trump era?
25th January 2017
This is a good historical analysis of the foundations/legitimacy of the political power. It includes a discussion on the varieties of power structures (Democracy, Monarchy…) and their limits. Rousseau approaches the individual rights of the citizens, but I would highlight one the most important: voting; the will of the people, through voting, may check at any time the legitimacy of any government. It is suggested that Democracy is not the best form of government for all the nations, since Rousseau admits each nation should choose which form is the best.
HOW ROUSSEAU PREDICTED TRUMP
The Enlightenment philosopher’s attack on cosmopolitan élites now seems prophetic.
By Pankaj Mishra
in: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/201...
UPDATES
Eight months on his presidency it seems that on the question of the civil rights, some have a critical say; mister Zeid, UN boss for the Human Rights, is voicing criticism on Trump's "reckless driving", on subjects such as : freedom of the press, women, Mexicans, Muslims, immigration and pardoning of Arpaio. Sure, all these issues have "consequences". Check here: "Trump attacking freedom of the press: U.N. rights boss" in: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...
1st September 2017
November 4, 2022
The Social Contract ★★★★☆
A Discourse on The Arts and Sciences ★★☆☆☆
A Discourse on The Origin of Inequality ★★★★☆
A Discourse on Political Economy ★★★☆☆
Note: It's loathsomely interesting though perhaps unsurprising, that even a man like Rousseau, who asserted with all his intellectual reason that slaves are made by convention and championing the right of liberty and equality, didn't apply the same faculty of reasoning to women and basically said that they are females and not part of 'man', so thus are excluded from those rights. In a way, isn't it worse than those who thought that men are unequal?
A Discourse on The Arts and Sciences ★★☆☆☆
A Discourse on The Origin of Inequality ★★★★☆
A Discourse on Political Economy ★★★☆☆
Note: It's loathsomely interesting though perhaps unsurprising, that even a man like Rousseau, who asserted with all his intellectual reason that slaves are made by convention and championing the right of liberty and equality, didn't apply the same faculty of reasoning to women and basically said that they are females and not part of 'man', so thus are excluded from those rights. In a way, isn't it worse than those who thought that men are unequal?
February 24, 2024
in a way, Rousseau was so ahead of his time that even today, we lack what's necessary even to fathom the idea of a political structure that can be morally right. although modern-day politics seemingly reflect Rousseau's belief about the social contract, if you really pick at the seams, what we've created is a mere facade, almost a pitiful imitation of the true potential of a political structure that Rousseau speaks of.
furthermore, the language used in this book honestly romanticizes the dullness of politics.
tldr: honestly a pretty good read. if you're like not into politics whatsoever, try this book.
furthermore, the language used in this book honestly romanticizes the dullness of politics.
tldr: honestly a pretty good read. if you're like not into politics whatsoever, try this book.
Read
November 17, 2013I don't know what to make of Rousseau. On the one hand, the entire concept of the social contract seems like a hopelessly dated relic, and a completely flawed starting position for any program of political philosophy. And, I think, Isaiah Berlin was right when he heard the tap-tap-tapping of jackboots in the future-- albeit completely unbeknownst to Rousseau-- when notions about an inalienable and indivisible general will of the people were being bandied about. But, at this time, Rousseau was writing against the notion of an oligarchical, aristocratic elite in control of society, so it has to be considered in that context.
And that last clause should also be considered when we're talking about the Discourses. The notion of the "arts and sciences" as being "civilizing" was taken as gospel then, and used as an excuse for colonial horror. And inequality was stated as a necessity. Rousseau's counter-arguments, while deeply, deeply flawed, at least were counter-arguments, and revolutionary for their time.
And that last clause should also be considered when we're talking about the Discourses. The notion of the "arts and sciences" as being "civilizing" was taken as gospel then, and used as an excuse for colonial horror. And inequality was stated as a necessity. Rousseau's counter-arguments, while deeply, deeply flawed, at least were counter-arguments, and revolutionary for their time.
June 14, 2012
An excellent book, well written and quite an indictment on western civilization. While some of his ideas I thought Utopian, some are issues that are quite relevant today. It is true civilized man will be unable to return to his or her natural state, but I guess we can aspire to those aspects that are possible.
Read
October 26, 2007Rosseau was a good writer, but his ideas are wacko.
March 3, 2012
I'd rather have red hot forks in my eyes than ever read this book again!
October 21, 2015
Introduction to Nietzsche: how to shitpost at an essay competition edition.
May 3, 2018
An excellent though dated read. It has one of the most quoted opening sentences of any book to date. This book delves through what the social contract is; how it can be applied to States large and small. It goes on to detail how the Sovereign may construct and maintain a body politic within the state and rules for law making. Ending with a classic theme of the French Enlightenment on banishing the intolerance of religions.
The book can be divided into three parts: 1.) What the social compact is and how it applies to individual/collective liberties. 2.) Once the social compact is formed how the State is determined by the Sovereign and the rules for governing it large or small, i.e., democracy,republic,aristocracy etc. 3.) The lessons of Rome and of intolerance in religious dogmas as it pertains to the State.
1.) So what is the social compact according to Rousseau? It is the relinquishing of the individual will to a collective or general will of the society. This creates what is called the Sovereign which in turn creates the body politic which in turns forms the rules governing the State. While Rousseau believes that by nature man does only good, it is man's judgment of what is right and wrong that leads him astray. This judgment is influenced by society and thus society is the corrupter of the nature of man. The necessity of the social compact gives rise to moral behavior in the sense of the general will. What we loose in individual freedom, we gain in collective liberty.
2.) The State directed under the Sovereign shall be composed of magistrates to represent the people, a legislative branch, and an executive branch. Public assemblies should be required and held on specific days and upheld by the law to keep the State in check. The interesting aspect of his theoretical government is there should be a short-term (6 months or less), body politic appointed, dictator. This dictator has no power to enact anything; however, may prevent the executive or legislative branch from performing its duties if said dictator believe these branches have been corrupted.
3.) A brief history of Roman caste system and governing bodies. A look at why the State should remain independent of religious influence. Emphasizing the need for religious tolerance of all sects that tolerate one another within the State.
A few key notes to address that is apropos is that when the general will becomes influenced by private interests and votes sold for money, the state is on the brink of falling.
"To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man... For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible."
The social compact limits our individual freedoms but binds each other to a general construct that infuses us with moral behavior and righteous government so long as the general will does not become corrupted by the domination of private interests.
The book can be divided into three parts: 1.) What the social compact is and how it applies to individual/collective liberties. 2.) Once the social compact is formed how the State is determined by the Sovereign and the rules for governing it large or small, i.e., democracy,republic,aristocracy etc. 3.) The lessons of Rome and of intolerance in religious dogmas as it pertains to the State.
1.) So what is the social compact according to Rousseau? It is the relinquishing of the individual will to a collective or general will of the society. This creates what is called the Sovereign which in turn creates the body politic which in turns forms the rules governing the State. While Rousseau believes that by nature man does only good, it is man's judgment of what is right and wrong that leads him astray. This judgment is influenced by society and thus society is the corrupter of the nature of man. The necessity of the social compact gives rise to moral behavior in the sense of the general will. What we loose in individual freedom, we gain in collective liberty.
2.) The State directed under the Sovereign shall be composed of magistrates to represent the people, a legislative branch, and an executive branch. Public assemblies should be required and held on specific days and upheld by the law to keep the State in check. The interesting aspect of his theoretical government is there should be a short-term (6 months or less), body politic appointed, dictator. This dictator has no power to enact anything; however, may prevent the executive or legislative branch from performing its duties if said dictator believe these branches have been corrupted.
3.) A brief history of Roman caste system and governing bodies. A look at why the State should remain independent of religious influence. Emphasizing the need for religious tolerance of all sects that tolerate one another within the State.
A few key notes to address that is apropos is that when the general will becomes influenced by private interests and votes sold for money, the state is on the brink of falling.
"To renounce liberty is to renounce being a man... For him who renounces everything no indemnity is possible."
The social compact limits our individual freedoms but binds each other to a general construct that infuses us with moral behavior and righteous government so long as the general will does not become corrupted by the domination of private interests.
March 14, 2024
pretty idealist if you ask me but it was okay (it is theoretically the best form of governance)
March 8, 2012
'Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.' At times, Rousseau is very insightful, at other times quite narrow, but his writings are always rich in passion and historical context. The social contract is intended to represent the general will of the people, which forms a body called the Sovereign. Separate from government, the Sovereign acts in the best interests of the people and is the fabric that holds societies together. The government merely represents an officer of the Sovereign, that must always obey the Sovereign in the administration of a town or city. Rousseau in 1762 attempted to understand how to identify and enshrine the general will and develop the optimal form of government. Imagine what the world would be like if the following two questions could be periodically asked and the answers enforced: 'Does it please the Sovereign to preserve the present form of government?' and 'Does it please the people to leave its administration in the hands of those who are actually in charge of it?'
I was surprised in 'A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality' that Rousseau denounced all human advancements in favor of existing in a more 'natural' savage state. Perhaps living in ignorance is simpler, but for all the chaos of our world today, it is better to live with a clearer vision of reality. In this line of thought, I was also surprised that Rousseau denounced the arts as offering no value to society. There is though something to be said for how superficial our society is, how little we value what is most important, and how we are our own greatest burden. Rousseau does in this paper present a masterful piece in hypothesizing on the evolution of our social fabric and speech.
It is funny that over 250 years later, we still are debating the same fundamental issues. In 'A Discourse on Political Economy' Rousseau promotes the idea of taxing luxuries to minimize the level of inequalities. Some things just don't change.
I was surprised in 'A Discourse on the Origin of Inequality' that Rousseau denounced all human advancements in favor of existing in a more 'natural' savage state. Perhaps living in ignorance is simpler, but for all the chaos of our world today, it is better to live with a clearer vision of reality. In this line of thought, I was also surprised that Rousseau denounced the arts as offering no value to society. There is though something to be said for how superficial our society is, how little we value what is most important, and how we are our own greatest burden. Rousseau does in this paper present a masterful piece in hypothesizing on the evolution of our social fabric and speech.
It is funny that over 250 years later, we still are debating the same fundamental issues. In 'A Discourse on Political Economy' Rousseau promotes the idea of taxing luxuries to minimize the level of inequalities. Some things just don't change.
May 24, 2016
The book is full of gems, and at times it gets quite heavy and makes you think a lot. Some opinions can be definitely evaluated differently in our times, but certainly worth reading...
