26

Jean Jacques Rousseau

(1712-1770 A.D.)

Jean Jacques Rousseau was bom in 1712, in Qeneva of parents of French

protestants ancestry, in a middle class family. His father was a watch-maker but
became a dance master and went to Constahtipole leaving his mother who urged him
to come again. After this reunion Rousseau was bom, ill and weak and her mother
dies. Issac, the father of Rousseau brought him up without giving him proper
education, but forced him to read about erotic romances all night, which, according to
Rousseau, “Gave me wonderful romantic impressions of life.”
At the age of ten his father entrusted Rousseau to his uncle’s care and left
Geneva. Upto the age of 13, Rousseau had to work as an apprentice under a cruel
engraver. When 16, Rousseau left home and led a life of vagabond for 20 years
wandering at different places. In 1742, he tried many trades but met with no success.
He was very much disappointed but with the help of his friend, he got a post in the
French Embassy at Vienna. But he was soon dismissed. He again came to Paris and
opened a hotel. Here Cauasser, a servant in hotel became his real and lasting friend.
In the year of 1742, the Acadamy of Dizon announced a prize for the best essay
on the subject, “Has the progress of science and arts contributed to corrupt or purify
morals?” Rousseau presented his thesis that the progress of sciences and arts tended to
degrade the human morality. He wrote an essay which depicted an early state of society in
which all men lived under conditions of simplicity and innocence and traced the present
evils of society to the thirst of knowledge and to the addition of artificialities of
civilization. He won the prize which made a great sensation. It was the first ramble of
revolution. In 1753, Rousseau wrote another essay on “What is the origin of inequality
among ' men and is it authorized by natural laws"?”
Later on in 1755-1761 Rousseau wrote many of his important books. In 1762, he
left Paris and led a life of vagabond for 16 years. This was a period £ of gloom, failing
health, broken spirit, haunting terrors, paralysing illusions and r of accumulating despair
according to Heamshaw.
I
|cs) Scanned with CamScanner
Rousseau’s Writings
1. Two essays written for Acadamy.
2. Contract Social or The Principles of Political Right — published in 1762 is
most famous.
3. Emile dealing with education.
4. Confessions.
5. The Dialogues.
6. The Reveries — Published between 1762-1770.
Rousseau’s books rebelled against the rational thinking of his age. He brought out
the problems and conflicts inherent in civilised societies.
Bonald declared that he wished “to make constant the inconstant, to order
disorder.” Lamennais wrote that his work was “‘a sacrilegious declaration of war against
society and against God.” He is also regarded, as the extreme absolutist, the precursor , of
nineteenth-century German idealism. Constant said of him that “he is the most terrible ally
of despotism in all its forms.” Duguit remarked that “J. J. Rousseau is the father of
Jacobian despotism, of Caesarian dictatorship, and the inspire of the absolutist doctrines
of Kant and of Hegel.” As such, he is both extreme individualist and extreme absolutist ?
•.; “A stem asserter of the State on the one hand,” Vaughan stated, “a fiery champion of
the individual on the other, the could never bring himself wholly to sacrifice the one ideal
to the other.”
It is, however, surprising and rare in the history of political philosophy that
the source of influential theory can be so precisely traced to individual personality
as in the case of Rousseau. Indeed, there is none so fine, brilliant, the lucid a
master of the finest prose, as Rousseau was/since Plato in the whole history of
political thought. We dare not believejh^t he could not adequately express what he
wanted to say. But he “hacTthe dangerous gifts of epigram and paradox, and the
greatest of writers if he indulges them too frequently is open to misunderstanding.” 1
ROUSSEAU’S PRINCIPLES
1. Each man by giving all to the society makes it absolute. Though authority
is absolute but individuals still possess equal rights.
2. None is loser but every body is gainer.
3. The individual makes surrender to entity to which every individual is
constituent part and “over whose activities he has the same degree of control / as
any other member of the community.”

Scanned with CamScanner

 4. The civil state brings out a tremendous bhange in man. Rousseau defends
everything on moral principles and right, supplements appetite and makes his a
reasonable being and a man. He showed that as meh produced culture and civilisation
they also suffered decline as Jjuman beings. Man’s own creation overpowered and
enslaved him. Men were bom free but they entered into a life or bondage that was
created by themselves by law, custom and social set up.

SOURCES OF INFLUENCE
Rousseau drew his inspiration from following sources for expounding his
political philosophy : "
1. Communism. Rousseau’s was living at a t|ne when it was being felt that
political was meaningless without economic equality. He was influenced by these
communistic tendencies of his times.
2. Family Life. Rousseau’s personal life was not happy. He was neither
faithful towards his family nor his children. His teachers were not very much
sympathetic towards him, with the result that he became indifferent to actual life, which
is reflected in his philosophy.
3. Hobbes and Locke. In his basic philosophy of 'Social Contract’ which fi. he
made the basis of the state, Rousseau was influenced by Hobbes and Locke, f who had
preceded him in this regard.
| 4. Plato. Influence of Plato on Rousseau was immense. According to
> Sabine, “The writer who did most to realise Rousseau from his individualism was Plato.”
He was Platonic in his conception about human nature. He was so much in love with
the reasonability of human nature that in the very opening paragraph of his Social
Contract he said, “Men is bom free and everywhere he is in chains.”
5. Montesquieu. In constitutionalism, Rousseau was influencedby %
Montesquieu who made him democratic rather -than despotic.
% 6. Humble Life. One also finds the influence of Rousseau’s humble
M life in his writings and philosophy. He realised the problems and difficulties f of the life of
an ordinary man and enunciated his philosophy to suit the multitudes. In the words of
Maxey, “A further source of his power was his *.*• lowly origin and his humble, mendicant
way of lire. He was not merely the H people’s advocate, he was bone of their bone and
flesh of their flesh.”

