Crit Response to the Social Contract by Rousseau

The Social Contract by Jean- Jacques Rousseau (Enlightenment Intellectual)

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Many a one believes himself the master of others, and yet he is a greater slave than they. How has this change come about? I do not know. What can render it legitimate? I believe that I can settle this question.

     If I considered only force and the results that proceed from it, I should say that so long as a people is compelled to obey and does obey, it does well; but that, so soon as it can shake off the yoke and does shake it off, it does better; for, if men recover their freedom by virtue of the same right by which it was taken away, either they are justified in resuming it, or there was no justification for depriving them of it. But the social order is a sacred right which serves as a foundation for all others. This right, however, does not come from nature. It is therefore based on conventions. The question is to know what these conventions are …

     This sum of forces can be produced only by the combination of many; but the strength and freedom of each man being the chief instruments of his preservation, how can he pledge them without injuring himself, and without neglecting the cares which he owes to himself? This difficulty, applied to my subject, may be expressed in these terms:

     “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.” Such is the fundamental problem of which the social contract furnishes the solution.

     The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would render them vain and ineffectual; so that, although they have never perhaps been formally enunciated, they are everywhere the same, everywhere tacitly admitted and recognized, until, the social pact being violated, each man regains his original rights and recovers his natural liberty, while losing the conventional liberty for which he renounced it.

     These clauses, rightly understood, are reducible to one only, namely, 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.

     Further, the alienation being made without reserve, the union is as perfect as it can be, and an individual associate can no longer claim anything; for, if any rights were left to individuals, since there would be no common superior who could judge between them and the public, each, being on some point his own judge, would soon claim to be so on all; the state of nature would still subsist, and the association would necessarily become tyrannical or useless.

If, then, we set aside what is not of the essence of the social contract, we shall find that it is reducible to the following terms: “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.”

Copyright © 2003, McGraw-Hill Ryerson Limited, a Subsidiary of The McGraw-Hill Companies. All rights reserved. Permission to edit and reproduce this page is granted to the purchaser for use in his/her classroom only. McGraw-Hill Ryerson shall not be held responsible for content if any revisions, additions, or deletions are made to this page.

My Response to these "chains"

We study because we want to gain an insight to the world, different perspectives and see how people react to these events. Who knows? We could actually be living in “chains” now. With social media being the willing “chains” that we put on, we trap ourselves in a prison that haunts neither us nor our fellow inmates. We tell ourselves that we can escape these “chains” whenever we want to, but can we really do that? Most of us are weak, not physically but mentally and psychologically when we see these attractive chains. These chains almost seem to let off a certain glow that shines whenever we approach them. They attract us to come nearer to them, and the moment we are eighteen metres within them, they cast their inescapable web upon us. Some of us struggle, but it is no use; our struggles are futile. Slowly, we begin to accept this cage and live our lives within it. Such is the horrors of social media.

But does it really just apply to social media?

Or does it apply to everything and anything else? Could it be that we see these webs and traps every day in our lives, but are simply ignorant of the appalling consequences? It appeals to us so much, that perhaps these chains are not even a pain to us anymore. It has turned itself, almost transformed itself, into something we want. But what do we really want?

Is it really necessary to have money and property when you have a pen and paper? After all, who needs a sword or even a gun when you have a pen? Pens carry thousands of swords and millions of bullets when used carefully. In fact, pens could even be said to carry a nuclear bomb! So why do we require gunpowder and blacksmiths?

However…

Since the pen is so mighty, why do people scorn at the individuals who devote their lives to the Arts? Sure, noble pursuits like medicine, business, law, and engineering are necessary to sustain life, but it’s really beauty, love, romance and writing that makes life worth living. After all, Napoleon did once say that it would be better to live life to the fullest rather than to die each day with guilt and sorrow. Having said that, I guess Napoleon isn’t such a bad guy after all, with his Code and failed conquest of Europe...

P/S: The month long holiday is in for me! Expect lots of reading and writing from me in the weeks to come :)