July 20, 2019
Me he tenido de aventar tres intentos, pero la tercera es la vencida, y tal parece que despues de medio año y un poco mas de 20 títulos Rousseau y yo nos llevamos bien.
January 12, 2020
For me, the Social Contract (more than his Discourses) combines 18th century writing style and vocabulary, perhaps some of his own term definitions, 18th century perspective, a philosophical / speculative presentation in parts, and older historical references. The combination made it harder to follow.
keep in mind this was written in pre-industrial and pre-corporate times, with limited historical, academic or government policy testing of possible social, political and economic options. What could seem reasonable 250 years ago may not be applicable today or may have been tried and failed since then. Newer ideas have arisen. "The victors write the history." In Rousseau's day, with fewer historians / archeologists, Rousseau may have been more dependent on this. There may be less bad anthropology than his discourse on inequality, there are stereotypes and other prejudicial assumptions.
Some parts may get various interpretations. For instance, he states that of the various types of government, monarchies require the most resources. Based on that, he says that lands which are most productive are best suited for monarchies. If he means monarchies don't survive except in very productive lands, was it true that in Rousseau's time (and earlier) monarchies were rare except in vary productive lands? While reading this, it felt like it meant if land was productive, monarchy would be a good choice.
An example of having to learn meanings: Rousseau talks of ancient Rome sometimes having a "dictator." As one reads we find this was an appointed position within certain rules for a specified period of time. In this case, he describes the situation in enough detail there isn't ambiguity, but I didn't always find that to be the case.
Here's some more bits from Social Contract:
When discussing direct decision-making by "citizens," he says:
The Greeks "had no natural greed" as opposed to other humans? Their concern was with liberty and they had slaves? Slavery doesn't involve greed? The "people" assembles, but slaves and perhaps others weren't "people?" Speaking the native language in some lands is "unfit" among fellow citizens?
Rousseau either works on two levels (idealized and "real world") or otherwise speaks at times in (for 1700's) progressive view, such as opposing slavery, and at other times using slave-based ancient Rome as an inspiring example. So, when he speaks of people voluntarily choosing to be part of a society which gives them rights and responsibilities, there's uncertainty on what kinds of individuals he truly imagines can enter into this agreement.
Rousseau writes,
Some might simply take it as outlawing slavery. But it could mean much more. Should there be one man so rich and another man so poor that when the rich man kills someone he can pay the poor man $1,000,000 to confess to the crime and the poor man is so desperate he accepts the deal to get his family out of poverty? Should a poor man be so desperate that he takes a job at a place notorious for deadly accidents, so a rich man can profit? When the rich have enough money, they can use it to get politicians to act for the rich not for the majority. I don't know how far Rousseau would go or how much this has more to do with the young capitalist class questioning the wealth of pre-capitalist elites.
Rousseau uses the word "aristocracy" to describe simple societies in which everyone lets elders decide - believing they learned from experience. Then he refers to rule by "priests, elders, senate, and gerontes" as being a similar rule. Then he says:
I assume "popular government" means all members of society decide as a group. But in the case of elders or priests, decisions aren't made by all and while all may allow elders to decide, it's not done by formal elections. When elders make decisions, it's "aristocracy." Some of Rousseau's "aristocracies" can be "elected."
At least for city-sized societies, Rousseau seemed to favor something in-between "popular government" and simple elected government. (But, again, who are "people" who can participate?)
keep in mind this was written in pre-industrial and pre-corporate times, with limited historical, academic or government policy testing of possible social, political and economic options. What could seem reasonable 250 years ago may not be applicable today or may have been tried and failed since then. Newer ideas have arisen. "The victors write the history." In Rousseau's day, with fewer historians / archeologists, Rousseau may have been more dependent on this. There may be less bad anthropology than his discourse on inequality, there are stereotypes and other prejudicial assumptions.
Some parts may get various interpretations. For instance, he states that of the various types of government, monarchies require the most resources. Based on that, he says that lands which are most productive are best suited for monarchies. If he means monarchies don't survive except in very productive lands, was it true that in Rousseau's time (and earlier) monarchies were rare except in vary productive lands? While reading this, it felt like it meant if land was productive, monarchy would be a good choice.
An example of having to learn meanings: Rousseau talks of ancient Rome sometimes having a "dictator." As one reads we find this was an appointed position within certain rules for a specified period of time. In this case, he describes the situation in enough detail there isn't ambiguity, but I didn't always find that to be the case.
Here's some more bits from Social Contract:
When discussing direct decision-making by "citizens," he says:
In Greece, all that the people had to do, it did for itself; it was constantly assembled in the public square. The Greeks lived in a mild climate; they had no natural greed; slaves did their work for them; their great concern was with liberty. Lacking the same advantages, how can you preserve the same rights? ...the flatness of your languages unfits them for being heard in the open air...
The Greeks "had no natural greed" as opposed to other humans? Their concern was with liberty and they had slaves? Slavery doesn't involve greed? The "people" assembles, but slaves and perhaps others weren't "people?" Speaking the native language in some lands is "unfit" among fellow citizens?
Rousseau either works on two levels (idealized and "real world") or otherwise speaks at times in (for 1700's) progressive view, such as opposing slavery, and at other times using slave-based ancient Rome as an inspiring example. So, when he speaks of people voluntarily choosing to be part of a society which gives them rights and responsibilities, there's uncertainty on what kinds of individuals he truly imagines can enter into this agreement.
Rousseau writes,
no citizen shall ever be wealthy enough to buy another, and none poor enough to be forced to sell himself...
Some might simply take it as outlawing slavery. But it could mean much more. Should there be one man so rich and another man so poor that when the rich man kills someone he can pay the poor man $1,000,000 to confess to the crime and the poor man is so desperate he accepts the deal to get his family out of poverty? Should a poor man be so desperate that he takes a job at a place notorious for deadly accidents, so a rich man can profit? When the rich have enough money, they can use it to get politicians to act for the rich not for the majority. I don't know how far Rousseau would go or how much this has more to do with the young capitalist class questioning the wealth of pre-capitalist elites.
Rousseau uses the word "aristocracy" to describe simple societies in which everyone lets elders decide - believing they learned from experience. Then he refers to rule by "priests, elders, senate, and gerontes" as being a similar rule. Then he says:
in popular government, all the citizens are born magistrates; but here magistracy is confined to a few, who become such only by election."
I assume "popular government" means all members of society decide as a group. But in the case of elders or priests, decisions aren't made by all and while all may allow elders to decide, it's not done by formal elections. When elders make decisions, it's "aristocracy." Some of Rousseau's "aristocracies" can be "elected."
At least for city-sized societies, Rousseau seemed to favor something in-between "popular government" and simple elected government. (But, again, who are "people" who can participate?)
It is not enough for the assembled people to have once fixed the constitution of the State by giving its sanction to a body of law; it is not enough for it to have set up a perpetual government, or provided once for all for the election of magistrates. Besides the extraordinary assemblies unforeseen circumstances may demand, there must be fixed periodical assemblies which cannot be abrogated or prorogued, so that on the proper day the people is legitimately called together by law, without need of any formal summoning.
February 24, 2026
I did a re-read of this. I am glad I did as I have a new appreciation for what Rousseau (1712-1778) puts forward for political philosophy. I also realized just how fine a writer he is. An earlier review follows this one, below.
The book is a compilation of his political works: Discourses on Arts and Sciences (1750), The Origins of Inequality (1755), and Political Economy (1755), which lay the groundwork for the fullest expression of his political philosophy, The Social Contract, 1762), which is also in this book.
Rousseau’s objective for government rule is to serve the interest of all and to restrain individual interests that come at the expense of the whole. The General Will is that which protects and promotes the common interest. Though the concept baffles many because of its high level of abstraction, it becomes clearer when it is distinguished from the particular interests of individuals. For Rousseau, a political system that is based on majority rule is at odds with the general will because it is merely a collection of individual interests, with the majority prevailing as is the case with interest group pluralism and utilitarianism. In contrast, the general will reflects the interest of all. As a rough example perhaps, it used to be that labor unions in the USA reputedly had an interest in the overall direction of the country that transcended their own interest.
Seen this way, the General Will serves as an ideal for the government (and the people under a government) to measure the legitimacy of all laws and regulations. Before anything becomes an official act of government, one must reflect on the proposal’s conformity with the ideal: the good of the whole.
For Rousseau, only governments that operate in accord with the General Will are legitimate. Beyond the solitary (“savage”) state, people must live in a society of some form, and there must be rules for how social relationships are to be governed. People, born free to serve their own preservation and welfare, must agree to a compact of some sort that allows them to have lives in common but in a way that protects their original freedom. The General Will confers legitimacy. Rousseau does not see this as a “taking away” of one’s own freedom. It’s not about sacrificing one’s own freedom in deference to the interest of the whole. Rather, there’s a mutual breaking effect whereby the fundamental interest of each - which is to say the freedom of each - is respected: One respects the freedom of others and others respect the self’s freedom in return. This reciprocal relationship is what is fair and just. Through the lens of the general will, this means that there is no imposition. (1) But it also means that there is no free riding either. Everyone has to do their fair share on behalf of the common good.
Much has been made of Rousseau’s theory of humans in their savage state as it pertains to the goodness or badness of human nature. Briefly, I think Rousseau uses the state of nature as a baseline to make a key theoretical claim: Humans (“man”) in the state of nature are solitary individuals who express their natural state of freedom. That freedom is used to serve their basic needs and to protect them from threats and harm. “Remove liberty,” Rousseau writes, and you “remove being a man.” Added to this, Rousseau believes there is a basic goodness that lies at the heart of humans living in the state of nature. In addition to mutual respect, there’s compassion, a fellow feeling, that makes social associations work, particularly at their smallest scale. (2)
Rousseau contrasts this solitary-savage state with social associations leading to civil society. It is here, civil society, where natural liberty becomes compromised, leading to the ascendancy of self-oriented behavior vis-a-vis the common good. How civil association is compromised is less than clear, but it has something to do with moving from states of equality to inequality. In a solitary state, association with others is minimal. When associations are formed, comparisons with others are formed and competition begins. (3) This spawns problematic behavior such as envy that motivates behavior that serves the self to the disadvantage of others, leading to inequality and the dominance of particular wills over the General Will. (4)
This is what Rousseau seeks to redress in The Social Contract. He does not see civil associations returning to the state of nature, but rather, being governed by the ideals implied in the General Will. Here, the form of government is as important as the culture out of which government emerges. In Emile (not in this volume), Rousseau talks about the right way and the wrong way to raise a future citizen in a civil society. Early on in the life of a child, to a great extent, the child raises himself through the interactions with its peers. He learns how to find and abide by that fine point between respecting others and respecting himself. The child learns self-sufficiency so that there is strength (Rousseau references softness and “effeminacy” repeatedly) minimal dependence on the state. The lessons of self-education this way, combined with its inherent good nature, prepares the child for life in civil society where the government reflects the general will. (5)
The ideal that Rousseau puts forward in his concept of the General Will is excellent. How the common good is defined in practice is, though, a wholly different matter. Rousseau says that the General Will should direct our behavior, as if it is “knowing” that motivates. But, as we are driven by our particular interests, why should we act against our interests? In other words, why follow the General Will if there’s no motivation to do so?
