Status
Available
Call number
Genres
Collection
Publication
Penguin Classics (1985), Edition: Modern Reprint, Paperback, 192 pages
Description
History. Philosophy. Nonfiction. HTML: "Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains." Thus begins Jean-Jacques Rousseau's influential 1762 work, On the Social Contract, a milestone of political science and essential reading for students of history, philosophy, and social science. A progressive work, it inspired worldwide political reforms, most notably the American and French Revolutions, because it argued that monarchs were not divinely empowered to legislate. Rousseau asserts that only the people, in the form of the sovereign, have that all-powerful right. On the Social Contract's appeal and influence has been wide-ranging and continuous. It has been called an encomium to democracy and, at the same time, a blueprint for totalitarianism. Individualists, collectivists, anarchists, and socialists have all taken courage from Rousseau's controversial masterpiece..… (more)
User reviews
LibraryThing member alexgalindo
The Social Contract is Jean-Jacques Rousseau's seminal work. He takes on the question of the state, government, and man's desire to be free under these conditions. Although Rousseau speaks quite too favorably of Rome and Sparta when justifying his main points, he nevertheless provides a provocative
Show More
case for the use of the State, it's laws, and it's authority. However his flaws lie in his assurance of top-down government, and lack of faith in true democracy. He accuses direct democracy as incredibly paralyzing, and inefficient, which is true when applied in the context of mercantile, pre-modern conditions. “You forget that the fruits belong to all and that the land belongs to no one.” Show Less
LibraryThing member jpsnow
Very concise and captivating. It is remarkable how much of it still pertains and even seems to have been predicted. One can easily see how the framers of the US Constitution relied on this work.
"Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we much conclude that
"I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, 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, why may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right."
"Since no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we much conclude that
Show More
conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men.""I shall end this chapter and this book by remarking on a fact on which the whole social system should rest: i.e., that, 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, why may be unequal in strength or intelligence, become every one equal by convention and legal right."
Show Less
LibraryThing member LisaMaria_C
The one star rating does not mean I don’t recommend reading The Social Contract. Everyone should. It’s that important, that influential and reading this was certainly eye-opening. One star does not mean this was tedious, dry or difficult. In fact this treatise is not long, is easy to understand
He begins the first chapter of Social Contract with the stirring worlds: Man is born free and everywhere is in chains. But though he speaks of liberty and democracy it’s clear that his ideal state as he defines it is totalitarian. Those who don’t want any part of his state, who won’t obey, should be “forced to be free.” Locke argued inalienable rights included life, liberty, and property; governments are instituted to secure those rights. For Rousseau, life, liberty and property are all things you give wholly to the state “retaining no individual rights.” Rousseau states:
Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body... the social contract gives the body politic absolute power over all its members... when the prince says to him: “It is expedient for the State that you should die,” he ought to die.
Even Rousseau thought his ideal system couldn’t work in large territories. He ideally wanted direct democracy, with all citizens meeting in assembly such as in the ancient city-state of Athens, not representative democracy, which he doesn’t see as true democracy. (And the larger the state, the more absolute in its powers and more autocratic the government should be lest it fall into selfish anarchy.) Alissa Ardito says in the Introduction to my edition that: “Politics... is also about language, talking, negotiating, arguing; and for that Rousseau had no need and little patience. The goal in The Social Contract is always about consensus, and in the end one suspects what Rousseau finally wanted was silence.” You cannot have liberty or democracy while shutting up and shutting down anyone who dissents from the “general will.” And then there’s Rousseau’s urging of a civil religion, where one literally worships the state. What you get then is the obscenity of a state as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” whose only nod to democracy is in the name, and where its leader takes on a quasi-religious status.
