Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract | Political Philosophy

Summary

This video explores Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political theory from his work 'The Social Contract,' focusing on the central question of how individual freedom can be reconciled with state authority. Rousseau introduced the concept of the 'general will,' where citizens collectively direct laws toward the common good. The video highlights Rousseau's influence on modern political thought, contrasts him with figures like Hobbes and Locke, and discusses the complexities, ambiguities, and criticisms surrounding his ideas, including concerns about individual liberty, majoritarianism, and his controversial concept of 'forcing people to be free.'

Takeaways

• 🔗 Rousseau's fundamental question in 'The Social Contract' is how to reconcile individual freedom with the authority of the state.
• 🗳️ Rousseau's concept of the 'general will' emphasizes the collective will of society directed towards the common good, which legitimizes a sovereign.
• 🛑 Rousseau rejects the idea that people can sign away their freedom, as freedom is integral to human nature and moral decision-making.
• 👑 Rousseau criticizes absolute monarchs and natural hierarchies, arguing that legitimate authority can only be established through free consent.
• ⚖️ Rousseau's social contract aims to enhance individual freedom by creating a collective association where each person remains as free as before.
• 👥 The 'general will' requires citizens to prioritize the common good over individual interests, ensuring laws are created for the collective benefit.
• 💡 Rousseau argues that the true sovereign is the people united, not a separate monarch or artificial authority.
• 🗣️ Rousseau acknowledges the challenges of creating laws that everyone agrees with and addresses concerns about minority rights within the general will.
• 🏛️ Rousseau envisions an elected aristocracy to administer laws, but maintains that sovereignty belongs to the people as a whole.
• ⛪ Rousseau advocates for a form of civil religion, encouraging belief in a higher power to foster civic pride and political stability, while opposing atheism as detrimental to the law.

Q & A

What is the fundamental question of politics according to Rousseau in *The Social Contract*?

The fundamental question of politics according to Rousseau is how to reconcile an individual's freedom with the authority of the state. In other words, how can people come together to create a government that preserves individual liberty?

What is Rousseau's concept of the 'general will'?

Rousseau's concept of the 'general will' refers to the collective will of society directed towards the common good. Laws made in accordance with the general will are legitimate because citizens actively participate in making them, thus obeying themselves as self-legislating citizens.

How does Rousseau differentiate between 'power' and 'authority'?

Rousseau makes a distinction between power and authority, arguing that might does not equal right. A sovereign must have legitimate authority, which is derived from the consent of the people, rather than just power to enforce laws.

What does Rousseau mean by 'natural liberty' and 'civil freedom'?

Rousseau's 'natural liberty' refers to the freedom individuals have in the state of nature, where they can do whatever is necessary to survive. 'Civil freedom,' on the other hand, is the autonomy individuals gain by living under laws they help create in a political society.

Why does Rousseau argue that individuals cannot sign away their freedom?

Rousseau argues that individuals cannot sign away their freedom because the capacity to make moral choices is fundamental to being human. To give up freedom is to give up one's moral nature and humanity.

How does Rousseau propose to reconcile individual liberty with state authority?

Rousseau proposes to reconcile individual liberty with state authority through the social contract, where individuals unite under the 'general will,' obeying laws that they themselves have a hand in creating, thus retaining their freedom.

What are the main criticisms of Rousseau's idea of the general will?

Critics of Rousseau's general will point out issues with how minority groups may be outvoted and constrained by laws they disagree with. This raises concerns about individual liberty and potential authoritarianism in Rousseau's theory.

What role does Rousseau believe the legislature should play in a political society?

Rousseau believes the legislature should frame the initial laws of the society based on the customs and geography of the people, and then withdraw, leaving the people to govern themselves. He argues that the legislature should have extraordinary wisdom and that the laws should aim for long-term stability.

How does Rousseau view democracy in his political theory?

Rousseau views democracy as a system where people are not only sovereign but also actively participate in the administration of laws. However, he believes this is only feasible in small, culturally homogeneous societies with little luxury.

What is Rousseau's idea of civil religion, and why was it controversial?

