What do you think?
Rate this book
Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good
Who decides? Who is the Sovereign? What is a good act? In quest of answers to these vitally important questions, Bertrand de Jouvenel examines successively the nature and history of authority, the political good, the sovereign, and liberty. His concern is with “the prospects for individual liberty in democratic societies in which sovereignty purportedly resides in the whole people of the body politic.” His objective is a definition and understanding of “the canons of conduct for the public authority of a dynamic society.” Daniel J. Mahoney is Associate Professor of Politics at Assumption College. David DesRosiers is Executive Vice President at the Manhattan Institute.
389 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1955
10 people are currently reading
646 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
September 29, 2017
One of the best political treatises I have ever read. Bertrand de Jouvenel is unconventional, creative, very thorough and stringent. It's not easy to sum up, as the book is rather suggestive in nature. It doesn't so much tell you the solutions as make you think for them yourself. It gives you tools with which to overthink and analyze political problems, but doesn't force a solution on you. Still, de Jouvenel nicely avoided the kind of inconsequential navelgazing that has become so popular in political philosophy. All in all, Sovereignty reminded me a lot of The State. It's an ill-suited book both for critique and for a complete summary, so what I want to do in this review is to summarize some thoughts of his to show what you can expect if you decide to read it.
To give one example of how de Jouvenel argues, then: On the topic of liberty, he outlines the evolution of the concept from Leibniz and Voltaire, to Beccaria, Hobbes and Spinoza, towards the positive definition of liberty that is in vogue these days, in which liberty means nothing else than power. All this happened by divorcing liberty from "seigniory", the power of a man over his own domain. In the early days, it was presupposed that a man doesn't have his liberty infringed if he cannot do what lies outside his seigniory, or what is plain impossible. If you're still unsure about positive and negative liberty and how these two concepts can exist under the same name, you might wanna give this book a try. It was just as illuminating as The Ethics of Liberty was back when I had read it, but is on a higher level.
How he treats sovereignty is equally impressive. He describes how sovereignty in the modern sense can be traced back to the eleventh century, when absolutism was developed under such rulers as Philip the Fair. Before absolutism, it was acknowledged that every man had his seigniory, the king just as much as a simple farmer. The seigniory of the king was far greater, of course, but only as inviolable as that of every other person (as exemplified in the anecdote of Frederick the Great and the miller). The idea of a sovereignty that flows down from the sovereign to all his subjects was taken from the ancient Romans, and formed the basis of absolutism. One consequence of this was that democracy as we know it became possible in the first place. Before absolutism, there simply was no sovereignty that could be removed from the king and given to the people.
One of the main questions of this book is what sovereignty actually is when you detach it from legal conceptions. De Jouvenel describes it as a force with which society is formed, either by facilitating change or by suppressing it, and always exercised through the medium of other people, by influencing their behavior. The dynamic force, he calls Dux; the stabilizing, Rex. Neither of these forces must be equated with the government, or with any particular institution. In this context, de Jouvenel also talks about the ramifications of free speech, and how much depends on the question of whether truth and morality have a natural tendency to natural assert themselves or whether they stand on equal footing with untruth and immorality in this regard, a question which is not easy to answer. Along the way, he also talks about moral relativism and how it can only fail at creating lasting peace, and about freedom of speech more generally.
Another gem is his critique of paternalism, in which de Jouvenel shows how well he can handle concepts he disagrees with. Paternalism, he says, can only lead to totalitarianism. There are two options for a paternalistic sovereign: Fulfilling the subjective desires of his people, or their objective needs. The first option is unrealistic, however, as these desires are uncoordinated and frequently conflict with each other. The second option fails because it is hard to know better than an individual person what's in its interest, and impossible to know for thousand or millions of strangers that you have never met personally. To make up for this, the sovereign must first create a kind of diagram of the subject whose needs he will fulfill, and then punish everyone who deviates from this diagram. F. A. Hayek said something similar in The Road to Serfdom concerning central economic planning, so in this regard, the two books nicely supplement each other.
It's a pity that Sovereignty is such an unknown book. Political discourse would gain if it were more widely read. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it should enter the canon of political theory. That's high praise, but I think it is deserved.