Can I see any good in this treatise? I can see the form the United States took in the discussion of a mix between monarchy (President), aristocracy (Senate, Supreme Court) and democracy (Congress) and checks and balances between them. But such features are also discussed in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and in Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, both of which predate The Social Contract. In fact, Rousseau's categories of government can even trace its roots to Aristotle. So, what good I can see in it is hardly original. Well, and The Social Contract did argue for sovereignty being lodged in the people rather than a Divine Right of Kings--it’s supposed to have inspired the French Revolution, and its cry of “liberty, equality, fraternity.” If so, it’s easier to understand why the French Revolution turned into the Reign of Terror. I do consider this a must-read, and I’m glad I read it. It’s enlightening, like turning over a rock to see all the nasty things that were hiding underneath.
Show More
and can be read in a few hours. And Rousseau can certainly turn a phrase. Lots and lots that’s quotable in this book. But I don’t simply not like the book (which on Goodreads means one star) I absolutely despise this book and everything it stands for. Leo Strauss called Machiavelli the “teacher of evil” and goodness knows I have nothing kind to say about Marx. But both feel clean and wholesome in comparison to Rousseau. Machiavelli at least is open about urging there is no place for morals in politics, but Rousseau is positively Orwellian. He begins the first chapter of Social Contract with the stirring worlds: Man is born free and everywhere is in chains. But though he speaks of liberty and democracy it’s clear that his ideal state as he defines it is totalitarian. Those who don’t want any part of his state, who won’t obey, should be “forced to be free.” Locke argued inalienable rights included life, liberty, and property; governments are instituted to secure those rights. For Rousseau, life, liberty and property are all things you give wholly to the state “retaining no individual rights.” Rousseau states:
Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body... the social contract gives the body politic absolute power over all its members... when the prince says to him: “It is expedient for the State that you should die,” he ought to die.
Even Rousseau thought his ideal system couldn’t work in large territories. He ideally wanted direct democracy, with all citizens meeting in assembly such as in the ancient city-state of Athens, not representative democracy, which he doesn’t see as true democracy. (And the larger the state, the more absolute in its powers and more autocratic the government should be lest it fall into selfish anarchy.) Alissa Ardito says in the Introduction to my edition that: “Politics... is also about language, talking, negotiating, arguing; and for that Rousseau had no need and little patience. The goal in The Social Contract is always about consensus, and in the end one suspects what Rousseau finally wanted was silence.” You cannot have liberty or democracy while shutting up and shutting down anyone who dissents from the “general will.” And then there’s Rousseau’s urging of a civil religion, where one literally worships the state. What you get then is the obscenity of a state as the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,” whose only nod to democracy is in the name, and where its leader takes on a quasi-religious status.
Can I see any good in this treatise? I can see the form the United States took in the discussion of a mix between monarchy (President), aristocracy (Senate, Supreme Court) and democracy (Congress) and checks and balances between them. But such features are also discussed in Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and in Montesquieu’s The Spirit of the Laws, both of which predate The Social Contract. In fact, Rousseau's categories of government can even trace its roots to Aristotle. So, what good I can see in it is hardly original. Well, and The Social Contract did argue for sovereignty being lodged in the people rather than a Divine Right of Kings--it’s supposed to have inspired the French Revolution, and its cry of “liberty, equality, fraternity.” If so, it’s easier to understand why the French Revolution turned into the Reign of Terror. I do consider this a must-read, and I’m glad I read it. It’s enlightening, like turning over a rock to see all the nasty things that were hiding underneath.