Rousseau’s answer is less than convincing. To a great extent, Rousseau answers that question by arguing that civil associations are best served from practical calculations in which reciprocity prevails. We respect the interests of others and they do the same. Rousseau also pulls in fellow feeling (a natural compassion) to supplement utilitarian calculations. Because of our innate goodness, we are moved to follow the tenets of the General Will.
Rousseau’s response is neither borne out by Darwinian theory nor history. The soft-underbelly to his thought lies with his posited solitary “man” who is inherently compassionate and inclined to respect the interests of others as well as its (to use a non-gendered term) own. From Darwinian theory, such a stripped down state never existed. How does the impulse for inequality merge from equality if it was not there from the beginning? Isn’t Rousseau operating implicitly from Newtonian principles, i.e. we are determined by outside influences? But for that to happen, something inside must be activated to get from need to desire.
Rousseau tends to blend both solitary and rudimentary (the family) in his theoretical state of nature, but, regardless, from Darwinian principles he is partially correct in his characterization of the first political associations. Survival depended on the group - parents and kin and then larger extensions. With the group, the self survives and thrives; without the group, the self dies. Far from living in a solitary state, the self’s interest was merged with the interest of the group. They were and are one and the same, and compassion and reciprocity was inherently part of the group dynamic, particularly in small groups where compliance with the General Will dictates could be monitored and enforced.
Recalling Rousseau’s emphasis on the self’s motivation for preservation and welfare, however, there is a problem. Given Darwinian variability, many individuals will neither be endowed with compassion nor dispositions that lean toward reciprocity and fairness. In particular, those with strong wills, intelligence and skill (the personal qualities referenced in footnote 4 below) can receive the benefits of group life if they are deceitful and manipulative, or can use their power to dominate group dynamics in ways that benefit the self at the expense of others. The larger the group, the more such anti-social behavior can occur without consequence. In other words, there is not one human nature as Rousseau argues, but multiple human natures - varying between the poles of self-only and other-regarding behavior - that are consistent with Darwinian theory.
Given this, we are left with something along the lines of interest-group pluralism as the default position, and we have to learn to deal with this, just as the USA’s founding fathers did at the beginning (the problem of factions; the necessity of checks and balances) and as the USA is attempting to do with its experiment in democracy. Recognizing this as a fundamental reality of large-scale civil associations, though, in no way undermines the significance of the concept that underlies the General Will, the ideal of the common good, and the formation of a political culture that emphasizes the good of all over particular interests.
1. Rousseau in The Social Contract comes up with an enforcement process in which those who refuse to comply with the General Will - i.e. those who insist upon their particular interest at the expense of the interests of all - shall be, in his infamous line, “forced to be free.” Thus, in the civil state, the individual’s natural liberty becomes transformed into civil or moral liberty.
2. Rousseau makes the point about the size of civil associations and he argues that governing for the good of all is easier in smaller groups than larger ones. Specifically, the larger the state, the lesser the liberty.
3. "Savage man” lives in the here and now and desires are limited to survival and welfare. The brain of the “civilized man” is such that it can imagine new states of being, and it expands needs into broader and future realms. This becomes desire and “the unravelling” begins. Disquiet flows from this extension beyond what is fundamental, including competition with others for things as well as status. Rousseau comes down hard on luxury. It corrupts the rich by possession and the poor by covetousness. It encourages vanity and softness. He also is critical of art. It is a superfluity that extends way beyond what is fundamental and necessary.
4. The main sources of inequality are: “riches, nobility or rank, power and personal merit” because these are “the principle distinctions by which men form an estimate of each other in society….that among these four kinds of inequality, personal qualities being the origin of all the others….”
5. Rousseau divides (as does Aristotle) governments into the many, the few, and the one (respectively, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy). He leans distinctly toward democracy as the form of government that best reflects the General Will, followed by an aristocracy (comes in three forms: natural defined by age; hereditary; and elective, which is for Rousseau the best form of aristocracy) led by individuals committed to the common interest. He also notes of the tendency of governments to degenerate from the many, to the few, to the one. In addition, he makes a critically important distinction between sovereignty and government. In his system, the people are sovereign. They are born free to be their own master. Government’s task is to implement the General Will. The state dissolves when it no longer represents the General Will: The dissolution of the state occurs “When the prince ceases to administer the state in accordance with the laws and usurps the sovereign power.” Whatever the form of government, the legislator’s main tasks are to make laws conform to the General Will; to make particular wills conform to the General Will (including, importantly, “to mold human nature” so that the citizenry becomes self-reliant and respects the interests of others); and to provide for public wants.”
Earlier Review (August 19, 2009):
Rousseau writes about biological man who is driven by self-interest (one's preservation, welfare). The need for freedom to attend to one's own needs is grounded in biology and this is Rousseau's philosophical core. Self-interest is balanced by "pity" for the sufferings of other feeling beings. Rousseau's natural man interacts with his fellows in a way that preserves a balance between respect for the self's need for freedom with a respect for the rights of others to their own freedom. His task as a political philosopher is to find a governance system that provides for further mutual advantage, yet protects one's freedom that is inalienable. His solution is the General Will concept (The Social Contract), which is kindred in spirit to Kant's notion of universal moral law, where all individual particularity ends so that nothing but the good of the whole remains.
Rousseau starts from a solid foundation, which is man's inherent need for freedom. It is a need that extends to all creatures and in this incidental way Rousseau articulates the rights of animals. Where Rousseau goes astray is his perspective that "pity" is a general capacity that applies to all men equally and that its application extends to those outside of one's circle. In a Thoreau-like critique of modern society, he rails against the corruption of arts and sciences (First Discourse) that leads us to deviate from our true nature and to become pretend (and soft) men, preoccupied with impression and advantage, which creates inequality (Second Discourse) that results in the ills of modern society and the accentuation of the particular will over the general will (Discourse on Political Economy).
Rousseau says that theorists like Hobbes take this corrupt state and project it backwards into the state of nature, which stands in contrast to his own benign view of natural man. But Hobbes's observation may be a more accurate reading of "human nature(s)" in which case the role of power to check power may be far more viable as a governing system than a general will that is premised on a less than complete picture of who we are individually and collectively. As Darwin observed, we may be more tribal than individual. Yet, Rousseau writes powerfully about man's (and "brutes'") inherent need for freedom and this alone makes for compelling reading. The introduction by translator G.D.H. Cole (Everyman Library, 1950 edition) is also very good.
The book is a compilation of his political works: Discourses on Arts and Sciences (1750), The Origins of Inequality (1755), and Political Economy (1755), which lay the groundwork for the fullest expression of his political philosophy, The Social Contract, 1762), which is also in this book.
Rousseau’s objective for government rule is to serve the interest of all and to restrain individual interests that come at the expense of the whole. The General Will is that which protects and promotes the common interest. Though the concept baffles many because of its high level of abstraction, it becomes clearer when it is distinguished from the particular interests of individuals. For Rousseau, a political system that is based on majority rule is at odds with the general will because it is merely a collection of individual interests, with the majority prevailing as is the case with interest group pluralism and utilitarianism. In contrast, the general will reflects the interest of all. As a rough example perhaps, it used to be that labor unions in the USA reputedly had an interest in the overall direction of the country that transcended their own interest.
Seen this way, the General Will serves as an ideal for the government (and the people under a government) to measure the legitimacy of all laws and regulations. Before anything becomes an official act of government, one must reflect on the proposal’s conformity with the ideal: the good of the whole.
For Rousseau, only governments that operate in accord with the General Will are legitimate. Beyond the solitary (“savage”) state, people must live in a society of some form, and there must be rules for how social relationships are to be governed. People, born free to serve their own preservation and welfare, must agree to a compact of some sort that allows them to have lives in common but in a way that protects their original freedom. The General Will confers legitimacy. Rousseau does not see this as a “taking away” of one’s own freedom. It’s not about sacrificing one’s own freedom in deference to the interest of the whole. Rather, there’s a mutual breaking effect whereby the fundamental interest of each - which is to say the freedom of each - is respected: One respects the freedom of others and others respect the self’s freedom in return. This reciprocal relationship is what is fair and just. Through the lens of the general will, this means that there is no imposition. (1) But it also means that there is no free riding either. Everyone has to do their fair share on behalf of the common good.
Much has been made of Rousseau’s theory of humans in their savage state as it pertains to the goodness or badness of human nature. Briefly, I think Rousseau uses the state of nature as a baseline to make a key theoretical claim: Humans (“man”) in the state of nature are solitary individuals who express their natural state of freedom. That freedom is used to serve their basic needs and to protect them from threats and harm. “Remove liberty,” Rousseau writes, and you “remove being a man.” Added to this, Rousseau believes there is a basic goodness that lies at the heart of humans living in the state of nature. In addition to mutual respect, there’s compassion, a fellow feeling, that makes social associations work, particularly at their smallest scale. (2)
Rousseau contrasts this solitary-savage state with social associations leading to civil society. It is here, civil society, where natural liberty becomes compromised, leading to the ascendancy of self-oriented behavior vis-a-vis the common good. How civil association is compromised is less than clear, but it has something to do with moving from states of equality to inequality. In a solitary state, association with others is minimal. When associations are formed, comparisons with others are formed and competition begins. (3) This spawns problematic behavior such as envy that motivates behavior that serves the self to the disadvantage of others, leading to inequality and the dominance of particular wills over the General Will. (4)
This is what Rousseau seeks to redress in The Social Contract. He does not see civil associations returning to the state of nature, but rather, being governed by the ideals implied in the General Will. Here, the form of government is as important as the culture out of which government emerges. In Emile (not in this volume), Rousseau talks about the right way and the wrong way to raise a future citizen in a civil society. Early on in the life of a child, to a great extent, the child raises himself through the interactions with its peers. He learns how to find and abide by that fine point between respecting others and respecting himself. The child learns self-sufficiency so that there is strength (Rousseau references softness and “effeminacy” repeatedly) minimal dependence on the state. The lessons of self-education this way, combined with its inherent good nature, prepares the child for life in civil society where the government reflects the general will. (5)
The ideal that Rousseau puts forward in his concept of the General Will is excellent. How the common good is defined in practice is, though, a wholly different matter. Rousseau says that the General Will should direct our behavior, as if it is “knowing” that motivates. But, as we are driven by our particular interests, why should we act against our interests? In other words, why follow the General Will if there’s no motivation to do so?