i 7. Geneva. Last but not least was his love for Geneva which was the centre of
democracy and hence he developed a love for democratic institutions.
Rousseau very bitterly attacked the prevalent notions about reason. Contrary
to them he pleaded that reason was not developed through science but by love for
labour and family life. Rousseau distinguished between reason and intelligence. He,
however, condemned reason, intelligence and science where they deprived man of
faith and reverence. He felt the necessity of reason in day today life .as it promoted
intelligence and knowledge.

Icsl Scanned with CamScanner

 CONCEPT OF HUMAN NATURE
According to A. Hacker, “Aristotle believed in the wickedness of human nature.
St. Augustine and St. Thomas affirmed the doctrine of original sin, and Machiavelli
stated that men in general are, ungrateful valuable, dissembles, anxious to avoid
danger, and covetous of gain....Rousseau has observed the men and the same
perversities as have the theorists who precede him. The wicked behaviour of mankind
has hardly escaped his eyes, yet this he says is a superficial view of man in society.”
According to Rousseau man by birth had no evil tendencies. It was the result of wrong
social actions which made him evil’.
1. Self Love. Rousseau believed that man by nature has only two instinct, of
them one is 'self love.1 “His first preference always is to attend to his own presentation,
his first cares are those which he owgs to himself.11
2. Sympathy. Man’s second instinct is that of sympathy or instinct of mutual aid.
These instincts, Rousseau believed, always make our struggle for existence easier and
do us more good than harm.
3. Conscience. There was every possibility of the clashing of both these instincts
at one time or the other. As a result of clash another instinct called 'conscience 1
emerges. This conscience is something above education and reason. It resolves conflict
between the first tow instincts. Reasoning comes only when the complexities of
problems come to the front. Sentiments attached with those instincts do not successfully
motivate the actions of man in proper direction.
4. Pride. A problem which is bound to crop is that if man was good by nature
and gifted with the sentiments of love and sympathy then what makes him bad?
Rousseau’s simple answer that self love went astray to become ‘pride’ and the pride
made man begin to feel ashamed or honoured over being deprived or getting something
in competitions. This pride was the root cause of many evils. In his ‘Meaning of
Rousseau ', Wright has said that if we can give up pride, we cease from all comparison
with other men and simply go about our destiny. “We can renounce a lot of imaginary
desires and hold fast to the true things, needful castaway a world of illusion and disorder
our own self. We can be meek, and inherit our soul. In a world, we can return to nature.
This is all the famous.phrase means.”
5. Freedom of Choose. Rousseau also believed that in addition to
above instincts nature has also gifted mankind with another instinct namely f the
freedom to choose his own path which distinguished a man from an animal. This
freedom was essential for the perfection of mankind. ??

|CS| Scanned with

CamScanner
 STATE OF NATURE-
1. Peaceful Ignorance— Rousseau believed that in the state of nature all lived as
isolated and had neither ties of obligation nor duties. Man did not know how to deliver a
speech and had no cares for dress. He was free self contented and unknown to social
good, evil or fear. He was not even afraid of death. He had no fear of loss of property or
family because he had neither property nor family. Man was in peaceful ignorance.
Rousseau ridiculed Hobbes by saying that “Above all, let us not conclude, with Hobbes,
that because man has no idea of goodness, he must be naturally wicked; that he is vicious
because the does not know virtues; that he always refuses to do his fellow creatures
services which he does not think they have right to demand; or that by virtue of the right he
truly claims everything he needs, he foolishly imagines himself the sole proprietor of the
whole universe.”
2. Group Life. Man could not lead q solitary life for long. His social instinct
compelled him to live in groups. Social institutions began to develop gradually. Instinct of
self-love began to shape itself into pride and man began to think in terms of having private
property. “The first man, having enclosed a piece of ground, he thought himself of saying
‘This is mine’ and found other people simple enough to believe him, was the first real
founder of civil society.” >
3. Property. Institution of private property, which entered the society, - disturbed
the whole atmosphere of pre-civil state. To quote Rousseau himself,
“It came as a serpent and bit all. It brought misery, sorrow and evil in the minds of men
who were otherwise good and noble.” “So long as men remained content with their rustic
huts...and confined themselves to such arts as did not require several hands, they lived
free, healthy, and happy lives so long as their nature allowed, and as they continued to
enjoy the pleasures of mutual and independent intercourse. But from the moment one man
began to stand in need of the help of another; from the moment it appeared advantageous
to any one to have provisions for two, equality disappeared, property was introduced; work
became indispensable, and the vast forests became smiling fields; which men had to water
with the sweat of his brows, and where slavery and misery were soon seen to germinate
and grow up with the crops.”
According to A. Hacker, “For a social system based on private property sets an
egoistic standard for success, and it complies this standard in all individuals. Men, came to
feel that they must own property, be superior to other man, in a word, be successful,....Not
only men came to judge themselves as success or failures by social standard, they also
became compulsive about the way they were viewed by those who lived around them.”
The private property created a problem and the society was divided between the
rich and the poor. It also resulted in the division of labour. Thus the whole

