The Social Contract and Discourse on the Origin of Inequality

by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

This is the critical paperback edition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's seminal book, "The Social Contract".

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction, Classics, Social Science, History

258 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1967

About the author

Genevan 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.

Reviews

[Amy Layton · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not gonna lie.  When I first started this, I asked my French friend who was majoring in political science what she thought about Rousseau.  Her response was something along the lines of "I hate him because he's for everything I'm against."  Wow.  Harsh words.  Still, I plodded through, because I felt that reading some political science would make me seem smarter and be smarter.

However, I'd also like to bring up the fact that this isn't the original text, on account of it being a translation.  One thing I really appreciated about this edition was that the translator explained how and why he chose this specific translation (though I'm sure there are many more translations out there now that like...what, 50 years since the publication of this edition has passed?), and included all of the notes, prologues, and epilogues.  Knowing why he chose this particular translation helped me understand the text at a very fundamental and basic level, which is perfect because I've never read political science books before.  So, those extra tidbits were highly appreciated.

But for the text itself...dang.  I mean, this isn't exactly a novel here, so it's not like I can critique theme, main ideas, plot points, or rave about them.  And it's a subject I'm not familiar with, so I don't know exactly how Rousseau holds up against other political philosophers or how his ideas are reflective of the time period in which he lived.  Nonetheless, I'll do my best to convey my thoughts.

As I mentioned in the first paragraph, my friend was pretty obvious in her dislike for Rousseau.  At first, I didn't totally understand why--his ideas were spot on, questioned the right things, explained how inequalities came to be in a way that was understandable (though a bit boring for someone not familiar with the subject).  And then it happened.  His proposed solutions to fix these problems were a little 1984-esque, though the text obviously predates Orwell's work.  

Granted, he doesn't exactly express the want for a Big Brother, but when he begins going to town about how voting should work in his ideal society...yike.  I mean, I know that in the latest election in America, both sides of the bipartisanship we have here were shaking their heads saying, "Well, they didn't know any better..."  Rousseau thinks the same way, except he doesn't exactly give the citizens of his proposed society the option to "not know any better."  He eliminates individual thought on who the best leader of a country would be.  Don't get me wrong, regardless of who you vote for, I'm going to assume it's because you honestly think that they're the best person to run the country.  Rousseau sees no need for this, so long as there's a representative-like figure to tell you who the best person to run the country would be.

Following this, he also discusses ideological slavery.  At first, I agreed with what he said, in that he asks questions like "Are we truly free when we're so eager to please others?  Are we still [ideological] slaves under the guise of being free?"  Like, okay, yeah, these are good questions to think about, even a hundred years later.  Because dang, with all that advertising going on and all those thinkpieces being published, how can we ever have an individual and independent thought that's free from being constantly inundated by all of these external sources?  But then he delves into the question of whether it's better to be "free" when really we're still [ideological] slaves, or whether it's simply better to just be [ideological] slaves, knowing that we'll never be free.  And then he gets into some sort of human nature versus nurture, and continues this conversation for quite a while.  

Additionally, I feel it worthy to note that when he discusses ideological slavery, Rousseau simply just uses the word "slavery."  Which, don't get me wrong, I know that he's using the very literal definition, but I think we can all admit that there's a racial connotation to it, and that it'd probably be best to continue saying 'ideological slavery' even if it might get a bit redundant.  But, like I said earlier, I read a translation, so this might be partly the translator's fault.  

Overall, I'm glad I read this, and I do feel that Rousseau asks a lot of really good, really thought-provoking questions.  However, I just can't agree with his proposed ideal society, or his solutions to the problems that exist.  Ultimately, it's definitely worth reading if you like philosophy and political science books.

Get the full review here!

[Lisa · Rating 3 out of 5]

Philosophical treatise written by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 1754.

The Social Contract, Book IV, Chapter 8: Civil Religion:
At first there were no kings but theocracies, which led to polytheism because each nation had his own god, hence theological and civil intolerance. When the Romans took over and incorporated the many gods into one form of paganism, paganism became known as one religion. But then Jesus came and destroyed this unity which gave rise to persecutions because he claimed a different, spiritual kingdom. Later, Christianity became despotic and so developed a constant rivalry between the civil rulers and the church so that people's loyalties were divided.

