Module-3(c)

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY OF ORIGIN OF STATE

The Social Contract Theory projects the view that originally people used to live in a state of
nature and without a state. They decided to end this state of nature either because of difficulties
experienced by them or because of the fact that such a living had led to anarchy and chaos.
Consequently, they entered into a social contract which led to the birth of the state.
Thus, according to the supporters of this theory, the State had a contractual origin. It was made,
like a machine, by the people living in the prehistoric state of nature.
Contractual Origin of State i.e. State as a Man made Machine. Though traces of social contract
theory can be found in the ideas given by several ancient thinkers Ike Kautilya, its real advocacy
came as a reaction against the Divine Origin theory of State. The Social Contract theorists held
that the State was a human institution and not a divine creation.
It was a man-made institution. It came into existence through a voluntary contract made by the
people. This theory, which had been rejected by both Plato and Aristotle in the ancient times,
found big support in the 17th and 18th centuries when it was most ardently advocated and
explained by several well known political philosophers. Three eminent political thinkers -
Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau came out with their social contract theories. All of them strongly
advocated, though in different ways, chat the State originated by means of a social contract.
CENTRAL FEATURES OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
Let us examine the main ideas of the Social Contract Theory before individually
examining the ideas of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau.
(1) Originally people used to live in a State of Nature: The Social Contract theory begins by
advocating the view that originally people used to live in a natural state - the state of nature, in
which there was neither a state nor a government. It was a pre-political and pre-social stage
according to Hobbes and Rousseau but according to Locke it was a pre-political but not
pre-social state of nature
(2) Life in the State of Nature: Some supporters of this theory, like Hobbes, held that it was a
stage of anarchy and chaos, might was right and survival of the fittest was the rule. It was a state
of perpetual war. Naturally people wanted to get out of it. However, others like Locke held that it
was a state of peace and order based on natural rights. Men as social and rational beings lived
peacefully. However, they felt several difficulties, and to overcome these, they decided to end
this state of nature. Still others like Rousseau held that initially it was a stage of full freedom-a
blissful living of human beings. However, later on, because of the birth of selfishness (property),
it became a state of perpetual property-wars, and the result came to be anarchy and chaos.
Naturally the people wanted to get rid of it.
Thus all the advocates of the social contract theory agreed that the people living in the
state of nature decided to come out of this stage for one reason or the other.
(3) The Social Contract : End of the State of Nature and Birth of the State : for ending the state
of nature, a social contract was made by the people. However, while Hobbes and Rousseau held
that there was a single contract, Locke advocated that there were two contracts-one civil and the
other political. According to Locke the state had its birth through a civil contract and government
came to be organised by a political contract. Hobbes and Rousseau however held that the state
and government resulted from a single social contract.
Each of these three thinkers gave different versions of the social contract as well as of the
Hobbes held that the social contract resulted in the birth of absolute sovereignty which came to
be possessed by the ruler because of the terms of the contract. The ruler (King) got the supreme
power to protect its people. The people agreed to obey all the commands of the ruler and remain
loyal to him. Locke, however, held that the social contract resulted in the birth of a sovereign
community ruled by a limited government resting upon the consent of the community and
limited by the natural rights of the people. The community had the right to remove the govern us
jase it overstepped its powers or authority or failed to perform its duties as assigned by the
contract. Rousseau advocated the view that social contract resulted into the birth of popular
sovereignty - the General Will, as the supreme, the all-pervasive and all-powerful real will of all
the people. According to him, the State had its birth as a concrete manifestation of General will.
Thus, according to the Social Contract Theory the state originated by a social contract made by
the people, who decided to come out of the state of nature. State was a creation of human will
This is in brief the main thrust of the Social Contract theory of the origin of the State.
However, three eminent political thinkers Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau gave three different
versions of the social contract made by the people.Let us briefly study individually their contract
theories.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY OF HOBBES
Hobbes has been one of the most profound political thinkers of the modern period. He was an
Englishman, a tutor to King Charles II and a firm believer in the concept of absolute sovereignty
of the State and its ruler. In his work "The Leviathan" (published in 1651), Hobbes expounded
his social contract theory of the origin of state. He used it for arriving at the concept of absolute
sovereignty of the ruler, and through it, he supported the position of the king in the struggle for
supremacy between the British King and the Br.Parliament.
