This week Claire and I had to lead the history and context of journalism seminar. Our topic was the 'Social Contract' written by Jean Rousseau. Here are my notes on the contract:
Subject of the First Book –
‘Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains’ – by this Rousseau means that society puts man in chains through rules and restrictions.
The First Societies –
Family is the only natural society. The child owes obedience to their father and the father owes a duty of care to his child. This bond dissolves eventually and both the father and child return to independence. If this does not happen however, the family is only maintained by convention.
He believes that everyone should have their own independence which as a result means their family is no longer natural.
Man’s first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those which he owes himself, and when he reaches year of discretion, he is the sole judge of the proper means of preserving himself, and consequently becomes his own master.
A family is said to be a model of political societies. The father is seen as the ruler and the children are seen as the people. Rousseau states they are all born free and equal however they alienate their liberty only for their own advantage. This illustrates that people thought it was their most rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom they had in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.
It is stated that the father is repaid for the care he takes of them by the love for his children, whereas in the State, the chief takes pleasure in commanding because he cannot love the people under him.
Both Hobbes and Grotius (who was a jurist in the Dutch Republic and a philosopher) believe that the human race belongs to hundreds of men as oppose to hundreds of men belonging to the human race.
Aristotle saw that no man is equal by nature. He believed that some men are born for slavery whereas other are born for dominion. He then stated that every man born in slavery is born for slavery. In ‘The Subject of the First Book’, it was said that ‘man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains.’ A slave however, loses everything in their chains even the desire of escaping from them.
3 – The Right of the Strongest
Rousseau states ‘the strongest is never strong enough to be always the master’. Strength is measured by force and it is argued here, that to stop force should be a necessity and not seen as an act of will. Essentially it is wrong to view someone carrying out a necessity, as performing one of their duties as it is not just a duty of a master to stop force, it is the duty of everyone and should not be praised. Rousseau goes on to say that ‘force does not create right’, which illustrates that ‘the right of the strongest’ does not define justice.
4 – Slavery
This passage questions the concept of slaves and their motives behind becoming a slave.
No one is born with authority over anyone else. It is conventions created over time which form the basis of legitimate authority among everyone. Grotius asks, ‘if an individual can alienate his liberty and make himself the slave of a master, why could not someone so the same and make itself subject to a king?’ In this instance the slave has sold himself to the king, however, Grotius questions what this slave has left to preserve and what they gain from becoming a slave. He says, ‘Tranquillity is also found in dungeons; but is that enough to make them desirable places to live in?’
It is beyond paternity rights for a man to alienate his children. Up until the years of discretion the father can lay down conditions for his children’s preservation and well being. An idea evolved that in every government the people should be in a position to accept or reject it, however this caused the issue that the government would no longer be arbitrary.
It was pointed out that surrendering the rights of humanity renouncing being a man is a result of renouncing liberty.
Grotius explains that there is another origin of slavery and that is war. This is because the people defeated in war have to buy their lives back at his price of liberty, whereas the winners of war have the right of killing the vanquished.
War is begun due to ‘things’ as oppose to people. This is because a war cannot arise out of personal relations it has to be by real relations whereby the laws hold authority. War is therefore a relation between state and state, to which individuals are only enemies accidentally as soldiers. Once a war is ended and the soldiers surrender, they become equal again and no-one has the right to take anyone’s life. Within war it is only acceptable to kill an enemy if it is not possible to enslave them. If slaves are made within war, they only have to obey their master as far as agreed. By doing this, the master is far from putting any authority on the slave other than force.
5 – That Me Must Always Go Back To A First Convention
In this chapter Rousseau looks at the way power and authority are given to others, to use over other people. He implies that for a convention to exist there must have been unanimity (everyone being of one mind) at some point in history.
6 – The Social Compact
In this chapter Rousseau explains how it is necessary for the social contract to be developed. The social compact is what people made when they left the state of nature and entered a civilised society.
It is said that the human race will perish unless the state changed the manner of its existence.
The problem that arose was;
‘…To find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.’
Any alterations of any of the clauses within the act would make them ‘vain’ and ‘ineffective’.
If all the clauses were properly understood they can be combined into one. Which would be; the total alienation of each associate, with all his rights and whilst being among the rest of the community, will result in the conditions being the same for everyone to which no-one will have the right or interest to make them ‘burdensome’ to anyone else.
The alienation of each associate, and people retaining certain rights, would lead to the state on nature continuing, however the association would no longer work or take effect.
The result of giving up all of himself, is to gain an equivalent to in return for all his losses.
Rousseau then states that by taking away what is not the essence of the social compact, it becomes reduced;
"Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an invisible part of the whole."
This means that although the person is ‘invisible’ all people under the supreme direction are seen as equal and part of a community, and therefore are then regarded as the ‘people’.
7- The Sovereign
In this chapter it becomes apparent that each individual is bound in a double capacity, whereby they are a member of the state to the sovereign and are bound to the individuals, as well as being a member of the State to the sovereign. This is because the act of association involves a mutual undertaking between the public and the individuals.
The sovereign cannot be bound to the people because it would be against the nature of the body politic for the sovereign to introduce a law, which it could not violate. The seriousness of violating the act is expressed when it is stated that it would be ‘self-annihilation’ which means to kill yourself.
The sovereign must have only the interests of the individuals who have composed. As well as this the sovereign must not guarantee anything to the individuals, as it is impossible to please or hurt everyone.
Every individual may have their own will, which may contrast or differ from the general will, and looking at their own will would be an injustice. Simply looking at the general will, will prevent any personal dependence and therefore introduce the workings of the political machine.
8 – The Civil State
In this section, Rousseau is stating that when someone passes from the state of nature to the civil state, he then has instinct in regards to his actions. Due to this change, he is made to consider other citizens before he acts. Entering into the civil state, he will become an intelligent being and a man, due to the advantages such as, ‘his feelings so ennobled’ and his extended ideas.
Rousseau explains that when comparing the two, we must realise that natural liberty is bounded only by the strength of the individual, whereas civil liberty (which is one’s freedom to exercise one’s rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country) is limited by general will. When mentioning possession, I think Rousseau is saying that being a citizen means you have right over your possessions due to the effect of force, whereas in natural law this does not exist.
9 – Real Property
Citizens give themselves to the State, and as a result of this, their possessions become property under the Sovereign. Although the sovereign has the most power, the property still belongs to the citizen as it is by right of the first occupier.
Within this passage, I think Rousseau is stating that citizens cannot be greedy when it comes to ownership, and if that person has worked for the ownership of that product he will be respected by others.
It is also implied in this passage that Rousseau would prefer men to share land, for example, equally and enjoy it all together rather than having separate owners and separate rights.
Rousseau concludes book 1 of the Social Contract by saying;
"Instead of destroying natural inequality, the fundamental compact substitutes, for such physical inequality as nature may have set up between men, an equality that is moral and legitimate, and that men, who may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right".
(Hope these help)
No comments:
Post a Comment