Rousseau Quotes

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains” (I, 1)

Humans are naturally free and independent

But in society they become constrained, dependent, and unfree

→ Politics must explain how this loss of freedom can be justified

The chains aren’t literally oppression, because even masters are chained to their slaves:
Social dependence (reliance on others)

Inequality (rich/poor, powerful/weak) - this is addressed in Discourse on Inequality

Unjust political authority (rule without legitimacy)

“ ‘To find a form of association which may defend and protect with the whole force of the community the person and property of every associate, and by means of which each, coalescing with all, may nevertheless obey only himself, and remain as free as before’ “ (I, 6)

This is the fundamental problem of which TSC furnishes the solution
As we leave nature we find that we require the help of others to preserve ourselves

We become so enjoined with our community that what we want is what the state wants - in this way we don’t lose our freedom

“the total alienation to the whole community of each associate with all his rights; for, in the first place, since each gives himself up entirely, the conditions are equal for all; and, the conditions being equal for all, no one has any interest in making them burdensome to others” (I, 6)

Everyone gives up all their natural rights to the community
This creates a collective body (the sovereign)
Because everyone gives up the same amount → perfect equality

Alienation means that there are no reserved private rights
This must be total because otherwise the state of nature would still subsist

“ ‘Each of us puts in common his person and his whole power under the supreme direction of the general will; and in return we receive every member as an indivisible part of the whole’ ” (I, 6)

Short version of TSC
Introduction of the general will - this is the only direction that the sovereign can act in, as such it must be clear and of course actually exist
In return we get the power of every individual one of our associates

“every individual … is engaged in a double relation, as a member of the sovereign towards individuals, and as a member of the state towards the sovereign” (I, 7)

The individual as a citizen is part of the sovereign body in which they contribute to the creation of laws
The individual as a subject is a member of the state in which they are subject to the sovereign’s laws

“Now the sovereign, being formed only of the individuals that compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; consequently the sovereign power needs no guarantee towards its subjects, because it is impossible that the body should wish to injure all its members” (I, 7)

The sovereign can’t harm an individual without harming itself, and in harming itself it harms all its members

“every individual may, as a man, have a particular will contrary to, or divergent from, the general will which he has a citizen” (I, 7)

• Each person has two perspectives:

  • As a man (individual) → private interests, desires

  • As a citizen → concern for the common good

→ These can conflict
So the will of all is not the same thing as the general will
This introduces the tension of the democratic conception of the general will

“whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the whole body; which means nothing else than that he shall be forced to be free” (I, 7)

Two ways that you can be understood to want to disobey the general will:

1. Transcendent conception: you simply don’t understand/can’t see what is truly in the common interest, and as such must be educated/forced so that you can express your ‘true’ wants. Being coerced is correcting your error. Opens door to authoritarianism

2. Democratic conception: there is a collective decision of which you don’t approve. May be that the common interest is what the majority of people want, and as such, having seen you’re in the minority and respecting your fellow citizens, you change your mind accordingly. What if you don’t, and think they’re wrong?

Cohen: By free Rousseau must mean nonsubjection to the will of a particular other (why should this make any difference?)

The transition from state of nature to civil state is one which man “ought to bless without ceasing the happy moment that released him from it for ever, and transformed him from a stupid and ignorant animal into an intelligent being and a man” (I, 8)

In the state of nature we have natural liberty and a right to anything which tempts us, so why should we be grateful to lose this?
We gain civil liberty, property (property as opposed to possession, which is just what we seize and can keep by power) and moral freedom

Civil liberty - limited only by the general will

Natural liberty - limited only by our physical powers

In the civil state man also acquires moral liberty

Moral freedom “renders man truly master of himself; for the impulse of mere appetite is slavery, while obedience to a self-prescribed law is liberty” (I, 8)

Acting on desire/impulse = not real freedom

Real freedom = self-rule (autonomy)

But acting on desire is still what I want no?

Even clearer that Rousseau is operating at a very specific conception of freedom: nonsubjection to a particular will
Under what interpretation can this actually be justified?

“unless there were some point in which all interests could agree, no society could exist” (II, 1)

Our common private interests form the social bond

This is a rebuttal to Schumpeter - there must be some common good, otherwise how could a society form in the first place

"the moment there is a master, there is no longer a sovereign, and forthwith the body politic is destroyed" (II, 1)

Idea that sovereignty is inalienable

If a nation promises to obey, it dissolves itself and loses its character as a people

"Men always desire their own good, but do not always discern it; the people are never corrupted, though often deceived, and it is only then that they seem to will what is evil" (II, 3)

When people think properly as citizens—setting aside selfishness, bias, and misinformation—they will converge on the common good. If they don't, something has gone wrong

Rousseau’s idea can justify paternalism: rulers may claim they know the “true” interests of the people better than the people themselves.