To give one example of how de Jouvenel argues, then: On the topic of liberty, he outlines the evolution of the concept from Leibniz and Voltaire, to Beccaria, Hobbes and Spinoza, towards the positive definition of liberty that is in vogue these days, in which liberty means nothing else than power. All this happened by divorcing liberty from "seigniory", the power of a man over his own domain. In the early days, it was presupposed that a man doesn't have his liberty infringed if he cannot do what lies outside his seigniory, or what is plain impossible. If you're still unsure about positive and negative liberty and how these two concepts can exist under the same name, you might wanna give this book a try. It was just as illuminating as The Ethics of Liberty was back when I had read it, but is on a higher level.
How he treats sovereignty is equally impressive. He describes how sovereignty in the modern sense can be traced back to the eleventh century, when absolutism was developed under such rulers as Philip the Fair. Before absolutism, it was acknowledged that every man had his seigniory, the king just as much as a simple farmer. The seigniory of the king was far greater, of course, but only as inviolable as that of every other person (as exemplified in the anecdote of Frederick the Great and the miller). The idea of a sovereignty that flows down from the sovereign to all his subjects was taken from the ancient Romans, and formed the basis of absolutism. One consequence of this was that democracy as we know it became possible in the first place. Before absolutism, there simply was no sovereignty that could be removed from the king and given to the people.
One of the main questions of this book is what sovereignty actually is when you detach it from legal conceptions. De Jouvenel describes it as a force with which society is formed, either by facilitating change or by suppressing it, and always exercised through the medium of other people, by influencing their behavior. The dynamic force, he calls Dux; the stabilizing, Rex. Neither of these forces must be equated with the government, or with any particular institution. In this context, de Jouvenel also talks about the ramifications of free speech, and how much depends on the question of whether truth and morality have a natural tendency to natural assert themselves or whether they stand on equal footing with untruth and immorality in this regard, a question which is not easy to answer. Along the way, he also talks about moral relativism and how it can only fail at creating lasting peace, and about freedom of speech more generally.
Another gem is his critique of paternalism, in which de Jouvenel shows how well he can handle concepts he disagrees with. Paternalism, he says, can only lead to totalitarianism. There are two options for a paternalistic sovereign: Fulfilling the subjective desires of his people, or their objective needs. The first option is unrealistic, however, as these desires are uncoordinated and frequently conflict with each other. The second option fails because it is hard to know better than an individual person what's in its interest, and impossible to know for thousand or millions of strangers that you have never met personally. To make up for this, the sovereign must first create a kind of diagram of the subject whose needs he will fulfill, and then punish everyone who deviates from this diagram. F. A. Hayek said something similar in The Road to Serfdom concerning central economic planning, so in this regard, the two books nicely supplement each other.
It's a pity that Sovereignty is such an unknown book. Political discourse would gain if it were more widely read. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it should enter the canon of political theory. That's high praise, but I think it is deserved.
February 17, 2025
Bertrand de Jouvenel’s Sovereignty: An Inquiry into the Political Good is a profound and historically rich examination of the concept of sovereignty and its evolution within political thought. Originally published in French as Du Pouvoir (1945) and later expanded in English, the book stands as a key contribution to political philosophy, engaging critically with the nature, limits, and dangers of sovereign power.
Jouvenel’s central thesis revolves around the historical development of sovereignty, arguing that modern states have progressively centralized authority, often at the expense of individual liberties. He traces this evolution from medieval feudal structures, where power was fragmented and negotiated, to the absolutist states of early modern Europe, culminating in the omnipotence of the modern democratic state. Unlike classical liberal theorists, who view democracy as a safeguard against tyranny, Jouvenel provocatively suggests that democratic institutions, by consolidating power under the guise of popular legitimacy, can enable rather than restrain the expansion of sovereign authority.
A major theme of the book is the growth of power (croissance du pouvoir), where Jouvenel illustrates how sovereignty, initially conceived as a means of securing order, has become an autonomous force that continually seeks to expand its reach. He critiques Rousseau’s notion of the “general will,” warning that it can justify unchecked governmental authority in the name of the people. Drawing on historical examples, he illustrates how rulers—whether monarchs or democratically elected officials—gradually erode intermediary institutions (such as the church, aristocracy, and local governance) to establish a more direct and centralized rule.
Jouvenel does not merely critique the growth of sovereignty but also seeks to redefine its proper role. He argues that legitimate political authority should be constrained by moral and institutional limits, advocating for a form of governance that balances the necessity of state power with the protection of individual and communal freedoms. His reflections on the political good explore the need for a governing structure that does not simply impose will from above but fosters a society where individuals can freely participate in shaping their own destiny.