Rousseau's idea of civil religion is that the state should promote belief in a Supreme Being, the afterlife, and punishment for wickedness to foster civic pride and patriotism. This was controversial because he argued atheists should be banished, which was seen as intolerant and against the ideals of religious freedom.

Outlines

00:00

🤔 Rousseau’s Central Political Dilemma

The first paragraph introduces Rousseau's fundamental question in political theory: how to reconcile individual freedom with state authority. Rousseau's innovation lies in the concept of the 'general will,' which represents the collective will aimed at the common good. Laws aligned with this collective will would make a government legitimate, as citizens would be participating in their own self-governance. However, Rousseau’s ideas present ambiguities, leading to different interpretations—some view him as a Republican, while others see his theories as precursors to totalitarianism.

05:02

🌳 Natural Liberty and Rousseau’s State of Nature

In this paragraph, Rousseau’s view of natural liberty is explored. Unlike Hobbes and Locke, Rousseau did not perceive the state of nature as a state of war but rather as a condition where individuals lived simply and independently, driven by self-preservation and compassion. Rousseau refuted the idea of natural hierarchies and rejected the notion that freedom could be signed away, as it is essential to human dignity. The distinction between power and authority, crucial to Rousseau, underpins his rejection of absolute monarchies and contracts based on coercion.

10:04

🔗 The Social Contract: Enhancing Freedom

This paragraph delves into Rousseau's argument that the social contract can reconcile personal freedom with collective authority. He contrasts his views with Hobbes, showing how individuals can unite under a general will without sacrificing their natural freedom. Rousseau presents the idea that while people give up certain individual rights, they gain the benefits of being part of a political community, thus enhancing their freedom. The legitimacy of a sovereign hinges on their commitment to the common good, not self-interest.

15:05

⚖️ Civil Freedom and Moral Liberty

Rousseau introduces the idea of 'civil freedom,' where individuals exchange their natural liberty for rights within a society governed by laws. This freedom, Rousseau argues, is superior because it is rational and moral, guided by laws formed through collective deliberation. He also addresses the paradox of individual liberty in a society where the majority rules, raising questions about how minority interests can be protected and how laws can reflect the general will while avoiding authoritarianism.

20:06

🗳️ Sovereignty and the General Will

The paragraph explains Rousseau’s concept of sovereignty, which resides with the people, not a monarch. For a state to be legitimate, laws must reflect the general will and aim at the common good. Rousseau emphasizes that sovereignty cannot be delegated to representatives but must remain with the people themselves. He also outlines the difficulties of ensuring that laws serve the general will, particularly in pluralistic societies where private interests often dominate public life.

🔄 The Role of the Legislator in Founding a Republic

Rousseau introduces the figure of the legislator as an almost divine figure responsible for founding a political society and framing its laws. The legislator, according to Rousseau, would design a system based on the culture, geography, and customs of the people. After framing the laws, the legislator withdraws from the political process. This concept, while controversial, reflects Rousseau's realist approach to founding a stable political community, acknowledging that initial guidance is needed to establish good governance.

🏛️ Forms of Government and Rousseau’s Take on Democracy

Here, Rousseau addresses different forms of government, emphasizing that the government is merely the executive, not the sovereign. While Rousseau favored an elected aristocracy for its wisdom, he believed different forms of government suited different societies. He argued that democracy would work best in small, homogeneous societies with little economic inequality and luxury, conditions he believed were necessary for true civic participation. Rousseau’s democracy is distinct from modern ideas, emphasizing active, direct participation by citizens.

⛪ Rousseau’s Civil Religion and Political Stability

In this final paragraph, Rousseau presents his controversial idea of civil religion, advocating for state-endorsed beliefs in a Supreme Being and the afterlife to foster civic unity and morality. While Rousseau called for tolerance among Christian denominations, he argued that atheists, who lacked fear of divine punishment, could not be trusted to follow the law. This doctrine, with its political overtones, led to the banning of 'The Social Contract' in some regions but reflects Rousseau’s broader attempt to balance religion and politics.

Keywords

💡Social Contract

The social contract is Rousseau's idea of an implicit agreement among individuals to form a political society, while preserving their freedom. It resolves the tension between individual liberty and state authority by asserting that laws created according to the 'general will' are legitimate. Rousseau reimagines this contract as a way to enhance freedom rather than limit it, as seen in Hobbes's version.