"there are no longer as many voters as there are men, but only as many voters as there are associations" (II, 3)

The issue is that when people form factions, the will of each of these associations becomes general with reference to its members

Because of this, differences become less numerous and yield a less general result. If there is in particular one faction which dominates, then we are left with one single difference

"All the services that a citizen can render to the state he owes to it as soon as the sovereign demands them" (II, 4)

Whatever part of his power, property and liberty that one alienates by the social contract is only that part of the whole the use of which is important to the community

But the sovereign alone is the judge of what is important

But this isn’t necessarily bad, for:

• The sovereign would never demand anything useless to the community

• We can’t help the state w/o helping ourselves

"In that case the matter about which the decree is made is, like the decreeing will, general. This act is what I call law." (II, 6)

Laws cannot be made to consider particular subjects, but rather consider them collectively, and actions as abstract

It can decree privileges, i.e. privileged groups, but it cannot name who should be part of these classes

"In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed … It would take gods to give men laws." (II, 7)

Men require a legislator because although they seek the common interest, it is possible that they are unaware of these interests. Private interests can seduce and distract men from the ‘good path’

But the legislator is not an authority, for true sovereignty is inalienable

"For a young people to be able to relish sound principles of political theory and follow the fundamental rules of statecraft, the effect would have to become the cause" (II, 7)

Good laws create good citizens, but good laws only work/are only made when people are already somewhat good citizens

So where do you start? With the legislator

"In every body politics there is a maximum strength which it cannot exceed and which it only loses by increasing in size" (II, 9)

In general, a small state is stronger in proportion than a large one

This is because:

1. Long distances make administration more difficult. The need for further chains of delegation between cities, districts, provinces, etc. all come at the expense of the unfortunate people

2. The people will have less affection for a ruler which it never sees - they are rules by themselves, and they cannot see their fellow-citizens

3. The same laws cannot suit diverse provinces with different customs and climates, while different laws will only cause trouble and confusion among people in constant communication with one another

Rousseau’s ‘ideal nation’: “already united, by some bond of interest, origin, or convention”, “that in which every member can be known by all” (II, 10)

Pretty limited definition of an ideal nation - but to what extent is this necessary rather than ideal, i.e. preferred but not necessary

Corsica was capable of legislation - 130,236 population in 1770

"An intermediate body established between the subjects and the sovereign for their mutual correspondence, charged with the execution of the laws and with the maintenance of liberty both civil and political" (III, 1)

Definition of government. Government is the only legitimate exercise of executive power, which is the force of the body politic, while the will of the body politic is legislative power

Government is not a submission but an employment

"The sovereign may, in the first place, commit the charge of the government to the whole people, or to the greater part of the people, in such a way that there may be more citizens who are magistrates than simple individual citizens" (III, 3)

Definition of democracy, which is flawed because the influence of private interests on public affairs can corrupt the legislator

But also because it’s practically unrealistic; we can’t expect all citizens to execute laws

If there were a nation of gods, it would be a democracy

"Therein is the inherent and inevitable vice which, from the birth of the body politic, tends without intermission to destroy it" (III, 10)

Government degeneration is an inevitable process which happens in two similar ways:

1. When it contracts - when it passes from the majority to aristocracy, and from aristocracy to royalty. "That is its natural tendency". Rousseau doesn't spell out why this is bad, but it seems to be mainly due to the growing alienation of the citizenry

2. When the state is dissolved - when the Prince no longer administers the state in accordance with the laws, and when he usurps the sovereign power

Cohen: What are the 3 ways that Rousseau’s political thought could be utopian?

1. Content: it might rest on values that simply cannot be jointly realised under any conditions

2. Realism: it might endorse values that are incompatible with human nature

3. Accessibility: it might embrace an ideal that cannot be realised by a social trajectory that starts from current conditions

Why does Cohen call the solution a free community of equals (analyse each word)?

Free: it ensures the full political autonomy of each member

Community: it’s organised around a shared understanding and allegiance to a common good

Equals: the content of decisions reflect the good of each member

Cohen: what are the two elements of the problem of realism?

Motivational possibility

Institutional possibility

Cohen: what is the issue of motivational possibility?

Is the shared understanding and allegiance to a common good compatible in the face of widespread vice? Is it possible for humans to consider others as truly equal when it comes to potentially imposing burdens?

What does Hobbes argue regarding the issue of motivational possibility?

The desire for self-preservation is paramount, and ultimately we are selfish and full of pride

This is why we need a state with authority; to punish us when we break the rules, which is our natural tendency

Cohen: what is the issue of institutional possibility?

How might people come to acquire a general will, and how can the general will be prioritised in public decision-making?

Why does Rousseau argue that our freedom is so important?

It is the defining essence of humanity

Man experiences the same commands from nature as animals, but we are free to resist this: and it is "mainly in the consciousness of this freedom that the spirituality of the soul exhibits itself"

“To renounce your liberty is to renounce your status as a man”

What does Cassirer argue regarding particular interests within Rousseau’s society?

That there is no room for it

Membership in the society of the general will requires ‘‘the complete renunciation of all particular desires,’’

What is Rousseau’s opinion of particular interests?

Members of the society will have separate, particular interests

Rousseau writes that the "if there were not some point on which all interests agree, no society could exist" - this wouldn't make sense if all interests were meant to entirely agree

Cohen: what is the ‘common good condition’ of the society of the general will?