CT Scanned with CamScanner

 social set-up was disturbed. Rousseau said, “From these first distinctions arose on the
one side vanity and contempt and on the other shame and envy; and the fermentation
caused by these new heavens ended by producing combinations fatal to innocence and
happiness.” He concluded his discussion on the subject by saying that, “In short, all men
fall prey to frailties of their own age.”
Soon after the serpent in the form of private property, entered the society the
peaceful atmosphere and order was disturbed. Men began to feel the necessity of
bringing about the old order of calmness and happy life. This problem was solved by the
creation of a social or a political association to which all the members of the society
agreed. A reconciliation between the individuals on the one hand and society on the
other was to be arrived at by way of contract Rousseau agreed with Locke that
individual’s consent was necessary for binding him in contract. The contract was
concluded in the following order, according to Rousseau, “Each of us puts his person
and all his power in common under supreme direction of the general will, and in our
corporate capacity, we receive each member as an individual part of the whole. At once
in place of the individual personality of each contracting party, this act of associating
creates a moral and collective body composed of as many members as the Assembly
contains votes and receiving from his act its unity, its comman identity, its life and its
will. Yet each person in the state, possessing equal and inalienable position of the
sovereignty of the whole, gains back under state protection the rights he has given up.”
Individual Merged in the State
Like Plato and Hobbes, Rousseau also tried to completely merge individual in
the state. He maintained that this system of equality made all to surrender their rights.
The individuals who had by now become selfish and self- centred were not willing to
subordinate themselves to any individual. Rousseau solved this problem by saying that
the contract was concluded between the individuals and the society or the community.
His contact was a double sided one. As part of sovereignty, his individual was bound to
other individuals. As a part of the state he was bound to the sovereign. In order that
social contract may not prove an empty formula it concludes the tacit understanding that
whosoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to obedience by the
whole body of citizens.
FORMATION OF POLITICAL SOCIETY
The natural state, as conceived by Rousseau, is a state of substantial equality. No
baneful distinction could be found among the individuals who $ pursue in isolation the
placid routine of satisfying their physical needs. But the deadly seeds of a different order
were ready to germinate. With no necessary ground for it in his description of the savage
state, Rousseau assumed that the human race became increasingly numerous;
divergences of soil, climate arid’| season caused differences in manner of life among
men. Men began to take into account the difference between objects and to rriake
comparisons. They acquired the ideas of beauty and merit, which soon gave rise to
feelings of ' preference. In consequence of often seeing each other they could not do
without seeing each other constantly. A tender and pleasant feeling insinuated itself into

|CS| Scanned with

CamScanner
 their souls, and the least opposition turned it into an impetuous fury: with love arose
jealousy; discord triumphed, and human blood was sacrificed to the greatest of all
passions.
As ideas and feelings succeeded one another, and heart and head were brought into
play, men continued to lay aside their original wildness; their private connections became
more intimate as their, limits extended. Their life became gradually complicated. They could
no more enjoy peaceful living. Intercourse of individuals and families became common
through the ideas of competition and preference. “From the moment one man began to
stand in need of the help another, from the moment,, it appeared advantageous r
to any one man to have enough provisions for twj equality and peace dis- appeared, property
was introduced, work became indispensable, and vast forests i i became smiling fields,
which man had to water with the sweat of his brow, and where slavery and misery were soon
to germinate and grow up with the crops? Although evils follow in their train, this primitive
stage is not, according to Rousseau, intolerable state. Looked upon as a mean between the
I indolence of the savage state and the too intense activity of the later phase, £ it appears to him
the happiest period in the life of humanity— “the least subject to revolutions, the best for man.” 3
While Rousseau described the savage state, he was disposed to consider it as the happiest and
best, and when ft he moved on to the tribal and early social state, this in turn appealed to him as
preferable. But, according to him, evil arose with the progress of civilization. The division of
labour that followed the development of the arts, metallurgy
; and agriculture and the rise of private property created distinctions between [ the rich and the
poor and ultimately broke down the happy natural condition £ of mankind and necessitated the
establishment of civil society.
Political society, according to Rousseau, is created with a view to safeguarding the
individual against the corrupting influences of society. In the “• political writings, Contract
Social (1762) and also Constitution for / Corsica (1765), the “state is all in all". While in the
social and moral | writings of Rousseau it seems at first sight to be either disparaged or S wholly
disregarded. On closer inspection, however, this first impression \ needs to be corrected. The
state which Rousseau disparaged in the

eg Scanned with CamScanner

 Discourse on Inequality (1754) and in Emile (1762) is not the ideal state of the Contract Social,
but the actual state, as known to us from experience and history. What excited Rousseau’s
suspicion in these writings is not the state, but society of any sort, quite apart from the civic ties by
which, in fact, it is held together. His ideal, alike in the Discourse and in Emile, is, -no doubt,
individual freedom: freedom, however, not in the sense of immunity from the control of the stare,
but in that of withdrawal from all the oppressions and all corruptions of society. In both treatises
alike, it is not the state, but society, which is the enemy. Rousseau’s conclusion is : “It is our
business to make every individual member absolutely independent of his fellow- members and
absolutely dependent on the state. It is only by the force of the state that the liberty of its members
can be secured.”4 And if Rousseau had really been the individualist as some critics suppose, it is
certain that he might easily have woven them into a theory more or less closely resembling that of
Locke. But it was equilly open to him to turn them in exactly the opposite direction; to argue that
the reason without which the primitive instincts of ‘conscience’ are no more than blank forms, so
far from being inherent in the natural growth of the individual, does on fact come to him only in
and through the state. C.E. Vaughan rightly remarks : “Regarding Discourse and Emile, it can be
said that the state of nature is glorified in the one. The ideal of the other was, or was taken to tie,
an isolation of the individual almost as complete as that attributed to the state of nature. And hasty
readers jumped to the conclusion that the man who thus mistrusted society must look with still
deeper suspicion upon the very existence of the state; that, at the very least, he must desire to
restrict its action within the narrowest limits possible; the must be a sworn foe to entrusting it with
any powers beyond the protection of individual life and individual property.”5