Rousseau’s answer is less than convincing. To a great extent, Rousseau answers that question by arguing that civil associations are best served from practical calculations in which reciprocity prevails. We respect the interests of others and they do the same. Rousseau also pulls in fellow feeling (a natural compassion) to supplement utilitarian calculations. Because of our innate goodness, we are moved to follow the tenets of the General Will.
Rousseau’s response is neither borne out by Darwinian theory nor history. The soft-underbelly to his thought lies with his posited solitary “man” who is inherently compassionate and inclined to respect the interests of others as well as its (to use a non-gendered term) own. From Darwinian theory, such a stripped down state never existed. How does the impulse for inequality merge from equality if it was not there from the beginning? Isn’t Rousseau operating implicitly from Newtonian principles, i.e. we are determined by outside influences? But for that to happen, something inside must be activated to get from need to desire.
Rousseau tends to blend both solitary and rudimentary (the family) in his theoretical state of nature, but, regardless, from Darwinian principles he is partially correct in his characterization of the first political associations. Survival depended on the group - parents and kin and then larger extensions. With the group, the self survives and thrives; without the group, the self dies. Far from living in a solitary state, the self’s interest was merged with the interest of the group. They were and are one and the same, and compassion and reciprocity was inherently part of the group dynamic, particularly in small groups where compliance with the General Will dictates could be monitored and enforced.
Recalling Rousseau’s emphasis on the self’s motivation for preservation and welfare, however, there is a problem. Given Darwinian variability, many individuals will neither be endowed with compassion nor dispositions that lean toward reciprocity and fairness. In particular, those with strong wills, intelligence and skill (the personal qualities referenced in footnote 4 below) can receive the benefits of group life if they are deceitful and manipulative, or can use their power to dominate group dynamics in ways that benefit the self at the expense of others. The larger the group, the more such anti-social behavior can occur without consequence. In other words, there is not one human nature as Rousseau argues, but multiple human natures - varying between the poles of self-only and other-regarding behavior - that are consistent with Darwinian theory.
Given this, we are left with something along the lines of interest-group pluralism as the default position, and we have to learn to deal with this, just as the USA’s founding fathers did at the beginning (the problem of factions; the necessity of checks and balances) and as the USA is attempting to do with its experiment in democracy. Recognizing this as a fundamental reality of large-scale civil associations, though, in no way undermines the significance of the concept that underlies the General Will, the ideal of the common good, and the formation of a political culture that emphasizes the good of all over particular interests.
1. Rousseau in The Social Contract comes up with an enforcement process in which those who refuse to comply with the General Will - i.e. those who insist upon their particular interest at the expense of the interests of all - shall be, in his infamous line, “forced to be free.” Thus, in the civil state, the individual’s natural liberty becomes transformed into civil or moral liberty.
2. Rousseau makes the point about the size of civil associations and he argues that governing for the good of all is easier in smaller groups than larger ones. Specifically, the larger the state, the lesser the liberty.
3. "Savage man” lives in the here and now and desires are limited to survival and welfare. The brain of the “civilized man” is such that it can imagine new states of being, and it expands needs into broader and future realms. This becomes desire and “the unravelling” begins. Disquiet flows from this extension beyond what is fundamental, including competition with others for things as well as status. Rousseau comes down hard on luxury. It corrupts the rich by possession and the poor by covetousness. It encourages vanity and softness. He also is critical of art. It is a superfluity that extends way beyond what is fundamental and necessary.
4. The main sources of inequality are: “riches, nobility or rank, power and personal merit” because these are “the principle distinctions by which men form an estimate of each other in society….that among these four kinds of inequality, personal qualities being the origin of all the others….”
5. Rousseau divides (as does Aristotle) governments into the many, the few, and the one (respectively, democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy). He leans distinctly toward democracy as the form of government that best reflects the General Will, followed by an aristocracy (comes in three forms: natural defined by age; hereditary; and elective, which is for Rousseau the best form of aristocracy) led by individuals committed to the common interest. He also notes of the tendency of governments to degenerate from the many, to the few, to the one. In addition, he makes a critically important distinction between sovereignty and government. In his system, the people are sovereign. They are born free to be their own master. Government’s task is to implement the General Will. The state dissolves when it no longer represents the General Will: The dissolution of the state occurs “When the prince ceases to administer the state in accordance with the laws and usurps the sovereign power.” Whatever the form of government, the legislator’s main tasks are to make laws conform to the General Will; to make particular wills conform to the General Will (including, importantly, “to mold human nature” so that the citizenry becomes self-reliant and respects the interests of others); and to provide for public wants.”
Earlier Review (August 19, 2009):
Rousseau writes about biological man who is driven by self-interest (one's preservation, welfare). The need for freedom to attend to one's own needs is grounded in biology and this is Rousseau's philosophical core. Self-interest is balanced by "pity" for the sufferings of other feeling beings. Rousseau's natural man interacts with his fellows in a way that preserves a balance between respect for the self's need for freedom with a respect for the rights of others to their own freedom. His task as a political philosopher is to find a governance system that provides for further mutual advantage, yet protects one's freedom that is inalienable. His solution is the General Will concept (The Social Contract), which is kindred in spirit to Kant's notion of universal moral law, where all individual particularity ends so that nothing but the good of the whole remains.
Rousseau starts from a solid foundation, which is man's inherent need for freedom. It is a need that extends to all creatures and in this incidental way Rousseau articulates the rights of animals. Where Rousseau goes astray is his perspective that "pity" is a general capacity that applies to all men equally and that its application extends to those outside of one's circle. In a Thoreau-like critique of modern society, he rails against the corruption of arts and sciences (First Discourse) that leads us to deviate from our true nature and to become pretend (and soft) men, preoccupied with impression and advantage, which creates inequality (Second Discourse) that results in the ills of modern society and the accentuation of the particular will over the general will (Discourse on Political Economy).
Rousseau says that theorists like Hobbes take this corrupt state and project it backwards into the state of nature, which stands in contrast to his own benign view of natural man. But Hobbes's observation may be a more accurate reading of "human nature(s)" in which case the role of power to check power may be far more viable as a governing system than a general will that is premised on a less than complete picture of who we are individually and collectively. As Darwin observed, we may be more tribal than individual. Yet, Rousseau writes powerfully about man's (and "brutes'") inherent need for freedom and this alone makes for compelling reading. The introduction by translator G.D.H. Cole (Everyman Library, 1950 edition) is also very good.
August 27, 2026
Like most of these classic political works, you always learn more things you missed the first time.
There are aspects of Rousseau in which I am critical. His romanticism of natural man and the ultimately malliability of human nature. However, I also appreciate his argument of popular government and that sovereignty ultimately rests with the people and cannot be given away.
We differ in the extent of that sovereign power; it is no conincidence that the French Reign of Terror lionized Rousseau while carrying out horrendous acts of brutality. But, I have come to respect him more with time. I do see the critique that every modern power politics revolutionary, whether classically Marxist or neo-anticolonialist, all share a common bedfellow with Rousseau. Discourse on social inequality basically blames property as the root of power asymmetries.
Anyway, must read foundational text, even with it's flaws.
There are aspects of Rousseau in which I am critical. His romanticism of natural man and the ultimately malliability of human nature. However, I also appreciate his argument of popular government and that sovereignty ultimately rests with the people and cannot be given away.
We differ in the extent of that sovereign power; it is no conincidence that the French Reign of Terror lionized Rousseau while carrying out horrendous acts of brutality. But, I have come to respect him more with time. I do see the critique that every modern power politics revolutionary, whether classically Marxist or neo-anticolonialist, all share a common bedfellow with Rousseau. Discourse on social inequality basically blames property as the root of power asymmetries.
Anyway, must read foundational text, even with it's flaws.
March 7, 2020
Este libro es sencillamente una maravilla.
Es una descripción detallada de lo que debiese ser la democracia en un mundo ideal, donde tanto los ciudadanos como sus gobernantes fueran personas honestas y con un mínimo de sentido social.
Me preguntó si los políticos de mi país, que en términos generales demuestran en el día a día que la corrupción es parte de su cultura, habrán leído alguna vez esta obra.
Lo triste es pensar que aunque lo hicieran, de todas formas no la aplicarían.
Es una descripción detallada de lo que debiese ser la democracia en un mundo ideal, donde tanto los ciudadanos como sus gobernantes fueran personas honestas y con un mínimo de sentido social.
Me preguntó si los políticos de mi país, que en términos generales demuestran en el día a día que la corrupción es parte de su cultura, habrán leído alguna vez esta obra.
Lo triste es pensar que aunque lo hicieran, de todas formas no la aplicarían.
December 30, 2019
It was an absolute pleasure to read Rousseau's work, his writing is simply amazing and Scott's translation was outstanding (the footnotes with the original French/Latin phrases and the potential English equivalents were invaluable).
My favorite was the 2nd Discourse (on inequality) and the angry atheist in me found the fourth book of the Social Contract to be particularly scathing. I loved every minute of it. I can't wait to read more Rousseau!
My favorite was the 2nd Discourse (on inequality) and the angry atheist in me found the fourth book of the Social Contract to be particularly scathing. I loved every minute of it. I can't wait to read more Rousseau!
February 14, 2023
Interesting concepts and ideas. Definitely from 1762 and it shows. A tough read because of the academic and theory writing which is why it is 2 stars. The theories didn’t really spark anything in me but still important to be aware of certain ideas.
October 31, 2024
Crazy dude but such a foundational thinker. “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (163).
January 8, 2022
Rousseau is a funny guy. Not sure how I feel about his argument that any sort of representation = slavery, and I doubt the perfect execution of general will can ever exist. I do agree with his point that inequality stems from mutual dependence.
January 2, 2022
"Revolution", the manual - essential reading for anyone interested in the late eighteenth century.
Read
August 4, 2025"For what right can my slave have against me, when all he has belongs to me and his right being mine.
This right of mine, against myself.."
- Rousseau
This right of mine, against myself.."
