The idea of social contract can be summed up as the notion that people or citizens are the
source of power to the state and that the state exists to serve the people. In other words,
it is the view that moral and political obligations are dependent upon an agreement
between the state and its people (Friend,2004).It can be said that, the idea of elections
stems from this, where the people can choose to give or withhold power. The theory has
been espoused by many writers from ancient times such as Plato and in modern times, by
thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Of particular
interest are the works of Hobbes, The Leviathan and J.J. Rousseau, The Social Contract. In
discussing the differences and similarities between both author’s thoughts on social
contract, an examination of their influences will occasionally come to the fore.
Both authors come to their conclusion of the social contract by recognizing the nature of
man in his most basic state. Both agree that, all men are created equal, but differ
considerably on the reasons men come into contract with each other. Hobbes in his
Leviathan paints a pessimistic picture of the origins of social contract, where according to
him, man is in a state of perpetual war with each other, “war of all against all” (Hobbes
185). The backdrop to such pessimism lies in his conception that, man is a selfish being,
seeking his own interests at the expense of others. This selfishness results in a state of
lawlessness where following Lex Naturalis and Jus Naturalis, man will not destroy himself
but is empowered to use every means possible to preserve his life and happiness at
everyone else expense. This state of lawlessness then births a situation where every man
is an enemy to everyone. This inevitably leads to a situation where there is no right nor
wrong and men live in perpetual fear of one another. A social contract naturally followed
where men being rational beings, surrendered their powers to an absolute third party who
was not subject to the contract, but used all powers accorded within. Rousseau however
disagrees with Hobbes, indicating that, man’s life is not naturally in Hobbes words,
“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”, rather, it is man’s circumstances that lead him to
such a state. According to Rousseau, all men are born free and are simply interested in self
preservation. In his state of nature, man’s actions are primarily directed by his immediate
food needs, sexual satisfaction and sleep. His only fear is hunger and pain. Rousseau
differs from Hobbes where he describes humans as naturally being empathetic to the
plight of fellow humans. Such empathy and compassion thus prevents man from harming
another man. To Rousseau, it is the development of society and its progress that have led
man to the position shared by by Hobbes on the nature of man.
Morality is touched on by both authors as they explore their notions of the social contract.
To Hobbes as previously insinuated, man is naturally evil and selfish, seeking only his own
preservation. This leads to a situation where there is morally no wrong nor right, just
selfishness and fear. This comes about as a result of the Law of Nature (Lex Naturalis ) and
the Right of Nature (Jus Naturalis). The law of nature is a natural rule that man is forbidden
from actions that will bring destruction to or take away the means of preserving his life
and happiness and the the right of nature is the right of every person to use every means
possible to secure his own life and happiness. Rousseau however differs, indicating that,
man is not naturally as Hobbes described, but evolves into that state as civilization
develops. To sum up Rousseau on morality, “the state of nature degenerates into a brutish
condition if there is no law or morality. The human race must at that point adopt
institutions of law or cease to exist”.
Both authors also recognize a central requirement and defining feature of a political unit
to be a sovereign power. For Hobbes, the existence and creation of an effective sovereign
is needed for workable social and political organization. Following from his conception of
the social contract, he believes that those partaking in the contract must hand over their
rights, liberties and powers to a sovereign or monarch, who rules in their interest. To him,
the absence of such a sovereign takes man back to his natural state which is one of
perpetual fear and exploitation. This sovereign should be a Leviathan, allowed free reign
to do whatever he/she deems necessary to ensure peace and order. All the people in
giving up their rights in order that they may no longer live under a state of perpetual fear,
could not reject this Leviathan as everything he did was in the best interest of the people.
Rousseau however insists that, it is the people that hold the power and therefore, it is the
general will of the people that will guide them. In so doing, people are not subject to the
wills, or the whims and caprices of one person, but to what is desirous of everyone. This
goes a long way to ensure that, society doesn’t degenerate into the kind described by
Hobbes. Put simply, Rousseau argued that sovereignty should be in the hands of the
people and governments should simply be the enforcers and implementers of that will.
Despite their glaring differences on issues, both thinkers shared some fundamental
likeness. Both acknowledge that man is created equally and no one is above the other.
Rousseau begins his Social Contract saying: “ man is born free; but everywhere he is in
chains”. Hobbes also shares man’s equality where he explains that, man is simply alive for
his own self preservation and lives in fear of the other. By expounding this idea, we
understand that, all men invariably seek their own selfish interests while at the same time,
remain weary of their brothers. Similarly, both men agree that, a contract should be
entered into to ensure man’s well being. They only differ significantly on the manner in
which this contract should be entered into, with Hobbes advocating absolutism and
Rousseau, participatory governance or general good will.
Again, both thinkers recognize that, man has the tendency to be at war with each other,
and to seem very evil. Hobbes however asserts that man is this way from his conception,
whereas Rousseau sees this as resulting from circumstances men find themselves in. both
men believe in man’s rationality as the only reason to enter the social contract. While
Hobbes explicitly advocates for absolute rule, Rousseau does so implicitly when he
cautions that, “despotism can lead to a joyless tranquility. By recognizing man’s rationality
and shrewdness, both thinkers were then able to formulate their theories on the contract,
however their divergent conclusions. Both men unquestionably, set out on their ideas of a
social contract in a quest to find a common ground and solution for which man could live
in harmony with each other.
It is important to note however that, both writers wrote at very different times and
contexts. For example, Hobbes wrote in a period where there were many wars and
anarchy seemed to be the order of the day, whereas Rousseau wrote in a relatively
peaceful period. Moreover, both men had very different upbringings and influences and
more importantly, both grew up in different eras. The point here is that, they perhaps
would have come to the same conclusion had they at least, lived in the same era and saw
the same things. Conclusively, both thinkers paved the way for modern conceptions of
democracy and authoritarianism, the former the guiding principle of many governments
around the world today.
REFERENCES
Celeste Friend, 2004, Social Contract Theory.[Online]
Internet Encyclopaedia of Philosophy.
Available: http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/
[Accessed April 26, 2014]
Jeff Weintraub, 2007, Rousseau vs. Hobbes on sovereignty, citizenship & the political. Online.
Jeff Weintraub.
Available: jeffweintraub.blogspot.nl/2007/12/rousseau-vs-obbes-on-sovereignty.html
[Accessed April 26, 2014]
Julie et. al, 2005. Views on the Social Contract. Online.
Mr. Beaver’s AP Euro Blog.
Available: rbrhistory.blogspot.nl/2005/11/views-on-social-contract.html
[Accessed April 26, 2014]
Kelly Martin, Social Contract. Online.
About.com
Available: americanhistory.about.com/od/usconstitution/g/social_contract.html
[Accessed April 26, 2014]
10379021
College Workouts 