Show Less
LibraryThing member madepercy
It should come as no surprise that reading piecemeal translations of classic works is no substitute for reading the work cover to cover. I was surprised to find that the words used to justify the American and French Revolutions were much like Adam Smith's "invisible hand" - a small part of an
Show More
otherwise far-ranging discussion. Rousseau's discussion of religion, the state and marriage holds some key lessons for statecraft in the present, but I daresay the focus on the "social contract" (which should more correctly be referred to as the "social pact" in the Rousseauian sense of the term) has overshadowed any other use of the ideas from this classic work. Yet another reason to read the classics for oneself rather than rely on second-hand reports. Reading The Social Contract has highlighted some major gaps in my knowledge, particularly about ancient Rome but also Hobbes. No doubt I will need to revisit Locke, too. Nevertheless, this short book, along with The Prince, Utopia, and The Communist Manifesto, represents an important part of the modern nation-state and is certainly worth more than a skim-read. Show Less
LibraryThing member Kade
The predecessor to Karl Marx and Kapital. To understand Marxism, Rosseau and his ideas are practically a prerequisite, his concepts of collectivism, and distrust of representative democracy, and his declaration that "Man is free, yet everywhere he is in chains". For hardcore political scientists:
Show More
read this to understand the ideological underpinnings of the architects of the French Revolution, the Jacobins, then read Edmund Burke's "Reflections on the Revolution in France" to see a critique of Rosseauean ideology and what it did to France. Show Less
LibraryThing member Meh_ssdd
Important enlightenment literature, but you can see all the places that are proto-communist. I can't really agree with his support of an "Enlightened Minority" required to direct societal affairs.
Read Locke instead ;D
Read Locke instead ;D
LibraryThing member Kace
I read this in high school for my philosophical debate class/competions. This is really going to show my geek slip, but I enjoyed all 3 social contract theories. This one probably the least, he was a little radical by my way of thinking. Maybe too much wacky tobacky, or whatever was dipped into
Show More
waaaaaay back when. Show Less
LibraryThing member heidip
The Social Contract was another surprising book. Rousseau advocates a society based on the "General Will" of the people. The "general will" is actually the sovereign in a society--not a king. Each person has a social pact with others in their society. The pact is to submit to the "general will."
Show More
The general will should always reign supreme--for the good of the people--and is indestructible. So, individualism is definitely out. The people do not have a social contract with their government, only with one another. The government just expresses the general will of the people. He doesn't like representative governments. So how do you find out the general will? You meet in assemblies. Christianity is against his social pact because Christians would love God more than their society. He thought there should be more public service and less private (personal) business. It was interesting to read this in view of the French Revolution, and possibly the influence this had on future revolutions. Population should be spread equally, there should not be any really wealthy or really poor people....luxury is out as it is not compatible with the general will. You need to control equality with legislation. Monarchy was blasted in this book. Show Less
LibraryThing member HistReader
I found this book to be more difficult to read than his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality; however, it did have moments of clarity and being easier to understand.
It is amazing to find how he always seems to write theory which would become better known as Marxist, but follows it up with ideas
Without doing more intensive learning about his philosophy, it would seem he does not hold any organized government to heart. He destroys republics and democracies as unattainable and blasts aristocracies and monarchies as less than suitable for mankind. Rousseau's dissection of man and governance was interesting.
It is amazing to find how he always seems to write theory which would become better known as Marxist, but follows it up with ideas
Show More
more inline with the Founding Fathers. Without doing more intensive learning about his philosophy, it would seem he does not hold any organized government to heart. He destroys republics and democracies as unattainable and blasts aristocracies and monarchies as less than suitable for mankind. Rousseau's dissection of man and governance was interesting.
Show Less
LibraryThing member chaosmogony
Rousseau is the man.
LibraryThing member bookworm12
This fascinating commentary on the way society works is packed full of wisdom. Rousseau explores the unspoken agreement each individual makes with the society in which they operate. He contends that many of our basic rights are not rights at all, but silent commitments everyone within our society
“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.”
“The greatest kings whose praises history tells were not brought up to reign: reigning is a science we are never so far from possessing as when we have learnt too much of it, and one we acquire better by obeying than by commanding.”
“No one has a right to demand that another shall do what he does not do himself.”
“I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slaves.”
“Men always love what is good or what they find good; it is in judging what is god that they go wrong.”
Show More
makes to each other. The whole book is a wonderful resource and in lieu of a review I’ll leave you with some of my favorite lines.“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they.”