- Rousseau
December 2, 2020
Jean-Jacques Rousseau uses convincing logic, precise definitions and categorizations to prove that what he terms the social contract is what makes a government legitimate or not. The author also discusses the pitfalls awaiting legitimate governments and how they develop.
The work is divided into four "books", each of which is described below.
Book 1 - Proving that legitimacy exists
Towards the beginning of the work, Rousseau states his famous line that Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains (Chapter 1). That's a pretty daring assumption since it flies in the face of the idea behind the divine right of kings, which many kings naturally relied on to assert the legitimacy of their reigns. As a result, Rousseau needs to prove his assumption, which later provides the foundation for his social contract theory.
The author argues that man is born free by pointing to the most basic society, the family. So long as the children remain children, they are under the care of the father who only desires the love of the children. However, as soon as the children can provide for themselves (no longer needing the father's care), they leave the father and mother and, thus, gain their freedom as they provide for themselves. "If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally. but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention" (Chapter 2, First Societies). As a result, Rousseau argues that slavery is against nature and, thus, isn't a legitimate form of government since man is naturally free, meaning there is no moral authority forcing slaves to remain obedient to their masters. He also argues against the right of the strongest philosophy, pointing out that in such societies people only obey out of fear and not of any true loyalty (moral bonds) to the government. Destruction also awaits such governments, as Rousseau points out how such right by might empires - such as those built up by Attila and Tamerlane - soon fall after the founders of those societies die (Chapter 5, Necessity to go back to the first convention).
Freedom and security are the two things that, Rousseau argues, make governed societies necessary. "I suppose men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence" (Chapter 6, The Social Compact). Before coming together in governed societies, man claims property via "right of the first occupier" (Chapter 9, Real Property), but he has no real deed to the land, meaning he is in constant danger of losing it to thieves and robbers. It is only in a governed society that such deeds are handed out and legally guaranteed. Not only this, but a governed society also assists man by way of creating economies that assist and enrich everyone within the governed society. (Rousseau talks about this latter benefit in Book 3.) The problem with governed societies is the whole concept of freedom: How can man be both governed and free? Rousseau addresses that conundrum by giving the formula that he argues lends legitimacy to a government.
What a government needs in order to be legitimate is to serve the people making up that government, while at the same time providing a government that will ensure their welfare and safety. Since man is born free, it follows that any form of slavery is illegitimate, which means that the only legitimate governments are those that allow man to rule himself. Therefore, Rousseau delivers his social compact theory that allows for a man to be simultaneously governed and free: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole (Chapter 6, The Social Compact). Now to understand this statement we need to understand the precise definitions of certain words, something Rousseau spends a lot of time on. (This also requires close reading. I had to reread the first two-thirds of the book to really understand the concepts making up Rousseau's argument.)
The Sovereign, General Will, Particular Will and Civil State
Since the people are the rulers of themselves, they can never legitimately be in slavery, then they are the sovereigns. As such, they "can never bind itself, even to an outsider, to do anything derogatory to the original act [social contract], for instance, to alienate any part of itself, or to submit to another Sovereign" (Chapter 7, The Sovereign). Also, the sovereign by its definition must always do good to itself. Do you see how this precise definition of the sovereign also tells us what is and isn't legitimate for the sovereign (the government) to do? The problem is that the sovereign is made up of many people who have particular wills as individuals and a general will as a body politic (the common good, as it were). To settle this issue of the particular versus the general will, Rousseau argues that "whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body" (Chapter 7, The Sovereign).
However, this doesn't mean that men lose their natural freedom by binding themselves to the general will. In fact, Rousseau argues that men gain more freedom by becoming part of a civil state: "What man loses by the social contract in his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. ... We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty" (Chapter 8, The Civil State). The reader should note that Rousseau shows his Judeo-Christian background here as his argument in favor of binding oneself to law is similar to the New Testament's argument on how men are slaves when they do whatever they want (sex outside of marriage, for example) since it shows that they have no self-control and are slaves to their fleshly desires.
Book 2 - The social compact in action and how such societies originate
After giving readers the general outlines of a legitimate government, Rousseau goes into detail on how such a society would operate, as well as how one would come into being. In doing so, Rousseau focuses on a popular theme throughout his work: the particular will versus the general will. He also demonstrates how the concept of equality is an essential human right of any legitimate government. However, he acknowledges that while the general will is always good, the people themselves don't always know what they should will as a whole. As a result, Rousseau directs readers to the divine, a mysterious legislature and even different forms of government as the means by which an unwieldy people can initiate a legitimate government.
General Will versus the Particular Will, a balancing act
While abiding by the general will a society can fulfill the social compact's goal of attaining security for the people, the society's ignorance and individual's self-interest hinder people from being guided by the common good. However, a lack of understanding prevents people from discovering what suits their common interests, thereby setting up the stage for bad governments: "the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad" (Book 2, Chapter 3). another obstacle facing would-be legitimate governments is the self-interest of individuals, which Rousseau refers to as the particular will: "for the particular will tends, by its very nature, to partiality, while the general will tends to equality" (Book 2, Chapter 1, emphasis mine). An example of this occurs when political factions arise. Such groups have particular wills for the faction and if they come to dominate the government, the government is no longer ruled by the general will of all (equality), but by the particular will of a faction (Book 2, Chapter 3). To combat this, Rousseau advises either that no factions (political parties of today: Democrats and Republicans) be allowed, or to have as many as possible to stop one faction from dominating the body politic.
After defending the need to protect the general will, Rousseau goes onto defend the need for the particular will as a means of fulfilling the social compact's other goal: maintaining the individual's freedom within a society. "But, besides the public person, we have to consider the private persons composing it, whose life and liberty are naturally independent of it. We are bound then to distinguish clearly between the respective rights of the citizens and the Sovereign, and between the duties the former have to fulfil as subjects, and the natural rights they should enjoy as men" (Book 2, Chapter 4). As a result, while for the good of the general will society's individuals must surrender certain liberties and goods, Rousseau acknowledges that the Sovereign cannot demand more than what is necessary for the common good (Book 2, Chapter 4). Also, when demanding certain duties, the Sovereign cannot demand them of specific individuals since that would go against the concept of equality, but must make only general demands to apply to all: "It proves that the general will, to be really such, must be general in its object as well as its essence; that it must both come from all and apply to all; and that it loses its natural rectitude when it is directed to some particular and determinate object" (Book 2, Chapter 4). Here, again, we see the idea of equality being stressed in that the very demands of the sovereign must not come from a particular will - be it of a political party or individual - but from the entire body politic.
In balancing the needs of the general will and the particular wills, Rousseau argues that that an equitable government is formed. The common interests is what forms up the general will, and by the entire people being ruled by it in the same fashion they will find themselves endowed with equality. "What, then, strictly speaking, is an act of Sovereignty? It is not a convention between a superior and an inferior , but a convention between the body and each of its members. It is legitimate, because based on the social contract, and, equitable, because common to all; useful, because it can have no other object than the general good, and stable, because guaranteed by the public force and the supreme power" (Book 2, Chapter 4). Essential to all of this is the concept of equality: without the Sovereign authority treating everybody the same, then it is not abiding by the social contract and the whole idea of legitimacy is lost.
Law and Legislature
Now that the outlines of a legitimate society have been established, how does one specifically form the laws that make up such a society? Rousseau answers that question by first defining law and then pointing to a legislature as the means by which laws are created.
Laws must be explicit to protect the innocents. Roussseau argues "All justice comes from God, who is its sole source; but if we knew how to receive so high an inspiration, we should need neither government nor laws" (Book 2, Chapter 6). He also argues that reason can provide a man with a concept of right and wrong. However, without an actual law, those abiding by the law would be taken advantage of by those having no qualms breaking the law, taking advantage of their honest and unsuspecting neighbors. As noted in the previous section, the general will and by nature laws must be equitable. But what are they exactly? "Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association" (Book 2, Chapter 6). However, how can a society know what exactly it needs to address in its laws when forming its civil association? This is why Rousseau points to the need for a legislature to create laws.
Legislatures or founders of societies provides the laws by which they are ruled. This office, Rousseau argues, "nowhere enters into its [society's] constitution" (Book 2, Chapter 7). He points to the example of Lycurgus, Greek towns and the republics of then-modern Italy. Having legislative and sovereign authority in the same hands lends itself to chaos, argues Rousseau, pointing to the Roman republic as an example: "Nevertheless, the decemvirs themselves never claimed the right to pass any law, merely on their own authority. 'Nothing we propose to you,' they said to the people, 'can pass into law without your consent. Romans, be yourselves the authors of the laws which are to make you happy' " (Book 2, Chapter 7). This resulted in tyranny, Rousseau writes. The necessity of having an outside founder or legislator giving a society its laws comes from the fact that people do not know what is best for them, nor could they be bothered to investigate it. "This is what has, in all ages, compelled the fathers of nations to have recourse to divine intervention and credit the gods with their own wisdom, in order that the peoples, submitting to the laws of the State as to those of nature, and recognizing the same power in the formation of the city as in that of man, might obey freely, and bear with docility the yoke of the public happiness" (Book 2, Chapter 7). However, not everyone can convince others that he is endowed with divine knowledge, leading Rousseau to write that while philosophers may mock Judaic and Islamic law, "the true political theorist admires, in the institutions they set up, the great and powerful genius which presides over things made to endure" (Book 2, Chapter 7).
Fun Fact
I first started reading this book on a date. I was meeting up with a girl in the Wangjing subdistrict in Beijing. Seeing as how the subway ride up there was about 30 minutes long, I figured I'd bring along a thin book that I could put in my back pocket once I met up with the girl. (I hated wasting my time in Beijing.) I think I read eight pages that night, but I ended up putting the book down and never getting back to it till after the Wuhan Flu hit. After arriving back into the States, I started up on the book again and got through 80 pages (my copy is 137 pages long), but I didn't really comprehend the book and so put it down again. After a few months, I picked up the book again and decided to give it go from the beginning. I'm so glad that I did because I finally understood what Rousseau was saying.
I've ran out of space on Good Reads for the rest of this review. So I have left off here.
The work is divided into four "books", each of which is described below.
Book 1 - Proving that legitimacy exists
Towards the beginning of the work, Rousseau states his famous line that Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains (Chapter 1). That's a pretty daring assumption since it flies in the face of the idea behind the divine right of kings, which many kings naturally relied on to assert the legitimacy of their reigns. As a result, Rousseau needs to prove his assumption, which later provides the foundation for his social contract theory.