Citizens share and it is common knowledge that they share a conception of the common good, although they may have (and indeed can in general be expected to have) different views about how to achieve this

What does the common good consist of for Rousseau?

Distributive, not aggregative, improvements

Interests of security of person and protection of resources

Cohen: how does a society of the general will provide the solution to the fundamental problem?

The association ought to advance the common good

The common good ought to be the common aim of all the citizens

Cohen: How does the association advancing the common good provide part of the solution to the fundamental problem?

For everyone to actually agree to the terms, their own interests must be accounted for; this is exactly what an association ordered around the common good does

Cohen: How does the association having the common good as the common aim of all the citizens provide part of the solution to the fundamental problem?

Common allegiance to the common good is the only way for people to secure their freedom under conditions of interdependence, for if you don't agree that what is best is to follow the common good then you won't be following your own will by complying with the laws

How does Rousseau defend his claim that man is naturally good, and it is institutions that corrupt him?

In A Discourse on Inequality, Rousseau argued that the pivotal moment of corruption occurred when the first man enclosed a piece of land and declared it his own. This artificial institution created unnatural inequality, sparking greed, jealousy, and injustice

This then leads to us measuring our worth against others

What does Cohen write are the two levels of institutional design that Rousseau builds his justification of the process on?

1. The rational choice: individual preferences are fixed and should be guided by external incentives toward a socially optimal outcome

2. The ethical conception: political motivations aren’t fixed and are moulded through active participation in social institutions

Cohen: What are the four distinct core strategies that Rousseau utilises to demonstrate how concrete institutions can ensure the ongoing supremacy of the general will

Principle: defends fundamental rights intrinsic to a community of equals, e.g. right to participate

Will-formation: cultivate shared commitment to the common good, e.g. popular assemblies

Preventing temptation: protect against temptation from the private will, e.g. making rules general

Epistemic: ensures collective decisions accurately reflect the common good, e.g. aggregation mechanisms

Discourse on Political Economy: “It is to law alone that men owe justice and liberty. It is this salutary organ of the will of all which establishes, in civil right, the natural equality between men.”

Law is the "organ" through which the general will speaks, simultaneously creating both justice and liberty, and restoring "in civil right" the natural equality that society otherwise destroys. Use it to explain how legitimacy works in TSC—law as self-legislation rather than external imposition.

Discourse on Political Economy: “There can be no patriotism without liberty, no liberty without virtue, no virtue without citizens; create citizens, and you have everything you need; without them, you will have nothing but debased slaves, from the rulers of the State downwards.”

The answer of how citizens come to acquire the general will: public education from childhood, which forms citizens before they are asked to exercise sovereign will. Also chicken and egg problem though

Discourse on Inequality: “it is impossible to make any man a slave, unless he be first reduced to a situation in which he cannot do without the help of others: and, since such a situation does not exist in a state of nature, every one is there his own master, and the law of the strongest is of no effect”

If servitude requires dependency, and dependency is an artefact of social development (not nature), then any social arrangement that produces domination is a corruption, not a natural condition. The passage also illuminates why TSC insists that the social contract must be a voluntary and mutual act: since no natural subjection exists, political authority can only originate in consent.

What is the main point of Emile?

To criticise what contemporary civilisation and socialisation techniques have done to the natural man

What is the importance of education in a Discourse on Political Economy?

If children are raised under certain conditions, including being “imbued with the laws of the state and the maxims of the general will”, then they are “never to want anything but what the society wants”

Okin: Rousseau’s state of nature is an idealisation of

Complete independence.

“It was designed to prove that man is naturally good when he lives in isolation from and independence of his fellows, and that it was the development of society, with its multiplication of needs and conflicts of interests which, by making men mutually dependent, had fostered their selfishness and caused all the harm they inflict on one another”

What does Okin argue the difference in man and woman’s nature is for Rousseau?

Nature of man: limitless potential for natural thought and creativity (the man in the original state of nature)

Nature of woman: her sexual and procreative purpose (the woman in the patriarchal family)

Okin: why does Rousseau believe in the subjugation of women?

Women arouse men, which endangers his independence and sufficiency. As such, she must be subjected and subjugated in other spheres

Okin: what is the important virtue in a women for Rousseau?

Chastity - so that the man can be sure his children are his

Rousseau has a reverence for…

The natural order of things. His advice to Sophie is to be “what nature made us”

How does A Discourse on Inequality help us find what society is fit for man?

We must first find out what man is actually (naturally) like

State Condorcet’s jury theorem

If each individual is somewhat more likely than not to make the ‘better’ choice between some pair of alternatives and each individual has the same probability of being correct in this choice, then the probability of the group majority being correct increases as the no. of individuals increases

How do Grofman and Feld link Condorcet’s jury theorem to Rousseau?

Condorcer shows why it is that, if the average citizen is more likely than not to judge correctly the majority vote of the group will be almost certain to be correct in its judgement of the public interest

How do Grofman and Feld Rousseau’s objection to the forming of factions?

Factions reduce the effective size of the assembly, thus according to the jury theorem, group accuracy will be reduced