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Theory of State ®
In his Contract Social Rousseau presented a theory of the state. In the deveiopme.it from
the state of nature, there comes a time when individuals can no longer maintain themselves in
primitive independence. It then becomes necessary to self-preservation that they should unite to
form a society— a political society. Rousseau admitted that “the problem is to find a form of
association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of
each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and
remain as free as before. This is the fundamental problem of which the social contract provides the
solution." In the first chapter

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 of his book, Contract Social he also remarked : “Man is bom free and everywhere he is
in chains. One who believes himself the master of the rest is only more of a slave than
they. How does that change come about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate
(legitime')! That question I think I can answer.” 6 The liberty and equality that
characterize the state of. nature are gone in the civil state Rousseau justified their
disappearance, in his usual way, by proving that they subsisted as fully after, as
before, the institution of government. Authority of man over man can have no rational
basis, he held, save agreement and consent. And there is but one species of
agreement conceivable in which liberty is retained while authority is instituted. This
single species is the pact through which a multitude of individuals become a collective
unity— a society.

Criticism of other Theories of State

Rousseau’s thought seems to reject the prevalent notions regarding the origin of
the state. He rejected the view that family is the basis of the state. The state, he
argued, is not an outgrowth of the family; for it lacks the natural basis, the tie of natural
affection upon which the family rests. Also, he rejected the force theory. According to
him, it is not founded upon the ‘right of the stronger’, nor, more specifically, upon the
‘right of slavery’, the right of the conqueror to enslave those he has subdued in battle,
for such claims are the negation of all Right. And even if this were not so, they could
give rise to nothing more than an ‘aggression’; they could never produce that organic
union which is essential even to the most rudimentary forms of what we recognize as
the state.7 Hence the only alternative left, is to base political society upon
‘convention’’or ‘contract’; and that is the solution adopted by “the soundest of those
who have written of such matters: above all, by two thinkers so different as Hobbes
and Locke.” Rousseau’s thought shows the very strong influence of both Hobbes and
Locke. It is the latter, however, whom he followed to the end. From the ingenious
reasoning by which Hobbes made absolute monarchy a logical corollary of the social
contract, Rousseau turned down with strong denunciation. But the Hobbesian precision
in defining the terms of the contract obviously appealed to him. His own treatment of
the subject is but the substance of Locke developed by the method of Hobbes.

: Social Contract
Political society was created through social pact, since only by agreement and
consent could authority be justified and liberty retained. Rousseau held that each individual
gave up his natural rights to the community as a whole. Or the contract consists in ‘the total
alienation of each associate, together with all his rights, to the whole community; for, in the
first place, as | each gives himself absolutely, the conditions are the same for all; and this
being 1 ----------------- --------------

CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 so, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others.” The alienation is to be without
reserve : “If individuals retained certain rights, as there would be no common superior to decide
between them and the public, each, being on one point his own judge, would ask to be so on all;
the state of nature would thus continue, and the association would necessarily become inoperative
or tyrannical.” Each person, according to Rousseau, in the state possessed and equal and
unalienable portion of the sovereignty of the whole and gained back, under the protection of the
state, the rights he had given up.
The contract of Rousseau was social and not governmental. To him, as to Hobbes, it was
the total surrender of the whole community, to a community itself. It was Rousseau’s belief that the
conditions essential for the formation of a specific code of right and wrong, however, rudimentary,
are to be found only in that ordered development of society which we call the state. The state is not
something external to the individual, but of the very essence of his being. It is the condition without
which liberty would be only another name for bondage to his most selfish and most destructive
passions. According to Rousseau, there could be no conflict between authority vested in the people
as a whole and their liberty as individuals. Viewed in this way, the social contract is not a contract
which men make with their future ruler. The government is their mere agent. To make a contract
with it would not only give it a dignity to which it ought not to pretend, it would place men under the
rule of some individuals or groups, which would be nothing but slavery. Such a contract would
defeat the ends for which men come together, those ends being the fulfilment of their nature, which
slavery would make impossible. Therefore their problem is to create a society “in such a way that
each, when united to his fellows, renders obedience to his own will, and remains as free as he was
before.” And the sovereign “cannot impose upon its subjects any fetters that are useless to the
community, nor can it even wish to do so.” It should be observed here that the ‘sovereign’ means, in
Rousseau, not the monarch or the government, but the community in its collective and legislative
capacity.
The social contract can be stated in the following words: “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.” This act of association creates a moral
and collective body, which is called the ‘stale’ when passive, the ‘sovereign’ when active, and a
‘power’ in relation to other bodies like itself. Rousseau was convinced that the community, the state,
is something essentially different from the sum of the individuals who compose it. It has a being, a
life, of its own which is not identical with that of its members, taken severally. It is not an aggregate,
but a corporate unity. It is an organization, to the life of which every member contributes,
unconsciously as well as consciously. The idea of the state as an organism dominates the whole of
theCon/rm Social.
What did Rousseau mean by his assertion that, with the passage from the natural to
the civil state, the sense of justice and duty is first awakened in the mind of man; that “his
actions receive thereby a moral character which was wanting to them before”; that “from a
stupid and limited animal, he now for the first time becomes a reasoning being and a man;”*
in a word, that, apart from the state, no distinctively moral life is possible for man? He surely
did not mean that as a member of the state, man suddenly finds . himself possession of
qualities of which in his previous condition he had given no sign, no promise, whatever. Such
a view; would, in itself, be wholly irrational. The instinct of justice according to Rousseau is
|cs| Scanned with CamScanner
 present in man’s heart; but this instinct should develop into a conscious sense of duty. This is
possible only under the fostering guidance of the state. .!
■

