On Rousseau: What Is the General Will? Does It in Your View Amount to a Form of Tyranny of the Majority?

On Rousseau: What is the general will? Does it in your view amount to a form of tyranny of the majority?

 John-Jacques Rousseau was one of many political philosophers to tackle the concepts of human nature and the social contract. But what is interesting about his view is how he tied them to the general will. His idea of the general will became an integral part of his work, and one that he, and many others after him, extensively dissected. In this essay I will explore and explain his definition of the general will, how this will is determined and, in turn, I will argue why it does not amount to a form of tyranny of the majority.

In order to understand Rousseau’s concept of the general will one has to first understand his views on human nature and the social contract in which the general will is developed. Rousseau argues that the need for a social contract arises from societal inequality which itself arises from human social development. Rousseau’s description of this development is split into four stages, one leading to the next eventually transitioning into a political society. The first stage is described as that of primitive man, where one is concerned with themself or amour de soi – the natural love for oneself or self-preservation. Rousseau states that in this stage, we have the ability to feel pity, we are amoral but not vicious and ultimately that we are free, an important concept that will be further explored later. This, Rousseau argues, is the true state of nature. But as humans develop socially, we begin to move further away from this natural state. Therefore, as we begin to interact more with our environment, the few other humans around us and, importantly, develop the ability to communicate through language, we enter the second stage where amour de soi is matched with amour propre – concern of what others think of us. This is the basis for our morality as we begin to base a lot of our actions not only on what makes us happy but also on how we appear to others. However, with amour propre comes distorted traits such as vanity or jealousy, which are a result of inflamed sense of amour propre. Essentially as we start comparing ourselves to others, we become more competitive, seeking domination of others in order to propel our own appearance. The third stage is marked by the creation of larger social units such as families, tribes and communities as our interaction increases. In this stage, Rousseau describes humans as the happiest because it is in between the primitive, lonesome state and the preceding phase of vanity. Rousseau describes humans as a “noble savage” as we see the benefits of cooperation without any ulterior motives to distort it. However, despite being an ideal stage of social development, it is short-lived because of the amour propre already developed in the previous stage. That is, as we begin to socialise more with others, these distortions of amour propre begin to develop further until domination and the need for more become part of our nature. Consequently, in this stage moral inequality starts to arise and the fourth stage of human nature develops. Humans evolve and their need to have possessions leads to the creation and development of a more complex human society. We create crafts and tools to aid us in our tasks, the idea of private property arises and labour becomes a necessary aspect of human survival. With certain people being more able than others and acquiring more possessions such as land than others, comes social inequality. The rich land owners and non-labourers begin to exploit those poorer than them, asserting their dominance. The poor, on the other hand, begin to resent the rich for the assertion of this power, recognising the injustice. Eventually, in an attempt to quell this inequality, political societies are formed. But these political societies are a façade, and simply reinforce the already established inequalities through laws. Therefore, this stage is marked by the outcomes of social inequality, namely; competition, distrust and conflict.

Rousseau then argues that society is in need of a true social contract in which the freedom and equality of the people are protected, describing, “To find a form of association which defends and protects the whole force of the community the person and goods of every associate, and by means of which each, uniting with all, nevertheless obeys only himself, and remains as free as before” (Social Contract, 563). His solution is a social contract that principally alienates each individual to give himself or herself to the whole community. That is, everyone equally and wholly gives up their rights to the community such that all laws apply to every single individual, with no bias or exceptions. Additionally, because this a perfect union, there exists a common interest or good that no one individual has an ultimate say in altering to best serve themselves. Lastly, the notion of freedom is secured through this union, because we are all equally giving up ourselves to the whole we have agreed to be a part of and, thus, not to any individual. Through this, Rousseau argues, “we gain the equivalent of all we lose, and more power to preserve what we have” (Social Contract, 564).