💡General Will

The general will represents the collective will of society, directed towards the common good. Rousseau argues that laws must reflect this general will to be legitimate. It contrasts with individual desires and is concerned with the well-being of the whole community. A key issue explored is how this abstract concept can coexist with individual liberty, especially in decision-making.

💡Natural Liberty

Natural liberty refers to the freedom individuals have in a state of nature, where there are no political or social constraints. Rousseau contrasts this with civil liberty, which people gain when they enter into the social contract. While individuals give up certain freedoms, they gain protection and equality through laws agreed upon by the general will.

💡Civil Liberty

Civil liberty, according to Rousseau, is the freedom individuals have as part of a political society, governed by laws they have helped create. It provides more security and equality than natural liberty, where survival is based on individual power. Civil liberty allows individuals to obey laws they have a hand in making, thus preserving autonomy in a structured society.

💡Sovereignty

Sovereignty in Rousseau’s philosophy refers to the absolute power of the people, who collectively form the true sovereign. Unlike Hobbes, who placed sovereignty in a monarch, Rousseau believes the people themselves should be the ultimate source of all political authority. This sovereignty must always serve the general will and is inalienable and indivisible.

💡Popular Sovereignty

Popular sovereignty is the idea that political power rests in the hands of the people, not in a monarch or ruling elite. Rousseau was the first modern theorist to propose this, claiming that legitimate governments are those where laws are created by the collective citizenry. This notion influenced revolutionary movements like the French Revolution.

💡Moral Freedom

Moral freedom for Rousseau means the ability to act based on laws one gives oneself, reflecting rational and collective decision-making rather than individual impulses. It is gained when individuals enter into the social contract, allowing them to transcend their basic instincts and live according to rules that benefit society as a whole.

💡Legislative Assembly

The legislative assembly is the body composed of citizens who come together to exercise sovereign power by creating laws. In Rousseau’s theory, it is here that the general will is expressed. This assembly contrasts with the executive, which only carries out the laws, and ensures that citizens remain the true source of all legitimate political power.

💡Civil Religion

Civil religion is Rousseau's controversial idea that political communities should foster belief in certain religious principles, like the existence of a divine being and an afterlife, to promote social cohesion. He argues this would create moral citizens who support the common good. However, atheists, who lack a fear of divine punishment, were seen as dangerous to societal harmony.

💡Elective Aristocracy

Elective aristocracy is Rousseau's preferred form of government, where a few wise individuals are elected to govern, but the laws are still made by the entire citizenry. He argues that such a government, rather than a direct democracy, might be more effective for administering laws in larger or less homogeneous societies. This highlights his pragmatic approach to governance.

Highlights

Rousseau's fundamental question in the Social Contract is how to reconcile individual freedom with the authority of the state.

Rousseau introduces the idea of the general will, the collective will of society directed toward the common good, as a basis for legitimate sovereignty.

Citizens would actively participate in lawmaking, so by following the law, they are essentially obeying themselves as self-legislating citizens.

Rousseau's view on the state of nature contrasts with Hobbes, as he believed individuals were naturally empathetic and less prone to conflict.

Rousseau argues against the justification of absolute monarchs by philosophers like Hobbes and Grotius, claiming that no person has natural authority over another.

Rousseau's social contract aims to enhance natural freedom, allowing individuals to enter society without giving up their liberty.

By entering a political association, individuals exchange some natural freedoms but gain civil and moral freedom as part of a political community.

The general will directs the laws towards the common good, but it cannot target specific individuals or objects—it only expresses laws in the abstract.

Rousseau asserts that the people themselves are the sovereign, unlike Hobbes' artificial sovereign, and that sovereignty is inalienable and indivisible.

Rousseau supports the idea of popular sovereignty, where the collective decisions of citizens serve as the source of legitimate government.

Rousseau suggests that if citizens dissent from the general will, they are mistaken in their reasoning and should be 'forced to be free.'

Critics of Rousseau highlight concerns about minority rights in a majority-rule system, questioning whether individual freedom is truly preserved.