THEORY OF GENERAL WILL jl

■•

The state, according to Rousseau, which is created through the social contract is not
an arbitrary state. It is established to maintain an atmosphere in which individuals can enjoy their
liberty in the best possible way. It has to work through a ‘general will*. The general will is no abstract
idea. It is a living .i’j j principle of action : a principle to be kept alive only by the sleepless devotion,
the watchful jealously, of all the individuals concerned. It is this devotion, this fe jealousy, which
alone can “hold the state true, t|j the end for which it was founded—that is, the common good of all” :
that common good, the necessity of obedience to which is “the one fundamental law of the state, the
one law which flows directly and immediately from the social contract”

Hs
The conception of the ‘general will* plays a very important part in y Rousseau’s system.
In this connection, it is argued that the sovereign need give £ no guarantees to its subjects, for, it is
formed of the individuals who compose i! it, it can have no interest contrary to theirs. “The sovereign,
merely by virtue of what it is, is always what it should be.”
^7- • •‘
I CHARACTERISTICS OF GENERAL WILL
1. Definition of General Will. Rousseau., was of the opinion that men grew sick of the
anarchy which the serpent of private property brought in the society. Hence they thought of creating
a sovereign through social W contract. The contract was concluded by a pact between the
individuals Ij? and the community consisting of the individuals who formed the society. The
individuals surrendered all their powers and rights to the community as a whole and bowed before
the General Will, which was the sovereign in the ultimate
9
’ I.'

£ analysis. •
? 2. Actual Will and Real Will. In order to properly understand
• the theory of ‘General Will’ it is necessary to understand the terms Actual Will

(csl Scanned with CamScanner

 and Real Will. From ‘Actual Will’ Rousseau understood the will which was selfish and
irrationatand thought of the good of the individual alone. It conceives of the individual alone. It has no
concern with the welfare of the society. On the other hand, Rousseau believed that ‘Real Will’ was
something higher, nobler and supreme. It was concerned more about the well being of all than that of
one individual. It was more social than anti-social, more collective than indi- . vidualistic. In other words,
the real will was a channel for promoting the well being of the individuals and society because when it
thought of the society it ipso facto thought about the welfare of the individuals. Real will was permanent
and not transitory.. It did not take into consideration only the momentary aspects of life but also its
permanent aspects. Real will was based on reason and criticism.
3. Real Will and General Will. According to Rousseau ‘General Will’ wa: the sum total of
all the ‘real wills’ of the individuals which were based on reason and farsightedness of the
individuals. It was will of all the
• individuals for collective welfare. It was common consciousness. Rousseau has defined General
Will as “The public person, so formed by the union of all other persons is called by its members,
state when passive, sovereign when active.”
4. Nobler Than Real Wills. According to Rousseau General Will was
• not the sum total of good and bad will of the individuals by a method of plus and minds but was
something nobler. It was the product of deliberation, discussions and consciousness. General
Will is concerned with general good but it might not be willed by the majority of the members of
the society.
5. Everybody Free in General Will. Rousseau believed that in General Will none
was slavft or under subordination to anyone else. Every body was free. To quote Rousseau, “If
the state is a moral person whose life is in the union of its members, and if the most important of
its care is the care of its own preservation, then it must have a universal and compelling force in
order to dispose part as may‘be advantageous to-the whole.”
6. General Will and Will of All. Rousseau tried to distinguish between the General Will
and the will of all. General Will considered about Z the good of the community as a whole
whereas will of all was only majority will and considered about the welfare of a few only. The will
of all could become General Will of peculiar interests, which have selfish ends and are taken
away from it. In Rousseau’s own words, “There is often a considerable difference between
General Will and will of all, the former aims at the
i. common ^interest, the latter aims at private interest and is only a sum of particular' wills. But if
we take away from these wills the various particular interests which conflict with each other
what remains as the sum of difference is General Will.”