Religion is of two kinds: of man, and of the citizen. The first without rites, altars,.. and limited to worship of the supreme God, is the pure and simple religion of the Gospel and what may be called the natural, divine law. The other is the religion of individual countries with its dogmas and rites and which extends right of men only to people of its own country. There is a third kind of religion, such as Roman Christianity and the religion of the Lamas, which gives men two sets of laws, which destroys social unity. "There remains, then, the religion of man or Christianity, ...that of the Gospel, which is quite different. By this holy, sublime, and pure religion, men, children of the same God, all recognize one another as brethren, and the social bond which unites them is not dissolved even at death." (142) But, it detaches the hearts of the citizens from the State, which is contrary to the social spirit. For example, what if an ambitious, unscrupulous man usurps authority for himself -- God wills that he should be obeyed by "good" Christians. This might led to bloodshed in order to unseat him. Furthermore, Christian troops will not be dutiful as they will not want to shed blood on behalf of the state. "Now it is very important for the State that every citizen should have a religion which may make him delight in his duties; but the dogmas of this religion concern neither the State nor its members..." "...provided they are good citizens in this life." "There is, however, a purely civil profession of faith, the articles of which it is the duty of the sovereign to determine, not exactly as dogmas of religion, but as sentiments of sociability, without which it is impossible to be a good citizen or a faithful subject." (145) "The dogmas of civil religion ought to be simple...: The existence of the Deity,.., the life to come, the happiness of the just, the punishment of the wicked, the sanctity of the social contract and of the laws; these are the positive dogmas. As for the negative dogmas, I limit them to one only, that is, intolerance; it belongs to the creeds which we have excluded." (146)

Lecture notes: He's saying what we believe in terms of our religion doesn't really matter as long as we're good citizens. But Rousseau says that the ruler can banish those who don't believe the laws related to the civil religion, and can even execute someone who doesn't behave in accordance with those laws, because you'd be lying to the state and that's the worst of all crimes. To this extent he supports a pretty intrusive state. He would reject Christianity as a potential civil religion because it divides the saved from the unsaved, which would constitute class warfare -- it's "intolerant." It's true-Christians have a divided allegiance - God first, state second. Rousseau' saying that when you have a religion that doesn't equate the state with God, then you have a split allegiance, and that's something the state can't tolerate. He wants to subsume religion to the purposes of the state. Locke said the sovereign must also be beholden to God's law, and this is what Christianity would agree with.

Part I: He asks what is the origin of the moral/political inequality between men (not the physical inequality which you're born with), that is, the fact that some are richer, more privileged, more honored, more powerful, etc. "What therefore is precisely the subject of this discourse? It is to point out, in the progress of things, that moment, when, right taking place of violence, nature became subject to law;" (176) He traces the moral development of mankind from his pre-civilized state, living in the wild, to his current "civilized" state. At the beginning, he argues, man was a kind of "noble savage": he was stronger, healthier, happier, less driven by sexual passions, not good or evil. Unlike an animal, however, he has free will and can improve himself, whereas animals are machines and stay the same. In a civil state, however, there are gross inequalities.

Part II: Here he traces the growth in inequality from its origins to the present. Private property, he says, engendered civil society, which in turn led to wars, murders, etc. "Man's first feeling was that of his existence, his first care that of preserving it." (212) This need for self-preservation gave rise to a need to learn how to surmount obstacles (like height of trees that prevented him from obtaining fruit), which led to the need to be physically fit. Obstacles varied according to climate, which led to differences in ways of living. This engendered in man the idea of certain relations: strong, swift, weak... He became aware of his superiority over other animals, which led to pride. Then "he found himself in a condition to distinguish the few cases, in which common interest might authorize him to count on the assistance of his fellows, and those still fewer, in which a competition of interests should make him distrust them." (214) Thus everyone aimed at his own private advantage, either by open force if he was stronger, or by ruse if he was weaker. This joining together for mutual interests required language, and so language grew, which in turn allowed him to make greater advances and become more industrious. He built more elaborate homes which led to the birth of families and a species of property that led to quarrels and battles. The family became a little society and men and women took on different roles. With all these changes, man had more leisure time which he employed to supply himself with conveniences. These conveniences became over time needs of which the privation of them "became far more intolerable than the possession of them..." (217) Living permanently near one another in nations with different laws and customs led men to compare themselves with one another, they acquired ideas of merit and beauty, which leads to ideas of preference and jealousy; public esteem acquired a value. Those who sang, danced the best, the handsomest, etc. came to be the most respected. The was the first step towards inequality, and at the same time towards vice. It became no longer safe for anyone to refuse esteem to another, which led to the first duties of politeness. This leads to contempt, revenge, bloodhsed, etc. if an offense is made, and man learned to be cruel.

[William Guerrant · Rating 5 out of 5]

These two treatises have inspired a lot of bad (and ultimately injurious) ideas, and some good ones too. But for better or worse, they are essential to the path of intellectual history, are foundational to much of contemporary thought, and remain thought-provoking. Rousseau's political theory is much more interesting and profound than many of his critics acknowledge, and is likewise more interesting and worthwhile than that of many of those who claim to be his intellectual and philosophical descendants.

[Robert · Rating 5 out of 5]

Has changed the world in a very positive way.

[Nene · Rating 2 out of 5]

Two out of five because I don't agree with a lot of ideas presented by Rousseau.