Rousseau differentiates between private wills and the general will, emphasizing that citizens should prioritize the common good over personal interests.

Rousseau argues that homogeneity and civic virtue are key to a well-functioning democratic society, and modern diverse societies present challenges to his theory.

Rousseau's civil religion, intended to strengthen civic pride and political unity, was controversial and led to the banning of the Social Contract in France and Geneva.

Despite his radical principles, Rousseau took a more moderate approach when applying his theories to real-world constitutions, such as Corsica and Poland.

Transcripts

in the social contract reso takes on

what he says is the fundamental question

of politics how do you reconcile an

individual's freedom with the authority

of this state in other words how can

people come together to create a

government that still preserves the

liberty of individuals his real

innovation was reimagining how this

political society would be organized he

put forward the idea of a general will

the collective will of society directed

towards the common good it's only if

laws are made in accordance with this

collective will that a sovereign would

be considered legitimate citizens would

actively participate in making the laws

so in following the law each member

would simply be obeying themselves as a

self legislating citizen there are a

number of ambiguities and contradictions

in Rousseau's formulation and your

opinion of his political theory is going

to have a lot to do with how well you

think these get resolved there were

those who thought that he was an

aristocratic Republican who supported an

elective aristocracy others saw him as a

theorist of revolutionary terror and a

forerunner to 20th century

totalitarianism thinkers within the

British tradition have also tended to

seem as a utopian romantic whose attempt

to square the circle of freedom and

Authority wasn't sufficiently tempered

by the realities of modern politics

let's follow a soz argument in the text

and see for ourselves

I'm James Muldoon I'm a lecturer in

political science at the University of

Exeter and this is an introduction to

reso's the social contract

[Music]

