Borrowing the evaluation of Wikipedia, the idea that sovereignty belongs to the people in The Social Contract is the cornerstone of modern democratic system, which has profoundly influenced the movement of gradually abolishing the absolute power of European monarchs.
Why does Rousseau's The Social Contract have such a powerful influence?
Because it not only subverts the old political civilization, but also subverts the old social civilization. Rousseau should not only discuss the legal source of national sovereignty, but also establish a just and equal society.
this is the core of the book on social contract.
Around this core, there are two main points in the book:
The first point is the meaning of social contract theory.
the second point is how to sign a social contract.
first, let's discuss the first point.
let me explain the term "social contract theory" first.
First of all, I want to tell you that the theory of social contract was not initiated by Rousseau. Since the 16th century, many thinkers have discussed related issues. According to this theory, there is a natural state before a civilized society. From the natural state to entering a civilized society and establishing a country, all of us must first sign a contract in order to determine the rights and obligations of individuals. How to sign this contract, what is the content and what is the result are the contents to be discussed in the theory of social contract.
Of course, we know that from the course of human history, when people entered tribes or countries from primitive society, there was no such thing as a "social contract". In fact, thinkers at that time also knew this. So, why do they discuss this theory? That's because these thinkers all believe that the power of the state should have a just foundation. In other words, you can't tell others that they should obey you just because you are the ruler. They may obey you for fear of your power, but it doesn't mean that you are just.
For a simple example, Rousseau said in On Social Contract that a robber caught me and forced me to give him my wallet. There is no doubt that this robber is powerful. But if someone thinks that strength is justice, should I give it to him because of conscience when I can hide my wallet? This is obviously an incredible thing.
So "social contract theory" actually discusses the following thing: although we are all under the rule of the state now, the state can force us to obey, but we can still demand that the rule of the state is just. Then how can justice be called? Suppose a situation: we are willing to give our rights to the country and let the country get the power to rule us. We can study what is the premise of this willingness. If the country can meet this premise, then its rule is naturally just. In other words, what are the rights that people naturally have and are born with, and which rights he is willing to transfer to the state are the contents to be studied in the "social contract theory", and "contract" refers to this willing process of rights transfer.
Rousseau is opposed to both theories. What is his reason?
Rousseau opposed Hobbes' theory for a simple reason.
He said that if a person is willing to transfer all his freedom rights to another person or to the government just because he is afraid of death, it is no different from voluntarily accepting slavery. If a person is willing to give up all his freedom, it is equivalent to giving up his qualification to be a human being, giving up human rights and even giving up his obligations. At this time, the contract he signed can't be called a contract. It's a surrender, and it's a declaration of giving up the qualification to be a man. The state power formed by such a contract is definitely not just. So we don't have to discuss this situation.
and how did Rousseau oppose Locke's theory? This involves his views on property rights. Before writing "On Social Contract", Rousseau once wrote another booklet called "On the Origin and Foundation of Human Inequality". The core point of this booklet is that the inequality of human society is, in the final analysis, the emergence of private property rights. At that time, when he wrote this pamphlet, he was still very radical. He even thought that once human beings entered the social state from the natural state, they would degenerate. According to Rousseau's original text, human beings in the natural state are "wandering in the forest", "no language", "no shelter" and "no war". At this time, human beings have no desire to harm others and benefit themselves. "Self-love" and "pity" are human nature. This is the "real youth" and "golden age" of mankind. However, once human beings begin to improve their own technology and produce more food, they will have the concept of private ownership after entering civilized society. Once we have the concept of private ownership, human beings will begin to play with intrigue and deception, and social inequality will follow.
as you can see, Rousseau's opposition to property rights is actually quite radical, so it is certainly impossible for Rousseau to regard private property rights as a natural right of human beings and a basic right that the state must protect like Locke. Rousseau must, on the one hand, prevent the state from oppressing citizens, on the other hand, prevent the state from giving in to private property rights, which will lead to social inequality.
