General Will and Rousseaus Social Contract :: Papers Politics Rousseau

When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the Social Contract, the concepts of impropriety and freedom were not radical ideas. Many political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had already developed their own interpretations of liberty, and in fact Locke had already published his views on the sociable take in charge. What Rousseau did was to revolutionize the concepts encompassed by such weighty words, and introduce us to another approach to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to will the responsibility of nature, and enter into an organized society? Liberals believed it was the guarantee of protection - liberty to them signified being free from harm towards ones property. Rousseaus notion of freedom was completely different than that of traditional liberals. To him, liberty meant a voice, and participation. It wasnt enough to be simply protected under the carapace of a sovereign, Rousseau believed that to elevate ourselves out of the distinguish of nature, ma n must insert in the process of being the sovereign that provided the protection. The differences between Rousseaus theories and those of the liberals of his time, depress with different interpretations of the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes described the state of nature as an unsafe place, where the threat of harm to ones property was unceasingly present. He felt that man could have no liberty in such a setting, as fear of persecution and enslavement would control his every(prenominal) action. From this dismal setting, Hobbes proposed that man would necessarily rise and enter into a social contract. By submitting himself to the power of a sovereign, man would be protected by that same power, thereby gaining his liberty. Rousseaus version of the state of nature differs greatly. He makes no mention of the constant fear which Hobbes believed would control mans life in the state of nature, rather he describes the setting as pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this prim itive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid, and would evermore avoid conflict, rather than seek it out. Building from this favorable description of the state of nature, why would man want to enter into a social contract of any kind? If Rousseau was so fond of the state of nature, why would he be advocating any form of social organization? The answer is deuce fold. Firstly, Rousseau recognized that 18th century Europe was indeed very civilized, and that it would be impossible for man to shake off these chains and return to a state of nature.