natural Liberty man was born free and

here's everywhere in Chains this is the

famous opening line of Russo's the

social contract like Hobbes and Locke

were so denied there was any natural

basis of the authority of one person

over another reso claimed that

individuals have a natural right to

self-preservation in a state of nature

this meant they can do whatever is

necessary to survive but Rizzo didn't

imagine the state of nature as a state

of war for so our instinct for

self-preservation was also moderated by

a compassion that gave rise to empathy

for others according to the very vivid

portrait of a natural condition painted

by Rizzo in a discourse on inequality

human being is a robust and independent

in the state of nature they're solitary

creatures who don't care about how many

likes their posts are getting or how

many followers they have on Instagram

because he didn't see a dry for a steam

and glorious so fundamental to our human

nature his image of a natural condition

was far less conflictual than that of

Hobbes or even Locke

there are so an individual simply slept

under a tree hunted when they needed and

walked about the world naked and

unashamed based on this idea of natural

equality between individuals reso

started the social contract by

criticizing other writers for defending

natural hierarchies first he argued

against Robert Filner that there was an

original right to rule inherited by Adam

as the first man of the Bible he was

also critical of writers such as Grotius

and Hobbes who justified the rights of

absolute monarchs by claiming the people

agreed to their subjection through an

original contract

rasuu didn't think it was possible to

sign away your freedom because the

capacity to make meaningful moral

choices was the basis of your humanity

to give up your freedom for a so it was

to give up your moral nature and hence

your status as a human being

Hobbes as sovereign may have the power

to enforce the law but also thought

there was a difference between power and

authority

this distinction didn't matter much to

Hobbes Barroso is adamant that mice did

not equal right we're under no duty to

obey a sovereign even if it's based on a

contract entered into under door

no person has any natural authority over

another therefore the only legitimate

way of establishing Authority was by

free consent so although were so

employed the same basic model as Hobbes

he used it to reach an entirely

different conclusion we'll see that the

goal of the social contract verso was to

enhance the freedom that individuals

already possessed in a natural condition

the social contract in book 1 chapter 6

we reached the first main statement of

Rousseau's fundamental problem how do

you join a political society and retain

your original natural freedom in

Hobbes's social contract the price of

entering into political society was

giving up most of your rights to a

sovereign we so attempted to show how

one can enter into a collective

Association without making such a fast

impact how to find a form of Association

which will defend the person and goods

of each member with the collective force

of all and under which each individual

while uniting himself with the others

obeys no one but himself and remains as

free as before the social contract verso

was a way of enhancing our freedom by

recognizing the inherent difficulties of

solitary living and taking advantage of

the benefits of political society for a

kind of social contract and political

association would allow us to reconcile

this problem of natural freedom and

political authority each of us puts in

common his person and all his power

under the supreme direction of the

general will and in return each member

becomes an indivisible part of the whole

resource idea of the social contract

also involved a renunciation about

individual rights but in return he

argued we receive something far more

valuable inclusion as a free and equal

member of a political community imagine

it like starting a really good

relationship with someone you have to

give up certain things that were good

about being single but the idea is then

returned you get so much more than what

you had by yourself there is an

acknowledgement among all social

contract theorists that we're altima

better off with others in society than

on our own while Hobbes's sovereign has

the potential to behave like an abusive

partner and can just look out for them

sells reso thought that a sovereign

would only be legitimate if they strive

for the common good of all their members

he combined an ancient Republican notion

of citizenship and active participation

with a modern social contract tradition

the ultimate goal of the contractors and

security but freedom resource critics

often point to the difficulties involved

in how this would work in practice

how do i as an individual ensure that

the community's laws are always ones

that I agree with what about minority

groups who get out of voted how do I

participate directly in creating every

law these are the questions that Rizzo

will have to answer civil society the

hypothetical social contract produces a

collective body and a unified subject of

the political community while haba

sought that the sovereign would be an

artificial person separate from the

state were so considered this a mistake

for him it was the people themselves

United together who were the true

sovereign the greatest threat to this

new political community came from

individuals who didn't fully commit to

the contract and its goals he was

concerned that individuals would prefer

their own private interests over the

common good he thought that if we wanted

to enjoy the benefits of living in

society we also had to do our fair share

in fulfilling our duties as citizens in

chapter 8 of book 1 Rizzo argued that we

received two main things when we enter

into a political community we exchange

our natural Liberty for a so called a

civil and moral freedom to be free for a

so is to be autonomous to live under our

own laws coming from the Greek or to us

meaning self and normos meaning laws or

customs I have to give up the right to

do whatever I want but I exchange this

for the certainty of civil freedom this

guarantees me the lawful title of

property rights that are more secure

than the mere possession of an object in

the state of nature he argued that this

would be a superior form of freedom

although we can technically do whatever

we want in a state of nature we are

practically restrained by the power of

everyone else to do what they want this

defence of property rights might strike

you as odd

based on what Rousseau wrote in the