The author argues that man is born free by pointing to the most basic society, the family. So long as the children remain children, they are under the care of the father who only desires the love of the children. However, as soon as the children can provide for themselves (no longer needing the father's care), they leave the father and mother and, thus, gain their freedom as they provide for themselves. "If they remain united, they continue so no longer naturally. but voluntarily; and the family itself is then maintained only by convention" (Chapter 2, First Societies). As a result, Rousseau argues that slavery is against nature and, thus, isn't a legitimate form of government since man is naturally free, meaning there is no moral authority forcing slaves to remain obedient to their masters. He also argues against the right of the strongest philosophy, pointing out that in such societies people only obey out of fear and not of any true loyalty (moral bonds) to the government. Destruction also awaits such governments, as Rousseau points out how such right by might empires - such as those built up by Attila and Tamerlane - soon fall after the founders of those societies die (Chapter 5, Necessity to go back to the first convention).
Freedom and security are the two things that, Rousseau argues, make governed societies necessary. "I suppose men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state. That primitive condition can then subsist no longer; and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner of existence" (Chapter 6, The Social Compact). Before coming together in governed societies, man claims property via "right of the first occupier" (Chapter 9, Real Property), but he has no real deed to the land, meaning he is in constant danger of losing it to thieves and robbers. It is only in a governed society that such deeds are handed out and legally guaranteed. Not only this, but a governed society also assists man by way of creating economies that assist and enrich everyone within the governed society. (Rousseau talks about this latter benefit in Book 3.) The problem with governed societies is the whole concept of freedom: How can man be both governed and free? Rousseau addresses that conundrum by giving the formula that he argues lends legitimacy to a government.
What a government needs in order to be legitimate is to serve the people making up that government, while at the same time providing a government that will ensure their welfare and safety. Since man is born free, it follows that any form of slavery is illegitimate, which means that the only legitimate governments are those that allow man to rule himself. Therefore, Rousseau delivers his social compact theory that allows for a man to be simultaneously governed and free: Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole (Chapter 6, The Social Compact). Now to understand this statement we need to understand the precise definitions of certain words, something Rousseau spends a lot of time on. (This also requires close reading. I had to reread the first two-thirds of the book to really understand the concepts making up Rousseau's argument.)
The Sovereign, General Will, Particular Will and Civil State
Since the people are the rulers of themselves, they can never legitimately be in slavery, then they are the sovereigns. As such, they "can never bind itself, even to an outsider, to do anything derogatory to the original act [social contract], for instance, to alienate any part of itself, or to submit to another Sovereign" (Chapter 7, The Sovereign). Also, the sovereign by its definition must always do good to itself. Do you see how this precise definition of the sovereign also tells us what is and isn't legitimate for the sovereign (the government) to do? The problem is that the sovereign is made up of many people who have particular wills as individuals and a general will as a body politic (the common good, as it were). To settle this issue of the particular versus the general will, Rousseau argues that "whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body" (Chapter 7, The Sovereign).
However, this doesn't mean that men lose their natural freedom by binding themselves to the general will. In fact, Rousseau argues that men gain more freedom by becoming part of a civil state: "What man loses by the social contract in his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses. ... We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty" (Chapter 8, The Civil State). The reader should note that Rousseau shows his Judeo-Christian background here as his argument in favor of binding oneself to law is similar to the New Testament's argument on how men are slaves when they do whatever they want (sex outside of marriage, for example) since it shows that they have no self-control and are slaves to their fleshly desires.
Book 2 - The social compact in action and how such societies originate
After giving readers the general outlines of a legitimate government, Rousseau goes into detail on how such a society would operate, as well as how one would come into being. In doing so, Rousseau focuses on a popular theme throughout his work: the particular will versus the general will. He also demonstrates how the concept of equality is an essential human right of any legitimate government. However, he acknowledges that while the general will is always good, the people themselves don't always know what they should will as a whole. As a result, Rousseau directs readers to the divine, a mysterious legislature and even different forms of government as the means by which an unwieldy people can initiate a legitimate government.
General Will versus the Particular Will, a balancing act
While abiding by the general will a society can fulfill the social compact's goal of attaining security for the people, the society's ignorance and individual's self-interest hinder people from being guided by the common good. However, a lack of understanding prevents people from discovering what suits their common interests, thereby setting up the stage for bad governments: "the people is never corrupted, but it is often deceived, and on such occasions only does it seem to will what is bad" (Book 2, Chapter 3). another obstacle facing would-be legitimate governments is the self-interest of individuals, which Rousseau refers to as the particular will: "for the particular will tends, by its very nature, to partiality, while the general will tends to equality" (Book 2, Chapter 1, emphasis mine). An example of this occurs when political factions arise. Such groups have particular wills for the faction and if they come to dominate the government, the government is no longer ruled by the general will of all (equality), but by the particular will of a faction (Book 2, Chapter 3). To combat this, Rousseau advises either that no factions (political parties of today: Democrats and Republicans) be allowed, or to have as many as possible to stop one faction from dominating the body politic.
After defending the need to protect the general will, Rousseau goes onto defend the need for the particular will as a means of fulfilling the social compact's other goal: maintaining the individual's freedom within a society. "But, besides the public person, we have to consider the private persons composing it, whose life and liberty are naturally independent of it. We are bound then to distinguish clearly between the respective rights of the citizens and the Sovereign, and between the duties the former have to fulfil as subjects, and the natural rights they should enjoy as men" (Book 2, Chapter 4). As a result, while for the good of the general will society's individuals must surrender certain liberties and goods, Rousseau acknowledges that the Sovereign cannot demand more than what is necessary for the common good (Book 2, Chapter 4). Also, when demanding certain duties, the Sovereign cannot demand them of specific individuals since that would go against the concept of equality, but must make only general demands to apply to all: "It proves that the general will, to be really such, must be general in its object as well as its essence; that it must both come from all and apply to all; and that it loses its natural rectitude when it is directed to some particular and determinate object" (Book 2, Chapter 4). Here, again, we see the idea of equality being stressed in that the very demands of the sovereign must not come from a particular will - be it of a political party or individual - but from the entire body politic.
In balancing the needs of the general will and the particular wills, Rousseau argues that that an equitable government is formed. The common interests is what forms up the general will, and by the entire people being ruled by it in the same fashion they will find themselves endowed with equality. "What, then, strictly speaking, is an act of Sovereignty? It is not a convention between a superior and an inferior , but a convention between the body and each of its members. It is legitimate, because based on the social contract, and, equitable, because common to all; useful, because it can have no other object than the general good, and stable, because guaranteed by the public force and the supreme power" (Book 2, Chapter 4). Essential to all of this is the concept of equality: without the Sovereign authority treating everybody the same, then it is not abiding by the social contract and the whole idea of legitimacy is lost.
Law and Legislature
Now that the outlines of a legitimate society have been established, how does one specifically form the laws that make up such a society? Rousseau answers that question by first defining law and then pointing to a legislature as the means by which laws are created.
Laws must be explicit to protect the innocents. Roussseau argues "All justice comes from God, who is its sole source; but if we knew how to receive so high an inspiration, we should need neither government nor laws" (Book 2, Chapter 6). He also argues that reason can provide a man with a concept of right and wrong. However, without an actual law, those abiding by the law would be taken advantage of by those having no qualms breaking the law, taking advantage of their honest and unsuspecting neighbors. As noted in the previous section, the general will and by nature laws must be equitable. But what are they exactly? "Laws are, properly speaking, only the conditions of civil association" (Book 2, Chapter 6). However, how can a society know what exactly it needs to address in its laws when forming its civil association? This is why Rousseau points to the need for a legislature to create laws.
Legislatures or founders of societies provides the laws by which they are ruled. This office, Rousseau argues, "nowhere enters into its [society's] constitution" (Book 2, Chapter 7). He points to the example of Lycurgus, Greek towns and the republics of then-modern Italy. Having legislative and sovereign authority in the same hands lends itself to chaos, argues Rousseau, pointing to the Roman republic as an example: "Nevertheless, the decemvirs themselves never claimed the right to pass any law, merely on their own authority. 'Nothing we propose to you,' they said to the people, 'can pass into law without your consent. Romans, be yourselves the authors of the laws which are to make you happy' " (Book 2, Chapter 7). This resulted in tyranny, Rousseau writes. The necessity of having an outside founder or legislator giving a society its laws comes from the fact that people do not know what is best for them, nor could they be bothered to investigate it. "This is what has, in all ages, compelled the fathers of nations to have recourse to divine intervention and credit the gods with their own wisdom, in order that the peoples, submitting to the laws of the State as to those of nature, and recognizing the same power in the formation of the city as in that of man, might obey freely, and bear with docility the yoke of the public happiness" (Book 2, Chapter 7). However, not everyone can convince others that he is endowed with divine knowledge, leading Rousseau to write that while philosophers may mock Judaic and Islamic law, "the true political theorist admires, in the institutions they set up, the great and powerful genius which presides over things made to endure" (Book 2, Chapter 7).
Fun Fact
I first started reading this book on a date. I was meeting up with a girl in the Wangjing subdistrict in Beijing. Seeing as how the subway ride up there was about 30 minutes long, I figured I'd bring along a thin book that I could put in my back pocket once I met up with the girl. (I hated wasting my time in Beijing.) I think I read eight pages that night, but I ended up putting the book down and never getting back to it till after the Wuhan Flu hit. After arriving back into the States, I started up on the book again and got through 80 pages (my copy is 137 pages long), but I didn't really comprehend the book and so put it down again. After a few months, I picked up the book again and decided to give it go from the beginning. I'm so glad that I did because I finally understood what Rousseau was saying.
I've ran out of space on Good Reads for the rest of this review. So I have left off here.
Read
December 1, 2016From: http://thesecondtransition.blogspot.c...
(To give some context to the upcoming quote: Rousseau talks about how in the Pre-Monotheistic world culture, religion and politics where all one and the same. Every State had his God that was fighting for the best of his people, a war was a war between the Gods, and when you lost, it meant that your God lost. A concept such as a nation in exile simply did not exist. If a nation was exiled, their nationality disappeared, and they became part of a new nation and God/s)
“But when the Jews, while in subjection to the kings of Babylon and later the kings of Syria, wanted to remain steadfast in not giving recognition to any other god but their own (think about Haman’s arguments in the Book of Esther), their refusal, seen as rebellion against the victor, brought them the persecutions we read in their history, and of which there is no other precedent prior to Christianity.”