“The greatest kings whose praises history tells were not brought up to reign: reigning is a science we are never so far from possessing as when we have learnt too much of it, and one we acquire better by obeying than by commanding.”
“No one has a right to demand that another shall do what he does not do himself.”
“I prefer liberty with danger to peace with slaves.”
“Men always love what is good or what they find good; it is in judging what is god that they go wrong.”
Show Less
LibraryThing member P_S_Patrick
Here Rousseau introduces the idea of the "Social Contract" as being the establishing force behind structured civil society, governments, and states. The social contract is a mutually beneficial agreement between the members of the society, and is crucial to the existence of any society. What is
For example, it is beneficial for a given member of society to assent to a minor relinquishment of liberty (agreeing that they won't steal/ murder/ carry out other crimes), in order for them to maintain the greater part of their liberty by not having their own posessions stolen, or themselves murdered. In living in such state, one implicitly agrees that if this contract is broken, then the individual must be punished. This deterrent preserves the general liberty of the people, and is the reason that we have laws. On the political spectrum, Rousseau tends towards the Conservative.
Rousseau also discusses various other matters relating to forms of government, democracy, Roman law, religion, and matters of state in general, though these are of much less important than the earlier chapters pertaining to the central thesis of the Social Contract.
The ideas presented here are largely relevant to modern politics, and as this is a short and easily read book, I would recommend it to those interested in law, politics, history, or sociology. It is much more accessible than some other political philosophies, such as Aristotle's Politics, though not as comprehensive as either this or Plato's Republic on many matters. However, it is a good volume to read as an introduction to politics, and to the idea of the social contract which is integral to the liberty of civilised society everywhere.
Show More
agreed upon between the members of the society (either subjects or citizens), is that they will forgoe their rights to carry out certain behaviours on the understanding that others will not produce these behaviours either, which leads to the formation of laws based on the general moral will of human nature. For example, it is beneficial for a given member of society to assent to a minor relinquishment of liberty (agreeing that they won't steal/ murder/ carry out other crimes), in order for them to maintain the greater part of their liberty by not having their own posessions stolen, or themselves murdered. In living in such state, one implicitly agrees that if this contract is broken, then the individual must be punished. This deterrent preserves the general liberty of the people, and is the reason that we have laws. On the political spectrum, Rousseau tends towards the Conservative.
Rousseau also discusses various other matters relating to forms of government, democracy, Roman law, religion, and matters of state in general, though these are of much less important than the earlier chapters pertaining to the central thesis of the Social Contract.
The ideas presented here are largely relevant to modern politics, and as this is a short and easily read book, I would recommend it to those interested in law, politics, history, or sociology. It is much more accessible than some other political philosophies, such as Aristotle's Politics, though not as comprehensive as either this or Plato's Republic on many matters. However, it is a good volume to read as an introduction to politics, and to the idea of the social contract which is integral to the liberty of civilised society everywhere.
Show Less
LibraryThing member greeniezona
I continue to love the Penguin Great Ideas series. Though the simple inclusion of a date of original publication would be very nice.
Anyway, the book is a discussion of governments. Ideal governments vs. real governments, the best government for a given state, the nature of governance and governors.
Anyway, the book is a discussion of governments. Ideal governments vs. real governments, the best government for a given state, the nature of governance and governors.
Show More
The historical and mythical examples were interesting, but in many places the extent to which various theoretical constructs were being compared got a bit tiring. Despite all that, there were more than enough points to ponder to make the book worth the reading. Show Less
LibraryThing member Paul_S
If you're building a new nation state there are better books for you to read - for example any history book. This is interesting analysis but based on nothing other than author's opinions and imaginings validated neither by science nor by observation.
Subjects
Language
Original language
French
Original publication date
1762
1764 (first English translation)
Physical description
192 p.; 7.88 inches
ISBN
0140442014 / 9780140442014