discourse on inequality what he's trying

to do in the social contract is

demonstrate the conditions under which

property

rights and government could be

considered illegitimate in comparison to

what he sees most often in modern

societies which is the rule of force and

fraud there is also a second change

which is important for a so related to

our morals living in a society in which

the law is decided by everyone means

that the laws of the community are going

to be rational and therefore moral I no

longer have to rely on my own natural

instincts and inclinations to act

morally these tend to be good but they

can also be misguided what makes us

moral beings is our capacity to choose

differently from our natural instincts

and not to be governed by our nature

living in a community helps us to live a

properly and moral life because we can

be guided by law which is the outcome of

a more sustained process of rational

reflection sovereignty in the general

will for a so the entire citizenry

United in a legislative assembly

exercises sovereign power for this power

to be legitimate it must be directed in

accordance with the general will towards

the common good result was the first

modern theorist of popular sovereignty

each citizen enjoys equal responsibility

in the legislative assembly

this is Russo's great contribution to

political theory that the people

themselves are the source of sovereignty

and legitimate government before or so

in authors such as Bowden and Hobbes

sovereignty defined the absolute power

of the monarch

it's Rousseau notion of popular

sovereignty that became so important to

the French revolutionaries like in Locke

the legislature is supreme for so it

must be derived from the combination of

the Wills of every citizen and it must

only direct itself to general and

universal laws that apply equally to

everyone in terms of executing these

laws it's the executive branch which

will carry this out the government or

the executive is merely an intermediary

body set by a sovereign people to

maintain and carry out the laws that

they decide upon despite his many

criticisms of Hobbes on several key

points Rousseau and Hobbes agree first

sovereignty is inalienable and

indivisible reso didn't think that

people could elect representatives to

act on their behalf sovereignty could

only be exercised for a so by all the

people united and

correcting themselves to the common good

one of the key differences between

Rousseau and the other social contract

theorists is that he was a Republican

who thought that politics was a process

of collective decision-making by a body

of equal citizens in a self-governing

political community the keys Russo's

account was his idea of the general will

which is one of the most notorious

aspects of his political thought the

simplest explanation is that the general

will describes individual citizens

turning away from their own private

interests to think about what's best for

society the general will emerges through

a process of collective will formation

of all citizens deciding on what is the

common good it establishes rules for the

good of society but never directs how

those rules should be carried out in

particular circumstances it can only

ever Express laws in the abstract and

hence can't be directed at specific

people or objects it could decide that

music was banned from the city but it

couldn't specify that a particular group

of citizens couldn't listen to music

reso also differentiated the general

well from the aggregated Wills of all

individuals the general will emerged not

by adding up all of our personal

preferences but through each individual

turning from their own private affairs

to the affairs of the community so the

general will is going to have a lot to

do with a change in perspective from

inward looking individuals to publicly

minded citizens interpreters of ruisseau

have disagreed on whether there's an

objective common good that exists

independent of any particular decisions

or whether it's simply whatever is

decided by citizens in a Legislative

Assembly in other words does it describe

a procedure of collective

decision-making or doesn't have some

kind of transcendent existence as a

political ideal that we're always

striving for this tension is based on

the fact that I so wants to use the

concept of the general will as a

normative benchmark for deciding on

whether the particular decision should

be considered legitimate but he also has

to deal with the fact that not all laws

made by public assemblies have been

particularly rational or wise the

recognition that the public often errs

on particular cases but ultimately

should be the judge of what's in the

public interest leads him to state a

number of paradoxes in explaining the

general will research

said a number of things that are

particularly worrying for those

interested in the protection of the

rights of minorities reso tended towards

the view that homogeneity is a public

good and the differences of opinion

reflect defects in the body politic he

argued that if I hold an opinion that is

different to the general will it proves

only that I've made a mistake in my

reasoning he also thought that the

greater the harmony in public assemblies

the healthier the society this is in

contrast to a Republican like

Machiavelli who valued discord in

politics

then we get to risos infamous remark

that whomsoever refuses to obey the

general will shall be constrained to do

so by the whole body which means nothing

other than that he shall be forced to be

free critics of Rousseau points out but

in a majoritarian voting system like the

one we're so pre post citizens in a

minority will be outvoted and

constrained to follow law with which

they potentially disagree this calls

into a question Russo's claimed to have

reconciled the problem of individual

liberty with state authority and has

also led some critics to see potentially

authoritarian consequences in his

political theory resource theory runs

into problems when considering some of

the difficulties of political decision

making what happens to persistent

minorities how can they be said to be

ruling themselves these will occur more

frequently in plural and diverse

societies societies which were so

considered to be less suitable to

democratic government what happens when

society is divided along class religious

or identity grounds for a so in a

well-ordered society individuals would

be able to differentiate their own

private wills from the general will but

in modern divided commercial societies

the accumulation of private wealth was