At this time, you can understand Rousseau's deep thinking at the beginning of The Theory of Social Contract. The first sentence in the first chapter of Social Contract is a particularly famous sentence in the history of human thought: "People are born free, but they are everywhere in chains. He who thinks he is the master of everything else is a slave more than everything else. This sentence is very powerful and thought-provoking. Throughout the ages, many researchers have been exploring what Rousseau wants to express through this sentence. These related studies are overwhelming, so I won't go into details here. Personally, I think that if you want to understand Rousseau's sentence, you must first understand Rousseau's criticism of private property rights. We know that Locke's emphasis on private property rights is of course meaningful in the historical process, which is a restriction on tyranny and a resistance to power. But think about it, is human freedom only an enemy of tyranny and power? You restricted tyranny and resisted power. Does that mean you are free? I'm afraid it's not that simple. For everyone who wants to be free, there are many other shackles in our hearts, but they are not so easy to be removed. I think what Rousseau is trying to say may be, never think that freedom is a value that can be easily realized, even if you follow Rousseau's advice.
Having finished the meaning of social contract theory, let's talk about the second point:
How to sign a social contract that can not only prevent the country from becoming a slave owner but also prevent the country from falling into great social injustice? Rousseau found a way and a key word. This road is that you should clearly understand what the real state of nature is like. This key word is "general will".
let's explain the state of nature first. Rousseau believes that there is actually a relationship in human society that is the template of the real natural state, and this relationship is family relationship. The parent-child relationship in family relationship is enough to explain the relationship between attachment and freedom of human society. Why do you say that? Think about it, in family relations, children are of course dependent on their parents, but the premise of this dependent relationship is that children need the support of their parents, and parents also get rewards from the love between parents and children. Once a child is an adult, the relationship between the two sides becomes an equal relationship between independent individuals, which is the natural relationship of human beings. From this point of view, all other dependent relationships, whether slave to master or subordinate to boss, are unnatural. Therefore, if we want to imagine a social contract, we must first imagine that all the people who sign the social contract are independent, equal and friendly people. We must never assume that they will sign unequal contracts between slaves and masters or subordinates and bosses.
Rousseau believes that if we only consider this natural relationship between people, we can say that people in the natural state are very happy, they are equal to each other and have no desire to harm others and benefit themselves. However, considering the development and progress of human civilization, people must unite and cooperate to overcome the obstacles to survival caused by nature, otherwise the human species will fall into crisis. Therefore, people get rid of the natural state and sign social contracts not because of anything else, but to overcome various obstacles to survival in nature. Then, when signing a social contract, people should of course maintain their independent and equal status. However, signing a contract means that everyone has to obey a government. How can people remain independent and equal on the one hand and obey other organizations on the other?
this comes to the key word we just said, "general will". Rousseau emphasized that the fundamental goal of social contract is to make people obey a public power on the surface, but actually obey "himself and remain as free as ever". The only way to achieve this goal is to discover the "general will" of this society.
what is "general will"? "General will" refers to the will of all members of this society to safeguard the interests of this society. What I said here is a bit circuitous. Simply put, the word has several basic parts: First, the general will is the will of all members of this society, not the will of one or several of them; Second, the general will is to safeguard the interests of the same body, but this interest is a collective interest, not the interests of one or several people; Third, the collective interests maintained by the general will are a collection of personal interests, not something opposite to personal interests. In Rousseau's words, a * * * identical body has found the general will, which means that this * * * identical body "has obtained its unity, its public ego, its life and its will".
So in Rousseau's theory, once you find the general will, just like the Tang Priest in The Journey to the West got the scriptures, all the problems of social contract can be solved. General will is the clearest cognition about collective interests, so it must be infallible, in line with everyone's real interests and in line with everyone's free will. As long as this * * * same body finds the general will and defends it, then its members will inevitably agree with this * * * same body and defend it in common cause, because violating the general will means infringing on the interests of all. Here, you can see Rousseau's rhetoric about the general will.
