THE ORIGIN OF CIVIL SOCIETY

Jean Jack Rousseau

Jean Jacques Rousseau in his essay The Origin of Civil Society, writes about an ideal form of government. In his essay he attacks several other proposed or existing forms of government by carefully destroying their claims. This essay has been taken out from Rousseau’s book The Social Contract. Rousseau addresses freedom more than any other problem of political philosophy and aims to explain how man in the state of nature is blessed with a desirable total freedom. This freedom is total for two reasons. First, natural man is physically free because he is not constrained by a repressive state apparatus (set up) or dominated by his fellow men. Second, he is psychologically and spiritually free because he is not enslaved to any of the artificial needs that characterize modern society. This second sense of freedom, the freedom from need, makes up a particularly insightful and revolutionary component of Rousseau’s philosophy. Rousseau believed modern man’s enslavement to his own needs was responsible for all sorts of societal ills, from exploitation and domination of others to poor self-esteem and depression.

Rousseau makes many debatable points regarding the benefits of a civil state over a state of nature. Rousseau states that humans living in a state of nature are only a short term solution for society and would not survive in the long run. Society living in a civil state of social contracts is a more secure and safe way of life in which the people have security and more importantly happiness. Throughout The Origin of Civil Society Rousseau goes into great deal of detail regarding slavery and families including the social contracts that go into making a civil state along with the problems of a state of nature. Although the essay is presented well, Rousseau makes assumptions with no evidence to back them up and uses many writing devices to persuade the reader. In this argument, Rousseau makes the assumption that humans by nature are driven by self- interest with no evidence or explanation. This may be argued that humans by nature are loving caring.

Rousseau believed that good government must have the freedom of all its citizens as its most fundamental objective. The Social Contract in particular is Rousseau’s attempt to imagine the form of government that best affirms the individual freedom of all its citizens, with certain constraints inherent to a complex, modern, civil society. Rousseau acknowledged that as long as property and laws exist, people can never be as entirely free in modern society as they are in the state of nature, a point later echoed by Marx and many other Communist and anarchist social philosophers. Nonetheless, Rousseau strongly believed in the existence of certain principles of government that, if enacted, can afford the members of society a level of freedom that at least approximates the freedom enjoyed in the state of nature. In The Social Contract and his other works of political philosophy, Rousseau is devoted to outlining these principles and how they may be given expression in a functional modern state.

Rousseau begins The Social Contract with the notable phrase “Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains”. Because these chains are not found in the state of nature, they must contractions of convention. Rousseau thus seeks the basis for a legitimate, political authority in which people must give up their natural liberty. He sets two conditions for a lawful polity and creates several clauses to ensure that they are carried out. First, there must be no relationships of particular dependence in the state, and second, by obeying the laws, an individual only obeys himself.

Rousseau’s solution to the problem of legitimate authority is the “social contract”, an agreement by which the people band together for their mutual preservation. This act of association crates a collective body called the “sovereign”. The sovereign is the supreme authority in the state, and has its own life and will. The sovereign’s interest, or the “general will”, always promotes the common good. This is in contrast to the private will of each citizen, which strives only for personal benefit.

Through this essay Rousseau views that each member of a society is ready to forsake certain amount of personal freedom for the greater good of the whole. Though individual’s right is important, for the sake of body politic, individual right may not be taken into consideration to a greater extent.

In the birth all the human beings are free but after the birth, all are chained. It means in society, there are certain laws that do not provide freedom for human beings. Rousseau says that the oldest form of society is family. When the children feel the need of the father, they love him. However, when they feel independent, there is not only natural relationship. So family is the first political association. As the father, as the ruler of the family, same is the case about political associations. In political association, there are those who are governed and governor.

Despite the fact that a person may be very strong, he cannot always be a master. After losing the strength, his might is changed into right. Might refers to the power and right is the law or rule. But when there is might, there can no longer be right. Society exists only when there is the agreement for right. Every person desires to be within the social organization following certain laws and rules. And when there is war, the rules are violated. In the same way in slavery there is no right, and when there is right there is no slavery.

To run the society smoothly, people form a community. In the community, there is association of the people having certain interests. The union of the people in the past was known as city but now it is known as republic or body politic. Being either in a city or in a state, every person owes a duty to each of his neighbors. It means he is directly associated with the other members so far as his duties and responsibilities are concerned. As he is the member of the association, as a result of the social contract, he loses natural liberty and gains civil liberty.

Rousseau presents some of the conditions. By means of which he justifies his concept of real property. For this, he values the right of first occupancy. The property is legalized when there is no-one already living on the land, the land must be needed for his livelihood. And he should get the property through legal activities. He means to say that a person cannot possess vast territories.

This is how Rousseau discusses about family, slavery, social compact, property and civil state from different perspective. His ideas are related to his value to the natural state, and when there is civil state; the person surrenders the natural freedom for the sake of the civil state.