becoming a much more dominant driving

force in politics than older notions of

civic virtue while it's clear that we so

saw these issues as political problems

it's less clear what he thought could be

done about them his valorisation of

social homogeneity and his emphasis on

civic virtue and constant participation

in legislative politics gives his theory

and nostalgic quality which seems based

on social conditions that were fast

disappearing even in his own time

later we so believed that there was a

virtuous relationship between good laws

and good citizens but it's unlikely that

the first citizens to form a political

society would be sufficiently moral to

be able to make good laws

how do corrupted citizens make good laws

for themselves

we're so introduced the figure of the

legislature to solve this problem and to

frame the initial collective identity

and laws of a community the legislature

chooses the form of government based on

an assessment of the culture and customs

of the people and the geography and

climate of the territory after framing

the initial laws the legislature would

then withdraw from the state and have no

right to govern or participate in

politics it's an attempt to circumvent

the problem of a people lifting

themselves up by their own bootstraps

while later theorists such as Marx will

put forward the idea of the self

emancipation of the working class for

Machiavellian or so that people are not

able to undertake such a task this seems

strange to modern democratic readers and

appears to undermine a lot of what resew

said about political autonomy but it's

part of Russell's realist method of

taking people as they are and laws as

they could be the office of the

legislature is extra constitutional it's

a special office there's completely

outside the normal functioning of the

Republic Rousseau also credits the

figure of the legislature with almost

superhuman wisdom and foresight he also

argued that the legislature should

credit God with the wisdom they required

to make the laws to add to their

authority their aim is to found

long-term stable institutions that will

provide the basis of a long lasting

Republic it's a controversial aspect of

reso's political philosophy but one that

he thought indispensable to creating a

durable political system forms of

government reso address the ancient

distinction between the different forms

of government of democracy aristocracy

and monarchy as rule of the many the few

and the one but he did so within his own

distinctive understanding of sovereignty

and government for a so that government

would just be the executive rather than

the legislature which was composed of

all citizens

guided by the general will although reso

proposed a very participate I dia of

politics his theory of popular

sovereignty isn't synonymous with

democracy in fact he rarely used the

term democracy throughout his text he

thought a democracy was a government in

which the people are not only sovereign

but also constantly sitting as a

permanent council of full-time public

servants administering public policy in

terms of executing the laws Rousseau

actually preferred an elected

aristocracy of only a few wise people

who would be elected from the people to

govern a civil servants but he also

insisted that different types of

government would be better for people

with different traditions and customs

he claimed that freedom is not a fruit

of every climate and it's not therefore

within the capacity of every people

Rousseau is most famous for his

recommendations for the necessary

preconditions of a democracy first he

thought a democracy would require a very

small state where the people could be

readily assembled second a culturally

homogeneous society in manners and

morals third a large measure of equality

in rights and socioeconomic status

finally a democracy would work best with

little or no luxury which he thought

corrupted both the rich and the poor to

have a direct democracy where the people

actually administer all the laws would

only be possible for a so in a very

small state with a homogeneous and

tight-knit community it might also

require slaves to do all the work as in

democratic Athens where citizens had

more leisure time to engage in politics

civil religion in the final chapter of

the social contract reso puts forward

his doctrine of civil religion this was

one of the most scandalous parts of the

text and the reason the book was banned

in France and in Geneva following

Machiavelli recycling that Christianity

had been ineffective at fostering civic

pride and patriotism and actually had a

negative effect on the flourishing of a

state reso recommended that the

sovereign encourage belief in the

existence of a Supreme Being

the afterlife and the idea that those

who act wickedly would be punished but

like Machiavelli civil religion the

seems less about a genuine commitment to

the beliefs and more an instrumental use

of them for political purposes Rousseau

is the devout Calvinists who despite his

conversion to Catholicism and then back

to Calvinism never wavered in his

commitment to Christianity he argued the

differences in a religious belief should

be tolerated within certain bounds so

long as their dogmas contain nothing

contrary to the duties of a citizen reso

thought that a variety of different

denominations of Christianity should be

tolerated what he thought couldn't be

tolerated were atheists because without

the fear of divine punishment they could

not be trusted to follow the laws were

so argue that those who couldn't accept

the doctrines of the state should be

banished he even says that you could be

put to death if you affirm the doctrines

but later act as if you don't believe

them despite his reputation as a

political radical and his association of

the Jacobin Club Rousseau was far more

moderate when applying his principles in

practice when he was invited to work on

the constitution of Corsica and the

government of Poland later in his life

some of his advice was more restrained

than his general principles offered in

the social contract he was aware of the

difficulties of applying abstract

principles to concrete situations and

always sought to base political

judgments on the particularity of each

case the social contract would go on to

become one of the most popular and

well-read political texts of the 18th

century and would only be overtaken in

the 19th century by a new text with

seemingly even more radical implications

marx and engels communist manifesto for

an analysis of this text and other

theorists in the history of political

thought please check out my other videos

[Music]