“Since this new idea of an otherworldly kingdom (-that Jesus speaks about) had never entered to head of the pagans, they always regarded Christianity as true rebels who, underneath their hypothetical submission, were only waiting for the moment when they would become independent and the masters, and adroitly they pretended in their weakness to respect. This is the reason for the persecution.”
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Book IV, chapter 8
Throughout generations they were, and are, countless probes to explain Anti-Semitism. None of them are valid excuses, but the questions stands, why the hate? To some extend his first explanation is something that explains it a bit, as well as the hate that every culture until the modern era had against minority cultures. However, it will be foolish to say that this is the main reason. True, minorities were persecuted, but historically none of them had it as bad as the Jews. In every place, in every generation, and in almost every society, the Jew was the devil. If someone should understand their refusal to surrender it should have been Christians, but in fact, they oppressed them the most, and the worst.
Nevertheless, in the second explanation that he gives - the feeling that they are hypocritical towards the local government got me. Until today, this explanation is valid, and I have to say, understandable (although not excusable). A society that is living in a land they will never consider their homeland, a land that they pray three times a day that its government should be destroyed, is hard for anyone to swallow. Right they were told to respect to local authorities, but isn’t that exactly “pretending in their weakness” (in our case physical weakness, or a religious believe of having to wait for the Messiah) that he talks about? While in reality, they are hoping, and waiting to be “the masters.”
I cannot talk for all religious Jews, but I can talk for the culture I was raised in, they definitely think so. Moreover, when reading Rabbinical texts from the Talmud to the last generations, this is their attitude.
I know talking about that, and saying that is controversial. However, at least as liberal Jews when we try to tackle the problem of Anti-Semitism, perhaps this is something we should keep in mind. Several leaders of the nineteenth century Haskalah, including Theodore Herzl in the beginning, believed that the only way to solve Anti-Semitism is through assimilation. Henceforward, maybe we should listen to one of the biggest political thinkers in history - Rousseau, and reevaluate the way we think about our local governments - as Jews.
I know, a lot, and maybe most liberal Jews agree to that and feel the same, but it is still something that we need to work on. Just think about how some feel when it comes to Israel. Shhh... I did not say that.
(To give some context to the upcoming quote: Rousseau talks about how in the Pre-Monotheistic world culture, religion and politics where all one and the same. Every State had his God that was fighting for the best of his people, a war was a war between the Gods, and when you lost, it meant that your God lost. A concept such as a nation in exile simply did not exist. If a nation was exiled, their nationality disappeared, and they became part of a new nation and God/s)
“But when the Jews, while in subjection to the kings of Babylon and later the kings of Syria, wanted to remain steadfast in not giving recognition to any other god but their own (think about Haman’s arguments in the Book of Esther), their refusal, seen as rebellion against the victor, brought them the persecutions we read in their history, and of which there is no other precedent prior to Christianity.”
“Since this new idea of an otherworldly kingdom (-that Jesus speaks about) had never entered to head of the pagans, they always regarded Christianity as true rebels who, underneath their hypothetical submission, were only waiting for the moment when they would become independent and the masters, and adroitly they pretended in their weakness to respect. This is the reason for the persecution.”
- Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Book IV, chapter 8
Throughout generations they were, and are, countless probes to explain Anti-Semitism. None of them are valid excuses, but the questions stands, why the hate? To some extend his first explanation is something that explains it a bit, as well as the hate that every culture until the modern era had against minority cultures. However, it will be foolish to say that this is the main reason. True, minorities were persecuted, but historically none of them had it as bad as the Jews. In every place, in every generation, and in almost every society, the Jew was the devil. If someone should understand their refusal to surrender it should have been Christians, but in fact, they oppressed them the most, and the worst.
Nevertheless, in the second explanation that he gives - the feeling that they are hypocritical towards the local government got me. Until today, this explanation is valid, and I have to say, understandable (although not excusable). A society that is living in a land they will never consider their homeland, a land that they pray three times a day that its government should be destroyed, is hard for anyone to swallow. Right they were told to respect to local authorities, but isn’t that exactly “pretending in their weakness” (in our case physical weakness, or a religious believe of having to wait for the Messiah) that he talks about? While in reality, they are hoping, and waiting to be “the masters.”
I cannot talk for all religious Jews, but I can talk for the culture I was raised in, they definitely think so. Moreover, when reading Rabbinical texts from the Talmud to the last generations, this is their attitude.
I know talking about that, and saying that is controversial. However, at least as liberal Jews when we try to tackle the problem of Anti-Semitism, perhaps this is something we should keep in mind. Several leaders of the nineteenth century Haskalah, including Theodore Herzl in the beginning, believed that the only way to solve Anti-Semitism is through assimilation. Henceforward, maybe we should listen to one of the biggest political thinkers in history - Rousseau, and reevaluate the way we think about our local governments - as Jews.
I know, a lot, and maybe most liberal Jews agree to that and feel the same, but it is still something that we need to work on. Just think about how some feel when it comes to Israel. Shhh... I did not say that.
August 31, 2026
When one finds out that a self-”taught” (and really even that may have been pushing it hence the quotes) peripatetic music teacher who could barely keep a job down let alone a patron more or less found out about a quaint essay contest being held on an almost smug-for-the-sake-of-smugness theme of “Whether the restoration of the sciences and the arts has contributed to purifying morals” and penned a somewhat brief treatise that not only came out of left field, but provided the exact *opposite* answer the contest holders were expecting and ended up winning AND because of that quickly shot up in regional fame, you have to begin wondering about all the hours we moderns waste on social media doomscrolling and the like. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not born into wealth, nor fame, and certainly not success. Going by what we learn in this incredibly well organized and translated collection of his political writings, the arts and sciences he scoffed at which is kind of ironic—a “paradox” as noted in the book’s immensely helpful and prolix introduction—given without the Enlightenment being in full swing by his time, he’d probably never achieved the fame he gained.
Thus, by his backstory alone, Rousseau is someone I have found to be fond of. Of course, the man of paradoxes had his dark side and while the introduction nor the treatises don’t cover it, he was in some regards a pretty terrible person and absolutely a gold medal holder among bad fathers. His views also are unique and provide a great counterbalance to how society advances man, but it may be hard to find full agreement with someone whom as we learn in another of his well-known works, “Emile, or On Education” (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/emile-...), that all a child really needs as a textbook is nothing but Robinson Crusoe. Not even the Bible. Go figure. With that mindset, you’re going to have a weird kid and later on, a weird traveling ho-hum music teacher who somehow can write out timeless tracts.
As this is a book review on his most well known writings and not a meandering piece on the man himself, allow me to zero in now on why in spite of his unusual background and beliefs, he’s still worth reading even centuries after the ink has run dry. For starters, The University of Chicago Press continues to keep the quality at nonpareil levels. This is a fresh translation by an expert in the field, John T. Scott (https://ps.ucdavis.edu/people/john-scott) that is chock full of footnotes that unless one is familiar already with the man and his output, you really will need. And then there’s the introduction which even for books of this kind is beefy and gives you all the background you’d want and then some. The temptation to read an older public domain translation would be tempting, but the non-expert would be making a grave mistake.
I learned a lot from this. But what, exactly? And if we follow Rousseau’s philosophy in a nutshell that “the natural goodness of man and his corruption in society” (eBook introduction, location 194), what else is there for one to achieve? Society corrupts, he says and most anything we take as advancement such as the arts and sciences, the subject of that first Discourse, allegedly comes from vice. So why bother then? “Men are perverse; they would be even worse if they had had the misfortune to be born learned” (page 20) Rousseau claims, but if we are born ignorant and ‘good’, surely there is a con in simply not trying to find out what lies beyond a distant hill, why the sun rises in one direction and sets in the other, and the whole thing with the moon constantly getting bigger and smaller (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/our-mo...). There’s a difference between ‘evil’ and ‘curiosity’ and given my own moral compass (trying) to look at the best in what we do, the pursuit of knowledge is akin to the pursuit of happiness, something that may in fact be the main theme of the Enlightenment (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-en...).
That doesn’t mean Rousseau is dead wrong. Far from it! The biggest “that man has a point!” moment we get in this excellent collection happens early on and I will cite it in full here:
Already in the Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, the one that really got my attention, from all the way back in 1750, the push for form over function was in full swing. Hell, one can go back even further, but the ills of modernity may be far from modern and simply the steady advancement of a race to the bottom, of beauty over need, of style over substance. One can go forward too and I metaphorically felt the hair on my arms raising when Rousseau almost saw the darkness coming in mere decades when he wrote in the second Discourse on Inequality: “Knowing nature so little and agreeing so poorly on the meaning of the term law, it would be quite difficult to agree on a good definition of natural law.” (page 54) I say this thanks to only earlier this year reading “The Terror of Natural Right: Republicanism, the Cult of Nature, & the French Revolution” by Dan Edelstein (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-te...) which beyond being a book that keeps on giving shows almost exactly what happened when those in charge wanted to abide by “natural law” but could not decide on what it is beyond basic “feels” that expanded day by day leading to an ever growing number of those deemed against it literally losing their heads.
It’s going to be tempting to go hard on the ‘thoughts’ aspect of what really is a book review. With Rousseau, I don’t know exactly where I stand with him as I do with someone like Seneca (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/letter...). I also far and away am not a political scientist. For sure his view on animals is far and away wrong: “I see in every animal only an ingenious machine to which nature has given senses to revitalize itself and protect itself, up to a certain point, from everything that tends to destroy or disturb it.” (Discourse on Inequality, page 71) But I also find myself nodding in understanding when in the Social Contract he notes: “Free peoples, remember this maxim: freedom can be acquired, but is never recovered.” (page 195)
And then—and sorry, just one more before closing this out—there’s Rousseau the...prophet? Could he have foreseen something his peers missed? So ominous and only a few decades off! Behold: “In Europe there is still a country capable of receiving legislation: it is the island of Corsica. The valor and constancy with which that brave people has been able to recover and defend its freedom would amply deserve having some wise man teach it how to preserve it. I rather suspect that one day this small island will astonish Europe.” (page 199-200)
Judging such a monumental work is essentially impossible. I can really only write on how the three pieces affected me and it basically comes down to: (first Discourse) interesting contrarian take, not sure if I fully agree, (second Discourse) the man may have a point but not everyone wants to live like Robinson Crusoe, (the Social Contract) incredible and astute observations that may only make sense in hindsight but written decades before the American experiment began really show how influential it was to our world today. The translation quality? I don’t speak French and even modern French speakers may not get a ‘pass’ as the argon of the 18th century may not be a perfect match to what counts as the norm today. Even John T. Scott could not avoid a burn when in the introduction he wrote: “Readers interested in examining Rousseau’s prose more closely ultimately have a single route open to them: read him in the original French.” (location 815) That leaves me out of the “OG” fray and at mercy of being a modern in a land far and away not 18th century France or even the France of our era. I’m neither a “savage” (by Rousseau’s meaning at least) and not necessarily someone who fully agrees with him. If anything, I can respect his opinions as well-written as they are, but also disagree with his reasoning. That, however, would make a long review all the more longer and can be a tale for another day.