However, on the other hand, Rousseau's general will also showed his fangs to all those who signed the social contract. Why do you say that? Because in Rousseau's theory, once this * * * identical body discovers the general will, signs a contract and forms a sovereign, that is, a country, you can't transfer or withdraw the rights you gave to this sovereign. In other words, you have no reason to oppose this sovereign. Because, since the general will is your truest interest and your freest will, your resistance to it is of course against your own will. If you are rational, how can you do such a thing? So if you do such a thing, there are only two possibilities. One is that you oppose the collective interests out of your own selfish interests, and the other is that you are blinded by your own desires or ignorance and can't see your real interests. So at this time, the sovereign can force you to obey the general will, but Rousseau said that this is not obedience, but "forcing you to be free."
This universal will may cause you a lot of bad associations. Of course, we have to admit that Rousseau also thought of what you thought, and put some restrictions on this general will. For example, he said, there is no need to deprive a person of all his wealth and freedom by public will. Everyone just needs to transfer the part that he is willing to hand over according to the provisions of the convention. He can still keep what he wants to keep. But Rousseau emphasized that as long as this convention is signed and the general will is formed, you can no longer have opinions on those rights that you are willing to transfer. At that time, if you had any opinions, it would be against the general will. Even if it is necessary, for example, to defend your country, your life should be sacrificed for the common good.
at this point, you can probably understand. Rousseau's "general will" is an extremely sacred and lofty concept. Only by discovering and maintaining this extremely sacred and lofty "general will" can an identical person establish the best and most just "social contract". It is precisely because of this that in Rousseau's mind, "general will" is absolutely inviolable. Having said that, you may still have a question. How do we find this "general will"?
Rousseau believes that "general will" is the will of the people, but it doesn't mean that if you concentrate all the people in this city in a certain place, the general will automatically come into being. To discover the general will, there are at least three conditions:
First, people who are * * * must have a certain moral standard. Rousseau said that people always want to be happy, but people can't always see happiness clearly. People will never be corrupted, but people are often deceived. Therefore, in order not to be deceived, the people must first improve their consciousness. The most important thing about this spirit of consciousness is how to treat the individual's obligations to public affairs. Ordinary people, out of self-interest, often think that serving the public cause is free dedication. However, Rousseau thinks this idea is wrong. If everyone in the same age is only willing to enjoy the rights of citizens and is unwilling to fulfill their obligations as citizens, it will cause injustice. In the long run, the political unity will face destruction. Therefore, serving the public affairs is not a free dedication, but a matter of benefiting others and benefiting themselves. If anyone doesn't realize this and refuses to obey the general will, then the same person should force him to obey the general will, that is, "force him to be free" as mentioned above.
second, people must meet frequently to discuss issues and make laws. Rousseau said that since the sovereign is the general will, it naturally only represents the people. But since the country needs governance, then the people need the government. Since the government has power, it is easy to corrupt. It is easy for the government to disguise the interests of some individuals or factions as general will, thus ruining the whole country. In order to avoid this situation, people should meet frequently, discuss major issues and carry out legislative work. Rousseau said that since, in essence, the sovereign represents the people, and the sole power of the sovereign is legislation, the more powerful the sovereign is, the more it should always express itself, that is, legislation.
This involves a technical problem, that is, if a country is too large in land and population, what should people do if they can't legislate often? Rousseau's answer is that in this case, the people will inevitably lose their freedom. If we want to truly realize freedom and find public will, it can only be realized in a small country with few people. In political theory, this belongs to direct democratic thought. Let me interject here that Rousseau was actually born in Geneva, Switzerland today. Influenced by Rousseau, today's Swiss constitution and legal system are basically the closest to the ideal of direct democracy in the world.
Thirdly, Rousseau believes that since the task of people's assembly is to discover the general will, not the selfish interests of some people, there can be no factions and political parties in people's assembly, and everyone can only speak for himself. Because any faction or political party must only