Q. Rousseau says that the oldest and only natural form of society is the family. Is this true?

In the essay The Origin of Civil Society, Rousseau asserts that the oldest and only natural form of society is the family. Society is the foundation of a group of people. After birth, the person becomes in the group only in the family. So, family is the natural form of society. Children love their parents because they feel that they are protected from their parents. The relationship exists till up to the time that the children feel the need of the parents. As soon as the children reach at the age of reasoning, they do not feel the natural bond to their parents. It means they no longer value their parents when they are independent. That’s why family is the oldest form of society. In this society, father is the ruler whereas all the other members of the family are ruled. So, Rousseau’s concept that oldest and natural form of society is the family is true.

Social relation and social understanding begins only from the family. As family is the basic pattern, social understanding and social feeling emerges from family. That’s why what Rousseau claims is true.

Q. What is the meaning of the phrase might makes right?

The Origin of Civil Society is a very important essay because it talks about many things and concepts that are related to society. One of the effective concept is might and right. Might give emergence to right.

Even if a person may be very strong, he cannot always remain strong. It means might can no longer be permanent. Ultimately, one has to involve in the social agreement. Only by means of social agreement it is possible to live in the society. As might doesn’t become strong and effective, there is the need for right. Might makes right means effect generates cause. When people are found to be very weak, they try to unite for the sake of law and order. So, might makes right.

Might is related to the strength whereas right is related to law and order. There is the importance to law and order only when might cannot be tolerated or might decreases. So, might makes right.

Q. Is political power ever exercised in the interest of the governed?

 In the essay The Origin of Civil Society, the essayist considers that political power should be exercised wisely. He views that there is the supremacy of the people or governed. So, it is necessary to exercise the political power in the interest of the governed. The power of majority outweighs the power of one. That’s why power should be exercised according to the interest of the governed.

In the past, unjust rulers used to govern the people against their wish and will. Because of this reason, they failed to govern the state for the long time. If the power is not exercised according to the interest of governed, it would become absurd, tyrannical, and exposed to vast abuses. If the one is refusing to obey the general will, he must be constrained by the whole body of his fellow citizens. 

On the other hand, government should supply the power which works for the foundation of whole political machine. Though it is supposed to exercise the power according to the interest of governed, it is not so in reality. Governors are ruling upon the governed differently.

In this way Rousseau expresses his idea in the essay The Origin of Civil Society about the power use. He thinks that power should be exercised according to the wish and will of people, but it is not so though there is supremacy of people.

Q. Man is born free and everywhere he is in chains. Elaborate.

Man is born free but everywhere he is in chains. It is so because man is always residing within familial, social and cultural framework after his birth. The great thinker and the founder of French Revolution, Rousseau struggled a lot with difficulty and hardships. He was not constant anywhere and he spent nomadic (mobile) life. He analyzed and understood the human nature very well. Rousseau thinks that man is straightforward and good naturally. Man in the state of nature is, like animals, equal to his desires in the sense that he does not desire things for which he has no need, or need things for which he has no desire.

What Rousseau is saying in this quote is that people deserve to be free but that they are chained by the societies in which they live.  What he is trying to do in this book is to discuss when it can be legitimate (lawful/legalize) for a society to put its people in "chains."

For Rousseau, a society may legitimately force its people only when they agree to be ruled by that society.  He believes that people joined together in societies in order preserve their lives and make cooperation between people possible. They willingly made a "social contract" in which they agreed to be ruled by the state in order that their lives can be improved through increased safety and cooperation.

When people are in society, they are "in chains."  The society places all sorts of rules on them that limit their freedom.  This is what the quote means--it is saying that people in societies have these rules that govern them and limit their freedom.  This is something that does not just happen naturally.

So, the quote means that society takes away people's freedom, but please be sure to note that Rousseau is saying that this is a good thing so long as the people have consented to have that freedom taken.

Q. Is political power ever exercised in the interest of governed?

The Origin of civil Society is an essay about society, slavery, sovereignty, civil state and many other concepts. One of the most important ideas presented in the essay is the political power. By formulating a government, people show their readiness to follow the duty.

In the state, in which there is the supremacy of the people, the ruler has to rule giving importance to the common public. It is so because all the members follow civil beyond which the government as well doesn’t and shouldn’t go. The sovereign power of the people is not true practically. Very often the rulers try to impose personal interest upon the governed. Though the governor claims that he will rule in the interest of the governed, it is not so. Rousseau asserts that the rulers rule on the basis of the interest of the governed. It is so because the person loses natural liberty for the sake of civil liberty.

Rousseau's concept about political power is different from other's concept. He values the subjects or people more than any other beings. By following the conscience of the governed, the governor is supposed to govern. But political power is rarely exercised in the interest of the governed.

Q. Discuss Rousseau's Rhetoric.

The popularity of the essay The Origin of civil Society rests not only in the subject matter, but also in the rhetoric. Analogy, analysis, arguments, definition and paradox are the most important rhetoric devices used by Rousseau.

Rousseau brings analogy of the family as well as state. He finds similarity between father and ruler of the state. He analyzed the concept of family, society, state, property and so on logically. While talking about society and property he gives logic. First he defines and logically persuades the readers. To prove interest among the readers, Rousseau frequently used rhetoric.  

By means of different rhetoric device like as analogy, analysis, arguments and paradox, Rousseau convinces the readers. So, Rousseau has the power of persuasion. He tries to make the readers believe what he has believed.