Thus, by his backstory alone, Rousseau is someone I have found to be fond of. Of course, the man of paradoxes had his dark side and while the introduction nor the treatises don’t cover it, he was in some regards a pretty terrible person and absolutely a gold medal holder among bad fathers. His views also are unique and provide a great counterbalance to how society advances man, but it may be hard to find full agreement with someone whom as we learn in another of his well-known works, “Emile, or On Education” (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/emile-...), that all a child really needs as a textbook is nothing but Robinson Crusoe. Not even the Bible. Go figure. With that mindset, you’re going to have a weird kid and later on, a weird traveling ho-hum music teacher who somehow can write out timeless tracts.
As this is a book review on his most well known writings and not a meandering piece on the man himself, allow me to zero in now on why in spite of his unusual background and beliefs, he’s still worth reading even centuries after the ink has run dry. For starters, The University of Chicago Press continues to keep the quality at nonpareil levels. This is a fresh translation by an expert in the field, John T. Scott (https://ps.ucdavis.edu/people/john-scott) that is chock full of footnotes that unless one is familiar already with the man and his output, you really will need. And then there’s the introduction which even for books of this kind is beefy and gives you all the background you’d want and then some. The temptation to read an older public domain translation would be tempting, but the non-expert would be making a grave mistake.
I learned a lot from this. But what, exactly? And if we follow Rousseau’s philosophy in a nutshell that “the natural goodness of man and his corruption in society” (eBook introduction, location 194), what else is there for one to achieve? Society corrupts, he says and most anything we take as advancement such as the arts and sciences, the subject of that first Discourse, allegedly comes from vice. So why bother then? “Men are perverse; they would be even worse if they had had the misfortune to be born learned” (page 20) Rousseau claims, but if we are born ignorant and ‘good’, surely there is a con in simply not trying to find out what lies beyond a distant hill, why the sun rises in one direction and sets in the other, and the whole thing with the moon constantly getting bigger and smaller (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/our-mo...). There’s a difference between ‘evil’ and ‘curiosity’ and given my own moral compass (trying) to look at the best in what we do, the pursuit of knowledge is akin to the pursuit of happiness, something that may in fact be the main theme of the Enlightenment (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-en...).
That doesn’t mean Rousseau is dead wrong. Far from it! The biggest “that man has a point!” moment we get in this excellent collection happens early on and I will cite it in full here:
“From where do all these abuses arise, if not from the fatal inequality introduced among men by the distinction of talents and by the degradation of virtues? This is the most obvious effect of all our studies and the most dangerous of all their consequences. It is no longer asked of a man whether he has integrity but whether he has talents, or of a book whether it is useful but whether it is well written. Rewards are bestowed on the witty and virtue remains without honors. There are a thousand prizes for fine discourses, none for fine actions.” (page 32)
Already in the Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, the one that really got my attention, from all the way back in 1750, the push for form over function was in full swing. Hell, one can go back even further, but the ills of modernity may be far from modern and simply the steady advancement of a race to the bottom, of beauty over need, of style over substance. One can go forward too and I metaphorically felt the hair on my arms raising when Rousseau almost saw the darkness coming in mere decades when he wrote in the second Discourse on Inequality: “Knowing nature so little and agreeing so poorly on the meaning of the term law, it would be quite difficult to agree on a good definition of natural law.” (page 54) I say this thanks to only earlier this year reading “The Terror of Natural Right: Republicanism, the Cult of Nature, & the French Revolution” by Dan Edelstein (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/the-te...) which beyond being a book that keeps on giving shows almost exactly what happened when those in charge wanted to abide by “natural law” but could not decide on what it is beyond basic “feels” that expanded day by day leading to an ever growing number of those deemed against it literally losing their heads.
It’s going to be tempting to go hard on the ‘thoughts’ aspect of what really is a book review. With Rousseau, I don’t know exactly where I stand with him as I do with someone like Seneca (https://kobushi.substack.com/p/letter...). I also far and away am not a political scientist. For sure his view on animals is far and away wrong: “I see in every animal only an ingenious machine to which nature has given senses to revitalize itself and protect itself, up to a certain point, from everything that tends to destroy or disturb it.” (Discourse on Inequality, page 71) But I also find myself nodding in understanding when in the Social Contract he notes: “Free peoples, remember this maxim: freedom can be acquired, but is never recovered.” (page 195)
And then—and sorry, just one more before closing this out—there’s Rousseau the...prophet? Could he have foreseen something his peers missed? So ominous and only a few decades off! Behold: “In Europe there is still a country capable of receiving legislation: it is the island of Corsica. The valor and constancy with which that brave people has been able to recover and defend its freedom would amply deserve having some wise man teach it how to preserve it. I rather suspect that one day this small island will astonish Europe.” (page 199-200)
Judging such a monumental work is essentially impossible. I can really only write on how the three pieces affected me and it basically comes down to: (first Discourse) interesting contrarian take, not sure if I fully agree, (second Discourse) the man may have a point but not everyone wants to live like Robinson Crusoe, (the Social Contract) incredible and astute observations that may only make sense in hindsight but written decades before the American experiment began really show how influential it was to our world today. The translation quality? I don’t speak French and even modern French speakers may not get a ‘pass’ as the argon of the 18th century may not be a perfect match to what counts as the norm today. Even John T. Scott could not avoid a burn when in the introduction he wrote: “Readers interested in examining Rousseau’s prose more closely ultimately have a single route open to them: read him in the original French.” (location 815) That leaves me out of the “OG” fray and at mercy of being a modern in a land far and away not 18th century France or even the France of our era. I’m neither a “savage” (by Rousseau’s meaning at least) and not necessarily someone who fully agrees with him. If anything, I can respect his opinions as well-written as they are, but also disagree with his reasoning. That, however, would make a long review all the more longer and can be a tale for another day.
Read
April 24, 2017Creo que este texto es esencial para entender las instituciones republicanas que tenemos hoy en día. Pero no porque sigan al pie de la letra las palabras de Rousseau... sino porque precisamente no lo hacen. El texto llamado El Contrato Social es una exposición sobre cómo debería gobernarse un pueblo de hombres libres para continuar siéndolo. Este texto inspiró a los franceses revolucionarios en su día (aunque no seguían su pensamiento al pie de la letra) y se ha empleado a menudo para defender los valores republicanos de la mal llamada democracia actual de Occidente (que según Rousseau no sería una democracia).
En mi opinión para leer este texto hay que tener en cuenta dos cosas: La época en que se escribió: 1762, antes de la declaración de independencia estadounidense y la revolución francesa en plena ilustración; y también el propio pensamiento de Rousseau, que era bien particular incluso para el tiempo de la ilustración. Mi recomendación es que, antes de leer el contrato social leas los dos discursos de Rousseau: El discurso sobre las artes y las ciencias, y el discurso sobre el origen de las desigualdades (especialmente este último).
Lo notable de Rousseau es que, estés de acuerdo o no con él (hay gente que cree que Rousseau y este contrato inspiraron al marxismo enfocándose mucho en algo que llama la voluntad general) no te deja indiferente y se trata netamente de conclusiones razonadas a priori pero muy bien fundamentadas en general. Él pensó mucho en todo lo que comentó antes de llevarlo al libro.
Pienso que debe ser uno de los libros más conocidos y menos estudiados seriamente de la historia del pensamiento moderno. Lo digo porque soy escéptico de la democracia representativa al menos tal y como está planteada pero no lo había leído y reafirmó mi punto de vista. Sin embargo, tan sólo por el hecho de haber tenido la influencia que tuvo, la obra de Rousseau es imprescindible.
En mi opinión para leer este texto hay que tener en cuenta dos cosas: La época en que se escribió: 1762, antes de la declaración de independencia estadounidense y la revolución francesa en plena ilustración; y también el propio pensamiento de Rousseau, que era bien particular incluso para el tiempo de la ilustración. Mi recomendación es que, antes de leer el contrato social leas los dos discursos de Rousseau: El discurso sobre las artes y las ciencias, y el discurso sobre el origen de las desigualdades (especialmente este último).
Lo notable de Rousseau es que, estés de acuerdo o no con él (hay gente que cree que Rousseau y este contrato inspiraron al marxismo enfocándose mucho en algo que llama la voluntad general) no te deja indiferente y se trata netamente de conclusiones razonadas a priori pero muy bien fundamentadas en general. Él pensó mucho en todo lo que comentó antes de llevarlo al libro.
Pienso que debe ser uno de los libros más conocidos y menos estudiados seriamente de la historia del pensamiento moderno. Lo digo porque soy escéptico de la democracia representativa al menos tal y como está planteada pero no lo había leído y reafirmó mi punto de vista. Sin embargo, tan sólo por el hecho de haber tenido la influencia que tuvo, la obra de Rousseau es imprescindible.
April 15, 2015
Rousseau is a philosophical genius, but unfortunately, many of his ideas do not formulate a cohesive pattern of application to the practical world. His ideas are intriguing, yet they also are sporadic and hap-hazardous and much of it seem more ambiguous as opposed to rationally practical. One may not find the former shocking of critique by other philosophes. However Rousseau is still a critical figure as his work (this one in particular) caught the attention of Immanuel Kant, who tried to decipher Rousseau's idea and be able to solidify the kantian philosophy.
October 8, 2009
"For it is by no means a light undertaking to distinguish properly between what is original and what is artificial in the actual nature of man, or to form a true idea of a state which no longer exists, perhaps never did exist, and probably never will exist; and of which it is, nevertheless, necessary to have true ideas, in order to form a proper judgment of our present state."
October 10, 2025
Torn on how to rate this. On the one hand Rousseau really can a phrase and is full of one-liners. On the other hand the detrimental effects of his philosophy on the West in sizable and has set us back centuries.
SC is, for what it’s worth, much more enjoyable the the Emile. Somehow it’s easier to read charitably than a work on parenting penned by a man of sired several bastard children.
SC is, for what it’s worth, much more enjoyable the the Emile. Somehow it’s easier to read charitably than a work on parenting penned by a man of sired several bastard children.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 115 reviews