The Social "Contract"

In the Social Contract, philosopher and composer, Jean-Jacques Rousseau lays out a theoretical premise for a “well order society” in which all its basic elements are fundamental to its organization and success. His primary purpose is to examine whether civil society (or, the social “contract”) is a legitimate form of political authority or not and why the majority of citizens are compelled to obey this form of association. Rousseau states that “social order is a sacred right that serves as the foundation for all others” which leads to the secondary purpose of his discourse, which is to explain in detail the unwritten conventions of society, since this right “does not come from nature”. This means, that unless citizens have a full comprehension of what these conventions are exactly, the social compact is not a just form of association. Presumably, this discourse was published in an attempt to enlighten those who could benefit from a greater understanding of these unwritten (and resentfully too often, unspoken conventions), which would theoretically, improve the overall functioning of the social “contract” itself.

Arguably, The Social Contract, was inspired by Rousseau’s personal observations of civil society and the repressive forces of the state that often fail to protect the freedoms and liberties of its citizens. Citizens who sometimes overlook the failings of their government, mistaking it for a legitimate form of authority. This discourse is especially known for its opening line “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains”, which is a metaphor for the transformation from the natural freedom that humans possessed in nature to the restrictive confines of civil order that can fool even those holding the highest levels of power into thinking that they are not just as enchained as the ones they hold power over. Luckily however, “we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers” according to Rousseau and so it is important to deeply question the legitimacy of our authority (all forms of authority) so that we are not yielding to a power that is undeserving of our compliance.

Before I delve any further into my argument however, it is important for readers to understand exactly what I am referring to, when I use the word "conventions", in this context. What I am referring to, in this case, are the unwritten codes of conduct and social practices and etiquette which cause a society to form around these implicit agreements. Such conventions result in a mode of self-government which is sustaining itself through common motives held by its members, that being, protection and general functioning that works to the benefit of "everybody" in that community. Indeed, before laws were written, the success of a community was highly dependent on the individual and collective understanding of its conventions and so it was very essential that everybody had a firm understanding of what they were. In my opinion, this remains just as important now as it ever did, if not more so, as our current laws create a very vulnerable situation for those who are not privy to them. Regretfully, this has resulted in a society where citizens are endlessly trying to punish those who are not conforming to these unwritten codes of conduct without considering the advantage they hold over these vulnerable individuals or the ways in which they gained their own moral reasoning and knowledge of these conventions. Furthermore, contemporary societies are not only much larger in size and population than they were in ancient times but they are also much more "mixed" in regards to race, religion, wealth, language, education levels, aspirations etc. so it easy to see how some members (citizens) could be prevented from gaining a full and clear understanding of what these conventions are exactly.

Moreover, since "conventions remain as the basis of all legitimate authority among human beings”, it is essential that we explore these conventions carefully as they constitute the foundation from which all other levels of “political authority” grow. The weight of Rousseau's argument in the Social Contract rests in the fact, that since people “become a people” before they “choose a king” it means that the very premise of political rule itself, has been decided by the “law of the majority vote” which is itself “established by convention and presupposes unanimity on at least one occasion”. Technically speaking, this means that nobody is obligated to “submit to the choice of the majority” because no truly legitimate agreement ever took place to begin with.

Rousseau attempts to explain the particularities of the social “contract” and how it theoretically, provides a solution to the problems embedded into the structure of civil order as it stands, so that each person may “remain as free as they did before” (“before” being, in nature). His theory is such, that if each member “obeys only himself” (as would be the case in the state of nature, in which one is only concerned with their/her/his own self-preservation), then this would create a “communal force” that would naturally defend and protect the interests and property of each member within that society. Paradoxically however, this requires every member to give up “all his rights to the entire community” which is what validates this “contract” in the first place because its conditions are the same for everyone. However, the success of this contract still, remains dependent on “each person giv[ing] [themself] entirely” to the community, which typically doesn’t happen, since not all society members are given an equal opportunity to understand the premise (conventions) of the association itself, therefore, are less inclined to “give themselves” fully to its cause.

Would a standard set of morals and ethics not be essential to the success of such an association? Could this social “contract” ever, truly, be effectual without some type of common religion to support it? Since Rousseau claims that God is the source of justice later in his discourse, it means that every member of society would have to be allowed an equal opportunity to understand this higher power for this association to be lawful and just. And since a state cannot force religion on its citizens, it means that citizens are not necessarily being given an equal opportunity to understand the very source of its "legitimacy". Indeed, those who are prevented from understanding the religion common to their community will be the ones most susceptible to antagonism (through no fault of their own) because they will be the very citizens who will make it “burdensome for others” as their interests will inevitably collide with the majority who have been offered the chance to see, feel, understand, and experience the true benefits of such an association. Moreover, Rousseau’s theory in this discourse does not take into account, the various disabilities which prevent some citizens from gaining a full understanding of their’ individual rights and freedoms in the first place, therefore, those individuals cannot justly give themselves and their rights to the entire community, not having had a full understanding of what they were in the first place. These omissions prevent the social contract from resulting in a just and well-ordered society as its mere conventions do not form a strong enough basis for legitimate authority.

Sincerely,

Heather

Note: Please do not interpret my argument as support for a common religion as to do so, would be a gross manipulation and misinterpretation of my reflections. Like I have stated before, I feel strongly that religion indirectly creates a platform for inequality to occur in societies because it is much too easily manipulated by those who use it as a tool to either subjugate their “competition” or to alienate those whom they find threatening to themselves and/or to society as, a whole. In my personal opinion, religion is not a just foundation for civil order and believe that a universal set of moral and ethical guidelines would create a much more legitimate basis for the social “contract”, from a global perspective. With that said, I personally, have nothing against individuals who practice religion as my ideas and reflections emanate from my global and evolutionary perspective of the world and how I imagine the safety and success of it and its inhabitants in the future. And again, these are my personal reflections based on my own personal understanding of Rosseau's Social Contract and they have not been inspired by any other sources other than that. And lastly, please do not interpret these reflections as an attack upon the Canadian government as my intention is not to create a rebellion against it, but rather, to provide insight that may challenge humans (nationally and internationally) to observe authority (all forms of authority) in ways that may help free their souls and/or empower them in some way.