7. Salient Features of General Will. General Will has the following particular features
according to Rousseau:
(i) Unity. General will is rational. It is not self-contradictory. It thus gives unity in the
sense that it is indivisible because once divided it cannot be called 'General Will’ but only
sectional will.
(ii) Permanent. As General Will is based on reason, wisdom and experience and
thought about the good of all, it is not to do away with the time but is permanent. It cannot be
altered. It is pure. Even though it may be dominated by other wills for sometime yet in the ultimate
analysis this will dominate.
(iiiy Right Will. It is will which takes into consideration not only the political and social but
|CS| Scanned with
CamScanner
 also moral conditions. As such it is right will based on right reasonings and presumptions.
(iv) Inalienable. Rousseau’s sovereign is 'General Will’ and not any human being. The
sovereign cannot give up the sovereignty. He cannot pass that on to any other individual because
sovereignty was vested in the community as a whole. Community could not pass on the sovereign
authority to any other individual or organisations but to the General Will. Thus sovereignty and
General Will are inseparable and hence inalienable. For Rousseau alienating General
• will is just killing it.
(v) Unrepresentative. According to Rousseau people have no right to delegate their
authority or representing themselves by anybody else. He believed in theory of direct democracy
through General Will.
(vi) Rational. Rousseau based his theory of General Will on ‘rationalism’ and not on
force. For him will is not force but the very basis of sustaining state.
(vii) Disinterested. According to Rousseau General Will is disinterested because it is not
concerned with the individual but with the community as whole. It is disinterested because it
promotes public spiritedness. Thus General Will is not interested in any section of society but took
into consideration will of society as a whole. Rousseau, however, made it clear
> that perfect unanimity cannot be achieved and differences of opinion are bound to exist. General Will
is a corporate will functioning through people as a whole.
(viii) Unenforceable. General Will is not executive. Since General Will is impersonal it
cannot be loaded with the responsibility of enforcing law. It is sovereign in nature and character. As
such government is only an agency i of General Will. General Will cannot be executive as well as
legislative body. £

Criticism of General Will

Theory of General Will as expounded by Rousseau has been put to severe r criticism:

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 1. Confused. Theory of General will is confused. It boils down to striking the balance of real will
and actual will. It tries to give it an arithmetical touch. Even if Rousseau's notion is accepted, General Will
is a dynamic process and not arithmetical one.
2. No Difference in General Will and Will of All. Rousseau has tried to distinguish between
‘General Will' and ‘Will of AH' which, in practice is impossible to achieve.
3. Unanimous and not Majority Will. Rousseau’s conception of General Will is more or less a
unanimous will and not a majority will. Unanimous will and decisions are possible only in the animal and
not in human society.
4. Wills Cannot be Divided. Rousseau has divided the will of an individual into integral parts
namely essential and non-essential wills. According to him, essential will is rational and represents sum
total of essential wills. However, individuals and their wills are corporate. It is impossible to distinguish
and divide the wills.
5. No Reconciliation of General Will and Justice. Rousseau believes that general will is one
which coincides with justice. But by this criteria he creates more confusion. Justice is an equally abstract
conception and reconciling the two is not only impossible but undesirable.
6. General Will cannot be Reconciled with Freedom. According to Rousseau whosoever refused
to obey the ‘General Will’ will be made to obey it and thus set free. By setting free this way is in the other
words to use force for obeying commands. Rousseau has tried to reconcile individual freedom with the
authority of the General will or freedom with force but has failed to do so.
7. What if not Majority Will. Rousseau has reduced his theory of ‘General Will’ to nothingness
when he says that General Will is not majority will. If it is not majority will then what is it?
8. Distinction in General Will dnd Individual Good. Rousseau believed that General Will is
something else than the individual good. This means that t there is something above the individual which
may be called the ‘state’. Rousseau
has thus tried to distinguish between the individual and the state. In actual practice, however, the state
consists of individuals and their interests are # inseparable. * $
9. General Will Impossible in Nation States. The notion of General < Will as expounded by
Rousseau, may to some extent be possible in case where the community is small and the individuals have
personal contacts , with each other. But it is impossible to follow this conception and put it into actual
practice in case of nation states of today. It is more or less flimpossible to ascertain General Will on the
lines suggested by Rousseau.

[CSj Scanned with CamScanner

 10. Direct Representation not Possible in his State. Rousseau believed that in
General Will there should only be direct and, not indirect representation. This again is not
practicable in modem nation slates. The system of direct representation can only be
practicable in small states. No nation state in the world has found it possible to adopt direct
democracy as a method for realising the will of the people. Hence in actual practice this theory
is bound to collapse, particularly in big states.
11. Impractical on Human Grounds. The conception of General Will
is not practicable on human grounds. In normal times men are selfish and consider their own
interests above everything else. It, is only in national crises and grave emergencies that they
think of common good. TQ think of men giving up their selfish ends for collective ends is
something against human nature. It is an attempt to mould human nature which is very
?
difficult, if not impossible.
12. Practical Failure. Rousseau has also failed to guide the community as to how it
can be applied in actual practice and also how to achieve it
13. Against Social Contract Theory. Rousseau’s theory of General Will is against his
Social Contract theory. According to C.E.M. load, “It seems to follow that a strict adherence to
the doctrine of General Will would in practice entail frequent revolt against most governments.”
Wayper says, “For if the General Will is supreme, the Social Contract is unnecessary and
meaningless, and, if the Social Contract is necessary and significant, the General’ Will cannot
be supreme.” Colhan has said, “Theoretically, the sovereignty of the General Will represents
an attempt to justify philosophically the law. Its . effects on liberty in the state will depend on
the*way in which the General Will principle is elaborated. 1. Cole says, “The freedom which is
realised in the General Will, we are told, is the freedom of the state as a whole, but the state
exists to secure individual freedom for its members. A free state may be tyrannical,
a despot may allow his subjects every freedom. What guarantee is there that the state, in
freeing itself, will not enslave its members.”
The above criticism does not mean that Rousseau’s concept of General Will has no
worth at all. It has the following features in its favour:
1. Will, not Force, is the Basis of State. The greatest value of the theory • is that it
preached that ‘will not force is the basis of the state.’ It has made the community realise the
worth of human co-operation.
2. Basis of Democracy. The theory of General Will is the basis of true democracy in
the true sense.
3. Concept of General Good. The theory advances the .conception of general good
and puts social interests before individual interests which aim at creating an ideal state with
ideal citizens.
4. Corporate Character of State. The theory has preached corporate character of
state. It has tried to recognize and reorganise society apart from the citizens as individuals.
5. Theory of National State. Rousseau also is primarily responsible for promoting die
theory of nation state. According to Dunning, “Through these concepts a way was opened by
which the unity and solidarity of a population became necessary presupposition of a scientific

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 politics. Rousseau thus contributed largely to promote the theory of national state.”
It is thus difficult to agree with the critics that Rousseau would have not done more
justice to the subjects had he not enunciated his theory of General Will. To conclude with
Bosanquet, “The General Will seems to be, in the last resort, the ineradicable impulse of an
intelligent being to a good extending beyond itse f, in so far as that impulse takes the form of
a common good, though this impulse mastered and created in a degree, yet if it were extinct
human life would have ceased.”

CONTRIBUTION TO POLITICAL THOUGHT

1. Theory of General Will. Rousseau is one of those political philosophers of 18th
century whose influence has been immense in his own times and has been gradually
increasing in our days. Politically he belonged to philosophical school of thfGght and was
thus responsible for giving new ideas and thoughts. He was one of the most controversial
figures of his age. Lord Morley once remarked, “Would it not have been better for the world if
Rousseau had not been boom?” Sabine estimated the value of Rousseau by saying that
“Rousseau’s political philosophy was so vague that it can hardly be said to point in any
specific direction.” But Heamshaw has estimated his importance by saying that “From
numerous and varied sources we get an impression of a man of high originality and
undoubted genius; an intense individualist impatient at any sort of restraint...sensitive to
noble impulse, full of fury against tyr nny and injustice, capable of copious weeping on any
convenient occasion. He loved the human race, although he quarrelled with every specimen
of it with which he was brought into but the most transient contact.” According to Dunning
Rousseau was suggestive. His theory of General Will became one of the springboards for
subsequent political philosophers who were interested in asserting the rights of men and
believed in individualism. According to Cole, “As new generations and new classes of men
come to study his works, his conceptions, often hazy and undeveloped, but nearly always of
lasting value, will assuredly form the basis bf a new political philosophy, in which they will be
taken up and formed.” Jones has assessed the value of his doctrine of General . Will when
he says that “the notion of the General Will is not only the most central concept of
Rousseau's theory, it is also the most original, the most interesting and historically the most
important contribution which he made to the political theory.”
I

Scanned with CamScanner

 It has been said that history of General Will and his writings became too thought
provoking throughout the 18th century that Rousseau was quoted to excite men. His writings
became the Bible for political thinkers. No revolutionary could afford missing him in thoughts,
actions and words.
2. Forerunner of English and German Idealisfh. After Aristotle, Rousseau preached
that man was a political animal. This was against the political philosophy preached by
Machiavelli and Hobbes, who believed that man was egoistic and aggressive and that his
impulses should be checked. Rousseau said good bye to the traditional theories of the middle
ages. It has been said by Cole that, “He is, in fact, the great forerunner of English and German
idealism.”
3. Nationalism. Rousseau did not believe in the idea of nation state, as he saw that
free citizenship was rather impossible in those days. He, however, contributed to the
philosophy of his age by saying that there must he national solidarity and unity. Though
himself not a nationalist he stood for nationalism. According to Sabine, “Without himself being
a nationalist Rousseau helped to revive the ancient ideal of citizenship in such a form that
national sentiment could appropriate it.”
4. National State. It has been said of Rousseau that his philosophy preached unity,
solidarity and national integration. Like Bodin and Hobbes he was responsible for giving the
nation the conception of nationalism and nation state.
5. Sovereign v/s Government Law. Rousseau distinguished between state and
government and also between the sovereign laws and governmental decrees. He believed that
sovereign law is based on fundamental rights and constitution and has thus value and
standing. Government law is temporary in nature and reason and thus based on immediate
needs of the people.
6. Political People as Ultimate Authority. Rousseau contributed to political
philosophy by saying that, “The political people were the ultimate authority and source for
giving all political authorities and that government was simply as agency to execute the
directives given by this sovereign authority.”
CONTRADICTIONS IN ROUSSEAU’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
Rousseau’s political philosophy suffers from following contradictions:
1. Private Property. In Discourse on the Origin of Inequality and Emile Rousseau has
condemned private property whereas in his subsequent discussions he has made it obligatory
on the state to defend private property.
2. Democracy and Absolutism. Rousseau tried to plead for democracy and give
maximum rights to the people but in actual practice he has become
jj most absolutist. Duguit has said that “J.J. Rousseau is the father of Jacobin K
n

|CS| Scanned with CamScanner

 despotism, of Caesarian dictatorship and the inspirer of the absolutistic doctrines of Kant and
Hegel.”
3. Confused Nationalism. Rousseau tried to be a nationalist but here also he is victim
of confusion.
4. Confused Democrat. Rousseau has tried to be democrat but it has rightly been said
that his sovereign was more powerful than even that of Hobbes and in fact absolute than most
powerful dictators.

