A free man, according to Rousseau, is independent, responsible, morally competent and master of his own will. Freedom is man’s essential property. The political community, on the other hand, is to invoke in the citizen a feeling of social affiliation and duty rather than a sense of individuality. Most important, citizenship presupposes the right to subject every member of the society to the law, which is produced by the general will, that is by the permanent aspiration of the common good.
In The Social Contract (1762), Rousseau sets out to reconcile the claims of freedom and the constrains that arise with the necessary establishment of political authority: What humans need is “a form of association which will defend and protect […] the person and goods of each associate and in which each, whilst uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone and be as free as before“. In his opinion, the social contract can bring about such a change by means of law, that is by allowing every citizen to vote “on matters of common interest” in an assembly. The regulations thus set up are an expression of every single man’s will and therefore binding for all. Those who do not subject to it voluntarily will be “forced to be free”. Instead of reconciling the competing claims, Rousseau seems to have erected a verbal paradox.
The aim of the following essay is to show to what extent, if at all, the paradox is the solution to the competing claims of the individual and the community. I will begin with a description of the state of nature, the loss of it and the subsequent unsatisfactoryalternative. Those are factors which make another form of political association indispensable. Then, I will introduce Rousseau’s problematic concept of socio-political integration, followed by two major concepts of freedom according to Isaiah Berlin. Finally, I will argue that the solution of the paradox, the unification of liberty and citizenship, hinges primarily on the definition of freedom and in a wider sense on the weighting of obstacles to the practicability of Rousseau’s theory.
In my opinion, a reconciliation of the claims of the individuals and the community is possible only in civil but not in moral and liberal terms.
Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)
- Introduction
- Competing claims, irreconcilable claims? The individual and the community in Rousseau's The Social Contract
- Leaving the state of nature
- Rousseau's and Hobbes' state of nature compared
- From the disruption to a state of illegitimate political authority
- Problems: Rousseau's concept of a socio-political mode of existence
- Becoming a people
- The nature of the general will
- The realisation and maintenance of the general will: the legislator
- The education of a citizen
- Making and living the social contract
- The contracting parties
- The making of the law and the city-state
- The (un)limited sovereign power
- The subjection to the law and “forced to be free”
- Being an individual and a citizen: concepts of freedom according to Berlin and their application to Rousseau's thought
- Negative freedom: the liberal view
- Positive freedom: the idealist and the republican view
- The idealist view - freedom towards oneself
- The republican view - freedom towards one another
- Conclusion
- Rousseau's conception of the state of nature and its contrast with Hobbes's view
- The concept of the general will and its role in the social contract
- The implications of Rousseau's theory for individual freedom and citizenship
- The relationship between freedom and political authority in Rousseau's thought
- The limits and challenges of reconciling individual claims with the collective good
Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)
This essay aims to examine the extent to which Rousseau's theory of the social contract reconciles the competing claims of the individual and the community. It will explore Rousseau's concept of the state of nature, the transition to a socio-political mode of existence, and the concept of the general will. The essay will also analyze two major concepts of freedom according to Isaiah Berlin, namely negative freedom and positive freedom, and their applicability to Rousseau's thought. Ultimately, the essay will argue that Rousseau's theory ultimately presents a paradox, as it attempts to reconcile individual freedom with the constraints of political authority.
Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)
The essay begins by contrasting Rousseau's and Hobbes' views on the state of nature, highlighting Rousseau's depiction of a peaceful and harmonious existence before socialisation. The essay then delves into Rousseau's problematic concept of socio-political integration, exploring the nature of the general will, the role of the legislator, and the education of a citizen. The essay further examines the making and living of the social contract, including the role of the contracting parties, the creation of law, the (un)limited power of the sovereign, and the idea of being “forced to be free.” The essay concludes by analyzing two concepts of freedom, negative and positive, as presented by Isaiah Berlin, and applying these concepts to Rousseau's thought. The essay argues that a reconciliation of individual and collective claims is possible in civil terms, but not in moral or liberal terms.
Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)
This essay examines key concepts within Rousseau's political philosophy, including the social contract, the state of nature, the general will, individual freedom, citizenship, and the tension between individual and collective rights. It also delves into the philosophical framework of freedom presented by Isaiah Berlin, particularly the concepts of negative and positive freedom. The essay explores the challenges of reconciling individual autonomy with the demands of political authority in a social contract context.
- Quote paper
- Anne Thoma (Author), 2004, An examination of the extent to which Rousseau reconciled the claims of the individual and the community, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/29905