1. Hobbes conception of Human Nature : Hobbes' social contract theory rests upon his
conception of human nature. He did not believe that man was a social animal. He believed that
man was selfish. According to Hobbes, selfishness and fear were the two basic faculties of
human nature. Fear made him selfish and selfishness increased his fear. He always felt insecure.
He was certain that others were out to kill him and, therefore, he must be prepared to kill others.
He was an individualist through and through. He could do anything provided he had the power to
do so. He regarded his desires as good and what he hated as evil. As such, he was his own judge
of good and bad. He could do anything for his happiness. Such a conception of human nature
constituted the basis of Hobbes' social contract theory.
2. Hobbes' view of the State of Nature. Hobbes' social contract theory begins by a belief in the
conception of a pre- historic state of nature. He believes that originally men used to live in a state
of nature. It was without a society, (Pre-social stage), and was also without a government/state
(Pre-political). In it, each man lived as an individual. He was sovereign over himself and his will.
His desires and powérs were his rights. He could do anything provided he had the power to do it.
As such, rights were his powers. There was no external limitation on him. Might was right and
survival of the fittest was the rule.
Each man, because of being selfish and because of insecurity and fear, was at war with every one
else. He could kill others just as others could kill him. He was at war with everyone else. The
state of nature was a state of perpetual war. Insecurity, violence, anarchy, chaos, selfishness and
fear reigned supreme in the state of nature. Life was solitary, poor, nasty , brutish and short.
Naturally everyone was sick of such a life and wanted to get rid of it. And, this was done through
a social contract.
3. Hobbes' view of Social Contract: Being sick of his life in the state of nature, each man
decided to surrender his natural right to govern himself to the hands of a common superior and to
obey his commands. Each entered into a contract with everyone else.
The terms of the contract were : "I authorise and give up my right of governing myself to this
man or to this assembly of men, on the condition that thou also give up thy right to him, and
authorise all his actions in like manner ......... "
This contract was made under the natural right of each to voluntarily enter into any contract with
any one else and the consequent natural obligation of each to carry out the contract thus made.
The result of this contract was the birth of the sovereign with all the powers to govern all persons
of the state. His birth transformed the state of nature into a State. Thus social contract gave birth
to absolute sovereignty and the State.
Features of Hobbes' Contract
1. The contract was voluntarily made by the people for ending the state of nature in which life
was solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, there was perpetual war, and a situation of total
anarchy and chaos.
2. Since the contract was voluntarily made, it was absolutely binding on all, except the
sovereign.
3. Each one entered into a contract with every one else and surrendered his power to govern
himself to a third person who became the sovereign. The sovereign was not a party to the contrat.
Hence he was not bound by the terms of the contract.
4. The contract was voluntary and perpetual. The surrender of governing power to the sovereign
was full and final. No one had the right to withdraw from it or to disobey the sovereign.
5. The sovereign got the absolute right to rule and to provide security to the people. There were
no limitations upon his power. Sovereignty was absolute,comprehensive, indivisible, inalienable,
imprescriptible, unlimited and supreme power to rule. Hobbes was a committed supporter of the
absolute sovereignty of the ruler.
6. The commands of the sovereign were laws and these were binding upon all the people. These
were backed by the force of the sovereign power. No one could disobey laws of the sovereign,
i.e. the commands of the ruler.
7. Since the contract was full and final. No one had the right to revolt against the sovereign. The
sovereign ruler was the sole judge of what to do and what not to do. However, only in one case
could the people revolt against him i.e. when he failed to provide them security of life or when
he asked them to commit suicide. People continued to have the right of self-preservation even
after the social contract.
8. Law was the command of the sovereign and force was the sanction behind law.
9. Hobbes did not make any distinction between the state and society. Both originated from the
social contract. State of nature was both pre-social and pre-political. The social contract gave
birth to society, state and government.
10. Liberty according to Hobbes is the gift of the sovereign. What the sovereign permits is
liberty. What he lays down is law. What he accepts or tolerates is also law.
11. Hobbes's theory of social contract involves a justification of the absolute sovereignty of the
ruler. His preference for monarchy enjoying absolute sovereignty became fully evident from the
text of his Leviathan.
12. In his conception of life in the state of nature and his view of human nature, Hobbes was an
extreme individualist. He held that in the state of nature, each individual enjoyed the rights to get
anything provided he had the power to get his desires fulfilled. There were no limitations on his
freedom of action. However, in his theory contract Hobbes upheld and strongly advocated the
concept of absolute sovereignty of the ruler. As such Hobbes' philosophy contained both extreme
individualism and extreme absolutism. As a great system-builder he reconciled these two
opposed and extreme concepts and made these two a part of his philosophy.
Critical Evaluation of Hobbes' Theory of Social Contract
Despite the fact that Hobbes was a great system-builder and his theory of social contract
constituted a well-knit theory, the critics point out its several limitations.
1. Hobbes conception of human nature was untrue and one sided. To explain it only in terms of
fear and selfishness was indeed wrong. Had man had been as selfish, fearful and quarrelsome, as
shown by Hobbes, it would not have been really possible for him to surrender himself to a third
person - the sovereign. Hobbes failed to give any place to virtues in his conception of human
nature.
2. The explanation of state of nature as given by Hobbes also appears to be unrealistic and harsh.
How could there be a stage of extreme individualism in which each man could act as a world in
himself, in which might was right, and in which life was barbarian and full of bloodshed and
wars. In case this view of the state of nature is accepted, we find it difficult to accept his view
that people living in the state of nature 'agreed' to enter into a social contract.
3. On the one hand Hobbes portrays the state of nature as a state of anarchy and chaos and on the
other hand he talks of the natural right of making contracts and the natural law of obeying the
contracts. Both assertions are contradictory.
4. Hobbes' social contract was ill-conceived as a contract between two persons agreeing to
surrender their self-governing powers to a third person (Non-party to contract), who became the
sovereign. Contract always binds the parties and cannot involve a third party which remains
away from contract. How could such a contract be valid?
5. According to Hobbes, the social contract led to the birth of absolute sovereignty of the ruler.
Such a conception has an in-built thesis in favour of absolutism and despotism. It is indeed a
very dangerous concept.
6. Reading Hobbes, one feels that first Hobbes makes man sovereign and then forces him to sign
the contract and become a 'dependent', if not slave of the sovereign."He could enjoy only those
rights and freedoms as were to be granted by the sovereign." The contract of Hobbes appears to
be a charter of slavery for the people and it is supposed to be based upon the voluntarily made
contract of the people.
7. Hobbes failed to make a distinction between Society, State and Government. He wrongly held
that these appeared simultaneously when the social contract was made.
8. It is indeed wrong to say that law is only the command of the sovereign and that force alone is
the sanction behind law. Law has several sources and there are several sanctions behind it.
9. Hobbes theory of social contract contains an unhealthy and non-acceptable mixture of both
extreme individualism (State of Nature) and extreme absolutism (Civil rule under an absolute
sovereign.)
10. Hobbes was not objective in his attempt. He was a supporter of monarchy and the absolute
sovereignty of the Br. monarch. He tailored his theory to justify his support for the British King.
He used his skill as a great system-builder to project that extreme individualism naturally leads
to extreme absolutism and that for security of his person, each individual must accept full
subordination to an absolute ruler.
Thus, Hobbes' theory of social contract cannot be accepted as valid. It wrongly holds that the
State is a man-made machine. State is a natural human institution that has evolved naturally
through a historical process of evolution. However, Hobbes social contract theory did one good
job i.e. it gave a death blow to the Divine Origin theory of State and lent some weightage to the
force theory of the origin of the State.
SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY OF LOCKE
John Locke, another Englishman, also came out with his theory of social contract origin of the
State. His theory was built in complete contrast to Hobbes'. In the 17th century, a struggle for
supremacy between the British King and Br. Parliament, where as Hobbes was on the side of the
King, Locke supported the cause of the Parliament. Locke favoured the concept of sovereignty of
the community and the right of the community to change the rulers in case they were found to be
violators of natural rights and the powers vested in them by the community. Locke was an
individualist and his ideas gave a solid foundation to the philosophy of individualism. His
conception of natural rights provided a strong basis to individualism for about 100 years.
Because of this, Docke earned for himself the title of being the father of Individualism
(traditional). He presented his views in his work: Two Treatises on Government (1690).
1. Locke's conception of Human Nature. Like Aristotle, Locke believed that man is a social
and rational being. He loves peace, order and harmony. He is bound by the ties of family and
society. Selfishness is a part of a human individual but basically, he is a social being by nature.
He is also a rational individual.
2. Locke's view of the State of Nature. Locke also held the view that originally man used to
live in a state of nature. This was, however, not a pre-social stage. Society i.e. set of social
relations were there in the state of nature. In fact, social relations (society) came to develop
naturally because of the social nature of man. However, this state of nature was a pre-political
stage in the sense that in it there was no state or government. Life in such a natural state was
peaceful, orderly and harmonious because of the social and harmony-loving nature of man. It
was also characterised by a system of natural rights. These were the dictates of nature/natural
reason to every man. Men inherited natural rights from nature. Of the several rights enjoyed by
men, the most prominent were the natural rights to life, liberty, equality and property.
People enjoyed these rights as these were backed by natural laws - the commands of natural
reason. These also imposed obligations corresponding to natural rights.
Thus, life in the state of nature was peaceful, harmonious and orderly. It was characterised by
natural rights and natural laws, and was both social and moral in nature.
3. The need for Civil Society (State) :According to Locke, life in the state of nature was
peaceful and harmonious and yet there were present several difficulties/needs. In the main, these
were:
(a) the need to protect natural rights from the selfishness of some persons i.e. the need to secure
the natural rights more effectively, efficiently and enduringly;
(b) the need to meet the needs resulting from the growing complexities of social relations;
(c) the need for future law-making ;
(d) the need for the enforcement of laws ; and
(e) the need to have a system of settlement of disputes.
These difficulties compelled the people living in the state of nature to devise ways and means for
overcoming their problems. In this exercise, the natural rights and natural laws guided them.
They decided to end the state of nature through a social contract and to establish a civil society
i.e. State. People living in the state of nature enjoyed the natural right to enter into contracts, and
the contracts so entered upon were backed by the natural law to obey these as binding
obligations.
4. Locke's Social Contract. The people living in the state of nature entered into a social contract
for establishing a civil society. It was a contract of all with all by which all agreed to give up
some of their rights in the interest of the need to overcome the difficulties being faced by them in
the state of nature.
The social contract that the people entered into was in fact a composite of two contracts.
The first was the civil contract which created the civil society i.e. the State or sovereign
community and the second was the governmental (Political) contract by which the civil society
(the sovereign community), acting collectively, created a government of some selected persons,
which was assigned some specific functions/duties, and for which it was to exercise specified
authority. The authority of the government rested on the consent of the governed i.e. community.
According to Locke, the social contract led to the birth of a sovereign community-the state,
which got the supreme responsibility to remove the difficulties faced in the state of nature as well
as to secure a more fruitful and efficient protection of natural rights. The sovereign community
entered into a contract with a few selected persons - who came to constitute the government.
This government was given specific and limited powers which were considered essential for the
protection of natural rights. It was also given the power of law-making, law-implementation and
adjudication of disputes. Locke accepted the case of the separation of the legislative and
executive powers. These were to be exercised by two distinct organs-the legislature and the
executive. The former was to make laws and the latter was to implement laws. There was also to
be a third organ of the government exercising federative power i.e. the power to make treaties.
The government rested on the consent of the governed i.e. the community. In case the
community found that the government as a whole or any one of its organs individually was not
carrying out its functions as per specifications or was violating the terms of the contract, the
community could withdraw its consent. Locke described it as the right of the people to revolt
against the government or against any one of its organs. Whereas Hobbes had denied the right of
revolt, and even the possibility of a revolt, Locke admitted that people enjoyed the right to revolt
i.e. to withdraw their consent from a particular government or any of its organs and to replace it
with another government.
To sum up, we can say that Locke's theory of social contract postulated :
(a) Originally people used to live in a prehistoric state of nature which was pre-political but not
pre-social.
(b) The state of nature was characterised by peace and harmony as it had a system of natural laws
and natural rights. However it faced several difficulties.
(c) The people decided to end this state of nature and to establish a civil society for overcoming
the difficulties faced by them in the state of nature.
(d) The civil society was established through a social contract and it resulted into the birth of a
sovereign community (the State). Ruler was a party to the contract.
(e) The sovereign community then entered into a second contract with a selected number of
people (the government), and gave to it limited, defined and definite authority. The government
was to be the agent of the sovereign community.
(f) The government rested upon the consent of the community and derived its powers from it.
Government was responsible before it. The community had the right to change the government
or any of its organs at will, whenever it found the government violating or not carrying out the
terms of the contract. Locke conceded to the people, the right to revolt i.e. the right to withdraw
their consent from the government.
Locke's theory epitomised the philosophy and spirit of the Glorious Revolution (1688), which
forced the Br. King James Il to flee from the country and abdicate. The people of England, acting
through their Parliament offered the throne to Queen Marry and King William jointly. This
symbolised the recognition of the supremacy of Parliament of England and its right to have the
ruler of its choice.
Critical Evaluation of Locke's Theory of Social Contract.
The theory of Social Contract as developed by Locke appears to be more acceptable than the one
formulated by Hobbes, Nevertheless, it also has several limitations. The critics point out
following limitations of Locke's Social Contract Theory.
1. Locke's conception of the state of nature is again unrealistic. It is indeed an
idealistic to be true.
exaggeration to say that it was a state of peace, harmony and order. It appears too
2. Locke's conception of natural rights and natural laws is again unrealistic, vague and
unacceptable. There cannot be any law or right without the State. Locke posits an unduly big and
firm faith in human nature and human reason.
3. Like all other social contractualists, Locke wrongly holds that the state is a creation of human
will and that it is a man-made machine.
4. History gives no proof of a contract and we find Locke talking of not one but two contracts.
5. In practice, the government exercises all the powers of the State. It is not as limited as
suggested by Locke. He wrongly holds the government to be an utterly limited agency of the
sovereign community.
6. Locke was wrong in accepting the right to revolt. No society and no state grants or can grant
such a right. Locke makes revolution very easy. Revolutions do come and these have come in
several societies, but in no society people enjoy the right to revolt. There can be no legitimate
right to revolt against the State.
7. Locke's social contract theory lacks objectivity. He was committed to support the case for the
supremacy of the British Parliament and to project the philosophy of the Glorious Revolution.
He did it through his theory of social contract. He used it as a means to a committed end.
8. Locke was an individualist. He wanted to build a very strong case in favour of individual
rights and freedom. He did so on the basis of his theory of natural rights and natural laws. It was
indeed an unscientific and theoretical basis. In the age of science, and with the development of
reason, an lost faith in this basis and consequently in the 19th century the philosophy of
individualism came to be helpless and confused. No one can really accept the theory of natural
rights and natural laws.
However, despite these limitations, Locke's theory of social contract did strengthen the human
thinking in favour of rights and freedoms of the individual. Locke realised the distinction
between State and Society as well as between State and Government. He
introduced the concept of consent of the governed as the basis of the authority of government.
He also made it clear that sovereignty of the State did not mean sovereignty of the ruler. The
rulers hold power in trust and they are to exercise it only for the protection of the rights, interests
and needs of the people
Locke's reasoning helped the process of the development of a theory of government, nay a theory
of democratic government, which really got materialised in the 19th century and led to the
recognition of the 20th century as the age of democracy. For about 100 years Locke's ideas
provided a strong basis to the philosophy of Individualism and Locke earned the title of being the
representative of his age and individualism.
ROUSSEAU'S THEORY OF SOCIAL CONTRACT
In the 18th century, the great French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rousseau came forward to project
his theory of social contract. This was done in his work: The Social Contract (1762). He was
concerned with the objective of finding a logical explanation for the birth and nature of the State.
He adopted and analysed the theory of social contract and built a good case in' favour of popular
sovereignty. However, the manner in which he did this was paradoxical and ambiguous. On the
one hand he influenced the French revolutionaries in adopting Liberty, Equality and Fraternity as
their motto, but on the other hand, the idealists like Hegel got from his ideas the inspiration to
build a theory of omnipotent state which involved a conception of state worship. In his social
contract theory Rousseau followed both Hobbes and Locke. His starting point was like Locke but
his conclusions were similar to Hobbes. He followed the general plan of the social
contractualists.
1. Rousseau's Conception of Human Nature : Rousseau believed that originally man was a
carefree and innocent individual. He had no sense of mine and thine. He was unmindful of what
others did. He enjoyed a blissful living. There were no limitations and he enjoyed full liberty,
rather ideal liberty. However, later on selfishness had its birth in the form of private property and
man became selfish. He got engaged in wars (Property wars). Man became preverted. He started
lamenting and wanted to go back to the original state of nature, which however he could not do.
2. Rousseau's explanation of the State of Nature : Like Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau also
believed that originally man used to live in a state of nature. Like Hobbes and unlike Locke,
Rousseau held that this was both a pre-social and pre-political stage. Man lived in this state of
nature as an individual. However, according to Rousseau, man was neither quarrelsome nor
selfish. He was a carefree and happy man. He was a noble savage and led a life of simplicity and
idyllic happiness. He had no sense of mine and thine. No one interfered in the perfect freedom of
others. All lived a blissful life - a life of perfect freedom. It was indeed the ideal natural state of
man i.e. a state of perfect freedom and blissful living.
However, this proved to be a short lived stage. The increase in population, the dawn of reason,
growing economic needs, emergence of family and the institution of property wrecked this life of
simplicity and bliss. The birth of selfishness led to the emergence of private property, property
disputes and wars. Perpetual wars destroy natural freedom and happiness. It became a state of
inequalities, and loss of freedom became a sad reality. The men who had lived in the original
state of complete freedom, equality and bliss now suffered a loss of freedom and their blissful
living was gone. They naturally wanted to "go back to nature". But alas! they could not do so.
Rousseau observed. "Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains." He longed for original
freedom but failed. He therefore decided to get rid of his wretched life in the state of nature and
for this he decided to establish a civil society through a social contract.
3. Rousseau's Social Contract and the Birth of General Will : The people escaped from the
state of nature by forming a civil society and replacing natural freedom with civil freedom. This
was done through a social contract, which was both social and political.
Each one surrendered oneself to the collective real will of all — the General Will i.e. the real will
of all for the good of all. "Each of us puts in common his position and his whole power under the
supreme direction of the General Will and in return we receive as every member, an indivisible
part of the whole."
"By the social contract, each individual surrenders himself to the collective will of all i.e.
General Will. In doing so each one gains more than what one loses. By surrendering to General
Will, each one becomes a part of it and hence becomes a gainer. In fact, a surrender before the
General Will is no surrender at all because it is the real will of all. When each surrenders to it,
one only surrenders to one's own real will.
General Will being the 'collective real will' of all for highest social good, emerged as is supreme
i.e. sovereign will. It emerged as the totality of the best wills of all and willing the best social
good of all the people. It, therefore, became the duty of all individuals to obey the General Will
i.e. the sovereign will acting for securing the social good of all.
In obeying the General Will, one obeyed his own real will which was a part of the General Will.
No one could disagree with General Will as no one could disagree with his own real will.
Whenever an individual disagreed and disobeyed the General Will, he did so under the influence
of his selfish will (Actual Will). In this case it became the duty of the General Will to free the
individual from the bondage of his selfish will and make him conform to his real will i.e. the
General Will.
Thus, according to Rousseau, the social contract gave birth to the General Will - the popular
sovereign representing the real will of all and working for the good of all. Each individual
became a part of it as well as surrendered his rights and procedures to it. As the popular
sovereignty, the General Will got the right to exercise unlimited, absolute, inalienable, infallible
and indivisible sovereignty. The birth of the General Will led to the establishment of civil
society. State emerged as a manifestation of General Will.
Thus, Rousseau's social contract theory involved a support for popular sovereignty of all
the people.
Critical Evaluation of Rousseau's Social Contract Theory
However, the way Rousseau explained his theory of General Will, was vague and confusing. It
contained several paradoxes. Rousseau made a distinction between Real Will (will for good of all
or social good) and Actual Will (selfish will for selfish good). It was an abstract and unreal way
of dividing human will in two parts.
Further, Rousseau held that General Will was the will of all not in the sense of numerical
numbers but in the sense of being the will for the good of all. Such a view was both confusing
and dangerous. Any dictator would claim that he was acting for the good of all and was
representing the General Will. In this way, he could rule ruthlessly and justify his rule as rule of
General will.
Moreover, Rousseau held that General Will could use force for liberating the individual from the
bondage of his actual (selfish) will and for making him conform to his real will i.e.
General Will. It involves a paradox. How can the use of force by the state (acting as the agent of
General Will) be accepted as the way of protecting the freedom of the individual?
Rousseau's theory of social contract was in fact as faultier as was Hobbe's theory. It was
speculative, abstract, unhistorical and faulty in several ways. Rousseau too failed to make a
distinction between state, society and government. According to him the social contract ended
the state of nature and led to the birth of civil society. Though Rousseau defined sovereignty as
popular sovereignty, yet he assigned to it all the features of Hobbes absolute sovereignty.
Rousseau's concept of the General Will was used by the idealists to build the theory of an all
powerful omnipotent state.
Hence, Rousseau's theory of social contract cannot be accepted as a valid theory of the
origin and nature of state.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT THEORY
After studying the features of the social contract theory in general and the views of Hobbes.
Locke and Rousseau in particular, we can easily attempt its critical evaluation. As a whole it can
be said that Social Contract theory represents bad law, bad history and bad philosophy. It
represents bad law because it conceives of a binding contract without the sanction of a sovereign
authority. It represents bad history and is unhistorical because history gives no proof of a social
contract ever made by the people at any stage of social evolution. It represents bad philosophy in
so far as it conceives of the state as an artificial machine made by man through a social contract.
We can point out the following weaknesses of the Social Contract theory.
1. Unhistorical. History of human civilization contains no proof of a social contract. No
historical event can be quoted to prove that the State came into existence through a social
contract.
2. State of Nature is a fiction: There is again no proof of the existence of a pre-social and
pre-political state of nature in which each man used to live as an individual. Even if we may
accept it for the purpose of theory, it becomes impossible to ascertain its true nature.
Hobbes defined it as a state of anarchy, chaos and wars, Locke said it was a state of peace, order
and harmony, and Rousseau said originally it was a state of bliss but later on it came to be a state
of anarchy, chaos, selfishness and wars. There is no way to decide which view is right and which
is not. Critics reject the very existence of such a state of nature.
3. State is not a man-made machine : Social Contract theory wrongly projects state as a
man-made institution which had its birth through a social contract of the people. State is a natural
human institution. It came into existence through a natural process of social evolution and not
through a contract.
4. No Contract can be really possible without the State and Law: The social contract theory
wrongly advocates that the state came into existence through a binding social contract.
The critics argue, and rightly so, that there could be no binding and valid contract without the
sanctions of the state and its laws.
5. Contract binds only the parties and not their successors: Let us assume for the sake of
argument that there was made a binding social contract by the people living in the state of nature.
Now as per the dictates of law, a contract binds only the parties and it ends when the parties die.
Hence even if a contract was signed, it could not have been binding for long. It ended with the
death of the parties to the contract. Then why is the state existing today? We have not signed the
contract and why should we, therefore, be bound to the State? The fact is that we are bound to
the State not because of a supposed social contract made by our fore-fathers but because the state
is our naturally evolved political institution.
6. Unreality of Natural Rights and Laws : Hobbes assumed the presence of some natural rights
even when there was anarchy in the state of nature. Locke based his whole theory on the theory
of natural rights and natural laws. Rousseau also tacitly accepted the right of the people to enter
into a social contract. However, the doctrine of natural right has been unreal and imaginary.
There could be no rights prior to the birth of a civil society.
Bentham described the theory of natural rights as pre-historic nonsense. There could be no right
outside the society.
7. Membership of State is not voluntary : The social contract theory wrongly suggests that
membership of state is voluntary and that relationship between individual and state is based on
contract. The truth is that the state is a natural necessity of man and he becomes a citizen of a
state by birth and not by choice. Further, it is the state which can grant citizenship to a person.
The persons cannot contract to attain statehood.
8. A Dangerous Theory : Social contract theory was used by Hobbes to build a case in favour of
absolute sovereignty of the ruler. Locke used it to advocate the right of the people to revolt and
the concept of a very limited government. Rousseau used it to build a case in favour of popular
sovereignty but in the process he paved the way for the idealists to use it for building a theory of
an omnipotent state. Thus, Social Contract theory is a dangerous theory because it can be
subjected to different and opposed interpretations.
Hence, Social Contract theory is not a valid theory. It fails to correctly explain the origin of the
State. It has also not been successful in presenting an acceptable theory of the origin, nature and
functions of State.