INFLUENCE OF ROUSSEAU’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Rousseau’s political philosophy had following influence on his age:
1. French Revolution. His concepts of liberty and equality were responsible for French
Revolution of 1789. His political philosophy was not only a source of inspiration but a guiding
force for the French people after the Revolution and at least till the rise of Napoleon.
2. U.S. Practice. The impact of Rousseau’s theories on U.S. practice is evident.
Jefferson’s government in 19th century was influenced by Rousseau’s ideas. The theory of
Social Contract found its due place in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights in
U.S. Constitution.
3. Inspiration to Bentham. In England Rousseau was responsible for inspiring
Bentham by giving him the idea of the greatest good of the greatest number.
4. Inspiration to All Political Philosophers. The Individualists and Collectivists, the
Monists and the Pluralists all find their solace in the political philosophy of Rousseau. These
rival group followers quote from his writings. He has in fact become a source of inspiration not
only for Anarchists, Federalists, Syndicalists but also to many others.
5. Passage from Medieval to Modern State. Ernest Rays has rightly
said about Rousseau, “In political thought he represents the passage from a traditional theory
rooted in the middle ages to the modem philosophy of the state he was in fact the
great fore runner of the German and English
Idealism.”
6. Appreciations. Following are some appreciations of Rousseau’s political
philosophy:
(i) Maxey. “The concept of General Will is the crux of Rousseau’s System and
probably his most important contribution to political thought.”
(ii) Prof. Hearnshaw. “He displays the people as the ultimate source
of political authority..........he stressed the view that state is social organisation.............it
is a common conscience and General Will; he maintains the doctrine that true basis of political
obligation is consent; he proclaims the possibility of ultimate

|CS| Scanned with

CamScanner
 reconciliation of freedom and authority....He takes a high place among political idealists.”
.
(ill) Dr. J.E. Greens. “Hie philosophy of Rousseau was a mixture of Lao Tse’s
return to nature, Buddha’s compassion for the poor; Isaiah’s search for social justice, St.
Augustine’s progress from licentiousness to love and Locke’s blue print for a better world.
In addition..........................................................Rousseau brought to his work the
imagination of a poet and the sympathy of a gjhtle soul.”
HOBBES, LOCKE AND ROUSSEAU COMPARED
1. Sovereignty. Hobbes and Rousseau maintained that sovereignty is absolute
but to Locke, it was limited. Hobbes was of the opinion that sovereignty may be vested in
one, few or the many but once it is vested, it. could not be recalled. Rousseau held that
sovereignty is vested in the whole people.
2. Natural Man and State of Nature. To Hobbes natural man was selfish and the
state of nature was a period of constant Welfare. Rousseau believed that the natural man
was good and there was happiness in the state of nature.* Locke occupied a middle
position on these points.
3. Government Hobbes said that a change in government meant a dissolution of
state. Locke held that the people had a right to choose the government and change it if
they do not like it To Rousseau, the government was merely the agent which executed
the popular will.
4. Nature of Law. According to Hobbes in natural state there were no civil laws
and the actions of men were controlled by natural laws. Locke maintained that in the state
of nature, natural laws were the embodiment of the morality. These laws were based on
reason. Human behaviour was controlled by them. Rousseau held that a law is a
revolution of the whole people for the whole people, touching a matter that concerns all.
The law must relate to general interest and must emanate from the people as a" whole.
5. Natural Rights. Hobbes said that in thl state of nature, might was the only
right. Thus the rights of men were based on the power of the individual concerned. Locke
drew a brighter picture. He maintained that in the state of nature everybody had a right to
life, right to property and right to liberty, he maintained that rights were inborn. Rousseau
held that the rights of liberty, equality and property were rights of the citizen and are not
innate. However, he maintained that in the state of nature man was free to enjoy all his
natural rights.
6. Social Contract Hobbes said that in the state of nature man’s life. was solitary,
poor and brutish. There was a constant warfare. Later on man discovered that peace was
more useful. Hence he agreed that everyman ought to endeavour to peace as far as he
has the hope of obtaining it and he must be concept with so much liberty against other
men, as he would allow other

Scanned with CamScanner

men against himself. On this basis, men agreed to establish a sovereign to whom all
authority was transferred. Locke said that the state was established by a social contract. The
duty of the state was to define and enforce the natural laws. The sovereign’s authority was
limited and man surrendered to him some of his natural rights and not all of them.
Rousseau maintained that political society came into being on the basis of a social
contract to which each and all members assented. It was to provide its members with both
the freedom of the state of nature and the advantages of civil order.
/ QUESTIONS FOR EXERCISE
y “Beginning as an architect in revolt against all social coercion, Rousseau ' came in time to
a conclusion which made the state everything and the individual nothing.” (Kingsley Martin).
Examine this estimate of Rousseau’s Political thought.
2. “For Hobbes political unity lies in a will which is actual but not general, for Locke it lielin a
will which is general, but not actual, for Rousseau it lies in a will which is at once
actual and general.” Discuss.
^3. “The real objection to the term (General Will) is that in so far as it is will, it is not general,
and in so far as it is general it is not will.” (Hobhouse) Which of these statements in
your view, is the more fundamental concept of the General Will?
4. “Rousseau’s concept of General Will has been characterised as more y absolute than
absolutism of Hobbesian Leviathan and more democratic than
the democracy of Locke.” Is this remark tenable? Give reasons for your answer.
5. “The dictatorship is both the logical and also the historical consequence of the
democratic theory of the General Will.” (Colhan). Discuss.
6. “Rdusseau’s theory of General will is a strange mixture of utopian idealism and plain
common sense.” Discuss.
7. “There is often a considerable difference between the General Will and will of all.”
(Rousseau). Comment.