Jouvenel’s approach is historical and philosophical, blending detailed historical analysis with theoretical reflections. He engages with classical thinkers such as Hobbes, Bodin, and Rousseau, while also incorporating insights from Tocqueville and Montesquieu. His writing is dense and at times intricate, requiring careful attention, but it rewards readers with profound insights into the nature of power.
Since its publication, Sovereignty has been widely regarded as a foundational text in conservative and libertarian political thought. It has been influential in debates over the role of the state, particularly in discussions about the limits of democratic governance and the risks of state overreach. While some critics argue that Jouvenel’s skepticism of democratic sovereignty leans toward an overly pessimistic view of modern governance, his warnings about the concentration of power remain highly relevant in contemporary political discourse.
Bertrand de Jouvenel’s Sovereignty is an essential work for students of political philosophy, particularly those interested in the historical development of state power and its implications for liberty. His nuanced critique of sovereignty challenges both traditional and modern assumptions about political authority, making the book a valuable resource for scholars, policymakers, and anyone concerned with the relationship between power and freedom.
GPT
Jouvenel’s central thesis revolves around the historical development of sovereignty, arguing that modern states have progressively centralized authority, often at the expense of individual liberties. He traces this evolution from medieval feudal structures, where power was fragmented and negotiated, to the absolutist states of early modern Europe, culminating in the omnipotence of the modern democratic state. Unlike classical liberal theorists, who view democracy as a safeguard against tyranny, Jouvenel provocatively suggests that democratic institutions, by consolidating power under the guise of popular legitimacy, can enable rather than restrain the expansion of sovereign authority.
A major theme of the book is the growth of power (croissance du pouvoir), where Jouvenel illustrates how sovereignty, initially conceived as a means of securing order, has become an autonomous force that continually seeks to expand its reach. He critiques Rousseau’s notion of the “general will,” warning that it can justify unchecked governmental authority in the name of the people. Drawing on historical examples, he illustrates how rulers—whether monarchs or democratically elected officials—gradually erode intermediary institutions (such as the church, aristocracy, and local governance) to establish a more direct and centralized rule.
Jouvenel does not merely critique the growth of sovereignty but also seeks to redefine its proper role. He argues that legitimate political authority should be constrained by moral and institutional limits, advocating for a form of governance that balances the necessity of state power with the protection of individual and communal freedoms. His reflections on the political good explore the need for a governing structure that does not simply impose will from above but fosters a society where individuals can freely participate in shaping their own destiny.
Jouvenel’s approach is historical and philosophical, blending detailed historical analysis with theoretical reflections. He engages with classical thinkers such as Hobbes, Bodin, and Rousseau, while also incorporating insights from Tocqueville and Montesquieu. His writing is dense and at times intricate, requiring careful attention, but it rewards readers with profound insights into the nature of power.
Since its publication, Sovereignty has been widely regarded as a foundational text in conservative and libertarian political thought. It has been influential in debates over the role of the state, particularly in discussions about the limits of democratic governance and the risks of state overreach. While some critics argue that Jouvenel’s skepticism of democratic sovereignty leans toward an overly pessimistic view of modern governance, his warnings about the concentration of power remain highly relevant in contemporary political discourse.
Bertrand de Jouvenel’s Sovereignty is an essential work for students of political philosophy, particularly those interested in the historical development of state power and its implications for liberty. His nuanced critique of sovereignty challenges both traditional and modern assumptions about political authority, making the book a valuable resource for scholars, policymakers, and anyone concerned with the relationship between power and freedom.
GPT
January 13, 2019
Essential reading for any study of geopolitics, political philosophy, political science, law, the origins of liberalism or monarchy. It is very hard to read, and uses a vocabulary beyond an average level, but that can be solved with a Latin and an English dictionary. This book defines the role of sovereignty and where it came from. It goes into the role of sovereign or dux, and his or her shared responsibility with the larger group. This book explains how absolute monarchy is a recent concept, and as a result of the Enlightenment. It points out the hazards of absolute power within any form of government. It then goes into change v.s. distrust of initiative, and emerging liberalism.
November 5, 2007
de Jouvenel, Maritain and Toynbee all point to the way communities change - they note the existence of a "leaven", a small, socially and ideologically cohesive group that acts to effect change. A critical concept.
August 3, 2025
In this book Jouvenel dives deeper into history of ideas and scales down to micro-sociology of political power. Profound and beautiful but a bit too long.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews